Smoking doesn’t boost breast cancer risk

A new study has suggested that there is a significant link between smoking and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, but it depends on their body weight.

A significant association between smoking and breast cancer risk was observed in non-obese women, but not in obese women.

The results from an analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative observational study were similar regardless of whether obesity was defined by body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference.

Juhua Luo, assistant professor in the department of community medicine at West Virginia University, and colleagues examined the relationship between obesity, smoking and breast cancer risk.

“We found an association between smoking and breast cancer risk among non-obese women, which is understandable because tobacco is a known carcinogen,” she said.

“However, we did not find the same association between smoking and breast cancer risk among obese women. This result was surprising.”

The study included 76,628 women aged 50 to 79 years old who had no previous history of cancer. Participants were part of the Women’s Health Initiative observational study. They were recruited between 1993 and 1998 at 40 U.S. centers and were followed until 2009.

Obesity was measured by BMI and by waist circumference, and the results were adjusted for other breast cancer risk factors.

The study results indicated that non-obese women with a BMI less than 30 who had a history of smoking had a significantly higher risk for breast cancer. Those who smoked from 10 to 29 years had a 16 per cent excess risk; those with a 30- to 49-year history of smoking had a 25 per cent excess risk; and those with 50 or more years of smoking had a 62 per cent excess risk. However, this same association was not found among women with a BMI over 30.

The researchers then examined the data according to waist circumference to determine if the type of fat distribution – general compared with abdominal obesity – affected the results. When obesity status was defined by a waist circumference greater than 88 cm, similar results were found.

Despite the study’s finding that smoking did not affect breast cancer risk among obese postmenopausal women, Luo emphasized that she does not want to give the public the wrong message. Previous research has established that obesity alone is a risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer.

“Smoking and obesity are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, both of which have substantial consequences on health,” she said.

“This is only the first study to examine the interaction between smoking, obesity and breast cancer risk. The main conclusion from this research is that more studies are needed to confirm these results,” she added.

The findings were presented at the AACR 102nd Annual Meeting 2011.

Is the NFL Bad For Women’s Health?

Just prior to the Super Bowl in 1993, a news conference was held by a coalition of women’s groups informing reporters of substantial evidence that domestic violence rose significantly (as much as 40 percent) on Super Bowl Sunday. The subsequent flurry of media attention resulted in this news becoming a “fact” (you’ll see why I have added the quotes shortly) in the psyches of professional football fans and detractors alike. It also led many people to affirm their belief, however inaccurate, that football fans were a bunch of knuckle-dragging misogynists who, out of frustration at seeing their team lose, beat their wives and girlfriends. However, several investigations reported by the urban-legend-debunking web site snopes.com demonstrated that “the claim that Super Bowl Sunday is ‘the biggest day of the year for violence against women’” was simply not true.

Now move ahead 18 years and a new scientifically rigorous study conducted by two economists offers compelling evidence that there is a significant link between the outcomes of professional football games and family violence (not the Super Bowl specifically), though only with certain game outcomes. Let me explain.

The researchers compared data compiled from the National Incident Based Reporting System of crime statistics from 750 law enforcement agencies with more than 900 NFL regular season game scores involving six teams (Carolina Panthers, Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions, Kansas City Chiefs, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans) over an 11-year period . But they went behind just wins and losses. They also looked at which team was favored, whether the opposing team was a traditional rival or in playoff contention, and whether the game was at home or away.

The results are disturbing, though not that surprising. The study reported that, in games that ended in an “upset loss” (the home team was favored to win by four or more points by the Las Vegas point spread), domestic violence spiked by ten percent. When the upset winner was a rival, domestic assault calls rose by 20 percent. These researchers are obviously real data hounds because they also reported that the rise in violence occurred when the fans’ teams were in playoff contention, were penalized significantly, and when the quarterback was sacked more than three times. Moreover, increases in reported violence occurred within a window of a few hours following the conclusion of the game.

Close games, away-game upset losses, and “upset wins” (when the home team wasn’t expected to win) didn’t have any impact on the rate of domestic violence. And there were no increases in violence by women against men.

I should note that this ten percent spike domestic violence is not nearly as high as that occurs on major holidays (New Year’s Day shows the greatest increase at 31 percent) and is about the same as occurs on hot days, another high point (or should I say low point) of family violence.

The researchers assert that emotional cues caused by the outcomes of NFL games have a significant effect on domestic violence, specifically the emotional shock and frustration that male fans experience when their team loses a game that it was expected to win. Additionally, they posit that the loss of control that occurs following their team’s unexpected loss can further trigger violent behavior. Though not addressed in the study, it’s also likely that the consumption of alcohol, a well-documented behavioral disinhibitor (sorry for the psych-speak), and the testosterone and adrenaline that often saturates the viewing environments of football games (sorry for the stereotype) may very well contribute to the increase in domestic violence.

What is particularly interesting, and perhaps controversial, is that they assert that “any difference between the rate of family violence following a win or loss as a causal effect (italics added by me) of the outcome of the game.” The researchers aren’t simply arguing that this relationship is just coincidental or correlational, rather they’re saying that the results of professional football games are the direct cause of the increase in domestic violence. They do, however, suggest that any activity that triggers strong emotional reactions, such as getting a speeding ticket, would have a similar effect. In conjunction with the theories they form the foundation of their analysis, they postulate that these scenarios increase the chances of such assaults occurring in families in which conflict is already present.

So what conclusions can we draw from this unsettling study? First, and I say this in dead seriousness, football fans need to get a grip and get a life. What causes the aforementioned emotional cues to have such a significant impact on fans is that they are so heavily invested in their teams. I studied fan violence a number of years ago and found that the line between fan and fanatic is crossed when fans “over-identify” with their teams, meaning their self-esteem becomes inextricably linked to the successes and failures of their team. Indications of this overinvestment may be in evidence when, for example, fans talk about “my” team or how “we” are doing, when their emotional reactions are out of proportion to the impact the team has on their lives, and when, I suppose, fans paint their houses the team colors.

I’m all for rooting for the home team. Following a favorite team is an exciting and bonding experience. And reveling vicariously in the team’s victories and mourning their defeats can be equally engaging. But when the line between being a fan and being a fanatic is crossed, that level of fandom strikes me as being pretty darned unhealthy. It should, at a minimum, be a sign to such fans that they may need step back, take a hard look in the mirror, and reflect on the role that watching football plays in their lives. At a maximum, these fans might consider finding fulfilling activities in which they can actually participate rather than just spectate.

Before I move on, I want to make it clear that I am not an authority on domestic violence, so the following suggestions are simply offered as common-sense steps for a very sad situation. Women whose husbands and boyfriends (or, for that matter, fathers, brothers, and uncles) are prone to violence should take this research to heart and ensure that they aren’t home for that short window of time following upset losses. It sure seems unfair that the onus has to be on the potential victims (e.g., find out who the team is playing, check the point spread, etc.) to avoid such egregious behavior; they shouldn’t have to live in fear of their significant others’ inexcusable behavior. But better control and proaction than falling victim to domestic violence.

Ob-Gyns And Midwives Seek To Improve Health Care For Women And Their Newborns

The American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) are pleased to announce the publication of a new “Joint Statement of Practice Relations between Obstetrician-Gynecologists and Certified Nurse-Midwives/Certified Midwives.” The landmark document highlights key principles to facilitate improved communication, working relationships, and seamlessness in the provision of maternity care and other vital women’s health services.

“Health care is most effective when it occurs in a system that facilitates communication across care settings and among providers,” according to the joint statement. “Ob-gyns and CNMs/CMs are experts in their respective fields of practice and are educated, trained, and licensed, independent providers who may collaborate with each other based on the needs of their patients. Quality of care is enhanced by collegial relationships characterized by mutual respect and trust, as well as professional responsibility and accountability.”

