EngenderHealth has put together an excellent video providing a straightforward and simple explanation of the global gag rule and its effects on world health.

The organization is encouraging others to sign a petition asking President-Elect Obama to rescind the global gag rule during his first 100 days in office.

Relatedly, the “Open Government” section of the Change.gov website presently includes the “Global Health Council Recommendations to President-elect Barack Obama on US Global Health Policy and Programs,” with documents recommending rescinding the Global Gag Rule via Executive Order and restoring UNFPA funding, among other HIV/AIDS-related recommendations.

The Global Health Council website provides more background on the development of the recommendations to the Obama team, and individuals can leave their thoughts and support in the presently skimpy comment section.

Earlier this year, the Center for Global Development released a report on girls in developing countries and the disadvantages they face. The report includes specific policy recommendations that apply to several key actions:

• Count girls. Disaggregate data of all types — from health and education statistics to the counts of program beneficiaries — by age and sex. Doing so will make girls more visible to policymakers and reveal where girls are excluded.
• Invest in girls. Make strategic and significant investments in programs focused on adolescent girls, commensurate with their importance as contributors to the achievement of economic and social goals.
• Give girls a fair share. In employment, social programs, protection of human rights, and all other domains ensure that adolescent girls benefit equitably. In many cases this will take explicit and deliberate efforts to overcome household and social barriers.

Here’s a useful fact sheet (pdf) that explains how investments in girls can have a huge impact on the economic growth, health and well-being of communities. For a very cool visual representation, check out the video below.

The project was created by the Nike and NoVo foundations, with the support of the UN Foundation, the International Center for Research on Women, the Population Council, the Center for Global Devlopment, PLAN and BRAC.

Teen Voices, an awesome leadership program for girls built around the production of Teen Voices magazine, is looking for mentors and interns. More details about the various positions and application information can be found here.

* *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mentors: Teen Voices is looking for women in the Boston area who want to mentor teen girls while creating an amazing international teen magazine. It’s a rewarding opportunity that you won’t regret!

As an editorial mentor, you work with teens in the after school program to develop a section of the magazine. You will guide them through the editorial process, from submission review to research, writing, editing, fact checking, interviewing and more.

Journalism or writing experience, and experience or interest working with teens preferred. Mentor positions run for 10-12 weeks during Spring semester. 6-8 hours/week minimum commitment.

Interns: Volunteer as an intern and get the opportunity to work on a variety of projects and learn more than you ever imagined! Our internships provide a great environment for college students to hone their skills and gain concrete experience in marketing, development, editorial, youth work, technology, administration, and publishing.

Become part of a positive and empowering environment. Make a difference for your career and help change the world for girls. Don’t wait! Internships require a 10-12 hour/week minimum commitment.

Last month, I wrote about the new requirement that immigrants seeking permanent legal status in the United States receive the HPV vaccine (along with other required vaccines).

Briefly, my concerns about this change included “the lack of an opt-out provision (in contrast to requirements for U.S. citizens), the expense of the series, the lack of significant public health risk posed by omitting this vaccine, and the vulnerability of the affected population.” See the original post for more details and links to further commentary.

On Tuesday, the National Women’s Health Network issued a call for people concerned about this issue to contact their Senators and Representatives to request that they support “removing the HPV vaccine from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requirements for the adjustment of status” and suggesting a core message that “I, along with the National Women’s Health Network, support providing women with all possible tools to prevent cervical cancer but strongly oppose the USCIS HPV vaccine mandate.”

The organization explains:

“Based on the research made public to date the HPV vaccines appear to be highly effective and very safe. While the National Women’s Health Network (NWHN) supported FDA approval of Gardasil, it is important to acknowledge that it is a new technology and clinical experience with it is limited. There are some questions about the effectiveness of the vaccine that cannot yet be answered, and, as with any new product, there isn’t any data about its long-term safety.

Although the HPV vaccine is an important tool for reproductive health, it is a relatively new technology and the NWHN believes that obtaining it should be an informed decision rather than a response to a mandate for only one sector of the population. We urge you to take a moment and to call or email your members of Congress to ask them to reverse this policy. We need to ensure that immigrant women are not faced with yet another barrier to adjusting their status.”

