On Monday night, OBOS Executive Director Judy Norsigian discussed the politicization of women’s health on Al Jazeera with Hadley Heath, a senior policy analyst with the Independent Women’s Forum, and Tara McGuinness, senior vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress.

“Inside Story” host Shihab Rattansi was well prepared for what turned into a very interesting discussion. The questions on the table included: Is women’s health being damaged by politics in the U.S.? Has the controversy over funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening underlined the extent to which conservative groups now influence women’s health access?

On the subject of Komen backpedaling on its controversial decision to stop making grants to Planned Parenthood, Nosigian said: “What we see here is a conservatizing trend in this country that I think has emboldened many … I saw the reversal of the decision simply as damage control. I do not think there has been a profound change in perspective at all.”

McGuinness made this valuable point: “This was an effort to politicize what is not a political thing … I think when it comes to women’s health, there aren’t two sides to this issue.”

Even though Komen executive Karen Handel, who drove the decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, resigned this morning, the controversy is far from being closed.

Watch the discussion below.

With all of the criticism of Komen’s defunding of Planned Parenthood last week, many people are starting to take a more critical look at the organization and its pink ribbon campaigns, asking how much good is really being done for women in breast cancer prevention, research, and treatment.

The timing seems perfect, then, for showings of “Pink Ribbons, Inc.,” a documentary film directed by Léa Pool that takes on corporate pink ribbon campaigns, pinkwashing, and what really happens as a result of this cause-related marketing.

Variety called the film “indignant and subversive,” saying it:

resoundingly pops the shiny pink balloon of the breast cancer movement/industry, debunking the ‘comfortable lies’ and corporate double-talk that permeate the massive and thus-far-ineffectual campaign against a disease that claims nearly 60,000 lives each year in North America alone.

Based on the trailer (below), I’m really looking forward to seeing it.

The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival last fall, and will be shown in several U.S. cities over the coming weeks and months, including San Francisco, D.C., Madison, and Nashville. It also opened in Canadian theaters last week.

Imagine if sex education covered not only important information about how to protect your health and prevent unwanted pregnancy, but also how to have really good sex — including how to know what you want and how to value your needs and desires along with your partner’s.

As The New York Times Magazine reported this past weekend, a truly comprehensive sex-ed class does exist — one that gives as much weight to female orgasm as to navigating complex emotional and physical terrain. Sexuality and Society is a highly regarded senior elective at Friends’ Central School, a co-ed, Quaker, college preparatory day school in Philadelphia.

Now what if there were a book — a workbook of sorts — that could be used in a class like this, and made available to teens and young adults everywhere who don’t have a progressive forum for discussing sexuality?

Luckily for everyone, that book exists.

“What You Really Really Want” is the latest title on sex and sexuality by Jaclyn Friedman, co-editor of the 2008 hit anthology “Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape,” and a contributor to the 2011 edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves.” In her new book, Friedman takes on the role of your smartest, most honest, least judgmental, down-to-earth friend, serving as a helpful guide through 11 chapters on defining, understanding and owning your sexuality.

The book’s subtitle — “The Smart Girl’s Shame-Free Guide to Sex and Safety” — explains the roadmap within. To make the most of this excursion, Friedman encourages readers to do two things: Write every day, with a pen or keyboard, and love your body — and not just in general; you should spend at least 30 minutes a week doing something that “makes you feel nothing but good.”

One of the book’s elements that readers will find particularly useful are the “dive-in” exercises that encourage thinking through how to apply what you’ve read to your own circumstances. At various times, Friedman pauses and encourages you to ask questions, assess your comfort zone, and identify the tools you need to overcome barriers to expressing your sexuality. These check-ins come across as authentic, which is difficult to pull-off on the printed page. That success is largely due to Friedman’s engaging writing style and genuine concern for women’s health and safety; she is the founder and executive director of Women, Action & the Media, which works for gender justice in media, and has been an outspoken advocate for challenging the ways society shames women.

The first chapter, aptly titled “You Can’t Get What You Want Till You Know What You Want,” opens with a discussion of influences on sexuality, from family and religion to our peers and partners. Friedman also provides a concise summary of confusing media messages that limit women to a “teeny window of ‘correct’ sexuality” combined with artificial ideals, followed by a dive-in exercise on media representations of women:

Dive In: Think back to some adolescent media crushes—that song or album you listened to over and over, the magazine subscription you thought would change your life, the book you picked up again and again, the movie you imagined yourself starring in, the video game you played and played and played, the TV show you just couldn’t miss. What drew you to these particular experiences? What, if anything, did they say to you about sexuality? What lessons did you learn from them that you’ve since rejected, and what did you learn that you still adhere to today? If you could go back and tell your adolescent self something about your media choices, what would it be? Get out your journal, and write about it for five minutes.