The College and ACNM affirmed their shared commitment to the following:
- Support of evidence-based practice
- Promotion of the highest standards for education, national professional certification, and recertification
- Accredited education and professional certification preceding licensure as essential to ensure skilled providers at all levels of care across the United States
- Recognition of the importance of options and preferences of women in their health care
- Ob-gyns and CNMs/CMs must have access to affordable professional liability insurance coverage, hospital privileges, equivalent reimbursement, and support services in order to establish and sustain viable practices
- Ob-gyns and CNMs/CMs must have access to a system of care that fosters collaboration among licensed, independent providers to ensure highest quality and seamless care

The joint statement is part of an ongoing ACNM and College initiative to promote collaborative practice between obstetrician-gynecologists and certified nurse-midwives and/or certified midwives. Through The College’s 2011 Issue of the Year, “Successful Models of Collaborative Practice in Maternity Care,” The College and ACNM jointly called for papers describing sustainable models of collaborative practice involving both groups, noting that, “The impending maternity care workforce crisis necessitates focusing on best practices across the United States.” More than 60 papers were submitted for consideration; winning papers will be announced at The College’s upcoming Annual Clinical Meeting, April 30-May 4, in Washington, DC, and winners will also be honored at the ACNM 56th Annual Meeting, May 24-28, in San Antonio, TX.

“CNMs and CMs and ob-gyns are with women in some of the most important moments in their lives,” said ACNM president Holly Powell Kennedy, PhD, CNM, FACNM, FAAN. “By strengthening the way our independent professions work together, we believe that we can more effectively provide the highest quality care that women expect and deserve. We anticipate that this historic document will usher in a new era of enhanced cooperation between our professions.”

“Ob-gyns working collaboratively with midwives is a way to address the gap between the supply of ob-gyns and the demand for women’s health care services,” said Richard N. Waldman, MD, FACOG, president of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “As a result, access to health care will be greatly improved.”

With roots dating to 1929, ACNM’s mission is to promote the health and well-being of women and newborns within their families and communities through the development and support of the profession of midwifery as practiced by certified nurse-midwives and certified midwives. Midwives believe every individual has the right to safe, satisfying health care with respect for human dignity and cultural variations.

Opinion: Protecting California women’s access to affordable care

March 23 marked the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In recent months, some states have become engrossed in the politics of congressional repeal efforts and the legal reasoning underlying federal judicial opinions. Meanwhile, in California, we are committed to maintaining an aggressive pace in implementing the federal health care law.
Even as there is uncertainty over the law’s implementation, by moving forward with policies that remove antiquated barriers to adequate health care coverage, California will remain well-positioned to advance long-sought goals regarding coverage expansion, affordability, and health status improvements. Although the people of California will realize the greatest benefits from the expansion and improvement of coverage beginning in 2014, several PPACA provisions have already been implemented and will provide important transitional support. Many of these early provisions particularly benefit women.

PPACA makes important advances for women’s health. The law offers many opportunities to improve access to care and coverage for California women of all ages, ranging from insurance system reforms, to lowering out-of-pocket costs, and securing comprehensive benefits packages that address women’s health needs across the course of their lives.

This landmark legislation would expand access to affordable coverage in several ways by 2014, but, if the law is repealed, California women will be further obstructed from obtaining timely, cost-effective care and preventive services. Because of challenges associated with enacting major changes to the health care system, it is shortsighted fiscal policy to curtail investment in preventive programs with long-term cost saving benefits. Furthermore, California’s rising healthcare spending has reached a tipping point. Implementing the law is a critical step towards curbing the Golden State’s skyrocketing medical costs and making health care truly accessible and affordable for the women of California.

Much of the work required to successfully implement effective strategies for promoting value in California’s health care spending requires advance planning. A prime example of a proactive solution to the financing and delivery of health care is the recent introduction of ACOG-backed legislation to ensure that women receive equitable access to comprehensive maternity health coverage in California. While PPACA mandates maternity coverage in all new policies sold to individuals as of 2014, if the law is repealed, plans will not be required to include coverage of comprehensive maternity care services. Equal access to affordable maternity coverage is vital to obtaining prenatal care, which is essential to ensuring the health of women and their pregnancies. A lack of prenatal care negatively impacts public health costs.

The implementation of PPACA is likely to stabilize and reverse California women’s growing exposure to health care costs. Even though the challenge of high health care costs is not exclusive to the Golden State, the health care needs of California’s women coupled with the state’s intricate health care landscape mandate that California continue to forge ahead with implementation.

The health care needs of women require specific attention, especially during their reproductive years, which leaves women more vulnerable to problems resulting from an inability to obtain coverage. Estimates peg the aggregate number of uninsured California women (ages 18-64) at nearly 3 million. Of these uninsured women, 92 percent are projected to qualify for federal assistance under PPACA. Despite the fact that the new law provides a major opportunity to advance a culture of coverage and improve the health of California women, successful implementation of PPACA in California will be shaped by several of the state’s distinctive features.

California is home to some of the world’s best hospitals and health care providers, but also has the largest total number of uninsured citizens – more than 7 million — of any state. California’s large size means that health care is organized, delivered, and financed differently throughout the state. Barriers to timely, cost-effective care present an enormous challenge to the state, particularly among California’s less populated and underserved regions. Even where health care services are readily accessible, financial barriers may delay or prevent low-income California women from receiving timely, cost-effective care.

In a state as complex as most countries, California’s aggressive push forward is necessary to take full advantage of opportunities to improve state health care programs vital to women’s health and to obtain federal funds to help carry out the numerous PPACA provisions that will benefit millions of California women. The imperative to move forward comes at a time of continued state fiscal distress and state and federal political transition. The California Legislature is in the process of implementing tough budget cuts – further decreases in federal health care funding would truly be catastrophic to California’s women.

If California is successful in its implementation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act holds the potential to transform access to comprehensive, quality reproductive health care and accomplish other reforms that will strengthen the state’s existing health care system’s ability to serve millions of women.

Pence: De-Funding Planned Parenthood Won’t Hurt Women’s Health

Congressman Mike Pence, who is heading up the effort in the House to revoke taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abrotion business says nothing in his amendment will hurt efforts to promote women’s health.

Pence, in a new opinion column at National Review Online, says the notion that women would be unable to have access to low-cost breast canccer screenings or other medical care and treatment is phony.

On Feb. 18, 2011, with bipartisan support, the House of Representatives passed the Pence Amendment, which would end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. In response, Planned Parenthood used its vast resources to launch slick Madison Avenue television ads portraying the group — the nation’s largest abortion provider — as an altruistic organization that provides health-care services to the poor and has only an incidental interest in abortion.

Despite efforts to suggest otherwise, the Pence Amendment does not reduce funding for cancer screenings or eliminate one dime of funding for other important health services to women; the money that does not go to Planned Parenthood as a result of the Pence Amendment will go to other organizations that provide these services. If the Pence Amendment becomes law, thousands of women’s health centers, clinics, and hospitals will still provide assistance to low-income families and women. The Pence Amendment would simply deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood clinics focus mainly on abortion — and because money is fungible, there is no way to fund the useful services without freeing up money for the organization to spend on abortion. In 2009, the group made only 977 adoption referrals and cared for only 7,021 prenatal clients, but performed a record 332,278 abortions. In other words, a pregnant woman entering a Planned Parenthood clinic was 42 times more likely to have an abortion than to either receive prenatal care or be referred for adoption. Planned Parenthood recently made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission by mandating that every one of its affiliates have at least one clinic that performs abortions within the next two years.

Advocates for the abortion industry have sought to portray efforts to defund Planned Parenthood as a “War on Women,” but the issue is big business, and that business is abortion. This legislative battle is about Big Abortion vs. American taxpayers. As Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, recently said, “Planned Parenthood’s mission, on paper, is to give women quality and affordable health care and to protect women’s rights. In reality, their mission is to increase their abortion numbers and in turn increase their revenue.”

According to its most recent annual report, the organization raked in $1.1 billion in total revenue. Of that amount, $363.2 million came from taxpayers in the form of government grants and contracts. While current law prohibits Planned Parenthood from directly using tax dollars on abortions, taxpayers subsidize its overall operation, freeing up funds that can be diverted to direct spending on abortion.

