The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released the first-ever set of national data focused on intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking victimization by sexual orientation.

According to the findings, lesbians and gay men experience higher rates of partner and sexual violence than do heterosexuals, and bisexual women have significantly higher lifetime prevalence rates of rape and sexual violence committed by any perpetrator (that could include an intimate partner, family member, acquaintance or stranger.)

The data, gathered from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, includes responses from almost 10,000 women; here’s a FAQ about the findings and methodology.

“We know that violence affects everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. This report suggests that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in this country suffer a heavy toll of sexual violence and stalking committed by an intimate partner,” CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a release. “While intervening and providing services are important, prevention is equally critical.”

Among the findings:

• 43.8% of lesbian women, 61.1% of bisexual women, and 35.0% of heterosexual women had experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.
• Approximately 1 in 8 lesbians (13.1%), nearly half of bisexual women (46.1%), and 1 in 6 heterosexual women (17.4%) have been raped in their lifetime (translating to about 214,000 lesbians, 1.5 million bisexual women, and 19 million heterosexual women).
• 1 in 3 bisexual women and 1 in 6 heterosexual women (15.5%) have experienced stalking victimization at some point during their lifetime. (Numbers were too small to be reliable for lesbian women.)
• More than one-third of lesbians (36.3%), over half of bisexual women (55.1%), and more than one-quarter of heterosexual women (29.8%) have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.
• 23.6% of heterosexual women, 29.4% of lesbian women, and 49.3% of bisexual women had experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner (e.g., hit with fist or something hard, slammed against something, or beaten).
• The majority of women who reported experiencing sexual violence, regardless of their sexual orientation, reported that they were victimized by male perpetrators. Most bisexual and heterosexual women (89.5% and 98.7%, respectively) reported having only male perpetrators of intimate partner violence.

Neither the full report nor the sexual orientation report provide information about intimate partner violence related to gender identity, although transgender women and men may be more likely to experience severe partner violence. The CDC notes that the Department of Health and Human Services is working on “developing standardized measures of sexual orientation and gender identity” to include in national surveys like this one in order to collect better data.

The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs provides some related information in its report, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Intimate Partner Violence, 2011,” using data collected from member and affiliate programs — this limits the data, though, to LGBTQH-identified people who actually sought help from one of the programs.

It’s fairly clear, as the CDC explains, that “more research as well as ongoing data collection is needed,” and that violence against non-heterosexual, non-cisgender populations remains a major concern.

Meanwhile, House Republicans last week introduced their own version of the Violence Against Women Act without provisions for LGBT, Native American, and immigrant populations. We’re still waiting for Congress to do the right thing and pass an inclusive version.

Related: No Country for All Women: Holding Up Violence Against Women Act

The Selling Sickness 2013 conference is taking place in Washington, D.C. this week, focusing on the idea of “disease mongering,” or defining health and disease in a way that promotes the sales of drugs and other treatments that may be unnecessary.

Discussion topics include a number of subjects related to women’s health, including increased or inappropriate use of drugs for conditions such as osteopenia (NPR did an excellent story a few years back on the creation of osteopenia as a disease and the drugs marketed to treat it); the problems with routine screening, such as using mammograms to detect breast cancer; and a workshop on unanswered questions on HPV vaccinations.

The conference is attracting academics, health journalists, consumer advocates, and others. Today’s line-up includes a roundtable on the women’s health movement chaired by Harriet Rosenberg of York University. From the description:

The women’s health movement that began in the 1960s challenged the status quo of medicine and heathcare across the board: clinical research, clinical practice, treatment approvals, trial conduct, pt-dr relations, patient education, disease funding, patient rights … it was a revolution. this roundtable will bring the Whm up to date and discuss what it has to offer current issues.

Participants include Colleen Fuller, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Anne Rochon Ford, Canadian Women’s Health Network; Cynthia Pearson, National Women’s Health Network; Gail Hornstein PhD, Mount Holyoke College; and Kay Dickersin, Consumers United for Evidence-Based Healthcare.

On Friday, Pearson will be joined by NWHN staff members Amy Allina and Kate Ryan to lead a symposium on “Fighting Disease-Mongering with Evidence to Protect Women’s Health.”

You can check in with the conference from afar by following @sellingsickness and the hashtag #sellingsickness on Twitter. Updates are also being posted on the conference Facebook page.

Hey, it’s Valentine’s Day! Seems like a good time to revisit the topic of safer sex and sexually transmitted infections!

The CDC just released a new fact sheet on STIs, indicating that there are about 20 million new infections each year, and that young people (ages 15-24) account for about half of these.

In its report, CDC provided the following recommendations for women for STI screening:

• All adults and adolescents should be tested at least once for HIV.
• Annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women age 25 and under, as well as older women with risk factors such as new or multiple sex partners.
• Yearly gonorrhea screening for at-risk sexually active women (e.g., those with new or multiple sex partners, and women who live in communities with a high burden of disease).
• Syphilis, HIV, chlamydia, and hepatitis B screening for all pregnant women, and gonorrhea screening for at-risk pregnant women at the first prenatal visit, to protect the health of mothers and their infants.
• Trichomoniasis screening should be conducted at least annually for all HIV-infected women.