“What You Really Really Want” gradually shifts from looking at external influences that can prevent women from developing their own sexual identity to exploring different identities and assumptions about sexuality. Following sections on gender and sexual orientation, readers encounter this exercise:

Dive In: Make a list of all the words you can think of that you’ve used yourself or heard someone else use to describe someone’s sexual orientation. Don’t hold back—list the slang and slur words right alongside the more formal terms. Next, cross out every word that you think no one should ever use about anyone. Then cross out every word that you personally would never use to describe someone else. Then, of the remaining words, cross out every one that you wouldn’t want anyone else to use when describing you. Lastly, cross out any word that’s left that you would never use to describe yourself.

Write all of the words that are left in a new list. How do they make you feel? Do they describe your sexual orientation? Are there facets of your orientation that words don’t exist for? If you feel like it, invent a word that helps fill in those gaps.

It may seem like a lot of self-analysis, but that’s exactly what’s needed. As The New York Times Magazine article points out, teens have a difficult time articulating their own desires, in part due to the abundance of manufactured sexual imagery that creates false and harmful standards for what we (or our partners) should look like naked and how we should act.

Friedman wisely concentrates on the individual reader before expanding the discussion to include sexual partners. And even then, Friedman doesn’t offer advice on how to find a compatible sexual partner; rather, she helps the reader to define what compatability even means:

We all get dealt a different hand when it comes to what we’re capable of, and we all need partners who contribute different things. Is it important that your sexual partners are funny? Smart? Good dancers? Sweet with children? Great at communication? This is where you can get specific about bedroom skills, too: How talented does your partner need to be in the sack, and what qualifies as sexual talent to you?

Once you figure out what qualities you want in a partner, it’s time to add another layer of choosiness: How important is each quality to you? Because, let’s get real, nobody’s perfect, and you’re unlikely to find someone who simultaneously checks all of your boxes. Maybe you’d love to have a partner who is really athletic, but you wouldn’t rule out someone who was less active. On the other hand, it may be a total deal breaker if your partner doesn’t like to read. Get clear on what’s cake vs. what’s icing, and you’ll be steering yourself toward what you really really want before you know it.

Making a list for ourselves is one thing, but healthy sexual relationships require honesty with our partners about pleasure and safety.

“Talking freely about sex and safety with your partners not only makes sex more fun and relaxed—because you’re worrying less and getting more of what you really really want—but also makes it easier to tell the great partners from the ones you want to avoid before you get too hurt,” writes Friedman. “And that information means your intuition will get better and better, which means you’ll get even better at knowing your own desires and boundaries and finding people who can simultaneously respect and satisfy you. In short: It’s the best possible kind of positive-feedback loop.”

Besides offering examples of what, how and when to communicate, Friedman also provides an exercise that returns to the personal history and influences that can block us from advocating for our own needs:

Dive In: Pay attention this week to the times when you’re not speaking up. Do you want seconds at dinner but are afraid to say so? Do you actually want to wear that outfit, or are you doing it because you think someone else will like it on you? Did your friend or partner hurt your feelings, but you aren’t letting them know? Make a note each time it happens. Then, when you’ve got some time, pick one example and write about what it felt like. And then write about what it might have felt like if you had gone the other way and spoken on your own behalf.

Students at Friends’ Central School are fortunate to have a terrific teacher and a supportive educational environment that encourages exploration of these issues. Maybe, just maybe, other schools will start to follow suit. For the rest of us — and for those forward-minded sexuality classes — “What You Really Really Want” can make a lifetime of difference.

Excerpts of “What You Really Really Want: The Smart Girl’s Shame-Free Guide to Sex and Safety” are printed by arrangement with Seal Press, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Photo credit: Mandy Lussier. This post is a stop in Jaclyn’s blog tour. Check out yesterday’s stop at WIMN’s Voices. If you’re in the Chicago area, join me on Nov. 30 as Jaclyn reads from her book at Women & Children First (7:30 p.m.).

Great segment on “Our Bodies, Ourselves” on NBC Nightly News! We’re delighted they featured some of the original authors and women talking about what the book has meant to them. And the camera shots provided good context, showing the many different editions over the years. We’ll post video here once it’s available. (see below!)