And Big Abortion routinely puts profits over women’s health and safety. When women testify in favor of tightening safety standards at clinics, Planned Parenthood fights them. And despite the fact that 88 percent of Americans favor informed-consent laws that provide information about the risks of, and alternatives to, abortion for women, Planned Parenthood opposes these efforts and works to keep women in the dark. And tragically, in some instances, Planned Parenthood has refused to cooperate when law-enforcement officials have sought information to help girls they believed to be victims of child rape or molestation.

Society needs to prepare now for ageing

A ground-breaking report released today highlights the wide range of health care needs affecting older women.

It warns that individuals, communities and health care systems need to be prepared for major health and social changes associated with ageing.

The Women, Health and Ageing report, from the internationally-renowned Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH), also highlights the increasing levels of serious health risks, illness and disability among future generations.

The joint University of Newcastle and University of Queensland study has repeatedly surveyed more than 40,000 women since 1996, and the current report focuses on changes in the health of women born between 1921 and 1926.

Significant findings of the study were:
• Most older women in the study were living with multiple conditions and increasing levels of disability
• Arthritis is a particularly common condition affecting most women in the study, leading to poor quality of life, pain, physical and social limitations and increased health care use
• Women with stroke or cancer have highest use of health care services and had a particularly poor quality of life
• Conditions such as diabetes could be better managed in accordance with current guidelines
• Some surgical interventions may have a profound effect on women’s continued well-being.

UQ’s Professor Annette Dobson said although extrapolation from one age group to the next was difficult, the situation may be substantially worse when today’s young women age, mostly because of the growing problem of obesity and higher uptake of smoking.

Professor Julie Byles, from the University of Newcastle, warned older women should not be treated as one homogenous group.

“While physical abilities have declined for many women in the study, large numbers continued to maintain quite high levels of good health. Likewise, even though women were ageing and had increasing levels of disability and needs for care, many were still providing care for others and making major contributions to their communities.

“Ageing well needs healthy inputs throughout life and requires starting early. The study findings also show clear trends according to women’s education levels, body weight, and past and current smoking.”

The study confirms from a long-term perspective, lifetime maintenance of low risk behaviours is the best prospect for reducing the impact of chronic conditions and associated health care costs.

The Women, Health and Ageing report was released at the Australian Association of Gerontology NSW Rural Conference at Cessnock today.

The study is funded by the Department of Health and Ageing and is available online.

The ALSWH is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Health and Ageing.

Researchers based in Newcastle work in collaboration with HMRI – a partnership between Hunter New England Health, the University of Newcastle and the community.

Millions of Women Could Lose Insurance Coverage for Abortion

Amid celebrations marking the first anniversary of the health care law, there is serious concern about the future of insurance coverage for abortion for millions of women. As a direct result of the Affordable Care Act, an unprecedented drive to ban insurance coverage of abortion is sweeping across the country. This is a coordinated, opportunistic attack that is blind to women’s real lives and unjust to women’s real needs. If it succeeds, the damage to women’s health care may well exceed that of individual state laws such as mandatory counseling and sonograms, forced delays, and bans on specific procedures.

Few people are aware of how devastating this attack is, which is why education and advocacy are the main thrust of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice’s national campaign, Insure Women, Ensure Our Future (http://rcrc.org/InsureWomen/index.html). Essentially it involves the insurance exchanges being set up by states, the marketplaces where millions of people will get and purchase insurance starting in 2014. Medicaid recipients will get insurance there, but so will people who pay for insurance and get insurance through their employer. After the health care law was signed, five states almost immediately passed bills to prohibit insurance plans on the exchanges from covering abortion except in dire circumstances such as to save the woman’s life. Now, a year later, 22 more states are considering similar bills. Nearly half of those are also considering making it illegal for all private plans to cover abortion.

Along with low-income women who receive Medicaid, an estimated 14.5 million women who are insured by their mid-sized and large employers would be affected by these restrictions, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute. In addition, anti-choice Republicans have passed two bills to restrict coverage — HR 3 (the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”) and HR 358 (the “Protect Life Act”). While these may not make it out of the Senate, they pose another threat.

Contrast that to the fact that about 80 percent of private plans now cover pregnancy termination and the impact becomes clearer.

The challenge now is to educate policymakers and voters about the extreme nature of these restrictions and stop these bans. This a pro-choice country at heart — some people may have reservations about abortion but they are firmly and consistently in favor of options that include family planning, contraception, and sexuality education and in favor of women making decisions with dignity and minimal governmental interference. One in three women will have an abortion procedure at some time in her life. Millions of women should not be penalized because some don’t approve of this procedure.

Insurance coverage for pregnancy termination has had a low profile until now because it was not threatened. Now that it is, it is critical to understand that insurance helps guarantee access to needed reproductive health care services. It is also critical to make it clear that there are already ample safeguards against taxpayer money being used for abortion except in limited, dire circumstances; that is a red herring, a tactic to divert attention from the real goal of further restricting access to a procedure that is an integral part of women’s reproductive health care.

Progress in expanding health care coverage to millions of Americans and doing away with injustices in the system is long overdue and should be celebrated. But victory at the expense of women’s comprehensive reproductive health care is no victory at all.

VA Governor Signs Bill to Restrict Abortion Clinics

Republican Governor Bob McDonnell signed a bill requiring that clinics that perform first trimester abortions meet the Board of Health regulations on hospitals, which are far more stringent than the regulations on physician’s offices. The Virginia Senate and House voted to pass the bill in February.

Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, stated, “This is a distressing day for the women of Virginia and their access to safe, affordable reproductive health care in the Commonwealth. Through a legally questionable and ethically indefensible political gimmick, Gov. McDonnell has pushed through legislation that may result in politically motivated regulations of first trimester abortion providers that have nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with the legislature and governor’s personal ideology.”

The new regulations may cause as many as 17 of the state’s 21 women’s health clinics that perform abortions and provide necessary women’s reproductive health services, such as STI testing, cancer screenings, and family planning, to shut down as a result of the cost to implement the required changes. These regulations will significantly and unnecessarily increase the cost of early abortions and will make it more difficult to get an abortion in Virginia. Reproductive rights groups, including the Feminist Majority, the National Organization for Women, and the American Civil Liberties Union oppose the law, which restricts women’s access to reproductive health services.

GOP turning off women voters

The Republican zeal for budget-cutting is masking a particularly insidious aspect of their zealotry, unrelated to deficit reduction — the GOP has declared war on women’s health, and heaven only knows why.

Overwhelming majorities of both women and men oppose these cuts, which will mean fewer cancer screenings, more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions while increasing government spending — hardly outcomes Republicans, or anyone else, really want to embrace. But the extreme, and now-dominant, wing of the GOP says it will brook no compromise.

House Republicans began by trying to defund Planned Parenthood, which is in fact a pretty popular organization. Despite being the subject of a dishonest demonization campaign, nearly 60 percent of voters view Planned Parenthood favorably, while only about a quarter harbor unfavorable views of the organization. It’s a strong brand — a lot more popular than, say, the Republican Party, which is viewed unfavorably by more voters than see it in a favorable light.

Planned Parenthood is well-regarded because it plays a vital role in delivering healthcare — over 90 percent of which is preventive. About a quarter of female voters have sought care at a Planned Parenthood health center.

Not content to stop with pillaging Planned Parenthood, Republicans voted to completely wipe out funding for family planning through Title X, zeroing out funds that provide 5 million women with pap smears, breast cancer tests, annual exams and treatment for STDs.

What happens if GOP extremists halt those cancer screenings, stop prevention of STDs and end affordable contraception? Republicans can’t believe defunding Planned Parenthood or Title X will put an end to cancer, or even to sex — it won’t. So the result will be more undetected cancers and more STDs, but also more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions.

Together, Title X and Planned Parenthood help prevent 1 million unwanted pregnancies a year, most of which would end in abortion. The social costs of the unwanted pregnancies carried to term would be enormous. The financial costs are clear. One study found that each dollar invested in family planning saves $3.74 in Medicaid costs later.

