Women's Morality Questioned in the Debate Surrounding Contraception Coverage

This past week, a report issued by the Institute of Medicine titled Clinical Preventative Services for Women: Closing the Gap, sparked controversy over the recommendation that all health insurance plans should cover the cost of contraception. At the heart of the debate is the idea that women with reproductive capacity should be provided with access to contraceptive methods, education and counseling.

After researching the proposal and reading news coverage from the last few days, I was troubled, though not surprised, to learn that opponents of this proposal were focused on the morality of women instead of the importance of providing preventative health measures. Some of the outrageous claims have included a statement calling for women to stop having irresponsible sex and the notion that pregnancy is often the result of being drunk and not using birth control.

Focusing on the morality of women belies the integral role comprehensive family planning measures play in ensuring that all women, regardless of their economic status, have access to preventative and primary care services. In fact, according to the Institute of Medicine’s report, cost sharing requirements such as deductibles and copayments often pose barriers to care particularly for low-income women.

An article written by State Representative Lois Capps (CA-23), a long time proponent of sound women’s health policy, entitled A Victory for Women’s Health outlines the importance of providing preventative health services for women. She states “Despite these clear benefits, the cost of contraceptive methods can force far too many women to choose a less reliable method, or forgo any form of birth control at all. Several studies indicate costs -- including co-payments and other cost-sharing requirements--play a key role in the contraceptive behavior of substantial numbers of U.S. women. During tough economic times like these, the number of women affected is larger than ever. Eliminating cost sharing and co-pays would give these women much needed peace of mind.”

Below is an excerpt from the article outlining the recommendations listed by Institute of Medicine:

• Screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation and at the first prenatal visit for pregnant women identified to be at high risk for diabetes;

• High-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing, in addition to conventional cytology testing in women with normal cytology results;

• Annual counseling on sexually transmitted infections for all sexually active women;

• Counseling and screening for human immunodeficiency virus infection on an annual basis for sexually active women;

• Comprehensive lactation support and counseling and costs of renting breastfeeding equipment;

• Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence;

• At least one well-woman preventive care visit annually for adult women to obtain the recommended preventive services, including preconception and prenatal care.

Instead of focusing on individual morality, this proposal is based on scientific principles and offers recommendations which will benefit all women throughout the United States.

Women in Chicago Start Own Fire

• Five years ago, Samantha Vasich decided that she wanted to be a firefighter.

  Sure, there aren't a lot of women in the Chicago Fire Department -- 116, to be precise, or just over two percent of the department, according to a recent story in the Chicago Tribune. But at the time it had been twenty years since the CFD accepted its first female firefighters, and Vasich figured she had what it took.

  She applied. She was deemed eligible. She passed the written exam. And then came the PAT.

  The PAT, or "physical abilities test," is an exam that is supposed to test applicants for the physical skills required to be a firefighter. It has four components: arm lift, arm endurance, leg lift and hose drag/high rise pack carry.

  Vasich hired a personal trainer who worked with her to prepare for each element of the test. She wore a vest filled with weights while working out on a stair climber, and dragged a bag of sand around the gym to prepare for hose drag. She also read the book and watched the DVD that the department sends around in preparation for the test.

  On January 13, 2010, Vasich took the PAT. Three weeks later, she was told she didn't get the job.

  "When I took the test, I was able to do everything," Vasich said in a statement. "I couldn’t believe it when I got the letter from the city saying that I had failed the test. I thought it must be a mistake."

  Advertisement

  The department wouldn't tell her how she scored on the individual components of the test, or which parts she might have failed.

  But perseverance doesn't appear to be Vasich's short suit. On Tuesday morning, she filed a class-action lawsuit against the Chicago Fire Department, claiming Title VII discrimination on the basis of gender.

  Her lawsuit argues that the PAT is not only biased against women, but doesn't have any proven correlation to job performance. There are no scientific data, the suit claims, that any of the skills on the PAT is an essential requirement to being a good firefighter.

  Marni Willenson, the attorney who Vasich first turned to when she decided to take legal action, made an analogy to military service.

  “Women are playing a critical role in defending our country in two wars overseas. They are operating heavy artillery and carrying out physical tasks that in the past were assigned only to men. Yet the military does not count how many push-ups these women can do before enlistment or put them through some other nonsense exercises that prevent them from serving,” she said. “Instead, it puts them in boot camp and trains them to do the job. If women can defend our country in combat, then they can be trained to take care of medical emergencies and fight fires for the people of Chicago.”

  The suit is asking that the city adopt a new, non-discriminatory method for testing candidates; that it hire the women whom it denied jobs into the department, with retroactive seniority and benefits; and that it award them back pay for the time they would have worked.