A few quick observations:

- Didn’t know Mona Charen was taking part, or that she’s still angry “Our Bodies, Ourselves” separated sex from marriage.

- We need to see and hear more younger women activists like Veronica Arreola, and Veronica’s daughter is super adorable.

- NBC censors must be ridiculously tough these days. From Brian Williams’ introduction:

“Our Bodies, Ourselves” was ground-breaker, a game-changer. It got its start in life as a short pamphlet 40 years ago this month. Then, it became a book and started arriving in American homes. And it was a revelation for women for what it talked about, like sex and plumbing and menopause, information a lot of women at the time weren’t getting from their mostly male doctors. For some it quickly became a kind of bible for the female body in terms of health and empowerment. …”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You might have missed the internet dust-up, but the story is a cool one – a Seattle group that helps young women learn media production had its funding from Comcast cut after the company saw this tweet:

OMG! @FCC Commissioner Baker voted 2 approve Comcast/NBC merger & is now lving FCC for A JOB AT COMCAST?!? http://su.pr/1trT4z #mediajustice

May 12, 2011 6:04 pm via Su.prReplyRetweetFavorite

@reelgrrls

Reel Grrls

In response, a Comcast VP of communications reportedly sent the group a message saying the corporation could no longer fund the group’s summer program.

Perhaps evidence that you shouldn’t mess with grrls learning media skills, the group went public with the message and generated sympathetic media coverage in national news, tech, feminist, and other outlets.

After a negative response started up, someone higher up at Comcast apologized to the group and offered to reinstate the promised $18,000 for summer camps, attributing the previous action to the unauthorized response of a lone employee. Reel Grrls has responded by declining the funding, and plans to focus some of their energies on exploring issues of free expression and media consolidation.

While Comcast’s initial response was unfortunate, I suspect the incident has been educational for the Reel Grrls and others. As the Seattle Times editor wrote:

What a great lesson for the girls of Reel Grrls. They experienced firsthand what a concentrated media means for freedom of expression. They were taught about the consequences of speaking truth to power. Most important, they were taught about the power of their voice and the impact of their words and visuals.

Here’s their video response. You can support the Grrls by making a donation online.

Call for Interviewees:
Reporter Molly M. McGinty is interviewing patients who were denied reproductive care at Catholic hospitals for a piece for Ms. magazine. Please contact her at mollymaureen@juno.com or 212-531-1679 by Wednesday, March 9. Patients are welcome to use pseduonyms if needed.

Interventions to Reduce Early Inductions:
My local (Nashville, TN) newspaper has an article today on early inductions without medical indication. The paper reports that local hospitals implemented a pilot program that asked doctors to check a form if they were inducing labor for nonmedical reasons; rates of babies delivered at 37 to 39 weeks’ gestation with no medical reason subsequently dropped from 9.8% to 4.8%.

The Health Beat Blog also explored issues of inductions (including early inductions) and cesareans in a blog post last month.

Save the Date: Orgasm, Inc:
I expect we’ll have more on this soon, but readers are invited to attend a preview screening of the film Orgasm, Inc. at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline, MA on March 24. More event info is available on Facebook. The film focuses on the pharmaceutical industry’s attempts to produce and market Viagra-type drugs to women.

OBOS Stories: Submit Your Own!
Just a reminder that we are collecting readers’ stories of how OBOS has touched their lives, in conjunction with our 40th anniversary celebration. You can read the submitted stories on our blog, and submit your own here.

I don’t really even want to talk about “Bridalplasty,” the new show in which women compete to win the “ultimate” wedding – complete with plastic surgery – because it’s too easy to ridicule the participating women without examining the larger issues that make anybody think this whole show and its foundational ideas about women and weddings are a good idea. It would take more than a blog post to deconstruct all of the problems here. Instead, I’m going to leave it to Modern Lady’s Erin Gibson (successor to Sarah Haskins), who concludes that everything about the show needs its own makeover:

If you can tolerate more, see the New York Times, Change.org, and Fornicating Feminists.

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Jackie Flores
Nominee: RH Reality Check, sexual reproductive health and rights blog

I’ve been an avid reader of RH Reality Check for years. They provide accurate coverage of issues pertaining to sexual reproductive health and rights. But what I love most is the thought provoking commentary offered by their wide variety of contributing writers. Any time I want to learn more about abortion, birth control, global perspectives on reproduction, or whatever the hot topic of the day is I know I can rely on them.

