Voting Matters because Women’s Health Matters

Posted on by
Reply
via National Women’s Health Network.  As a counter the dire reports that women are apathetic about the midterm elections, I’m passing along this reminder from NWHN:
“If you care about women’s health, you should also care about voting.  Here are just a few ways that tomorrow’s election might affect women’s health.
  • Research on alternative treatments for hot flashes, safe and effective contraceptive methods for women of all sizes, and the best ways to prevent pre-term labor are all funded by federal research grants – some candidates want to cut funding for the National Institutes of Health.
  • The FDA approved two new contraceptives this year after carefully reviewing the evidence of their safety and effectiveness – some candidates want Congress, not FDA to decide which contraceptives should be approved.
  • Women who need abortions are more likely to have their abortion early in the first trimester, when it is safest, in part due to the availability of medical abortion using mifepristone – some candidates want to ban medical abortion.
  • Many young women can now get health insurance coverage through their parents, thanks to health care reform – some candidates want to de-fund health reform.

If you care about women’s health, remember to vote tomorrow, November 2rd.  Start by checking out the candidates running in your district.  Find out what they think about women’s health issues.  If you need help figuring out which district you’re in, which candidates are running, and where your polling place is, check out the easy-to-use tool created by the League of Women Voters.  Let’s make sure we vote to protect women’s health on Tuesday.”

Our Bodies, Our Blog has an even more direct message — get out and vote!

History of Health Activism Conference at Yale

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a Yale Daily News report on the conference, “Health Activism in the 20th century,” that I participated in at Yale last weekend.  (minor correction — MADD stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving!)  As the reporter was only there for Saturday (bright and early at 8:30am!) and I was the first presenter, he didn’t get a chance to observe my brilliant presentation, Creating a Middle Ground: Feminist Health Activists and Emergency Contraception in the United States, 1970-2000! (I’m giving a shorter version of this paper at the History of Science Society meeting next weekend )  Here are the main points:

This paper looks at the changing position of the National Women’s Health Network (NWHN) on emergency contraception, aka the “morning-after pill.” Initially this group was a vehement opponent of emergency contraception and other forms of hormonal birth control.  By the early 1990s the organization had joined broader efforts to develop a dedicated emergency contraceptive product.  NWHN found that there was sufficient evidence about the safety and effectiveness of this contraceptive method to “cautiously support its use.”
More importantly, increasing restrictions on abortion and access to federally-funded birth control under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush convinced the organization that they needed to help ensure that women had access to emergency contraception when other birth control methods failed.

This paper is a chapter out of a book-length project on the history of emergency contraception in the United States, which is under contract with Rutgers University Press. This project aims to use the history of emergency contraception to illuminate key themes in the politics of birth control and abortion since the 1960s.

In terms of relevance to other issues in health activism in the twentieth century, one of my main points is how the history of emergency contraception reflects the professionalization of the women’s health movement. Since the 1970s, feminist health activists had gradually become insiders in reproductive health by earning professional credentials, which gave them the ability to reform organized medicine and health care policy from within. Although some of their contemporaries accused these newly-minted professionals of “selling-out” rather than furthering the cause of women’s self-empowerment,” the corresponding radicalization of the medical “establishment” was equally significant. This book is intended to contribute to recent scholarship on how women have used experience of the physical body as a source of knowledge production and feminist practice regarding women’s health issues. For example, Wendy Kline argues that “body knowledge” was central to the women’s health activism of Second Wave feminism, and that this feminist framework was abandoned as the women’s health movement adopted the professional credentials and scientific language of the health care establishment.
I suggest that rather than being a departure from Second Wave feminist strategies that were based on knowledge of the biological body, recent activism on emergency contraception demonstrates how women have continued to use personal histories of their bodies to transform reproductive health research and healthcare policy. Since the early 1990s, emergency contraception has served as a “bridge issue” that brought together former adversaries, including feminist health organizations, population and family planning people, and groups representing women of color who were the main targets of attempts to control the “population crisis” in the United States.