You can find your Senator or Representative online. I’ll update this post with links to NWHN’s suggested phone and email scripts if they become available online.

The Real Deal, the blog of the National Council for Research on Women (and a new addition to our blogroll!), last week asked leaders of women’s organizations to speculate how life might be different in an Obama era, that is: “more equitable, healthier, more secure — for women and girls.”

The answers were posted on the Real Deal, and excerpts appeared on The Huffington Post.

Among the responses — Women’s eNews founder and editor Rita Henley Jensen calls for the creation of an Office of Maternal Health; Marie Wilson, president and founder of The White House Project, calls for the nation’s first Presidential Commission on Women and Democracy; and Marcia D. Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, co-presidents of the National Women’s Law Center, note that “the nation has no time to spare in providing guaranteed, affordable health care for all, passing essential legislation that provides basic fairness in the workplace, like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and undoing some of the onerous restrictions on women’s access to reproductive health that were imposed by the Bush Administration.”

The NCRW is hoping readers of blogs like OBOB will add their suggestions to the comments sections at HuffPo. So have at it.

Speaking of the National Women’s Law Center, the organization has been very tuned into health care and is hosting monthly Reform Matters conference calls for women’s advocates who are focused on health reform at the state and federal level.

The next call takes place Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008 at 1 p.m. (EST), and the discussion will focus on what the election means for women and health care reform. Interested? Register for the call here.

These calls provide a collaborative forum to share experiences and questions that have come up in addressing various health reform proposals. So if you miss this one, keep NWLC in mind for future conversations. You might also check out the NWLC’s resources on comprehensive and affordable health care.

Finally, the International Women’s Health Coalition has made available remarks by IWHC President Adrienne Germain on the prioritization of women’s and young people’s health under a new administration. The  16-page agenda for the future can be read online here (PDF).

Sure we’ll be back to other health news soon, but first here’s a wrap on presidential politics and women’s health priorities. And, just to remind you that voting feels oh-so-good, Babeland’s voter discount continues through Nov. 11. Enjoy!

Yes We Can … End Eight Years of Failed Women’s Health Policies: Sign the RH Reality Check petition, which asks President-elect Barack Obama to:

• Defund failed abstinence only programs in favor of proven, effective comprehensive sex ed programs,
• Reinstate global family planning funds that save women’s health and lives and overturn the Global Gag Rule,
• Take action on ensuring availability of publicly funded contraception for low-income women and women in poverty,
• Immediately implement your HIV/AIDS domestic agenda,
• Pass FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) that overturns dangerous anti-choice state legislation, and
• Protect Roe v. Wade.

Plus: Theresa Braine, writing at Women’s eNews, notes that women’s groups aren’t wasting any time organizing around priorities: “From fixing the domestic health-care system and the economy, to making child care more accessible to working mothers, to rescinding the so-called global gag rule that cuts off foreign aid to groups that provide abortion or counseling, or even lobby for changes in abortion laws, women’s groups started exercising the type of grassroots activism that political analysts say helped bring the Democrats to power on Tuesday.”

What’s On the Agenda (So Far): Here’s the new Obama-Biden administration’s agenda on issues addressing women. Health care is up there at the top.

And when it comes to the administration’s hiring policy, it’s nice to see that gender identity is included in the nondiscrimination clause. (via Feministing)

Health Care Ballot Initiatives: A wrap-up of several health care measures that passed on state ballots.

Why Prop 8 Won: “If exit polls are to be believed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on 8, as did 52 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asians; each of these demographics went heavily for Obama, blacks by a 94-to-6 margin,” writes Richard Kim, associate editor of The Nation.

The easy, dangerous explanation for this gap, and one already tossed around by some white gay liberals in the bitter aftermath, is that people of color are not so secretly homophobic. But a more complicated reckoning — one that takes into account both the organizing successes of the Christian right and the failures of the gay movement — will have to take place if activists want a different result next time. First, there’s the matter of the Yes on 8 coalition’s staggering disinformation campaign.