Have questions about sex, sexuality, STIs or related topics? Beloved sex-ed site Scarleteen has just launched a new live help feature, providing anonymous live chats with Scarleteen staff and volunteers. The full website, which tackles all kinds of questions about sex, is an amazing resource for young people.

On Feb. 14, One Billion Rising events will take place around the globe marking V-Day’s 15th anniversary and inviting “one billion women and those who love them to walk out, dance, rise up, and demand an end to this violence.”

Why are we rising? The numbers tell the story:

1 in 3 women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime.

1 billion women violated is an atrocity.

1 billion women dancing is a revolution.

Yup, it’s a worldwide dance party, and we like the rationale:

Dancing insists we take up space. It has no set direction but we go there together. It’s dangerous, joyous, sexual, holy, disruptive. It breaks the rules. It can happen anywhere at anytime with anyone and everyone. It’s free. No corporation can control it. It joins us and pushes us to go further. It’s contagious and it spreads quickly. It’s of the body. It’s transcendent.

Check out the map and search tool to find an event near you.

Boston-based Our Bodies Ourselves staff members will be participating in an event at Lesley University, starting at 3:30 p.m. It’s free and open to the public — join us if you can!

It starts with a procession and dance performance followed by a screening of “Power and Control: Domestic Abuse in America.” As the description notes:

This is an opportunity for men and women to form an alliance in ending the violence against women in an act of solidarity and demonstrating to women around the world the commonality of their struggles and our collaborative power to take action and bring awareness through dance! Bring flashlights and glowsticks!

Want to learn the One Billion Rising “Break the Chain” dance in advance? Debbie Allen will teach you!

According to the CDC, in 2009, 98.9 percent of all U.S. births were in hospitals, while only 1.1 percent took place elsewhere.

Many women, however, wish to give birth in an environment that is more homelike, or want to reduce their likelihood of experiencing many of the interventions that have become very common in hospitals, such as continuous electronic fetal monitoring, induction of labor, and cesarean section.

Of the non-hospital births documented in 2009, 27.6 percent (just over 12,000 births) took place in freestanding birth centers – an option for women interested in giving birth with trained professionals outside of hospital obstetrics units. At birth centers, midwives generally provided prenatal, birth and postpartum care.

Now, there’s a large new study showing that birth centers are a safe option for both mothers and babies, reaffirming safety findings from previous research.

The study, published in the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, looked at data from U.S. birth centers to assess outcomes for women and babies, including the need for a hospital transfer, mode of birth, complications, and deaths from 2007 through 2010.

The study is referred to as the National Birth Study II (NBSII); the research is an update of the National Birth Center Study conducted by Judith Rooks and colleagues and published in 1989.

The study gathered data from member organizations of the American Association of Birth Centers; 79 birth centers took part, with 59 of those sending data for the complete study period. The analysis included 15,574 women who planned and were eligible for a birth center birth at the onset of labor.

What does “eligible” mean in this context? Pregnancies considered medically low-risk: single-baby deliveries; pregnancies that went to full-term; and no breeches or medical/obstetric risk factors that required cesarean, continuous electronic fetal monitory, or labor induction.

Among the findings:

• Of the women admitted to the birth center in labor, 87.6 percent did give birth there. The rest (12.4 percent) were transferred to the hospital. Most of the transfers were considered non-emergencies and occurred because of prolonged labor or arrest of labor. Just 1.9 percent of women or newborns required emergency transfer. Women who had never given birth before accounted for most (81.6 percent) of the transfers.
• A few women (4.5 percent) planned to give birth at a center but were not able to, for issues such as breech, premature membrane rupture, or the woman’s choice.
• Most of the births (92.3 percent) for all women who planned a birth center birth were head-first, spontaneous vaginal births. The mode of birth data includes women who transferred to a hospital as well — 1.2 percent ended up with an assisted vacuum or forceps birth, and 6.1 percent ended up having a cesarean birth.
• There were no maternal deaths.
• Women can mostly expect care from Certified Nurse-Midwives at AABC birth centers. Most of the care providers in the study were CNMs (80 percent, in 63 of the birth centers); Certified Professional Midwives or Licensed Midwives provided care in 11 of the centers (14 percent). In five of the centers, care was delivered by mixed teams of these providers.

There are some things the study can’t tell us, such as the outcomes at non-AABC birth centers and at AABC centers that don’t report their data to the AABC registry, and outcomes for women attempting vaginal birth after a prior cesarean (because most birth centers do not support it).

The NBSII study found a rate of 6.1 percent for cesareans. The authors looked at the cost savings related to reducing cesareans, and conclude, “Had this same group of 15,574 low-risk women been cared for in a hospital, an additional 2,934 cesarean births could be expected.”