This coalition did not arise without a struggle and had to overcome much bad faith generated by sexism in the medical profession and the racist and coercive policies of the population movement. My book shows how these diverse groups created a “middle ground” between an older liberal feminist position that tended to support technological innovations such as hormonal contraception; and a more radical feminist position that criticized the use of hormones but was otherwise in favor of reproductive rights.

Reproductive Rights: Here are the Churches

Posted on by
Reply

via RHReality Check, where Trusting Women asks, “On Health and Rights, What Happened to the Churches?”  TW writes about growing up in a liberal church that offered sex education classes.  She writes:

“Church was the place I first heard the word feminism.  Church was the place I first practiced putting a condom on a banana.  It was the place where I had openly gay and lesbian adult mentors and ministers.  The congregation my father grew up in gave the local Planned Parenthood their first home.  My first minister was a member of the Clergy Consultation Service, a network of liberal clergy that referred women to safe abortion providers in the days before Roe versus Wade.”

She then asks, “What happened to the churches?”   Here’s her answer:

“Liberal religions (particularly Protestants) feel guilty and ashamed on an institutional and cultural level.  Between the mid 19th and mid 20th century, liberal religion was at its apex. It lauded the possibility of human potential, placed science and empirical method right next to (if not above) Scripture, believed that human civilization was evolving morally and civically. Advances in science and medicine fueled and confirmed this hope and hubris.  Then the World Wars happened. The Holocaust happened, aided and abetted by liberal institutions, included liberal churches in Europe, governments, and academia.  Maybe evil really did exist in this world, maybe human beings were not so great after all.  Maybe the growth of liberal thought not only coincided with great democratic and medical advances, but also with brutal colonial and imperial endeavors; brutal injustices like Tuskegee Experiments and the recently revealed syphilis experiments in Guatemala. Maybe liberalism was not as perfect and wonderful as we thought…..”

My reply was:

Overall this is a thoughtful post but seriously — liberal protestant churches were solely to blame for the Holocaust?  What about the Pope? Or  Father Coughlin who blamed the Depression on an international Jewish conspiracy?

Also, what about the liberal church members, white and black, who participated in the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, and other movements for social justice in the 1960s?  Liberal clergy were also active in reproductive rights:  see Tom Davis’ book _Sacred Work: Planned Parenthood and its Clergy Alliances_.”

Furthermore, look at the extensive history of reproductive rights activism outlined by the group Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  Their most recent work includes counter-protests against Operation Save America (formerly Operation Rescue) , a strong presence at the March for Women’s Lives, opposition to the nominations of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Allito, and the “Lift Every Voice for Reproductive Justice” program for voter empowerment during the 2008 election.

In other words, the activism of liberal churches on behalf of reproductive rights and other areas of social justice has not gone away.  It’s the media that has turned their back on the work of liberal churches.

Ableism and NARAL Pro-Choice America

Posted on by
Reply

via NARAL Pro-Choice America, which is running a pro-choice slogan campaign.  Here are the choices:





I voted for the first one — why?  Because using “insanity” to discredit opponents trivializes persons with mental illness — a group that already experiences social marginalization and oppression.  It’s an example of what the blog FWD/Forward refers to as liberal ableism, a variation on hipster ableism, hipster racism and liberal sexism, as well as liberal racism,

Oh yeah, in case some folks think I’m just singling out feminist organizations, I’m not too happy with Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity either.

Thoughts on Feminist Education in the 21st Century

Posted on by
4

This post is in reply to Tenured Radical’s three part series on women’s education.  Part I is an argument in favor of single-sex colleges for women.  TR writes:

“One of the ironies of the educational achievements made by graduates of women’s schools, both private and public, was their demise. In the 1970s, feminists made access to formerly male bastions part of their policy agenda. As women like me entered the Ivies, public and Catholic universities, women’s colleges struggled to recruit, and many closed their doors, became coeducational, or were absorbed by male schools as part of a coeducation project.