Plus: I’m still reeling after reading Proposition Hate over at NoFo (via Gapers Block).

The Mom on the Bus: Jodi Kantor has a great piece up at the The Caucus blog about covering the presidential and raising her daughter, Talia, who is almost 3.

Sayonara, Sarah: Katha Pollitt bids good-bye to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, but not without first explaining how Palin was a gift to feminism –

[T]he first way Palin was good for feminism is that she helped us clarify what it isn’t: feminism doesn’t mean voting for “the woman” just because she’s female, and it doesn’t mean confusing self-injury with empowerment, like the Ellen Jamesians in The World According to Garp (I’ll vote for the forced-childbirth candidate, that’ll show Howard Dean!). It isn’t just feel-good “you go, girl” appreciation of female moxie, which I cheerfully acknowledge Palin has by the gallon. As I wrote when she was selected, if she were my neighbor I would probably like her — at least until she organized with her fellow Christians to ban abortion at the local hospital, as Palin did in the 1990s. [...]

Second, Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket forced family-values conservatives to give public support to working mothers, equal marriages, pregnant teens and their much-maligned parents. Talk-show frothers, Christian zealots and professional antifeminists — Rush Limbaugh and Phyllis Schlafly — insisted that a mother of five, including a “special-needs” newborn, could perfectly well manage governing a state (a really big state, as we were frequently reminded), while simultaneously running for veep and, who knows, field-dressing a moose. No one said she belonged at home. No one said she was neglecting her husband or failing to be appropriately submissive to him. No one blamed her for 17-year-old Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy or hard-partying high-school-dropout boyfriend. No one even wondered out loud why Bristol wasn’t getting married before the baby arrived. All these things have officially morphed from sins to “challenges,” just part of normal family life. No matter how strategic this newfound broadmindedness is, it will not be easy to row away from it.

Most of us are expecting long lines at the polling place on election day. Here are a few websites providing information that may be useful to you as you prepare to vote.

How to take kids to the voting booth on Election Day - tips from an AP writer

Election Day Resources for Voters with Disabilities - Information from the National Disability Rights Network

Know Your Voting Rights - ACLU - state-by-state guide to voting rights; they also have a hotline for questions or voting problems - 1-877-523-2792

Election Protection - Voter rights protection

Project Vote Smart - All kinds of info on voting. Also has directory of contact information for local election offices around the country.

Citizen Media Law Project - Information on documenting your vote.

Urban Voter’s Survival Guide - A checklist of steps to take prior to election day.

Voting Rights During Foreclosure - Good starting place on this topic at Ballotpedia, although you may want to verify locally.

As for me, my Election Day survival kit is going to include a cell phone, numbers for reporting problems, a snack, and maybe some water and reading material. And I’m bringing a buddy!

If you need more convincing of what’s at stake in this election, head over to RH Reality Check and read The Future of Sexual and Reproductive Health.

PS-You may have heard that a number of companies are offering free treats or beverages to voters on Election Day. I just learned this morning that this includes Babeland stores in New York and Seattle, who are giving out free sex toys to voters!

With less than one week to go until Election Day, we’re taking a look at some of the women’s health issues at stake. Want to add more? Leave links to blog entries or other resources in the comments.

One other note — I can’t believe some folks aren’t voting. If you know anyone who plans on sitting this one out, please urge them to consider the importance of their vote on local and state issues, in addition to what’s obviously a national turning point for women’s reproductive rights and access to health care.

Still wondering about the differences between the health care reform proposals of senators John McCain and Barack Obama? You might want to review this non-partisan report, “Health Care Reform and the 2008 Election - A Guide for Women.”

Through the stories of seven “fictional women,” each with a different set of health problems and insurance coverage, readers can understand what each candidates’ health reform plan means to them. The report was published by the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

And don’t forget Kaiser Family Foundation’s excellent Health08.org, which includes in-depth comparisons of the candidates’ health care plans and positions on issues.

Turning to ballot propositions, USC’s Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) offers a good overview (PDF) of the 153 ballot propositions before voters in 36 states, including headline issues of same-sex marriage and abortion (also the subject of discussion on Monday’s “Talk of the Nation”).