Lately I’ve been following their Earth & Birth posts, which focus on the environment, reproductive health and how they’re connected. The conversations and viewpoints have been fascinating, and I’m glad this stuff is being discussed. It makes me feel more connected to fellow reproductive health activists.

So thank you, RH Reality Check, for making my morning coffee educational and cutting edge.

I recently learned of a new documentary film that may be of interest to readers. In “Subjectified: Nine Young Women Talk About Sex,” director Melissa Tapper Goldman interviews nine U.S. women from different backgrounds and locations about their sexuality and experiences.

The film attempts to overcome stereotypes and assumptions using women’s own words, “to overwrite some of these associations, with something more real, more nuanced, deeper and more heartfelt.”

Goldman writes:

This project began as a simple question and a simple frustration. I thought I understood the motivations and pressures regarding girls’ sexuality within the community where I grew up, but I had no clue what sexuality meant for other women around the country… The stories were both more sophisticated and more powerful than what I had anticipated.

Two trailers for the film are available online; view one below.

Readers in and around the Boston area can attend a free film screening, followed by a Q&A with the director and one of the women featured in the film. The event will take place at MIT in Cambridge on Thursday, Feb. 4, at 7 p.m.  The screening is part of the “Chicks Make Flicks” series.

Others who are interested can keep up with the film at the blog and on Facebook and Twitter.

Ever wish you could meet Cyndi Lauper — or Tegan and Sara or Margaret Cho? Or ask Katha Pollitt or Kate Harding or Rebecca Traister to edit your manuscript? Or wear the iconic blazer Princeton Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell appears in on “The Rachel Maddow Show”?

You’ll have your chance today — but only today — to make these and other dreams come true.

Head on over to the Women, Action & Media auction, where you’ll find 53 amazing items, including:

* dinner with Jessica Valenti

* autographed guitars from Ani DiFranco, Aimee Mann, Emmylou Harris and Patty Griffin

* an original DTWOF comic strip by Alison Bechdel

* a customized recipe by Lisa Jervis

* lunch with Baratunde Thurston and a tour of the offices of “The Onion”

* Sarah Haskins records your outgoing voicemail message

* signed books and posters by the likes of bell hooks, Marjane Satrapi, Jane Hamilton, Suzan-Lori Parks, Jennifer Weiner and Venus and Serena Williams

* much, much more

WAM! — the annual conference turned national organization that is fighting for gender justice in media — is raising for money for its launch as a national organization, with WAM! chapters in all 50 states and beyond.

It’s a great cause — and you can do your holiday shopping. Seriously, there are great deals to be had. And no one else will give (or get) the same gift!

Bidding ends at 9 p.m. EST. Good luck!

A recent Time magazine story looks at the decade-long search for a drug to cure women with low sexual desire — a so-called female Viagra. A German pharmaceutical company thinks it’s on the right track with flibanserin, a drug originally developed as an antidepressant (it didn’t work for its intended purpose). Filbanserin is undergoing clinical trials to treat hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD).

Our own Judy Norsigian is quoted in Time, expressing caution:

Certainly, there may be women who will do better after taking flibanserin, says Judy Norsigian, executive director of the women’s health advocacy Our Bodies Ourselves, based in Cambridge, Mass. But she thinks the diagnosis of HSDD unnecessarily medicalizes women’s sexual lives. Attempting to treat low libido with a pill ignores the fact that many women’s level of desire is deeply affected by everyday life stress and interpersonal relationships. Add to that a cultural milieu that at once promotes shame and ignorance about women’s sexuality while wildly inflating their expectations for sex.

In many cases, says Norsigian, the proper solution to a lack of sexual desire would involve a number of non-drug approaches, such as therapy, mind-body techniques and getting partners involved in the solution. “That could be equally successful while at the same time not exposing women to the [potential] long-term adverse effects of drugs,” says Norsigian, who suggests testing drugs like flibanserin against drug-free therapies. “Moreover, the non-medication approaches often address root causes for lack of libido and thus reflect a prevention approach that is usually much wiser.”

During a recent event hosted by the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing’s Midwifery Program, Norsigian raised similar questions about whether women are receiving the best and safest treatments. She also discussed examples of how mixed, inaccurate or incomplete media coverage can make it difficult for women to navigate their health options and to understand the risks involved with some procedures. The Reporter, Vanderbilt Medical Center’s weekly newspaper, covered Norsigian’s talk.