They base this comparison on national rates of cesareans in low-risk women, currently reported at 26.5 percent (derived from data reported on birth certificates).

“Given the increased payments for facility services for cesarean birth compared with vaginal birth in the hospital,” the researchers wrote, “the lower cesarean birth rate potentially saved an additional $4,487,524. In total, one could expect a potential savings in costs for facility services of more than $30 million for these 15,574 births.”

I had some questions about whether the 26.5 percent figure was the best comparison group (versus older data with a lower rate), so I emailed the study authors, who responded: “It is not a perfect comparison, because this pool of low-risk women from birth certificate data may not be as stringently selected as women screened for birth center eligibility. But it is the best estimate we have for low-risk women being cared for in hospitals.” [We can discuss this issue in more detail in the comments if anyone is interested.]

Without a perfect comparison, we can still safely assume that the rate of cesarean is pretty low for women who qualify for AABC birth center births. It’s also fair to assume that very few women at AABC birth centers require emergency transfer to a hospital, and that the vast majority (almost 80 percent) of women who qualify for birth center care do end up giving birth there and being discharged to home.

There were no maternal deaths recorded in the study, and low fetal/neonatal death rates — the researchers found an intrapartum fetal mortality rate for women who were admitted to the birth center in labor of 0.47/1,000, and a neonatal mortality rate excluding lethal anomalies of 0.40/1,000. From this, we can conclude that AABC birth centers are a reasonably safe choice for low-risk women.

On Feb. 13, the American Association of Birth Centers and the American College of Nurse-Midwives are holding a Congressional briefing focused on the role of midwives and birth centers in potentially affecting health care costs and outcomes (such as cesarean rates). More information and registration are available here.

For more information, here a Q&A about the study. Visit Science & Sensibility for an interview with one of the study’s authors.

Plus: “It took more than two decades of labor,” writes Julie Deardorff in the Chicago Tribune, “but Illinois is finally poised to permit its first free-standing birth center, an alternative model of care for low-risk pregnant women who want to deliver in a homey environment with a reduced chance of medical interventions.”

Read about the pilot program and steps supporters took, along with the Illinois Department of Public Health, to negotiate with hospitals and doctors.

If you spend any time reading about evidence-based medicine, eventually you are going to hear someone mention a “Cochrane” review. These reviews take a systematic look at the research on a health topic, and try to provide answers to questions about best practices.

The Cochrane Collaboration is the international non-profit organization that produces these reviews and works to spread the findings to health care providers and patients. There’s a helpful newcomers’ guide to introduce people to Cochrane, and the video below provides some history and context for the organization.

The United States Cochrane Center, one of 14 centers around the world, is based at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland. In addition to performing evidence reviews, the USCC also runs Consumers United for Evidence-based Health Care (CUE), a coalition of advocacy groups working to provide consumers with access to evidence-based information about health. Our Bodies Ourselves is a member organization.

CUE offers an online course on understanding evidence-based healthcare topics, such as research design, statistics, and other topics.

The video below offers more explanation, and features Zobeida Bonilla, who works on OBOS’s Latina Health Initiative.

Related: 
Meeting Dispatch: Resources from the CUE/Cochrane/Campbell Colloquium - Links to sources of evidence-based information, critiques of health journalism, info on pharmaceutical company payments to doctors, and more, collected from the 2010 joint meeting of CUE and the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations.

Although we celebrated the 40th anniversary of Roe last week, access to abortion is not only difficult for many women, but legislators are working to make it even more difficult.

On Saturday, Melissa Harris-Perry opened a discussion on her show with these remarks:

Before 1973′s Roe v. Wade, complications from abortion was the leading cause of death among women of childbearing age. This was especially true for women of color. As access to abortion once again narrows, it puts women’s lives in danger. So while much of the debate about reproductive rights is focused on the legal interpretation and the Constitution and the bodily rights of women, we can’t forget the basic issue of access. [...] Access is the frontier on which we need to be fighting. 

It was a great conversation (watch above if you missed it!), and we were thrilled to see Steph Herold, a New York Abortion Access Fund board member and a contributor to the new edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” (which we’re aiming to send to all members of Congress; learn more here), and Feministing editor Chloe Angyal taking part in the round table, along with The Nation editor/publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel and Demos senior fellow Bob Herbert.

Herold talked about the implications of the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976 has banned Medicaid coverage of abortion, and how that limits access for low-income women.

“We really believe that however people feel about abortion, politicians shouldn’t be be able to deny women health care coverage just because they’re poor,” said Herold.

As legislatures reconvene for the new year, we’re keeping an eye on proposed bills that further restrict access to abortion.

In the states:
Proposed bills in Arkansas would prohibit all abortions after 20 weeks, ban the practice of remotely prescribing medication for abortions (otherwise known as telemedicine), and ban abortion coverage in health insurance exchanges.