Arguably, however, something was lost: a set of institutions that nurtured a feminist vision. So tomorrow, let’s talk about why there is still an argument for creating and supporting spaces for women’s education.”

I was the first to reply to this post, with the following observation about economic issues affecting women’s education:

“This is a good argument but most women can’t afford to attend a private women’s college (and many can’t even afford a state university like mine). I wanted to go to Smith very badly but couldn’t afford it. So, I went to the state university (Vermont). I had great feminist mentors there (some of them men) and at the coeducational graduate school I attended.”

An anonymous commenter immediately tossed out the term “class privilege,” which led to a back and forth and the following comments by  Historiann:

“Where are these arguments against “class privilege” when it comes to the other elite schools? Once again, women have to apologize for having even a dozen campuses any more that are just for women. Women’s colleges are apparently the only colleges that cost more than $30,000 a year. We only ask the women’s colleges to apologize for their privilege, beat there breasts and wail because not everyone can afford to attend a women’s college.

Bull$hit.

It’s comments like these that illustrate the continuing need for women’s colleges. If they were truly irrelevant, they wouldn’t seem so ominously threatening to so many people. Sounds like it’s time to up my contribution to the Annual Fund at Bryn Mawr.”

As I said in my follow-ups, “My point was to use my experience to illustrate that there are economic factors that need to be considered. I didn’t mention private coeducational colleges because that wasn’t one of the options I was considering at the time. . . My other point is, why should women’s colleges be the only place where women are introduced to feminism and leadership roles? Shouldn’t that be a mission of all colleges and universities?”

A commenter named Anna made a similar argument at Historiann’s blog:

“Can’t we try to make coed schools more feminist, instead of assuming that of course they can never encourage girls as much as all-girls schools?”

Further comments at both TR and Historiann seem to imply that coeducational institutions have not evolved since they were integrated in the 1960s and 1970s.  Perpetua, for example, writes at Historiann:

“Integration – of women into men’s colleges and African-Americans into white schools – was a good thing, but it did come with a bit of a price (ie the loss of strong mentorship by people from one’s own gender/race).”

Huh?  What about all the women who have become faculty over the past three decades?  In my department, women now make up half of the full-time faculty.   The percentage of women is even higher in other departments.  Are we less suitable as mentors because we work in a coeducational institution?  I think not!

In short, while I agree with TR that “Gender equality is a project, and it is, as Mary Maples Dunn said to me, an unfinished one,” it’s rather insulting to hear that the only places that this can be accomplished is at  all female SLAC that have far more resources than does my lowly state university (as usual, my trip down to Wesleyan left me green with envy at the lovely facilities with new furniture and equipment that actually works).  How about giving those of us in the trenches some credit?!

Added later:  Ms. Magazine blog has some interesting comments on the perils of single-sex education.

The Guatemala STD study and the problematic history of human subject research

Posted on by
Reply

My friend and colleague Susan Reverby has been all over the news the past few days  because of her discovery of unethical studies of STD transmission conducted in Guatemala during the 1940s (great interview on PBS News Hour, Susan!).  She found the material on the Guatemala studies while researching her new book on the history of the infamous Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis in the Negro male.  Susan’s work on Tuskegee shows that abuse of vulnerable populations is not limited to Latin America and other areas of the developing world: it was happening within our borders long after the trials of Nazi scientists following the Second World War.

I made a modest contribution to the history of human subjects research in a talk at Wesleyan University this afternoon.  (this is a continuation of my earlier article on using students for medical and behavioral science research).  My talk was part of the launch of the Wesleyan Digital Archive of Psychology.  My talk was called “Coeds as Guinea Pigs,” and discussed the use of diethylstilbestrol (DES) as an emergency contraceptive and the controversy that ensued once it was discovered that this drug caused cancer in the daughters of women who had taken the drug during pregnancy.  Y’all are going to have to read my book for the full story, but briefly, news about the DES research was exposed at the same Congressional hearings that discussed the Tuskegee study, and research on Depo Provera using poor women of color as test subjects.   These hearings and similar exposes led to significant reforms in the treatment of human subjects in the United States.

