Blogs Comment On World Population Day, Health Care Reform, Other Topics

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "World Population Day 2009 -- Time To Finally Make Maternal Health a Priority," Sharon Camp, Huffington Post blogs: World Population Day on Saturday "serves as an urgent reminder that ... governments around the world must boost investments in global health," especially maternal health, despite the global economic recession, Camp, president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, writes. Efforts "have fallen short" to date as the "financial resources and political will needed to promote maternal health have been lagging," Camp writes. She notes that the nations are "hardly any closer" to achieving the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals of reducing maternal deaths by 75% and achieving universal access to reproductive health services by 2015. A "critical shortcoming" of recent efforts to achieve the MDGs has been the "reluctance of some governments and advocates to accept that better maternal health cannot be achieved without acknowledging, committing and fully funding sexual and reproductive health services," Camp writes. In particular, "this includes contraceptive services to help women time and space pregnancies as well as treatment of septic or incomplete abortions," and "providing safe abortion services consistent with individual country law," according to Camp. However, there is "some good news," she writes, noting that "[n]ew momentum behind worldwide advocacy efforts may yield the resources and political commitment needed to make a difference." Camp concludes, "It is precisely because resources are scarce that they must be used wisely and efficiently in a way that serves both humanitarian and economic development goals. Investing in saving women's lives fits this bill" (Camp, Huffington Post blogs, 7/9).

~ "Proposed Amendments Would Deny Health Care to Women," Lois Uttley, RH Reality Check: In a blog post addressed to "Gentlemen of the Congress," Uttley asks if they have "forgotten about the women" in their lives as they work on crafting health care reform legislation. Uttley writes,"[S]ome of you are wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars proposing amendments that would deny health care" to several groups of people, including women. She writes that Republican Sens. Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) this week submitted amendments to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that would ban coverage for abortion services; protect health care providers and insurers from "'discrimination' for refusing to provide health care requested by their patients," including abortion and emergency contraception; allow federally qualified health centers to "not provide abortions and still get government grants"; and require that "[a]ny independent medical board appointed to determine the benefits that would be included in national health reform coverage would have to include 'professional ethicists ... with specialty in rights of the life of the unborn.'" Meanwhile, Democrats "are spending far too much time trying to win over colleagues who are never going to vote for health reform, no matter if you offer them abortion exclusions or new provider 'conscience' laws or other provisions that would hobble health reform," Uttley writes. She continues, "Don't forget that women are among the strongest supporters of moving quickly on health reform this year" because they are "grassroots experts on what is broken in the current health system," such as insurers' labeling of pregnancy as a "pre-existing condition," using "gender rating" in individual policies and excluding contraception coverage. She asks, "So what do women want?" Uttley provides a "list we've been compiling at Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need." Among the priorities, the list stresses that lawmakers should keep "moral values" out of the debate and that health insurance must be affordable, more simple to understand, fair, portable and universal (Uttley, RH Reality Check, 7/9).














~ "Reports on Judge Sotomayor's Record," Kristina Moore, SCOTUSblog: Moore presents a list of "published reports and substantive blog posts" analyzing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's judicial record ahead of her confirmation hearings beginning Monday. The list is organized by subject matter, including general rulings, access to the courts, business, civil rights, criminal, disability, elections, First Amendment, national security and Second Amendment. The links include an analysis of opinion by the Congressional Research Service, as well as blog posts and reports from media outlets and organizations such as the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, CNN, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the National Law Journal, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (Moore, SCOTUSblog, 7/7).

~ "Abstinence-Only Advocates Attempt To Evolve, but Don't Be So Easily Fooled," Yvonne Fulbright, Huffington Post blogs: Fulbright writes that abstinence-only sex education advocates "have been long organizing a comeback" by "rebranding themselves as science-based and holistic." She continues, "Sounds great, until you remember that this group of powerful virginity zealots, religious leaders and legislators are driven by regressive social values." Fulbright writes that, considering the records of certain abstinence-only groups, "we can't expect their take on 'holistic' and 'healthy' to be anything like that of comprehensive sexual education." According to Fulbright, the attempt of abstinence-only groups to rebrand themselves could be "laughable until you realize that attempting to be more mainstream ... may just work" because the "average citizen will have trouble deciphering what makes the comprehensive versus abstinence-centered efforts so different" (Fulbright, Huffington Post blogs, 7/7).

~ "Jill Stanek Doesn't Want To Prevent Abortions," Kathleen Reeves, RH Reality Check: In the blog, Reeves discusses a recent e-mail exchange between Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, and antiabortion-rights advocate Jill Stanek. According to Reeves, Waldman proposed "the following hypothetical situation: more premarital sex and fewer abortions. Would pro-lifers accept this trade-off?" Reeves continues that "Stanek wouldn't" because "she thinks that contraception and sex education lead to more unintended pregnancies." Reeves writes, "What both Waldman and I find more interesting is Stanek's unconditional opposition to sex ed, even if she believed that it did help reduce abortions." In addition, "there's something much more immediate and practical in her refusal to consider contraception a 'lesser evil,'" according to Reeves. She adds, "If she did, she would be admitting that she, and all religious fundamentalists, are wrong. She would be ceding ground to safe sex, to free condoms in bars, to Planned Parenthood." According to Reeves, "A significant contingent of pro-lifers have always done their part to ensure that more abortions happen by resisting sex ed, resisting funding for contraception, and by teaching their children (and other people's children) that condoms don't work." She concludes, "We're going to have to look elsewhere to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Jill Stanek is not interested" (Reeves, RH Reality Check, 7/9).


Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.


© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.