A bill has been introduced in Florida to ban all abortions except in medical emergencies and to sentence abortion providers (or those who assist or own/run clinics) with up to life to prison. The bill has failed in previous years.

The previously defeated personhood bill is back in Oklahoma.

You may have seen news of a New Mexico bill from Republican state Rep. Cathrynn Brown, which would make it a felony for a woman to have an abortion if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The bill frames such abortions as “evidence tampering.”

Brown claims the bill is being misunderstood; at the very least, it’s poorly written, as it very clearly prohibits not only “compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion” but also “procuring or facilitating an abortion.” The bill is reportedly being re-written; advocates should keep an eye out for clarification of the language.

Here’s another summary on more abortion restrictions being proposed around the country.

At the federal level:
Multiple bills have been proposed by Tennessee lawmakers to prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Title X family planning funding (here’s my personal take as a Tennessean).

A bill has been introduced to define “life” as starting at fertilization.

Other bills would require hospital admitting privileges nationwide for abortion providers (a medically unnecessary move intended to restrict access), and would criminalize people who take a minor across state lines to access abortion, including a sister or aunt as well as other relatives and friends.

Lizz Winstead, Daily Show co-creator and producer, has a message for what’s at stake on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

On the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, we celebrate four decades of legal abortion — which has undoubtedly changed and saved many women’s live. Yet we recognize there is still much work to be done.

To help change policy and to ensure that all legislators understand the basics about women’s bodies and reproduction, OBOS has re-opened the campaign to send copies of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” to every member of Congress.

Let your friends and colleagues know there’s still time to join the campaign — we’ll be delivering the books to D.C. starting in late February.

OBOS is also taking part in Trust Women Week to urge policy makers to support reproductive justice and access to contraception and abortion. You can add your name to a petition that will be sent to legislators. If you’re in San Francisco, there’s an event this Saturday starting at 10 a.m. at Justin Herman Plaza.

Many organizations and individuals are covering the anniversary today from a variety of personal and political perspectives. Below are some interesting commentaries and reminders of what has been accomplished and how we can work to ensure access for all women. Please leave your favorite links in the comments.

At reddit, two abortion clinic workers have answered a wide variety of questions from readers.

Kimberly Inez McGuire of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health spoke at a Center for American Progress panel on Roe 2.0: Strategies for the Next Generation of Reproductive Rights Activism. Also, check out the group’s new Yo Te Apoyo (I Support You) campaign and Roe v. Wade 40 years later: Latinas weigh in on abortion.

NARAL Pro-Choice America is holding their annual Blog for Choice day; expect links to many posts on the topic of personal stories and abortion.

Planned Parenthood has a 40th anniversary video.

The author at Deana’s blog, a professor of sociology, talks about the new study documenting attacks on pregnant women’s autonomy (see our recent post on this issue).

The National Women’s Law Center encourages us all to write our legislators to support abortion access and stand against restrictions.

Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health have made available online the documentary “Voices of Choice: Physicians Who Provided Abortions Before Roe v. Wade.” The film includes interviews with Bylle Avery, founder of the National Black Women’s Health Project, and Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider who was murdered.

The 1 in 3 campaign, a project of Advocates for Youth, provides stories from individuals who’ve had an abortion. The organization has also released a book of stories and resources for college campuses.

Shanelle Matthews has a powerful story and insightful commentary at The Crunk Feminist Collective: The story that’s taken ten years to tell: On abortion, race and the power of story. Here’s an excerpt:

The narrative that abortion gives women and transpeople an opportunity to live the rest of our lives, to become a doctor or a lawyer or whatever isn’t true for everyone. For some of us, abortion just provides one more day. One more day to live our lives exactly the way we want to. For some of us the decision isn’t political, it’s essential. It is essential to taking care of the children we already have, to circumventing difficult medical experiences or to just not be pregnant. There is nothing heroic about having an abortion. It is an essential part of reproductive health care.

Bridgette Dunlap at RH Reality Check describes an unusual argument for the legality of abortion, resting not in the right to privacy but in the 13th Amendment forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude. This argument suggests the government may not outlaw abortion, because “to do so would be to require physical service from a woman for the benefit of a fetus.”

Flyover Feminism is hosting a week-long series on reproductive rights.

In Mississippi, the state’s only abortion clinic may close. Coverage includes “Inside Mississippi’s Last Abortion Clinic,” from Mother Jones, and “In Jackson, Mississippi, Southern Hospitality and Food for Thought on Access to Abortion“ at RH Reality Check.

Monica Raye Simpson, Executive Director of SisterSong issued a statement celebrating Roe but highlighting the bigger picture: “We need to discuss how issues such as economics, immigration reform, interpersonal violence, rape and lack of comprehensive sexual education are all a part of the equation needed for reproductive justice to be achieved.”