The choice is clear: Pay for family planning now, or pay much more later.

And since federal dollars cannot pay for abortions under current law, not one abortion would be stopped by defunding Planned Parenthood. But how much would the government save? Not a dime. In fact, switching all of Planned Parenthood’s clients to another provider would add nearly $300 million to the federal budget because Planned Parenthood is by far the most cost-effective in delivering those services.

If Republicans are increasing government spending and endangering women’s health, they must spy a political payoff, right? Quite the contrary — two different polls find majorities opposed to eliminating government funding for Planned Parenthood.
Viagra super active
National polling indicates some 70 percent of voters oppose ending family planning assistance more broadly. In Wisconsin, a survey we conducted found voters opposing an end to government funding for family planning by 65 percent to 28. Why? Because 38 percent believe it is at least very likely more women will die of cancer as a result. Because 43 percent believe it is at least very likely that there will be more unplanned pregnancies. Because 46 percent believe it is at least very likely that healthcare costs for the rest of us will increase. Because 56 percent believe it is at least very likely that fewer women will have access to preventive healthcare.

The Republican war on women’s health will increase, not reduce, government spending, while putting lives at risk.

President Clinton once famously opined that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” The Republican’s war on women’s health will make abortion unsafe, illegal and more common.

It’s time for thoughtful GOPers to call a truce before they do irreparable harm to women’s health and to themselves.

Attack on Planned Parenthood threatens women’s health

With deficit reduction as a pretext and abortion scapegoating as a goal, the U.S. House of Representatives wants to end funding for the nation’s family-planning program, Title X. A House-approved bill would prevent Planned Parenthood from getting money from any federal program, including Medicaid.

If this measure is enacted, it will have a devastating impact on women in the Toledo area. Planned Parenthood of Northwest Ohio is this area’s largest provider of reproductive health care for low- and moderate-income women. All of our services are preventive.

In our 11-county service area last year, we saw more than 5,000 patients who made over 10,000 visits. They got breast and annual examinations, life-saving cancer screenings, family-planning services, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

The Title X program paid for nearly 7,000 low- and no-cost gynecological visits in our service region in 2010. Since its creation in 1970 during the Nixon administration, Title X has provided preventive health care to millions of vulnerable women. Each year, Title X prevents nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies and more than 400,000 abortions nationwide.

Sixty percent of women who go to Planned Parenthood and similar health centers report that this is their only source of health care, of any kind. Gutting Planned Parenthood will force more women to go untested and untreated. This will increase their risk of diseases, including cancer.

Nationally, Planned Parenthood has provided medical care and family planning services to women for 95 years. We’ve been in northwest Ohio for 75 years. One in five American women gets care from Planned Parenthood during her lifetime. We are an essential health-care provider, trusted by millions of women and families.

The women who use Title X services are those who need health care the most but cannot afford it. They have been hit hard by the housing crisis and recession. They are in crisis or living in poverty.

They are in transition between school and work, or between jobs. Or they have a job, but not insurance coverage.

I see these women every day; so do you. They are your relatives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Maybe you are one of them. Title X services provide a vital safety net for thousands of women in our community.

It’s hard to understand why opponents of abortion would do so much to undermine a program that helps prevent the need for it. Planned Parenthood does more than any other organization to provide family-planning education and services, including contraception, to avoid unintended pregnancy.

Family planning programs save taxpayers money. According to the Guttmacher Institute, every public dollar that is invested in family planning in Ohio saves taxpayers at least $4.13 in Medicaid costs associated with prenatal care, delivery, and postnatal care for an unintended pregnancy.

Cutting off funding for Title X will do nothing to reduce the federal deficit or improve the economy. To the contrary, health professionals will lose their jobs and women will lose vital services.

Tellingly, House leaders have not explained how the millions of American women served by Title X at Planned Parenthood and other centers will get the health care they need if this dangerous provision becomes law.

The House bill is bad policy, bad politics, and bad medicine for the health of America’s women and families. If it becomes law, 5 million American women will lose their only source of health care. Among them are 3 million women who come to Planned Parenthood, including nearly 100,000 Ohio women who visit our 35 centers around the state.

Senators of both parties must continue to reject this extreme and punitive legislation that harms women and families.

Top Five Ways Health Reform Is Helping Women and Their Families

March 23 marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and on March 24 advocates are celebrating the health care reform law’s advantages for women.

This past year, however, many of the law’s improvements in insurance coverage were overshadowed by attacks on the Affordable Care Act and on women’s reproductive health care coverage. The criticisms have left many women confused about what health reform means for them. Simply put, the law is working for women, our families, and our communities. But, the fight for women’s access to comprehensive reproductive health care in health reform is ongoing, and there are other important issues that still need our voices.

We hope to clear up the confusion by explaining the top five ways the Affordable Care Act is already helping women. This list is followed by three important issues that need attention as we move forward with implementing the law.
Top five ways health reform is helping women
Stopping the worst practices of the insurance industry

Insurance companies are prohibited from canceling the policies of people who get sick. Rescission, or the practice of dropping coverage when people develop illnesses, is now prohibited. That means women who develop heart disease or other serious illnesses are protected from losing their coverage at a time when they need health care the most. Insurers also can’t cancel a policy because someone makes an unintentional mistake on his or her paperwork. The only way a policy can be canceled now is if the insurance company can prove intentional fraud.

Insurance companies can no longer set lifetime limits or “unreasonable” annual limits on the amount of medical care they will cover under existing policies. The Affordable Care Act prevents insurance companies from setting lifetime limits on the dollar amount of health care they will cover and then ending coverage when someone hits that limit. These limits left women facing treatment for serious illnesses, such as ovarian cancer, with the added burden of major medical debt from paying the cost of treatment beyond the insurer’s limits.

Insurers must spend more of the money they collect on your medical care and less on CEO salaries, marketing, and overhead. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to send consumers rebates if they don’t spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of the premium dollars they collect for policies on providing medical care. This went into effect on January 1, 2011, and the rebates will begin in 2012. The law also requires insurance companies to make information about how they spend premiums available to the public. This will make it easier for women shopping for health insurance for their families to choose the plan with the best value.
Keeping kids and young adults covered

The Affordable Care Act allows young adults to stay on their family policies until their 26th birthday. Young adults who cannot get insurance through an employer are eligible to stay on family policies even if they are no longer students, no longer live at home, are financially independent, or are married (though their spouse cannot be covered). This provision is especially important for young women who need affordable coverage for contraception, maternity care, abortions, and screening for or treatment of sexually transmitted infections, or STIs.

Children with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. Employer-based health plans and new individual plans are no longer allowed to deny or exclude coverage for children who are under age 19 and have a pre-existing condition and/or a disability.
Focusing on prevention

All new insurance plans are required to cover preventive health care without any cost-sharing such as co-payments or deductibles. The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a list of covered preventive services including many important services for women, such as cervical cancer screenings, mammograms, and STI screenings.

Medicare now provides better access to primary and preventive care. Older women enrolled in Medicare can now get many preventive health services—such as vaccinations, colorectal cancer screenings, and mammograms—without paying charges such as co-payments or deductibles. They also can get a free annual wellness exam where their health provider will help them create a personalized prevention plan.
Keeping health care affordable

Adults with pre-existing conditions have new, more affordable coverage options through “high-risk” pools. HHS has worked with individual states to establish temporary high-risk pools, known as pre-existing condition insurance plans, or PCIPs, that provide health coverage to people who have been uninsured for at least six months, have been unable to get health coverage because of a health condition, and are U.S. citizens or are residing in the United States legally. Women face higher rates of chronic conditions and are more likely to be uninsured and underinsured than men. Access to PCIPs is thus very important for women. Unfortunately these plans do not include abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman’s life, even though women in PCIPs are more likely to need an abortion for health reasons.