Tell Congress to Approve Women’s History Museum

Posted on by
Reply

via National Women’s History Project:

September 24, 2010 NEW YORK TIMES
Unhold Us, Senators


By GAIL COLLINS Congress is staggering toward recess. I’m going to go way out on a limb and guess that they’re not going to accomplish anything major before they leave. But as long as they’re still in town, taking up space, the least they could do is approve the National Women’s History Museum bill.


Honestly, I would not be making this plea if everybody was knee-deep in the budget or reforming the tax structure. But they can barely summon the will to open the mail. And the museum bill always has been uncontroversial. It’s a great idea; it doesn’t cost any money; and virtually everybody in office has already supported some version of it in the past.


The legislation would simply allow a private group, conveniently named National Women’s History Museum, to buy an unlovely piece of federal land on Independence Avenue for the site. “We will pay fair market value and pay for construction,” said Joan Wages, the president. The bill allows five years to raise the money and break ground. If the group fails, the land would revert back to the government, which would get to keep the purchase price.


The problem, Meryl Streep pointed out at a fund-raiser for the museum this week, is getting the government to take the money. At the gala, Duane Burnham, the former chairman of Abbott Laboratories, announced a donation of $1 million in honor of his four granddaughters. Streep then put up $1 million herself.


“I was a little mad that a man did it first,” she later said to me. “I was just jumping on his caboose.” She was en route to London to play Margaret Thatcher in a movie and was inspired to make a grand, albeit non-Thatcherian, gesture.


As Streep likes to point out, Washington already has a postal museum, a textile museum, a spy museum and the Newseum. You may be wondering why there is any problem getting Congressional support for a women’s history museum. Especially since the bill has already passed the House unanimously and come out of its Senate committee with unanimous approval. And since the bill, which is sponsored in the Senate by Susan Collins of Maine, has 23 co-sponsors from both parties. The Senate itself passed a different version of the plan unanimously a few years ago when the museum people were hoping to lease a government building rather than construct a new one.


The answer – and, people, how many times have you heard this story? – is that two senators, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, have put holds on the bill. A hold is one of those quaint Senate traditions that ensures that each individual member of the chamber will have the power to bring all activity to a screeching and permanent halt.


The bill’s supporters seem to feel that DeMint, who is now famous as a leader of the new Republican far right, is the chief obstacle to getting the project sprung. He was raised by a single mother who helped support her family by running a dance studio. He also has daughters. Perhaps he just puts holds on things as a matter of habit, like a compulsive twitch, and does not have any actual objection to celebrating the American women’s story in the nation’s capital. Perhaps he will call up Collins on Monday and tell her it was all a terrible mistake.


Coburn’s office said the senator was concerned that taxpayers might be asked to chip in later and also felt that the museum was unnecessary since “it duplicates more than 100 existing entities that have a similar mission.”


The office sent me a list of the entities in question. They include the Quilters Hall of Fame in Indiana, the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Texas and the Hulda Klager Lilac Gardens in Washington.


There also were a number of homes of famous women and some fine small collections of exhibits about a particular locality or subject. But, really, Senator Coburn’s list pretty much proved the point that this country really needs one great museum that can chart the whole, big amazing story.


Beginning in the late 1960s, the restrictions and prejudices that had hobbled my sex since the beginning of Western civilization began to be questioned, repudiated and overturned. It happened so fast that it was easy to forget all the women who had dreamed and fought for that moment but never lived to see it. And it was easy for the next generation to grow up unaware of what happened.