Jill Filipovic in “Roe v Wade at 40: what American women owe to abortion rights” writes about the ongoing struggle to make reproductive rights accessible to all women:

The primary victims of the pro-life strategy are poor women. The pro-life movement has stepped up its legislative game in the past two years, introducing and passing record-breaking numbers of anti-choice laws in 2011 and keeping the victories coming in 2012. They’ve made it not only hard to get an abortion, but to get birth control, sex ed and health care generally.

The result is that Roe’s promise of abortion rights isn’t available to large swaths of the American population.

The National Women’s Law Center explains that the health care reform allows states to pass laws banning private insurance coverage of abortion in state exchange plans, meaning that “in twenty states, a woman will not be allowed to purchase an exchange-based health plan that covers abortion services, and also may not be able to purchase a plan that provides insurance coverage for abortion at all.”

As we were saying, there’s plenty of work left to do.

Although this January marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, we know that there is still much work to be done to ensure reproductive justice for all women.

The Guttmacher Institute reports that 2012 saw the second highest number of abortion restrictions enacted in a single year; the Center for Reproductive Justice addresses each state in this report.

Among the provisions ultimately defeated were “fetal personhood” bills in Mississippi and Oklahoma. But the notion that fetuses should be protected from the women carrying them has resulted in the restriction and punishment of women across America.

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Jeanne Flavin, a professor of sociology at Fordham University and chair of NAPW’s board, have put together an extremely interesting and important study: “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973–2005: Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health.”

Paltrow and Flavin (who is also the author of the 2008 book “Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women’s Reproduction in America“) tried to identify and examine U.S. cases from 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade, through 2005, in which a medical or government authority tried or succeeded in stripping a woman’s autonomy because of pregnancy. The study appears in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

These cases could have involved threat of or actual arrest, incarceration, or increased prison/jail time; detention in a hospital, treatment program, or mental institution; or forced medical intervention. Descriptive detail of several cases is provided, along with summary statistics on the findings.

Looking at legal, medical and other sources, Paltrow and Flavin analyzed 413 cases, which they speculate are “a substantial undercount,” because cases were difficult to identify and some sources referred to additional cases.

The data reveals substantial racial, income and geographic disparities. While almost every state had multiple cases, the regions with the most were the south (56 percent) and midwest (22 percent). These cases disproportionately targeted black women (52 percent of cases overall, and 72 percent of cases in the south), and 71 percent involved low-income women (enough so that they qualified for indigent defense).

Most women who faced criminal charges were charged with felonies; a greater percentage of black women (85 percent) were charged with felonies than white women (71 percent).

The authors explore how these disparities are interlinked with disparities in drug laws, disproportionate application of criminal laws, and outdated stereotypes about cocaine use (such as the “crack baby” myth).

The vast majority of the cases — 84 percent — involved allegations of illegal drug use. In the remaining cases, “women were deprived of their liberty based on claims that they had not obtained prenatal care, had mental illness, or had gestational diabetes, or because they had suffered a pregnancy loss.”

Although concern for the health of the fetus/infant is typically offered as a reason for increased scrutiny or detainment of pregnant women, in 64 percent of the cases there was no reported health issue cited in the allegation.

Chillingly, most cases were reported by people in so-called “helping professions”: health care providers (41 percent), social workers (12 percent), and hospital, child protective services, or police personnel (17 percent). Health care providers reported black women at a higher rate (48 percent) than white women (27 percent).

As the authors point out:

Due in part, no doubt, to the strong public health opposition to such measures, no state legislature has ever passed a law making it a crime for a woman to go to term in spite of a drug problem, nor has any state passed a law that would make women liable for the outcome of their pregnancies. Similarly, no state legislature has amended its criminal laws to make its child abuse laws applicable to pregnant women in relationship to the eggs, embryos, or fetuses that women carry, nurture, and sustain. No state has rewritten its drug delivery or distribution laws to apply to the transfer of drugs through the umbilical cord. To date no state has adopted a personhood measure, and no law exists at the state or federal level that generally exempts pregnant women from the full protection afforded by federal and state constitutions.

In other words, nothing about existing law should make women subject to such persecution. They also note that public health groups have observed that targeting pregnant women may lead to women avoiding medical care or having unwanted abortions to avoid increased and punitive scrutiny.

Paltrow and Flavin also highlight these cases in the context of proposed personhood laws, which would give fetuses individual rights and potentially could lead to increased prosecutions of women. They authors note that they have identified “more than two hundred cases initiated against pregnant women since 2005 that also overwhelmingly rest on the claim of separate rights for fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses.”

Opponents to personhood laws have cautioned that such measures could lead to forced medical interventions on pregnant women along with possible punishment for miscarriages and stillbirths. While personhood proponents often dismiss these warnings as scare tactics, the research shows there is good reason to be concerned.