The Medicare “donut hole” is being phased out. Women with high prescription drug expenses who are on Medicare Part D are getting discounts and rebates to decrease how much they have to pay out-of-pocket for previously unreimbursed drug expenses.
Helping small businesses do the right thing

Small employers with low-wage workers (under $50,000) are eligible for tax credits to help them buy health coverage for employees. If an employer has fewer than 25 employees it may qualify for a tax credit of up to 35 percent for small businesses and up to 25 percent for nonprofits to help with the costs of providing employee health insurance. This provision is especially important for women, many of whom work for small businesses or nonprofits.
Three areas in health reform that need attention

Despite these advances work remains to be done to make sure that health reform’s promise is realized for women, our families, and our communities. There are three important issues on which advocates and legislators need to work together as we move forward with implementation of the law at both the federal and state levels.
Contraception should be categorized as preventive care. The government is still deciding whether contraception will be included in the list of preventive care that will be available without cost-sharing. Ensuring that every woman has access to the contraceptive method that works best for her is crucial to reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and keeping women and children healthy.
Abortion should be included in health insurance plans without legal or administrative hurdles. Denying access to abortion coverage in health insurance affects women’s health and restricts their ability to plan and raise healthy families. Yet the Affordable Care Act imposes special rules on the purchase of plans that include abortion coverage. And many states have already moved to ban abortion coverage in private insurance policies to be sold in their insurance exchanges. These policies unfairly target women who receive federal subsidies for their health care and prevent them from having access to safe abortion care.
Immigrants should benefit from health reform. Immigrants—specifically undocumented immigrants, including women of reproductive health age—have been excluded from health reform. They are not eligible for Medicaid or federal subsidies to help them buy insurance, and they are even prohibited from using their own money to buy health insurance through the exchanges. Community health centers, where many low-income women and undocumented immigrant women receive primary and reproductive health care, were slated to receive $11 billion in new funding through the Affordable Care Act. But that funding has come under attack.

The Affordable Care Act’s many benefits are undeniable. But so are the upcoming challenges to make sure that health reform fulfills its promise to women. We must continue to raise our voices and take action in the next months and years to ensure that the health care needs of our families and communities are met.

Women’s lives matter

Last month, the U.S. House launched the most devastating legislative attack on women’s health care in American history. Under the guise of “deficit reduction,” the House voted to eliminate the national family-planning program (known as Title X) and to deny Planned Parenthood the federal funds it receives to provide affordable cancer screenings, birth control, HIV testing and counseling and sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment. Simply put, this dangerous ideological assault will cut off health care to millions of women who need it the most.

These measures must now be stopped in the Senate.

Title X is a popular and effective program that prevents unintended pregnancy and provides essential health services. Millions of women across the country are poised to lose access to basic primary and preventive health care, such as lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception, HIV testing and counseling and annual exams. Sixty percent of the women who are cared for by Planned Parenthood and similar health centers report that these centers are their only source of health care.

Gutting this program means that more women will go untreated and will discover too late that they have cancer.

North Carolina is home to nine Planned Parenthood health centers that provide services to more than 25,000 men and women every year. Most of those patients are uninsured or underinsured. More than 90 percent of the care Planned Parenthood health centers offer is preventive. Last year in North Carolina, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses carried out 11,427 lifesaving screenings for breast and cervical cancer. They also dispensed more than 60,000 contraceptives and provided testing and treatment for more than 18,000 sexually transmitted infections.

When our nation is facing an unprecedented economic crisis, fiscal discipline and deficit reduction should be a priority. And family-planning programs like Title X save money. For every public dollar invested in family planning, taxpayers save nearly $4. Yet, in their ideological zeal to attack women’s health, the House leadership showed they do not care about the fiscal facts.

Now two new recent public polls show majority support for Planned Parenthood and clear opposition to efforts to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds for preventive health care such as lifesaving cancer screenings, breast exams, birth control and STD testing and treatment, including HIV testing.

A Quinnipiac University poll released March 7 found that a majority of voters (53 percent) opposed “cutting off federal government funding to Planned Parenthood.” The margin was 53 percent to 43 percent.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll also released March 7 found that 53 percent of Americans found it “mostly or totally unacceptable” to “eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services.”
Among women overall, 56 percent found it “mostly or totally unacceptable” to “eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services.”

Among women aged 18-49, 60 percent found it “mostly or totally unacceptable” to “eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services.”

Americans, especially women, have risen to Planned Parenthood’s defense in an incredible and overwhelming way.

The extreme proposals from the House are bad policy, bad politics and bad for the health of women. That’s why we urge Sen. Richard Burr to join Sen. Kay Hagan to reaffirm mainstream values and reject this dangerous assault on women’s health.

Breast cancer stress link misleading

Women with breast cancer often blame stress for their illness despite no scientific proof of a link.

And while many point to stress they also commonly overlook other lifestyle-related issues – such as smoking and obesity – where there is a clear link to the cancer.

These are the key findings of research which took in the views of almost 1500 Australian breast cancer survivors.

It found just over four in 10 (43.5 per cent) believed there was a factor which contributed to their cancer and, among these women, more than half (58.1 per cent) blamed stress.

The women also pointed to previous use of hormone therapy (17 per cent) and a family history of cancer (9.8 per cent).

Two per cent attributed their cancer to other lifestyle factors.

“It is concerning that only two per cent of the women in the study attributed their breast cancer to lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise and alcohol consumption,” said Dr Christine Bennett, chair of the Bupa Health Foundation Steering Committee which part-funded the study.

“… There is scientific evidence that being overweight, smoking and excessive alcohol are risk factors.”

Women aged under 40 were more likely to believe there was a reason for their breast cancer.

Dr Bennett said that while the exact causes of breast cancer were unknown, studies into the effect of stress on the body and looking for potential triggers of breast cancer had did not reveal a link.

And despite commonly-held views to the contrary, there was “no scientific evidence that points to stress as a cause of breast cancer”.

The Bupa Health Foundation and Well-Being after Breast Cancer Study and was led by Professor Robin Bell, Deputy Director of the Women’s Health Research Program at Monash University and Alfred Hospital.

Professor Bell said it showed women often responded to a breast cancer diagnosis with a new resolve to improve their overall health, usually through improved exercise.

This was beneficial, she said, although women should be wary of making changes which could be counter-productive in the fight against cancer – such as removing all dairy products from the diet.

“Cutting out dairy products may remove some fat from the diet but it could have a negative effect on the bone health of women who, due to some cancer treatments, are already at risk of osteoporosis,” Professor Bell said.

Of those who blamed stress, Professor Bell said, the women could also feel a sense of mistaken guilt that they should have acted sooner.

The fight for women’s health

On January 7, 2011, Rep. Mike Pence re-introduced an amendment to Title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being given to clinics that perform abortions.

While currently in the first step of the legislative process, if this bill were to pass millions of women across America would be significantly effected.

While on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Pence said, “let us rededicate ourselves to protecting the unborn and to protecting taxpayers on matters of conscience.”

If Pence really wants to protect taxpayers, it is a matter of conscience to kill this bill, support Title X, and support women across America.

According to Planned Parenthood’s website, “Title X serves over five million low-income individuals every year.” This could include many students on our campus.

Last Tuesday, many people came out to Erie, not just to support, but to denounce Planned Parenthood as well.

In an article written by David Bruce, former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave was reported saying at the rally, “Planned Parenthood is all about abortion. We, as taxpayers, should not fund these activities.”

By law, family planning clinics under Title X can not use grant money toward abortion.

Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, it does and should not matter that these clinics offer abortions as an option to an unplanned pregnancy.

What Planned Parenthood is really all about, is providing women with contraception, STD testing, treatment for STDs, annual exams, and cancer screenings that have and can save the lives of many women.

This is not another argument about whether abortion is moral or not. This is a battle over women’s health and the lives of millions. We must stand up.

‘Deficit gurus’ launch assault on women’s health

March is Women’s History Month. But this year, for the vast majority of women in America, there is little to celebrate.

Over the past months, “deficit gurus” in the U.S. House of Representatives have unleashed the most devastating assault on women’s health in our nation’s history. If legislation already passed in the House is approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama, women’s rights and health will be set back by decades.