Measures to ban gay marriage are on the ballot in California, Arizona and Florida, with most eyes on California, which the IRI refers to as a “critical firewall in the battle over gay marriage.” This document (PDF) analyzes the likelihood of passage in each of the three states, and it features a list of all same-sex marriage propositions. Did you know that 29 of 30 measures banning same-sex marriage — some proposed by initiative, others by state legislatures — have passed?

BallotPedia.org is another comprehensive site. It’s easy to search and it does a nice job of listing initiatives by category, including abortion, marriage and health care. These pages include not only this year’s ballot items, but also initiatives coming up next year — and even those that failed to get on the ballot. Very cool.

Here’s a look at some of the discussions on three specific ballot items:

1. Colorado Amendment 48 Definition of Person: This amendment seeks to define “person” and grant constitutional rights from the “moment of fertilization.” It’s also been tied to “Horton Hears a Who” (”a person’s a person, no matter how small”) — much to the consternation of thinking Dr. Seuss fans everywhere.

Protect Families, Protect Choices has a good fact sheet about the far-reaching consequences of this amendment, including:

• Emergency contraception for rape and incest victims would be banned. By giving legal rights to fertilized eggs, this amendment could ban birth control options like the Pill and IUD’s. (These kinds of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.)
• Establishing rights from the moment of fertilization would ban some stem cell research being used to find cures for chronic disease and disabilities. In vitro fertilization could be banned since fertilized eggs used in these processes would have full legal rights.
• A woman with cancer could be denied access to life saving medical treatment because it could endanger a fertilized egg.

Former U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder recently wrote: “Years ago, when I was asked how I could be both a mother and a Congresswoman, I replied, ‘I have a brain and a uterus and I use both.’ On November 4, I urge Coloradans to use their brains and protect women’s uteruses. Vote no on Amendment 48.”

2. South Dakota Abortion Ban Initiative: Following South Dakota’s failed attempt in 2006 to ban abortion, this kindler, gentler initiative “now makes convoluted exceptions for rape, incest and, when there is a full moon and Mount Rushmore spouts Strawberry Quik, the health or life of the woman.” It’s being pushed by anti-choice activist Leslee Unruh, who has trouble following the facts of life (including her own).

South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families has an incredible amount of useful information, including statements in opposition to the initiative submitted by the South Dakota State Medical Association and the South Dakota section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Plus: Katha Pollitt this week spotlights Women Run! South Dakota, the umbrella organization for progressive pro-choice Native American women running for the state legislature.

3. California Proposition 4 (”Sarah’s Law)”: In an editorial, the L.A. Times came down against this parental notification proposal, noting:

The initiative purports to protect California girls from dangers associated with abortions by requiring that their parents be notified. But Proposition 4 attempts to solve something that isn’t much of a problem. There’s no evidence that California’s teenage girls are harmed by abortions with any frequency, whether or not their parents have been notified. [...]

In fact, under the guise of protecting underage girls, this proposal really is just the latest attempt to impose any obstacle in the exercise of reproductive freedom. This represents the third try in recent years to pass such a measure. California should reject it again.

The editorial goes on to note, in no uncertain terms, the ridiculousness of the measures included to protect girls in abusive situations:

Proposition 4’s writers say they crafted a measure that would permit girls in potentially abusive situations to get an abortion without their parents being notified. To do so, they would need to tell another adult relative. But a girl can use this option only if she makes a written accusation alleging that her parents are repeat child abusers, with the complaint to be turned over to authorities. Spoiler language like this makes it hard to believe that Proposition 4 is chiefly about girls’ safety.

Read more editorials against Proposition 4. Planned Parenthood has posted a number of videos about how the proposition would endanger teens, including the one below, “Jane’s Journey,” which shows the complexity of the judicial maze that teens would be forced to navigate if they can’t talk to their parents.

The Food & Water Watch program of Democracy in Action alerted us to a public comment period that is closing on Wednesday, October 15 and is collecting comments on the USDA’s child nutrition and WIC programs for consideration prior to the 2009 reauthorization of the programs. Democracy in Action is asking individuals to submit comments requesting that hormone-free and organic milk be among the options in the federal school breakfast and lunch program, and has an action page set up for submitting comments on this topic.