Paltrow and Flavin conclude with a call for change:

In light of these continued efforts and our findings, we challenge health care providers, law enforcement and child welfare officials, social workers, judges, and policy makers to examine the role they play in the arrests and detentions of and forced interventions on pregnant women. We call on these same people to develop and support only those policies that are grounded in empirical evidence, that in practice will actually advance the health, rights, and dignity of pregnant women and their children, and that will not perpetuate or exacerbate America’s long and continuing history of institutionalized racism.

Finally, our study provides compelling reasons for people who value pregnant women, whether they support or oppose abortion, to work together against personhood and related measures so women can be assured that on becoming pregnant they will retain their civil and human rights.

The whole article is well worth a read if you can get a copy. The abstract is freely available online.

In light of Congress’s recent failure to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, it’s heartening to hear about the ongoing efforts of White Ribbon, a movement of men and boys working to end violence against women and girls.

Here in Boston, the Men’s Initiative Project of Jane Doe Inc., a coalition of community-based sexual assault and domestic violence groups, is gearing up for the sixth annual Massachusetts White Ribbon Day. The event will take place at the State House in Boston on March 7.

The event, which is open to all, aims to change societal attitudes and beliefs that perpetuate and make excuses for violence against women, promote safety and respect in all relationships and situations, and promote the safety, liberty and dignity of survivors.

Men can sign up online to be an Ambassador for the campaign and to participate in other ways.

OBOS Board member and MA White Ribbon Day co-chair Jarrett Barrios spoke about the campaign recently in an interview with New England Cable News’s BroadSide program. Jarrett talks about the negative media imagery about women that young boys receive, and the need for parents and others to take responsibility for actively countering those messages and work to address rather than excuse them.

Jarrett calls for people to wear the white ribbon, to talk to their sons about treating women with respect, and to not “let go” of or overlook the language that is used against women that is part of a culture of violence.

The 112th Congress ended without reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), threatening the funding of programs and services that prevent and respond to domestic violence, rape, stalking, and other forms of violence against women. It’s the first time Congress has failed to reauthorize VAWA since it was signed into law in 1994.

The failure is due to objections by House Republicans over new provisions adding protections for LGBTQ individuals, Native American women on tribal lands, and undocumented immigrants — protections that are considered “controversial,” according to Florida Republican Rep. Sandy Adams.

Those provisions are included in the Senate version, which passed with bipartisan support in April. The House passed its own version, stripping those provisions and making other changes that the administration has refused to approve.

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women addresses objections to the LGBTQ and Tribal provisions with a smart analysis of myth vs. fact. The organization also provides a good outline of many of the problems with the House version and its possible effects on vulnerable communities, and it asks the 113th Congress to reauthorize VAWA immediately.

Please encourage your senators and representatives to pass an inclusive version of VAWA. You can also contact House Speaker John Boehner’s office (202-225-0600 or 202-225-6205) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office (202-225-2815 or 202-225-4000).

Here’s further commentary and analysis, on both the bills and the failed reauthorization. Feel free to suggest other commentary or news items in the comments.

• We live in a culture of violence, and it needs to stop. — Adrienne K., Native Appropriations
• Congress Fails to Reauthorize Violence Against Women Act — National Center for Lesbian Rights
• House bill takes VAWA name, leaves Latinas behind – National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
• Blocking VAWA, The GOP Keeps Up the War on Women — Erika Eichelberger, The Nation
• GOP House’s inaction on VAWA shows bigotry — Ilyse Hogue, CNN
• Racism and Sexism Go Hand in Hand in Opposition to VAWA Reauthorization — Scot, Changelab
• No real answers on ‘death’ of Violence Against Women Act — Jamil Smith, Melissa Harris-Perry show; Jamil also had a great analysis back in December, Why does the Violence Against Women Act remain stalled?
• House GOP lets the Violence Against Women Act expire for first time since 1994 – Zerlina, Feministing
• In Last Salvo on War On Women for 2012 Legislative Session, Congress Refuses to Renew VAWA – Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
• Everything You Need to Know About The GOP’s Opposition To Protecting Native American Women From Abuse — Erik Stegman, ThinkProgress
• Violence Against Women Act Debacle: Why Congress Should Be More Diverse – Tara Culp-Ressler, The Atlantic
• Why the Violence Against Women Act is a LGBT issue – Suzy Khimm, Wonkblog

This January 22 marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.

Many local and national pro-choice and reproductive justice organizations will be holding events to mark this anniversary. Here are a couple we know about, including one we’re excited to co-sponsor with many great organizations in our home state. Know of others or want to share your own? Please tell us in the comments!

In Massachussetts, we’re co-sponsoring the Roe v. Wade 40th Anniversary Legislative Breakfast and Lobby Day at the State House on January 14. You can sign up to attend the breakfast, with keynote speaker Paula Johnson, MD, MPH, Executive Director of the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology, and/or the lobby events, a chance for you to meet with elected officials after a brief advocacy training. Please sign up online to participate.

In Manhattan on Jan 14, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health is hosting “Roe Revealed: Doctors Tell Their Stories on the 40th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion,” with Dr. Willie Parker, Dr. Linda Prine, and a special guest. The event with these abortion providers is $20; additional tickets are required for the reception.