  This wouldn't be the first time the CFD had to make remunerations for discriminatory hiring practices. Two months ago, a federal appellate court ruled that the cityhad to hire 111 black firefighters whom it had turned away in 1996, with a payout of around $30 million in back pay.

  Vasich and her attorneys are hoping for a similar result for women. “I just want a fair shot,” Vasich said. "All the women who want to protect our communities as firefighters deserve that chance."

  The Fire Department wouldn't speak about the lawsuit, and the city's Law Department wasn't immediately available for comment.

  FOLLOW HUFFPOST CHICAGO

  ON

  Facebook:

  Like

  Twitter:

  GET ALERTS

  CONTRIBUTE

  TO THIS STORY

  • Send Corrections
  • Send us a Link
  • Contact us

  • Send a Tip
  • Send Photos/Videos
  • Comment

  
  

If the Shoe Fits, Run in It.

Shoes.

I never really thought that they'd be influential in politics. Of course, there was the time Soviet Premier Nikita Khurschev used one of his as a prop to make his point when speaking at the UN. Oh and when an Iraqi journalist used his as a weapon and flung it at President George Bush because he was really really mad at him. And closer to home, Connecticut Secretary of the State candidate Jerry Farrell featured his selection of sneakers over boring black loafer-y type shoes in a campaign commercial last year. He would later wear those sneakers all over Connecticut so that voters knew he was ready to get to work.

This week a writer suggested that one candidate's savvy shoe purchase makes her THE candidate for a Senate seat being vacated by Connecticut's "Independent" Senator Joe Lieberman. In an article in the Middletown Patch, the writer satirically (I hope) throws his support behind Senate candidate Susan Bysiewicz because of her overall style and shoe selection, in particular a gorgeous pair of black pumps that had a marvelous beige streak that apparently would make even the most discerning of shoe collectors jealous. I wonder if Carrie Bradshaw would agree.

The writer says:

"In my own defense, I'm NOT a male chauvinist or sexist. Whether we like to admit it, politics, especially in a digital age, is performance art, an art in which personal style has tremendous power to move a fickle electorate. That is true whether the candidate is male or female."

I guess he is right. I can remember judging a candidate for wearing an Hermes tie. He, of course, was trying to pitch himself as someone who understands the needs of working families despite his wealth. In my opinion, his tie betrayed his words.

But I do think women are all too often judged differently than men when they run for office. With Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann and Governor Sarah Palin working on runs for the White House, this very issue is being more widely discussed. In an article on CNN, Deborah Siegelman wonders why we haven't moved beyond it since Palin and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were both campaigning for the White House last presidential cycle. I know, I know, I know, Palin was a VP candidate. But come on.

A recent blog entry on a youth politics website discusses a recent article on Politico that talks about how Bachmann and Palin are portrayed in photographs. The blogger feels Bachmann is made out to be the new Britney Spears-a-la-shaved-head-meltdown of politics. I don't think it goes that far. But we are starting to see it with all the news chatter about Bachmann's migraines--which may be synonomous to Brit Brit's infamous head shaving photos that we saw over and over and over. For the past two days, I can't go to any news site without seeing something about Bachman's incapacitating migraines, which in my opinion communicates her being too weak for the job. The typical reason why women can't run with the boys.

Perhaps this would no longer be a problem for female candidates if more women ran for public office. Today, women hold 22.1 percent of available statewide executive positions, which is down 27.6 percent from 10 years ago. The outcome of the 2010 elections resulted in the number of women in Congress declining for the first time in 30 years. Here's an interesting LA Times article that gives you more.

Further, in a Huffington Post blog Yashar Ali argues that one need not only look at who's running for office, but also at who's running the campaigns. He notes the absence of women in the behind the scenes work has largely been ignored.

But there are people working to change both factors. New York Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand created an organization called Off the Sidelines to encourage more women to run for office. It appears a bit more like a campaign gimmick, but a woman can hope. The White House Project provides support to women candidates and even offers you the opportunity to send an invitation to a woman you think should run for office. Right here in Connecticut, the Women's Campaign School at Yale equips women with the right tools to run for office or run a campaign. (You can watch some of their sessions to get inspired: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 AM, Day 3 PM, and Day 4).

Making the decision to run for office or to run a campaign is not as easy as what shoes to wear. But the difference you would make is significant. Today, just think about doing it.

(This blog post does not serve as a CT NOW endorsement of any of the candidates mentioned. Any opinions expressed are solely that of the blog writer.)

Something to think about...