OBOS has written about the topic of rBGH in milk previously - see our web content and this previous post for background information.

The reauthorization will also address WIC, a program intended to improve the nutrition of pregnant and lactating women and their young children - the agency has specifically requested comments regarding the Farmers Market Nutrition Program for provision of fresh fruits and vegetables.

We’ve written previously that, while increasing access to fresh produce is a good thing, the WIC provisions for this (expected to occur mid-2009) are likely inadequate to truly make a difference for women and their families - they’ll add a mere $8/month in vouchers for use at farmers markets. Your comments on the WIC provisions for fresh fruit and veggies can also be submitted prior to Wednesday.

To comment, view Docket FNS-2008-0011at Regulations.gov - click on the HTML or PDF icon beside “Views” to read the request for comments, and click on the yellow icon beside “Add Comments” to submit your suggestions. Comments are due by Wednesday, October 15.

Gay Marriage Legal in California, Massachusetts and now Connecticut: The Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday struck down the state’s civil union law with a 4-3 ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. From The New York Times:

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.

View the full ruling here (PDF). Opponents spoke of steps to enact a constitional ban on same-sex marriage, but on Friday night the plaintiffs in the original court case filed four years ago and their supporters were jubilant.

Garret Stack, 59, introduced his partner, John Anderson, 63, and said: “For 28 years we have been engaged. We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage.”

Group Sues Over Required Ultrasound: The Center for Reproductive Rights has filed a challenge to an Oklahoma law that mandates a woman must have an ultrasound and listen to the doctor describe what her fetus looks like before she have an abortion. And that’s not all:

At the same time, the law prevents a woman from suing her doctor if he or she intentionally withholds other information about the fetus, such as a severe developmental defect. The statute also requires doctors to use a specific regimen for administering the medical abortion pill, despite that regimen being less effective and more costly than the one strongly recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, says the requirement intrudes on a woman’s privacy, endangers her health and assaults her dignity.

Set to go into effect on Nov. 1, the law would make Oklahoma the fourth state to require the viewing of ultrasounds before an abortion. The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

South Dakota Abortion Ban 2.0: Lynn Harris of Broadsheeet offers a full, and funny, assessment:

Remember how South Dakota’s 2006 Margaret Atwood honorary abortion ban was defeated in referendum by a (none-too-cushy) 55-44 margin?

The ban’s primary liability, according to polls, was that it contained virtually no exceptions. But as ringleader Leslee Unruh of Vote Yes for Life said at the time, like Jason popping up out of Crystal Lake, “We started something here in South Dakota.” And now, as you may have heard, abortion opponents there are aiming to get the job done. Which means: The ban is back (PDF), in sheep’s clothing. It now makes convoluted exceptions for rape, incest and, when there is a full moon and Mount Rushmore spouts Strawberry Quik, the health or life of the woman.

Unruh (who says that over 90 percent of women seeking abortion are using it as “birth control”) calls Abortion Ban 2.0 “more moderate, more reasonable, more of a middle ground.” Yeah … no.

Plus: Visit South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families for more information.

Birth Control Watch: While some voters think access to birth control is not a political issue, those of us who follow the activities of the Bush administration and legislatures around the country know better. Birth Control Watch has a great section on federal and state proposals that will limit our individual decision making and access — it’s called extreme schemes.

An excellent resource to pass along, it includes information on Colorado Proposition 48, a constitutional amendment that seeks to establish legal personhood from the moment of fertilization (which even self-described “pro-life” Catholic Gov. Bill Ritter opposes), and the proposed HHS regulations that would limit patients’ access to information and services.

The two-minute activist gives a concise run-down of actions you can take, and the press room tracks related stories.

Speaking of the HHS regulations, more than 150 Congressional Democrats stated their opposition in letters to HHS. The Senate letter concludes that the proposed rule is “damaging to the health care needs of women, their families and all Americans and will only serve to cause havoc, not clarity, among employers and employees in the health care field.”