PsychCentral.com has launched a new body image blog called Weightless. From the site description:

Weightless is about well-being, not weight; about fostering body image, regardless of your size. It’s about exposing women’s magazines, other mediums and so-called experts, when they’re touting unhealthy tips and promoting restrictive standards.

The goal of Weightless is to help women develop a better body image and work toward accepting themselves as they are, while being healthy and happy (fad diets and skinny-mini standards prohibited!); and to become sharp consumers, who can pick apart a commercial or magazine article and know which advice is helpful or harmful.

In one of the site’s first posts, writer Margarita Tartakovsky identifies seven signs you may be suffering from a poor body image and suggestions to help readers be less self-critical. In the aptly titled “Minding Women’s Magazines: Asinine Advice,” Tartakovsky pulls out “tips” from magazines including Women’s Health, Self and Cosmopolitan and deconstructs the messages. To wit:

3. “Your fear: ‘I overeat at parties.’ Celebratory spreads make it easy to stuff yourself. But obsessing over every bit will ruin your night. ‘Ask yourself, How do I want to feel tomorrow? Bloated and disappointed or proud and healthy?’ Beck says. Strap your watch on the wrong wrist as a visual reminder of your goal; you’ll automatically eat less.” {Self, November 2009, pg. 87}

As I was reading the first few phrases, I found myself nodding in agreement — especially the part where we shouldn’t be obsessing about food — up until the value judgments rolled in. So what if I do enjoy one too many appetizers at a holiday party, instead of saying to myself how delicious the food was and acknowledging that I did overeat and will try to avoid that next time, I should feel like a bloated, disappointed failure. Thanks Self!

Since women are often made to feel like they’re overeating anytime they’re enjoying their food, I wish the response first questioned why we think we’ve crossed the line. For some, overeating at a party might mean consuming more than one tiny appetizer.

But though it sidesteps this question, I appreciate that a popular and respected website on mental health considers body image a topic worthy of its own blog. And I’m glad  Weightless launched in time to confront  the holiday weight smack-down.

Plus: Last month, Randy Cohen, who writes The Ethicist column for The New York Times, asked whether ads using electronically altered images of models — making them ridiculously skinny — should  be banned or come with a warning label. The model pictured here was digitally altered for a Ralph Lauren window display in Sydney, Australia.

Speaking of Australia, a federal government advisory group comprised of educators, psychologists and media folks have put together a national strategy on body image (pdf).

One of the group’s members, Danielle Miller, writes about the recommendations, including the proposed educational curriculum and voluntary code of conduct for advertisers and fashion companies. In this frank discussion, Miller acknowledges the shortcomings of the proposal and the difficulties that lie ahead.

A new, freely available, open-access journal that launched this month reflects a position Our Bodies Ourselves has long held: Healthcare is better, and people are healthier and more empowered, when individuals are informed and can actively participate in their own care.

The Journal of Participatory Medicine, launched at last week’s Connected Health Symposium in Boston, will publish online peer-reviewed articles that “explore the extent to which shared decision-making in health care, and deep patient engagement, affect outcomes.” The inaugural issue includes articles from all stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, payers, and others.

The journal’s significance is underscored by the fact that current or former editors of three of the most prominent medical journals – JAMA, BMJ, and the Annals of Family Medicine – also contributed to the first issue. As Amy Romano at Science & Sensibility points out, even the journal’s peer review process is participatory and values the input of all stakeholders, especially patients themselves.

The journal is being published by the relatively new Society for Participatory Medicine. The organization also has a blog, e-patients.net, which focuses on and includes stories from patients becoming informed, connecting with other patients, finding support, and exploring potential treatments for their healthcare concerns.

The existence of this organization and its publications reflect a growing trend toward patient involvement in health care that has been inspired and enabled by the internet. The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a report earlier this year indicating that 61 percent of American adults look online for health information, and that “six in ten e-patients … say their most recent search had an impact, mostly minor, on their own health or the way they care for someone else.”

More than half said information they found online lead them to ask their physician new questions or to get a second opinion on their care.

The internet is also enabling access to personal health records and new ways of collecting and sharing health data. The Society and the Journal will promote efforts to encourage these developments while protecting patient confidentiality.

As one physician wrote of the e-patient phenomenon in 2008:

Patients want information, ideally tailored to their needs. They want to discuss this with their physicians without being shooed away, and would appreciate getting pointers. They even want access to their test results and medical records. Although many physicians feel threatened by all this, engaging the patient as a partner in her own care can be quite gratifying, improves patient satisfaction, and may even lead to better outcomes.