NARAL Pro-Choice America is holding its annual Blog for Choice Day on Jan 22. This year, they’re asking participants to share their own stories of why they’re pro-choice. As usual, you can sign up online to join in.

While there’s plenty of reason to celebrate 40 years of Roe, legislative attacks on reproductive and sexual health and choice continue around the country. In 2011 alone, U.S. lawmakers enacted 92 abortion-restricting provisions in bills designed to curtail women’s rights to health services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, that number shattered the previous single-year record of 34 such provisions enacted in 2005. Such laws make it more difficult, and painful, for women to exercise their legal right to terminate a pregnancy.

What will you do this year to ensure reproductive justice for all? For starters, check out Our Bodies, Our Votes, our resource for fighting back against attacks on women’s health and rights. While you’re there, order a sticker and submit your picture to our awesome Click It, Stick It, Share It tumblr.

Related:
History of Abortion in the U.S. – an “Our Bodies, Ourselves” excerpt
The 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: A Teachable Moment, by Linda K. Kerber

If you’re a filmmaker with an interest in spreading the word about female condoms, check out this contest from PATH, a global health organization:

Why does the world need female condoms? How can female condoms enhance your life? Submit a short film (1:00–5:00 minutes) that tells a story about what Female Condoms Are to you and your community. The deadline to enter is March 1, 2013.

First prize receives $5,000. Winning entries will also be screened at the 2013 Women Deliver conference. Full details and rules are on the contest website.

To learn more about female condoms, see our previous posts and this excerpt from the most recent edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”

The topic of routine screening mammography has become extremely controversial in recent years, especially following publication of a 2009 evidence review and subsequent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation that mammography be considered on an individual basis for women in their 40s, rather than automatically recommending mammograms for all women in that age group.

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine adds to the questioning of routine mammograms, concluding that “whatever the mortality benefit, breast-cancer screening involved a substantial harm of excess detection of additional early-stage cancers that was not matched by a reduction in late-stage cancers.”

The authors looked at data on how many women age 40 or older had screening mammograms and the incidence of early and late stage breast cancers. The assumption is that if widespread mammography is really helping to catch cancers at earlier, presumably more treatable stages, we’ll see fewer of those late stage breast cancers.

What they actually found was a large increase in detection of early cases (122 per 100,000 women), but a much smaller decrease (8 per 100,000 women) in late cases.

If mammograms were simply shifting diagnosis earlier, they should have seen about the same number for the increase in early cases and decrease in later cases. Instead, it resulted in diagnosis of numerous extra early cases that might not have progressed to more serious disease and would be considered over-diagnosis (with the corresponding over-treatment).

The researchers conclude that “the excess detection attributable to mammography in the United States involved more than 1.3 million women in the past 30 years.”

The authors did find that the death rate attributable to breast cancer had decreased over the last three decades, but they suggest that improvements in treatment over the last few decades may be primarily responsible.

As Dr. Diana Petiti, former vice chair of the USPSTF, explained in an email exchange:

Not all breast cancers detected by mammography would have caused a lump. Some breast cancers detected by mammography (we don’t know how many) revert to normal. Some breast cancers detected by mammography (we don’t know how many) don’t grow to the size of a lump. Some breast cancers detected by mammography (we don’t know how many) grow so slowly, they would not cause a lump in the forseeable lifespan of a woman.

Further not all lumps found by a woman (without mammography) would have caused death from breast cancer. Some breast cancers found as lumps (without mammography) are cured by treatment. Some breast cancers found as lumps (without mammography) grow so slowly that they never cause death due to breast cancer (which occurs because the cancer spreads). Some breast cancers found as lumps (with or without mammography) occur so late in life that something else causes death before the breast cancer spreads and causes death.

The newest data suggests that a not-small percentage of the breast cancers detected by mammography (without a lump) would not have killed the woman from breast cancer had it not been found.

While this is a complicated topic, this New York Times op-ed by Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, one of the authors of study published in NEJM, does a reasonable job of explaining it clearly. Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and an author of “Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health,” includes this call for change:

What should be done? First and foremost, tell the truth: woman really do have a choice. While no one can dismiss the possibility that screening may help a tiny number of women, there’s no doubt that it leads many, many more to be treated for breast cancer unnecessarily. Women have to decide for themselves about the benefit and harms.

But health care providers can also do better. They can look less hard for tiny cancers and precancers and put more effort into differentiating between consequential and inconsequential cancers. We must redesign screening protocols to reduce overdiagnosis or stop population-wide screening completely.