Courts Failing Domestic Violence Victims: “For every man convicted in a Cook County court of beating his wife or girlfriend, five men brought in on similar charges walk away legally unscathed. And despite official promises to help women pursue abuse complaints, that conviction rate is only getting worse,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

The Trib also looks at a specialized unit of the Cook County state’s attorney office with a much higher conviction rate. The unit, Target Abuser Call, employs a more intensive investigatory approach for the most serious cases.

Plus: Programs for batterers are underfunded but should be supported to break the habit of abuse, say domestic violence experts. “No matter how many women you take in, it isn’t going to cure the problem,” said Toby Myers, vice chair of the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Plus: A judge in Canada tells a woman not to bother calling police if she goes back to her partner. via Feministing

Nobel Prize Winners: The 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine went to Harald zur Hausen of Germany, who discovered the human papilloma viruses that causes cervical cancer, and Luc Montagnier and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, French researchers who discovered HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Montagnier and Barre-Sinoussi later told President Nicolas Sarkozy that they fear the world financial crisis will affect funding to fight AIDS.

One-Year Distribution Update On Gardasil: “About a quarter of the nation’s teenage girls received the controversial cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil last year in its first full year of distribution, federal authorities said Thursday,” reports the L.A. Times.

The Realities of Addiction: Writing in the Washington Post, Jacqueline M. Duda shares the painful story of her daughter’s drug addiction and death — including the difficulty the family had finding adequate medical treatment for addiction.

“Surely, we thought, college-educated suburbanites like us could locate professional help: drug counselors, doctors, therapists specializing in addiction. Surely detoxification centers would treat desperate addicts and work out a payment plan. Surely we could check her into some kind of residential treatment program with a minimum of delay,” writes Duda. “We were wrong.”

PSA to Raise Awareness Around “That’s So Gay”: “For the first time since the Advertising Council was founded in 1942, the organization — which directs and coordinates public service campaigns on behalf of Madison Avenue and the media industry — is introducing ads meant to tackle a social issue of concern to gays and lesbians,” writes Stuart Elliot in The New York Times.

The campaign, created pro bono by the New York office of Arnold Worldwide, urges an end to using derogatory language, particularly labeling anything deemed negative or unpleasant as “so gay.” That is underlined by the theme of the campaign: “When you say, ‘That’s so gay,’ do you realize what you say? Knock it off.”

There will be television and radio commercials, print and outdoor ads and a special Web site devoted to the campaign (thinkb4youspeak.com). Some spots feature celebrities, the young actress Hilary Duff and the comedian Wanda Sykes, delivering the message.

Check out the Wanda Sykes PSA below:

Here’s another health care and politics update …

First up, we’ve mentioned Health08.org before, but it is seriously so good it deserves to be spotlighted again — especially now that it includes a new interactive tool that allows users to compare Sen. John McCain’s and Sen. Barack Obama’s “proposals and positions on a range of health care issues not necessarily addressed in the candidates’ health care reform proposals.”

The comparisons — based on information compiled from the candidates’ websites, speeches and campaign debates — cover 15 issues you’re not hearing much about in this campaign, including biomedical research, racial and ethnic disparities, HIV/AIDS/Global Health and women’s health.

Health08.org, created by the Kaiser Family Foundation, is one of the most comprehensive resources you’ll find. Visitors can also view a side-by-side summary of the candidates’ health care proposals and subscribe to the latest election headlines on health care.

In other news, today’s “Morning Edition” looked at the proposed costs of Obama’s health plan and contrasted it with McCain’s. Lots of criticism to go around.

And here’s a PBS television alert that was passed along to us. It looks like an interesting documentary and discussion –

The “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” will host a Commonwealth Fund-supported show, “Rx for Change,” following the premiere of “Critical Condition,” a new documentary that tells the stories of people without health insurance who found themselves losing jobs, their health, their homes, their savings, and even their lives. “Critical Condition” will premiere on PBS stations Tuesday, Sept. 30, at 9 p.m.