As an organization that has long held that women can become their own health experts and that women, as informed health consumers, are catalysts for social change, we agree.

Last week we heard that Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl wasn’t “rape-rape“; the media downplayed the crime; and celebrities petitioned for Polanski’s release.

Comedian Chris Rock’s disbelief over the reaction captured our own. During an interview on The Jay Leno Show, Rock cut through the messy rhetoric and exclaimed, “Rape! It’s rape!”

“People are defending Roman Polanski because he made some good movies?” Rock continued. “Are you kidding me? He made good movies 30 years ago, Jay! Even Johnnie Cochran don’t have the nerve to go, ‘Well, did you see O.J. play against New England?’”

Jezebel has the clip:

Latoya Peterson writes:

As Rock says at the end of the clip: “The United States, we want to capture Osama Bin Laden, and murder him. We don’t want to rape him – that would be barbaric!”

Rape is a barbaric act.

And I’m amazed it took a comedian to say it outright.

So am I. Yet while I want to cheer Rock on, a quick search shows that in 2001, when a woman accused Rock of rape (after first claiming she was pregnant with Rock’s child, which proved to be false), Rock turned to Anthony Pellicano, one of Hollywood’s sleaziest private detectives.

Their conversation, which came to light during Pellicano’s 2008 trial on charges of wiretapping and racketeering, was excerpted on Gawker. Pellicano describes how he would ruin the woman, and his comments are pretty ugly. As for Rock, Ryan Tate sums it up at Gawker: “For most of the call, Rock sounds annoyed and aloof, if shifty about his story. But however annoyed he might sound, he is the one who hired this guy.”

More good reads:

“Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends,” by Katha Pollitt

“Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child,” by Kate Harding

Last week, the Today Show aired a segment initially titled “The Perils of Midwifery,” which despite the title was not about occupational hazards for midwives (ha), or even about midwifery in general, but about home birth specifically. Although it has since been recaptioned “The Perils of Home Birth” on the NBC website, the original titling as aired to many viewers can still be seen on various websites, including Hulu.

The piece itself tends to gloss over the variety of personal reasons women choose home birth, treating it as a simple lifestyle matter or consumer trend, with one interviewee quoting an unnamed doctor as saying that “home birth had become almost the equivalent of a spa treatment for women.” A montage of photos of celebrities who have had home birth is also provided. The story calls the tragedy experienced by the featured couple “the dark side of an increasingly popular trend.”

The 7-minute piece focuses around the story of a couple whose baby did not survive after what is reported as four days of laboring at home. The couple had CNM Cara Mulhahn as their midwife, who has gained recognition after being featured in the film The Business of Being Born. Mulhahn was profiled by Andrew Goldman (interviewed for the segment) for a recent New York Magazine piece. In that piece, she is framed as a risk-taker, with BOBB director Abby Epstein saying, “She’ll put herself on the line way more than most people, like taking on a birth that’s a little more high risk that most midwives wouldn’t take… She puts her ass on the line in a huge way every time she kind of steps out of bounds to help somebody. That’s just who she is.”

Given this assessment, it’s unfair to hold Mulhahn and her approach and outcomes up as representative of all home births and/or midwifery. Rather than providing women with information on the various types of midwives, their education and credentialing, or questions to ask to determine whether the woman and provider might be of different minds with regards to safety thresholds and approach, the piece simply includes a recommendation from Goldman to ask about malpractice insurance and back-up physicians. No representative of a professional midwifery organization or midwifery educational body was included in the segment, who might have addressed some of these concerns and factors.

The Today Show did feature an ACOG representative, who spoke about unpredictable emergencies and the organization’s position against home birth. The piece also cites unnamed doctors as claiming that it is “impossible” to compare home and hospital birth because of the higher risk cases hospitals tend to see, but this is simply not true. Although a randomized, controlled clinical trial will never be possible, there are good data, especially the recent British Columbia study (.pdf), that compare low risk, uncomplicated pregnancies among women choosing a hospital birth or a home birth. There are many areas in medicine where good data, although imperfect, can guide policy setting, and ACOG fails to appreciate that this is one such example.

Conveying this information, however, requires more detail and nuance than typically provided in a morning news show. As the ACNM concludes: “Women and health care professionals need to be making decisions that are informed by evidence-based medicine—not reactionary interventions and unbalanced investigative journalism. Women deserve better.”