I lived through what was perhaps the greatest social shift in the history of our culture. You all did, too, unless you’re young enough to have been born into a brand-new platform of gender equality that was created, really, just for you. There will never be a time more appropriate to celebrate this great fact.
Please Sign Petition Calling on Congress to Act on Stalled Legislation

National Women’s History Project
3440 Airway Dr Ste F
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
http://www.nwhp.org
(707) 636-2888

Symposium: 20th Anniversary of Office of Research on Women’s Health

Posted on by
1

x-post Women Historians of Medicine:

[My note:  To be fair, this is a scientific symposium on the future of research on women’s health, not the history of the ORWH.    As to Green’s r concerns about the Women’s Health Initiative — that was actually funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.  The Office of Research on Women’s Health held a celebratory conference on the WHI in 2006.  I imagine that Dr. Healy would mention this in her address. Also, the ORWH has sponsored many projects on a variety of women’s health issues and even women’s health history – for example, they co-funded my current project on the history of emergency contraception. Attendees would no doubt be familiar with the findings of the Women’ Health Initiative and/or Bernadine Healy would cover this in her opening address.  ]

For those unfamiliar with this office, here’s a brief institutional history.]

——

From Monica Green:

Dear WHOMers,

I just got this notice from the OSSD (Organization for the Study of Sex Differences).  This sounds like a major event but, alas, aside (perhaps) from the keynote by Bernadine Healey, there no historical perspective on how the Office of Women’s Health came to be established and how its trajectory has been set.  (Shockingly, at least from the titles, I see nothing at all about the Women’s Health Initiative and allied studies and how they blew away standard thinking on hormone replacement therapy.)

Is anybody on the list planning to go to this?  If so, might you send a brief report of the discussions to the list?

—
Monica Green
Professor of History
4th floor, Coor Hall
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ  85287-4302
Monica.green@asu.edu
https://webapp4.asu.edu/directory/person/384868

—— Forwarded Message
From: Viviana Simon <webmaster@ossdweb.org>
Reply-To: <webmaster@ossdweb.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:41:42 -0700
To: Monica Green <Monica.Green@asu.edu>
Subject: ORWH 20th Anniversary Scientific Symposium and Celebration

Dear OSSD Members,

I wanted to make you aware of the following symposium celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Office of Research on Women’s Health at the NIH. If you are in the area, you may consider attending.

Best,
Viviana

Scientific Symposium
Date: September 27, 2010
9:00 a.m.- 5:15 p.m. (Registration will open at 8:00 a.m.)

Location: Natcher Conference Center
(NIH Campus in Bethesda, MD)

On September 27, 2010, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will hold a symposium to highlight some of the scientific advances that have increased our understanding of women’s health, differences between males and females, and implications for sex/gender-appropriate clinical care and personalized medicine. At this exciting event, the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH) will launch the third scientific agenda for women’s health research for the coming decade, entitled A Vision for 2020 for Women’s Health Research: Moving Into the Future with New Dimensions and Strategies.

The daylong event, to include a reception, will provide a forum to recognize some of the major contributors to the establishment of ORWH and will celebrate progress in the field of women’s health research realized through the dedicated work of investigators, clinicians, and scientific colleagues from a wide range of disciplines and arenas-women and men. The 20th anniversary celebration will acknowledge the role of the many advocates who have worked tirelessly to energize support and set the stage for the realization of a vision-ensuring NIH-wide attention to research on women’s health issues across the lifespan and the role of sex/gender in health and disease.

This symposium is open to the public.

Agenda: http://www.orwhmeetings.com/20thAnniversary/PDFs/ORWH_20thAgenda.pdf

Why We Need Palin of Our Own

Posted on by
Reply

via- NYTimes.com, where Anna Holmes and Rebbecca Traister make a good case that while the Left has good reason to be outraged by Sarah Palin’s nonsense, they should also be critical of  “their own failings as much as Ms. Palin’s ascension. Since the 2008 election, progressive leaders have done little to address the obvious national appetite for female leadership. And despite (or because of) their continuing obsession with Ms. Palin, they have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics.”