To inform viewers about the presidential candidates’ plans to broaden health insurance coverage, the “NewsHour” program will feature a discussion moderated by by Susan Dentzer, editor of the journal Health Affairs and former “NewsHour” health correspondent. The discussion features Neera Tanden, domestic policy director for Senator Barack Obama’s campaign, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior policy advisor to Senator John McCain, as well Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University and Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation.

Check your local listings for additional showings of “Critical Condition.” Related Commonwealth Fund reports include: “Losing Ground: How the Loss of Adequate Health Insurance is Burdening Working Families”; and “How Many Are Underinsured? Trends Among U.S. Adults, 2003 and 2007.”

The American Association of Birth Centers has issued an appeal to supporters to contact Congress concerning a payment crisis that threatens insurance support for birth centers around the country.

After more than 20 years of providing funding, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — the federal agency that runs Medicare/Medicaid — is now refusing to pay the federal percentage of Medicaid payments that states might make to birth centers.

“This is not a Medicaid crisis but a payment crisis for birth centers,” according to the AABC. “Historically all payers follow the lead of Medicaid.  If Medicaid stops paying the birth center facility fee so will other insurers.”

The AABC explains the background:

Over the past few years, CMS has begun disallowing federal matching funds for state Medicaid payments for freestanding birth center services. Birth centers have been recognized by CMS (and earlier, by HCFA) as a Medicaid provider type in State Medicaid Plans since 1987.

Recently, however, CMS has disallowed such payment by several state Medicaid Agencies, including Alaska, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington State, claiming that it lacks clear statutory authority and direction to do so. CMS has directed its regional offices to stop federal payments to any state for birth center services.

This action by CMS puts pregnant women at risk of losing access to safe, high quality maternity care.

Visit AABC for more information on how to contact your member of Congress and urge legislation to direct CMS to pay birth center facility fees. It would be great if midwives, women who have used birth centers and anyone who believes in the right to choose her own birth site got involved.

Here are some facts about birth centers:

• Birth Centers are part of a vital safety net for Medicaid mothers across the U.S.
• Birth centers fill the void left in many areas when hospitals — rural, urban or suburban — close their obstetrical services
• Many rural and urban birth centers serve a disproportionately high percentage of Medicaid recipients. Texas provides two examples – at least 95% of patients in an inner city Houston birth center, over 85% for a center in Weslaco, Texas in the Rio Grande Valley
• Birth centers have a proven history of reducing low birth weight and preterm birth, the main causes of neonatal death in the U.S.
• Birth centers provide innovative approaches to maternity care that reduce disparities for low-income and minority women, lower cesarean section rates, and reduce health care costs

Our Bodies Our Blog has invited the folks at Breast Cancer Action to write monthly guest posts on breast cancer and related issues.

by Pauli Ojea

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is nearly here. You can probably tell by all of the pink ribbon products you’re starting to see as October draws near. Lipstick, blenders, candy, cars — even toilet paper is being sold in the name of breast cancer awareness.

One pinked-out product you’ve probably noticed is Yoplait yogurt. Yoplait makes a 10-cent donation to a breast cancer organization for every pink lid consumers mail back to the company. Let’s put that in real terms: If you ate three yogurts a day for the four-month duration of the campaign (and sent in all your lids), your donation would equal $36. That’s a lot of yogurt — and not all that much money.

But what’s more troubling is what’s underneath the lid — the yogurt itself might not be that good for your health.

Yoplait yogurt is made with milk from cows that have been injected with a synthetic hormone called recombinant bovine growth hormone (referred to as rBGH or rBST). There are a number of health concerns surrounding the use of rBGH, and breast cancer is one of them.

Here’s a very simple explanation of the science: When rBGH is injected into a cow, that cow’s milk will contain higher amounts of another powerful hormone called insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is natural and necessary, but too much of it may cause health problems. Studies have shown that elevated levels of IGF-1 in humans may increase the risk of breast cancer. More research is needed to better understand whether the elevated levels of IGF-1 in milk make their way into our bloodstream.

Although it hasn’t yet been proven that the use of rBGH will definitively lead to breast cancer, the current evidence is cause for concern — and for action.