I stumbled upon this story about a brave woman from Manchester, Connecticut trying to make a difference, literally one step at a time. I <3 inspiring women! :)

The Woman's Economic Need for Marriage

As I prepped for my first blog posting for CT NOW, I anxiously typed "Connecticut women" into Google in search of some inspiration only to be bombarded with UCONN women's basketball facts and various voters and leche leagues. I skimmed through various news articles and found nothing I considered to be worthy of discussing for all the world to see. Then, while getting sidetracked, I decided to read an article that my boyfriend had sent me earlier via e-mail. This article, titled "Marriage in America: The frayed knot", analyzes and highlights the importance of marriage and discusses the "marriage inequality gap" that is slowly affecting this country.

"The 'marriage gap' is the chief source of the country's notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parrents are 'socialised for success'. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started...America is turning into 'a nation of separate and unequal families'".

After reading the article, a couple things came to mind. Firstly, despite the article discussing why marriage is important, the article doesn't express the various justifiable reasons that women may end their marriages; such as mental or physical abuse, infidelity, etc.

Secondly, I understand that the author strongly attributes monetary stability and success with marriage and it makes me question why women are really marrying. The article points out that single mothers usually make 20k or less and that married couples make 75k+. I can't help but think that we as women feel a societal obligation to marry simply for that financial cushion to provide for our children. At one point in the article, marriage is referenced as a "wealth-generating institution" and I couldn't help but chuckle because it is so true, although many don't take the time to think about it. Although we live in the land of the free, financial concerns still greatly affect single American mothers, often leaving women trapped in abusive and/or unhealthy marriages. Sure, we're free to leave...but then what? Back to 20k or less.

So tell me what you think: Are women getting married for love or married for financial stability?

Planned Parenthood Under Attack

Last week I was visiting Washington D.C. on vacation and was inspired to see activists from all over the country gathered for a Planned Parenthood conference and Capitol Day. As I walked around sightseeing in the nearly 100-degree heat, it was inspiring to see groups of teens, men, and women with their pink T-shirts and bags reading “I Stand with Planned Parenthood.”

But it was particularly disheartening when I returned home to Connecticut at the end of the week and logged onto my computer to read that my home state of New Hampshire had, in the words of one writer , “lost its damn mind and defunded Planned Parenthood.” Indeed, the New Hampshire Executive Council voted to cancel the state's contract with Planned Parenthood and rejected up to $1.8 million in state funding, which is 20 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total annual funding. The Council also stripped Planned Parenthood’s authority to dispense low-cost birth control and antibiotics to uninsured patients. The New Hampshire legislature rejected efforts during the 2011 legislative session to defund Planned Parenthood, but the Executive Council overturned that decision and that of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services with a 3-2 vote.

The Huffington Post article article provided some insight as to the effect the defunding will have on their patients, many of whom are low-income women:

"We can't even provide patients with antibiotics for urinary tract infections or STDs anymore," said Jennifer Frizzell, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. She said Planned Parenthood has had to turn away 20 to 30 patients a day who are showing up to refill their prescriptions. "We have to send them away with a prescription knowing that without insurance, they have to pay the full cost of that at a local pharmacy, and many patients have told us they're not gonna have the money in their budget to afford to fill those prescriptions."

The federal government has warned New Hampshire that it must have statewide access to family planning or risk losing $1.4 million in federal funds allocated to the state. But this is not just happening in New Hampshire. GOP lawmakers in Indiana, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Kansas have also defunded Planned Parenthood in their 2011 legislative sessions because some of the organization's clinics provide abortions, and at least two other states are moving to do the same. (Huffington Post article)

A post on the web site Jezebel.com noted that Councilors voted to defund because some clinics provide abortions, even though those abortions are privately funded. And one councilor was quoted by The Concord Monitor as saying that he opposed funding for birth control and condoms altogether. “"If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" said Councilor Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester.

I am proud to live in a state whose elected representatives support Planned Parenthood and that our legislature has not made an assault on an organization that provides such critical services for so many. Fortunately we can say that, here in Connecticut, we stand with Planned Parenthood.

Saving Lives: Free medical treatment for Women and Children in Sierra Leone

In keeping with our July theme of "freedom" I couldn't resist sharing this riveting New York Times article that outline's Sierra Leone's recent government decision to waive the medical fees for pregnant women and small children. This progressive conclusion is saving the lives of women and children across Sierra Leone by giving them the opportunity to seek the medical assistance they desperately need, but could not afford!

The measurable outcomes of these free services have been nothing short of astounding! Since this program has become available, “Sierra Leone has seen a 214 percent increase in the number of children under 5 getting care at health facilities, a 61 percent decrease in mortality rates in difficult pregnancy cases at health clinics, and an 85 percent drop in the malaria fatality rate for children treated in hospitals.”

I encourage you read this wonderful article and reflect on some of the little freedoms we tend to take for granted!