Dr. David Newman, an emergency room physician in New York City and author of the book “Hippocrates Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine,” tackles the controversy head-on in a column titled ”Ignoring the Science on Mammograms“:

For years now, doctors like myself have known that screening mammography doesn’t save lives, or else saves so few that the harms far outweigh the benefits. Neither I nor my colleagues have a crystal ball, and we are not smarter than others who have looked at this issue. We simply read the results of the many mammography trials that have been conducted over the years. But the trial results were unpopular and did not fit with a broadly accepted ideology—early detection—which has, ironically, failed (ovarian, prostate cancer) as often as it has succeeded (cervical cancer, perhaps colon cancer).

More bluntly, the trial results threatened a mammogram economy, a marketplace sustained by invasive therapies to vanquish microscopic clumps of questionable threat, and by an endless parade of procedures and pictures to investigate the falsely positive results that more than half of women endure. And inexplicably, since the publication of these trial results challenging the value of screening mammograms, hundreds of millions of public dollars have been dedicated to ensuring mammogram access, and the test has become a war cry for cancer advocacy. Why? Because experience deludes: radiologists diagnose, surgeons cut, pathologists examine, oncologists treat, and women survive.

Newman also notes that mammography is not the only area of medicine ripe for questioning:

It is normally troubling to see an observational study posing questions asked and answered by higher science. But in this case the research may help society to emerge from a fog that has clouded not just the approach to data on screening mammography, but also the approach to health care in the United States. In a system drowning in costs, and at enormous expense, we have systematically ignored virtually identical data challenging the effectiveness of cardiac stents, robot surgeries, prostate cancer screening, back operations, countless prescription medicines, and more.

To further explore this topic, listen to this WBUR Boston (NPR) segment with Dr. Welch, Judy Norsigian, OBOS founder and executive director, and Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society. Norsigian also wrote a column for WBUR’s Cognoscenti section, “Do Screening Mammograms Do More Harm Than Good?“

Though it won’t be as accessible as condoms, health experts are proposing to make the birth control pill available without a prescription. Photo / Jenny Lee Silver

This month, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a statement calling for oral contraceptives to be sold over-the-counter, no longer requiring a doctor’s prescription.

ACOG considered a host of issues, including the safety of birth control pills; whether pharmacists could screen for who shouldn’t get them, or if women could self-screen; adherence to taking the pill; whether women would skip other preventive care if they didn’t visit a health care provider for a prescription; and cost.

Notably, ACOG addresses frequent objections to OTC oral contraceptives by concluding that “several studies have shown that women can self-screen for contraindications,” and “cervical cancer screening or sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening is not required for initiating OC use and should not be used as barriers to access.”

As Kevin Drum points out at Mother Jones, most countries outside of North America and Europe do not require a prescription for these drugs.

ACOG notes, though, that making the pill non-prescription might increase the cost for women who have health insurance — especially since under health care reform, contraception can be purchased without a co-pay. Over-the-counter costs might end up being anything from the $4 deals many pharmacies offer to more than $100. Dr. Kent Sepkowitz also explores this concern at The Daily Beast:

Yes, your life is easier because you will be able to get the pill right this second, without calling my office. No, you don’t need to fill out forms and show insurance cards and wrangle over copay. But guess who is paying for the whole shabang? You. Yes, you.

Another concern is that if the pill were dispensed by pharmacists, we might see the more of same kinds of refusals as have happened with emergency contraception.

However, many patients may experience increased access with an OTC model. The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health issued this response:

The recommendation that birth control be available over-the-counter supports what we know about Latinas and contraception: over-the-counter access will greatly reduce the systemic barriers, like poverty, immigration status and language, that currently prevent Latinas from regularly accessing birth control and results in higher rates of unintended pregnancy.

Pre-Prescribing Emergency Contraception to Teens
Another professional medical organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, issued a statement recognizing high teen birth rates in the United States and barriers to access to emergency contraception for adolescents 17  and younger. The AAP strongly admonishes pediatricians who refuse to discuss or provide contraception to teens based on their own beliefs, stating:

Pediatricians have a duty to inform their patients about relevant, legally available treatment options to which they object and have a moral obligation to refer patients to other physicians who will provide and educate about those services. Failure to inform/educate about availability and access to emergency-contraception services violates this duty to their adolescent and young adult patients.

The AAP recommends that physicians provide prescriptions to emergency contraception like Plan B in advance, so teens have it ready if and when the need arises. They also urge physicians to provide accurate information to teens on this topic, and, “At the policy level, pediatricians should advocate for increased nonprescription access to emergency contraception for teenagers regardless of age and for insurance coverage of emergency contraception to reduce cost barriers.”

Nice job, AAP!

HHS Urged to Remove Restrictions on Emergency Contraception
Finally, a petition is circulating urging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to remove restrictions on emergency contraception and make it available to women of all ages without a prescription. To learn more, see RH Reality Check’s audio news conference and related links and commentary from Kristin Moore. Our previous posts provide background on why EC is not *already* available OTC to all women:

• Evidence Trampled By Politics: HHS Secretary Sebelius Overrides FDA Decision on OTC Emergency Contraception
• Susan Wood Issues Response to Sebelius’s Overruling of Emergency Contraception Access