Many critical programs are on the chopping block, such as the Public Health Service Act or Title X, providing basic health services, including Pap smears, family planning services, and cancer screenings to more than 5 million low-income people, mainly women.

Slashing Title X will lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths. Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, chiefly benefitting poor women and children, will be cut by $210 million. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be reduced by some $755 million, undermining many public health efforts such as confronting HIV/AIDS. Community health centers providing essential services to millions of women and families across the country will face a brutal $1.3 billion cut.

This onslaught against women joins that against U.S. working people. Look, for example, at the assault on Medicaid, or the drive to cut wages, benefits and collective bargaining rights. Wisconsin is only the most flagrant example of a nationwide phenomenon.

Or consider the chorus that, both from the right and from sectors of the “liberal” left, is calling for “saving” Social Security by reducing benefits, increasing eligibility age or privatizing the program. Yet Social Security is financially sound for at least another 27 years. Whatever problems it may have could be easily fixed by simply raising the cap on the taxable income of the very wealthy. And Medicare and other publicly financed health care programs, favorite targets of the budget cutters, pose a problem only because the U.S. health care system, pre- and post- the federal health law, is built upon a rotten foundation: for-profit health insurance.

Despite subtle differences, both sides of the political aisle convey the same message: “We” must pay for “our excesses” that caused “the deficit” by giving up on our “generous benefits.”

Notably, Wall Street excesses figure nowhere in these arguments, even if its benefits are clear. As President Obama noted candidly in his State of the Union address, “the stock market has come roaring back and corporate profits are up.”

Meanwhile, our “benefits” don’t even include guaranteed access to basic health care, as is the norm in every other wealthy nation. The new federal law has “reformed” the system essentially by mandating us to purchase for-profit insurance increasingly under-insurance under penalty of a fine, and expanding coverage, not necessarily care, through an underfunded Medicaid program. Finally, it leaves at least 23 million people uninsured annually a decade from now.

If this scenario is allowed to stand, women will suffer disproportionately. But in the spirit of International Women’s Day, women’s groups and others are fighting back, and championing the most just and cost-effective solution to our health care woes — single-payer national health insurance, an improved Medicare for All.

As we commemorate those 15,000 brave women who back in 1908 marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights, American women and working Americans generally must demand no less.

Wisconsin Hits Labor, Repro Rights in Single Blow

Wisconsin’s passage last week of a law stripping public workers of their bargaining rights is another major attack on reproductive rights and women’s health care access, say family-planning advocates.

“This law has undone four decades of progress in Wisconsin to ensure women’s reproductive health,” said Amanda Harrington, spokesperson of the Madison-based Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, in a telephone interview. “It has turned Wisconsin into ground zero in the national movement to make it more difficult for women to obtain and pay for birth control, breast cancer screenings and tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.”

Harrington’s organization serves over 73,000 patients in its 27 health centers each year.

Public workers’ unions and their allies have been battling Gov. Scott Walker in three weeks of energetic protests that attracted tens of thousands of demonstrators to Madison.

The unions initially resisted Walker’s demand that workers pay more towards their pensions and health benefits, but then in February agreed to pay 5.8 percent of their wages for pensions and 12.6 percent for health benefits, a combination that is equivalent to an 8 percent pay cut for the average worker who earns $48,348.

That shifted the battle to collective bargaining rights, which unions in the past have used to insist, for instance, that their health plans cover women’s contraceptives. That in turn helped shift private insurance plans in the same direction.

“Increasing the cost of health care benefits from 6 percent to 12 percent of wages hits women hard because they generally earn less than do men,” said Harrington. “This is bad enough, but the measure signed by Gov. Walker gives unprecedented powers to the state health department to revamp public health programs without the traditional protections of oversight by the legislature and input from the public.”
Most Bargaining Rights Gone

Most of the 175,000 state and local workers in Wisconsin–including the female-dominated ranks of nurses and teachers–will be prohibited from bargaining for wages beyond the rate of inflation, unless approved by a referendum.

Male-dominated unions of firefighters and police who are part of that total are exempt, because Walker said he could not risk disruptions in public safety if these unions staged strikes.

Walker, who introduced many anti-choice bills during his nearly nine years in the Wisconsin assembly, has launched an anti-birth control agenda, according to Lisa Subeck, executive director of the Madison-based NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin, the political watchdog of the pro-choice movement.

Subeck said that Walker has an eye on repealing Wisconsin’s Contraceptive Equity Law, which requires insurance plans that cover prescription drugs to also include coverage for prescription birth control.

Initially proposed in 1999, the law has a rocky history; anti-choice activists and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison helped defeat it each time it was introduced. But family planning and public health groups finally got the legislature to pass the measure in 2009. It was included in the budget measure signed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2009 and took effect Jan. 1, 2010. Besides Wisconsin, 25 other states have contraceptive equity laws.

“Under Walker’s plan, insurance companies could choose to cover Viagra but not prescription birth control, which would allow insurers to discriminate against women,” Subeck said in a press release. “Although Walker claims the elimination of family planning services is a cost-saving measure, it isn’t. A 2008 Guttmacher Institute study found that every $1 spent on birth control through the Medicaid program saves taxpayers $4.02.”

Walker also wants to eliminate Title V, the only state-funded family planning health care program, Subeck said.

Less weight gain found among African-American women in dense urban areas

Researchers from Boston University School of Medicine’s (BUSM) Slone Epidemiology Center have found that African-American women who live in more densely populated urban areas gain less weight than those in more sprawling auto-oriented areas. The results, which appear in the current issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, were based on data collected in the Black Women’s Health Study, an ongoing study of the health of 59,000 African American women conducted by the researchers since 1995. While studies conducted at a single point in time have found higher levels of obesity among residents of sprawling areas compared to residents of more urban areas, there has been little information on this topic from studies that have followed residents over time.

The researchers assessed the association of women’s residential environments with weight change and the incidence of obesity during a six year period of follow-up in the Black Women’s Health Study. They focused on nearly 18,000 women who lived in the New York, Chicago or Los Angeles metropolitan areas. The women’s residential neighborhoods were characterized by an “urbanicity score”— considered dense urban neighborhoods.

They found that both six year weight gain and the incidence of obesity were lower among women who had high urbanicity scores as compared to those with low scores. Women who lived in suburban or rural neighborhoods were considered to have low urbanicity scores.

According to the researchers, a previous study of these women, found those who lived in denser neighborhoods walked more than women in more sprawling areas. “Policies that encourage more dense and urban residential development may have a positive role to play in addressing the obesity epidemic,” said lead author Patricia Coogan, MPH, D Sc, a senior epidemiologist at the Slone Center and an associate professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health.