This article has been discussed widely on other feminist blogs — I’d like to address some comments made by Amanda Marcotte at Double X:

“Liberals can’t be fed a fantasy woman because we don’t even agree on what our fantasy is. Many liberals are openly uneasy with feminism, lured by conservative arguments about how women having too much freedom would mean the end of sexual fun for men but the beginning of a sea of dishes and nagging. Many male liberals, particularly in positions of power, are openly made uncomfortable by feminist demands, even when they agree intellectually that women should have rights. (Witness the way that Democratic men in Congress erupted into childish giggling when asked by their female colleagues to listen to a presentation on the economic value of contraception subsidies.)  Even when liberal men can manage not to squirm, many still have a tendency to dismiss “women’s issues” as second-tier concerns, as if half the population were a narrow special interest group, like people who want ferret-owning to be legal in New York City.”

Uh, yes that’s exactly the problem — progressive men tend not to take women’s issues seriously and can be quite sexist when discussing women (see Melissa McEwan’s excellent coverage of sexism in the 2008 presidential campaign.  As ‘Liss likes to say, if you’re not a feminist, you’re not progressive, you’re  fauxgressive).

So, yes we need a progressive version of Palin who isn’t afraid to use the “f-word” (feminism) in public and will stand up for other women — ’cause the menz sure as hell aren’t doing it for us — see this hilarious satire from Name It, Change It:

In Your Face

Happy Women’s Equality Day

Posted on by
Reply

via Sewall-Belmont House and Museum

The 19th Amendment and the
Fight for Women’s Suffrage

On August 18, 1920, one man, Harry Burn, changed his vote in the Tennessee state legislature from a “Nay” vote to an “Aye” vote and the 19th Amendment enfranchising women was ratified by the 36th and final state. While it was one man’s vote at the urging of his mother: “don’t forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the “rat” in ratification,”  that officially secured the 19th amendment, it took years of hard work, dedication and sacrifice from a cadre of women to make the right to vote a reality. As we celebrate the 90th Anniversary of woman suffrage, we thank the men who ratified the amendment, but more importantly we pay a special tribute to the thousands of women who gave everything they had for the right to vote.

The fight for suffrage became an organized and public struggle following the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Prominent leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony began campaigning for the right to vote at state and federal levels. Years of hard work led to woman suffrage in a few states, and new leaders such as Carrie Chapman Catt and Harriet Stanton Blatch arose as the original leaders began to pass away.

In 1912 a 27 year old woman named Alice Paul journeyed to Washington to take over the Congressional campaign of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association, supposedly to perform the symbolic duty of requesting that Congress introduce the19th amendment each year, and operating on a budget of $10. By March of 1913, an elaborate march on Washington, DC, was held and suffrage started to become a national issue. Months more of campaigning led to enfranchisement in a few more states, but after several deputations to the President, regular lobbying pressure on Congress, and efforts to defeat the Democrats – the party in power – in the 1914 and 1916 elections, Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, and other leaders of the National Woman’s Party (NWP) were disappointed with the progress made on suffrage. In 1917, the NWP took the bold step of picketing the White House for the first time in the history of the nation. The pickets were ignored at first, then arrested and released, then arrested and sentenced. Sentencing of the pickets led to outrage and charges of political imprisonment. Dissatisfied with their government, the prisoners went on hunger strikes and were force fed, to the growing shock of a nation fighting a war abroad and looking for peace and democracy at home.

Agitation of Congress and the White House by more than 100 women prisoners and even more pickets along with the national press focus on the issue of suffrage finally worked in favor of women, and the 19th Amendment was sent to the states to ratify. Tennessee did become the 36th state to ratify the Amendment which was officially added to the Constitution of the United States on August 26, 1920, but the state legislature is not the hero in this story, nor is Harry Burn. The heroes of suffrage are the generations of women and girls who gave their lives, their fortunes, their time, and their hearts to the cause. On this 90th Anniversary, remember the many women who made woman suffrage a reality for American women today.

For more, check out the museum’s digital collection.