Corporations like Wal-Mart and Starbucks do not use milk from rBGH-treated cows in their store brand products. If these companies can do it, Yoplait can too.

When a company puts a pink ribbon on its product’s package, that company is sending the message that it cares about women’s health. And if a company cares about women’s health, shouldn’t it be doing all it can to make sure that its products are not inadvertently contributing to the high number of breast cancer cases? We at Breast Cancer Action sure think so.

Every year we sponsor the annual Think Before You Pink campaign — which demands transparency and accountability on the part of companies that align themselves with breast cancer and urges companies to do all they can to ensure their products don’t contribute to the high rates of the disease. We use the term “pinkwashing” to describe companies — like Yoplait — that participate in breast cancer fundraising or “awareness” campaigns but manufacture products that may be linked to the disease.

This October, we’re asking General Mills — the maker of Yoplait — to do the right thing for women’s health: We’re urging them to go rBGH-free. You can help by sending an e-mail to General Mills telling them to put a lid on rBGH. After all, corporate conscience belongs in a company’s products, not just its marketing.

Pauli Ojea is the community organizer at Breast Cancer Action, where she mobilizes people to do something besides worry. Visit ThinkBeforeYouPink.org for more information and to take action.

The public comment period ends tomorrow on the HHS proposed rule on “physician conscience!” Go here to submit your comment. We’ve written a number of posts on the issue, as has RH Reality Check if you need to catch up on the proposal.

Here are 10 reasons to submit your comment opposing the regulation:

1. Federal law already protects providers from being forced to perform abortion as it is defined by the medical community.
2. The leaked draft made clear that an attempt to allow broad and inconsistent definition of “abortion” was underway. The official proposal doesn’t bother to define abortion or what services could be refused, despite being specific enough to define “workforce” and “individual.”
3. Low income, rural, and otherwise underserved women are likely to be disproportionately affected by reductions in access to care.
4. There is no provision to require providers to notify women up front of which services they won’t provide, talk about, or provide referrals for.
5. There is no provision to require that care be provided despite “conscience” objections when other access is unavailable or to protect the woman’s health.
6. Secretary Leavitt has either lied about or doesn’t understand the ob/gyn certification issue he has used as justification for the proposal, despite ABOG’s clear explanations.
7. The proposal extends the definition of healthcare “providers” to an absurd extreme, including administrative or support roles such as the personnel who clean instruments.
8. The proposal is unnecessarily vague on some issues, such as whether Medicaid providers (of care to low-income women) are exempt - it lists an exemption for Medicaid, and yet goes on to say that states should ensure the compliance of Medicaid providers.
9. Issues such as those in points 2, 7, and 8 above are likely to lead to inconsistent application and enforcement of the proposed rule.
10. Last but not least, this is simply yet another attempt to limit women’s access to legal and necessary healthcare.

David Castillo at RHRC has five additional reasons you should also read.

Don’t forget to comment - tomorrow’s the last day!

[Originally posted at RH Reality Check. The comment period on the proposed rule discussed below ends this week on September 25.]

Back in July, a widely-decried proposal leaked out of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The new regulation explicitly enabled providers to define contraception as abortion and therefore refuse to provide it, and prevented clinics and other entities that receive federal funds from refusing to hire individuals who hold this belief — in contrast to the medical definitions of pregnancy and abortion. The proposal would have accepted as legitimate the redefinition of “pregnancy” and “human life” to begin before a fertilized egg has implanted, ignoring the medical consensus and fact that many fertilized eggs never proceed to implant and become successful pregnancies.

On August 21st, the official version of the proposed rule was released, and while some of the problematic language about contraception and the beginnings of life was removed, the new version did little to quell concerns that the move was designed to limit women’s access to reproductive health care. Framed by HHS as protecting “physician conscience” — prohibiting providers from being forced to provide procedures such as abortion and sterilization to which they may object on moral or religious grounds — the officially proposed rule is broad and ill-defined enough to leave considerable room for debate about what it would mean in practice if approved.

Although protections of physician conscience already exist in federal law, the HHS proposal expands the list of who would be covered by the protections to includ