Protecting women from HIV

Swaziland joined the world this past week in the celebration of Women’s Day. The role women play in home and society was recognised.
Often the commemoration emphasised the economic empowerment of women and how this improves the fortunes of family and nation. This is a good and appropriate approach, but in order for the social emancipation and economic empowerment of women to be realised, it is necessary for women to stay health by amongst other things sidestepping the AIDS epidemic. Online pharmacy viagra – cheap viagra professional 100mg.
In the spirit of this notion – that protection of women against HIV should be at the forefront of our thinking – a list of five ways this can be accomplished was distributed this week to health NGOs worldwide. Here they are:
ONE: An educated girl and woman is less likely to be infected with HIV.
According to UNAIDS, illiterate women are four times more likely to believe there is no way to prevent HIV infection, while in Africa and Latin America, girls with higher levels of education tend to delay first sexual experience and are more likely to insist their partner use a condom.
Educating girls has the added advantage of delaying their marriage and increasing their earning ability, both of which reduce their vulnerability to HIV.
Educated women are also more likely to access health services for themselves and their children, and to oppose negative cultural practices that can compromise their health.
TWO: A clinic nearby is a life saver.
In many developing countries, women have very limited access to vital reproductive health services. A combination of biological and social factors means women are more vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which, if left untreated, increase their vulnerability to HIV. Women living in humanitarian crises are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence and require services such as free, easily available condoms and safe blood for transfusions.
Improving access to reproductive health services enables women to make informed choices in determining family size and preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission.
THREE: Ending violence against women and girls is essential.
Throughout the world, one in three women has been beaten, experienced sexual violence or otherwise been abused in their lifetime, according to the UN. One in five will be a victim of rape or attempted rape.
More often than not, the perpetrators are known to the women.
Practices such as early marriage and human trafficking all increase women’s vulnerability to HIV, but more accepted forms of violence, such as marital rape, also play a large part in increasing women’s HIV risk.
According to UNAIDS, investment in HIV programming policies and addressing gender inequality and gender-based violence will help to achieve universal targets of HIV prevention, treatment and care.
FOUR: The economic empowerment of women boosts their health.
In his book, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, Richard Robbins states that women do two-thirds of the world’s work but receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own just own own percent of the means of production.
Poverty prevents poor women from controlling when sexual intercourse takes place and if a condom is used, and often forces women into risky transactional sex to feed themselves and their families.
According to a study conducted last year on the subject, empowerment activities such as micro-finance give women access to and control over vital economic resources, ultimately enhancing their ability not only to mitigate the impact of HIV, but also to be less vulnerable to HIV.
FIVE: Men’s concern with women’s health is beneficial.
Men cannot be bystanders when it comes to the health of their wives, daughters and female family members.
They must get involved. More often than not, men control the dynamics of how, when and where sex happens. Encouraging more men to use condoms consistently has the knock-on effect of protecting their sexual partners from unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
By looking after their own health, men can boost the health of their wives. Men are less likely than women to seek health services; in the case of men involved with multiple women, this means that sexually-transmitted infections remain untreated for long periods while their female partners are also at risk of infection.
Teaching boys and young men to respect women, to be more involved in family activities and to avoid negative behaviour such as gender violence and alcohol abuse helps groom a generation of men who are less likely to take risks that endanger themselves and their families.

Defunding measure would harm women’s health

As a member of the clergy, a board member of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, and a member of the national Clergy Advisory Board to Planned Parenthood Federation of American, I am deeply distressed by a recent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and the proposed bills in our own Indiana legislature attacking Planned Parenthood and the vital medical services this organization provides.

House approval of Indiana Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to eliminate all funding from Planned Parenthood would have a devastating impact on the health centers that provide preventive care like family planning, annual exams, cancer screenings, contraception and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases. His amendment would foist terrible hardship on people already in great need, leaving women without access to family planning services, Pap tests, and cervical cancer screenings.

Jewish tradition is emphatic about the importance of providing health care for its most vulnerable residents. Supporting Planned Parenthood in its efforts to reach millions of underserved men and women honors our religious precepts.

One in five American women has received care from Planned Parenthood during her lifetime, and last year 3 million patients came to one of its more than 800 health centers. It is difficult to understand why members of the House who say they are opposed to abortion would do so much to undermine the family planning and contraception that prevents it.

Fish, omega 3 reduce eye disease risk

Eating fish that contains omega-3 is associated with a significantly reduced risk of developing age-related macular degeneration, U.S. researchers say.

William G. Christen of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues collected data on 38,022 women — part of the Women’s Health Study — who had not been diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration.

The women’s consumption of food was ascertained via questionnaire at the beginning of the study and included information on intake of docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid — omega-3 fatty acids found in fish — and arachidonic acid and linoleic acid — omega-6 fatty acids.

The women were tracked for about 10 years of follow-up and 235 cases of age-related macular degeneration were reported.

The study, published online ahead of print in the June issue of Archives of Ophthalmology, found women who consumed the most DHA had a 38 percent lower risk of developing age-related macular degeneration than women who consumed the lowest amount.

Consumption of one or more servings of fish per week, when compared to less than one serving of fish per month, was associated with a 42 percent lower risk of age-related macular degeneration.

“This lower risk appeared to be due primarily to consumption of canned tuna fish and dark-meat fish,” Christen says.

Opinion: Don’t touch funding for Planned Parenthood

AS A FORMER governor, I understand that this country faces a growing deficit and we must exercise fiscal discipline. As a Republican, I also understand that women, no matter their party affiliation, are concerned about the health of their mothers, their daughters and their sisters.

That’s why I am concerned that social conservatives are trying to hijack the budget process to include proposals that would wipe out access to family planning, HIV testing and counseling and breast and cervical cancer screening for millions of American women.

The health of American women, preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting sound family planning are goals that all of us, irrespective of political persuasion, should support. Not surprisingly, it turns out that what is good for women’s health is also good for our pocketbooks.

The simple fact is that every public dollar invested in family planning saves taxpayers nearly $4. Yet, the House is proposing to eliminate the National Family Planning Program, also known as Title X. Eliminating Title X would mean in just one year, at least two million women would be denied access to Pap tests, 2.3 million would go without clinical breast exams and more than five million women and men wouldn’t benefit from contraceptive services.

The House leadership is also proposing to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funds. This is unacceptable.

Value of preventive care

I know firsthand the value of Planned Parenthood health centers in providing preventive care to women. In rural areas, Planned Parenthood is often the only place to turn for vital health care needs as well as sex education, and in dense urban areas, Planned Parenthood provides these same services to women in disproportionately low income and underserved communities.

Every year, Planned Parenthood’s doctors and nurses provide more than 3 million women with preventive health care, including nearly one million lifesaving screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams, contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients and nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Literally, they are a trusted health care provider to millions of women.

For those who oppose abortion, they should know that Planned Parenthood’s services prevent 973,000 unintended pregnancies and 406,000 abortions each year. Those are statistics that Republicans and Democrats should wholeheartedly embrace.

But the extreme proposals undermining both the National Family Planning Program and Planned Parenthood will have an adverse effect on those numbers. While defunding Planned Parenthood will do nothing to reduce the deficit or improve the economy, it will lead to an increase in unplanned pregnancies and abortions and result in escalating Medicaid costs.

Barring Planned Parenthood from critical federal public health funding would mean these women would face tremendous difficulties finding other health care providers to deliver high-quality reproductive health care. This would only increase these women’s risk of undetected cancer and unintended pregnancy.

In the heated, partisan environment in Washington, it is often forgotten that a Republican ushered the National Family Planning Program into existence. In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed Title X into law as a bipartisan approach to ensuring low-income Americans access to basic reproductive and preventive health care services.

No funding for abortion

A point often lost in this debate is this: Not a single cent of Title X funding may be used for abortion services. Not only is this fact stated in the Title X law, but it is also further supported by the Hyde amendment, banning the use of federal funds for abortions: the standard since its enactment in 1976.

More than 40 years later, as more women and families are facing difficulties in accessing health care due to increasing costs and a struggling economy, I urge the Congress to ensure women continue to have access to the health care they need and the trusted providers in their community by rejecting efforts to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds and eliminating the Title X family planning program.

Government plans women’s health campaign

The Indian government’s premier agency for science communication, Vigyan Prasar, is planning to launch a nation-wide programme to educate women on health related issues.

‘This is the first time when Vigyan Prasar is going to launch a programme for educating women about their health in different parts of the country,’ Anuj Sinha, director of Vigyan Prasar, told IANS on the sidelines of a media event here Monday.

He said the programme will be started in Delhi soon on a pilot basis.

Emphasising the need of communication, Sinha said, ‘Scientists generally believe that research is most important. But it is time to think that communication is as important as research.’

‘Vigyan Prasar will develop communication strategies and programme to reach out to the target women,’ said Kinkini Das Gupta Mishra, who will be heading the new programme.

‘By the end of six months from now, we plan to be ready with a proper line of action and communication materials to spread the programme at a bigger level,’ she added.

Vigyan Prasar in association with Sudinalay, an NGO, and the Institute of Gender Justice had begun a week-long consultative programme on the International Women’s Day (March 8) to educate women living in the slums in different parts of the capital about health related issues.

‘During the programme we found that increasing case of violence has made health a secondary issue for many women in the capital,’ said Sreerupa Mitra Chaudhary, founder of Sudinalay.

‘We found that most of the women have misconceptions about diseases such as depression, obesity and cervical cancer,’ she added.

To mark the end of week, a programme ‘celebrating the joy of empowerment’ will be organised Tuesday with President Pratibha Patil as the chief guest.

Thousands of grass root level women workers are expected to take part in the event.

Orrington Woman Pleads Guilty to Health Care Fraud

A woman from Orrington accused of over inflating insurance claims for a women’s clinic in Bangor pleaded guilty Monday to health care fraud.

37-year-old Dawn Zehrung, also known as Dawn Grover, worked at Bangor Women’s Health Care and was in charge of billing.

Federal prosecutors say in March of 2009, her bosses became suspicious about billing irregularities.

An audit found Zehrung repeatedly over billed for examinations, billed for procedures that were never performed and altered medical records.

The audit found more than $300,000 in over payments to the health care facility.

Zehrung faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and restitution.

HHS encourages women and girls to take action against HIV/AIDS

Today, National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day observes females nationwide, and encourages people to take action in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Coordinated by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office on Women’s Health (OWH), this day is meant to highlight the importance of developing products that women and girls could use independently of their sexual partners to protect themselves from HIV.

According to the OWH, more than 278,000 women and teenage girls in the US are infected with HIV, and an estimated 101,000 women and girls have died of AIDS since the disease was first recognized.

In the US, the majority of women become infected with HIV through sex, often in settings where refusing sex or insisting on condom use is not an option because of cultural factors, financial dependence or even the threat of violence. Therefore, the OWH supports research of products for women to protect themselves from HIV.

“While men account for most HIV/AIDS cases, the impact on women is growing. In addition, research shows that, when compared to men, women face gaps in access and care,” according to the OWH.

Nationwide, organizations will come together today to offer support, encourage discussion, and teach women and girls about prevention of HIV, the importance of getting tested for HIV, and how to live with and manage HIV/AIDS.

Every year on March 10, National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed, however, the OWH encourages organizations to hold events and spread awareness throughout the month of March.

Lawsuit Settlement Gives Women’s Health A Boost

Some organizations in Nashville will be getting a large chunk of money to promote women’s health after a recent class-action lawsuit settlement.

Vanderbilt Medical Center and Meharry Medical College will each receive more than $1 million. Safe Haven Family Shelter and The Nashville Lawyers’ Association for Women will receive thousands of dollars.

They were all part of a group of plaintiffs that sued the makers of the hormone-replacement drug Estra-Test, claiming that it was falsely advertised.

The Nashville awards are part of the leftover money that a federal court has ordered to be given to nonprofit organizations nationwide.

This year’s Women of Achievement named

The 2011 class of Women of Achievement includes community organizers, philanthropists, a doctor, a health advocate and a jewelry designer, among others.

For more than 56 years, the Women of Achievement organization has recognized women who have a record of leadership in volunteer service in the region. Ten women are selected annually for the honor and are feted at a luncheon at the Ritz-Carlton that is regularly a sold-out event.

This year’s luncheon will be May 10.

The honorees are: Lisa Boyce of St. Louis who will be recognized for Youth Enrichment, Karen Castellano of Town and Country who will be recognized for Community Service, Margo Deloch of St. Louis who will be recognized for Humanitarian Concerns, Diane Katzman of Ladue who will be recognized for Creative Philanthropy, Becky Kueker of Maryville, Ill., who will be recognized for Volunteer Leadership, Lisa Nichols of Chesterfield who will be recognized for Youth Dedication, Pam Toder of Ladue who will be recognized for Women’s Health, Dr. Corinne Walentik of University City who will be recognized for Health Leadership, Carol Weir of St. Louis who will be recognized for Senior Health Advocacy and Fran Zamler of Olivette who will be recognized for Community Betterment.

The luncheon chair is Suzie Nall and co-chair is Barbara Bartley Turkington. They will be assisted by a committee of former honorees. Alice Handleman is president of Women of Achievement.

Bills seek to limit abortions

The approval of two Arizona bills will place limitations on abortion availability and prohibit funding to programs.

With a vote of 40-18, House Bills 2384 and 2416 both passed the House, according to the Arizona State Legislature.

“The anti-choice legislators in our legislature have pretty much launched the most shocking attack on women’s health that I’ve ever seen,” said Michelle Steinberg, a public policy manager and lobbyist for Planned Parenthood.

H.B. 2416 would prohibit outlying areas in Arizona, such as Prescott, Flagstaff and Yuma, from distributing abortion pills, Steinberg said. In order to dispense abortion pills, the health centers have to be set up as surgery facilities, like those in Phoenix and Tucson. Viagra online Australia

“If you restrict availability to only Phoenix and Tucson, you’re creating a huge, huge burden for women who live outside those communities,” she said.

Women living in rural communities will be losing a significant amount of care due to this limited availability, Steinberg said.

Women will then have travel costs and be forced to delay their abortion procedure, Steinberg added. Prolonging abortion could result in women needing to have surgery. This is dangerous because it puts women at potential risk for even more invasive procedures, she said.

“If you’re eligible for an early, early abortion and you delay your care, and you end up having surgery, that’s a direct result of this bill,” Steinberg said.

In addition, H.B. 2416 also requires health centers to perform an ultrasound one hour before the abortion procedure, she said. At that time, the patient would listen to audible body sounds. Before the House approved the bill, Planned Parenthood had already been performing ultrasounds as standard procedure, but did not have patients wait an hour. There is no medical reason for a patient to have to sit and think about their decision, she said.

“They want women to change their minds,” Steinberg said.

Arizona state legislators such as Republican Rep. Kimberly Yee, from District 10, support the two bills. Yee has said in the past that H.B. 2416 is about protecting health safety for women and the one-hour requirement gives them the opportunity to make more educated decisions.

Calls to Republican legislators were not returned as of press time.

The second bill, H.B. 2384, prohibits public funding and the use of federal tax money for organizations that do abortion referrals and provide abortion coverage in their health insurance, Steinberg said.

“The law prohibits any public dollars or public funds as being directed toward training,” said Democratic Rep. Matt Heinz, from District 29 of the Arizona State Legislature.

Steinberg said that H.B. 2384 “works to make sure that Planned Parenthood gets absolutely no public money.” There is a state tax credit that offers donations to the working poor. However, Planned Parenthood is disqualified from participating in the program, she said. The bill sets up barriers for people who want to donate money to this health facility.

“By disqualifying Planned Parenthood, you’re really just taking money away from women who are receiving valuable life-saving care,” she said.

Supporters of H.B. 2384 have previously said that they don’t want state funds being used to promote abortions.

At the University Medical Center, law has prohibited teaching abortion procedures since 1974, according to an email statement from Katie Riley, the director of media relations and spokesperson at the Arizona Health Sciences Center.

Riley noted that Dr. Kathryn Reed, the department head of obstetrics and gynecology at the Arizona Health Sciences Center, confirmed that H.B. 2384 could affect an estimated 80 residents.

Kristin Anchors, a first-year graduate student of the College of Medicine, said that medical students cannot learn about abortion on campus. Students have to go to Planned Parenthood or get information on their own by going to conferences in other cities, she said.

“I find myself going out of my way to learn these things and to understand the law so that someday I can still provide this service for somebody in the future,” Anchors said, “which is kind of strange that I have to do that.”

Heinz said he suspects the obstetrics and gynecology program at the UA will not be in compliance for national accreditation because it requires the training program to offer the option of abortion-training procedures to their residents.

“It’s simply, purely a training issue and it should be left alone by the legislature,” Heinz said.

He also said the bill creates an enormous hurdle for the university to have to deal with in order to comply with the law.

“They’re doing everything that they can to intrude on a woman’s personal, private medical decisions,” Steinberg said.

Support women’s health

Readers of The Times Record may not be aware of the recent attack by Republican leadership of the House of Representatives on health care for women. These “leaders” have voted to eliminate all federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Those who support this extreme legislative measure do not try to argue that it will save a single cent on the budget or create any jobs. Rather it will eliminate the jobs of health-care providers currently serving the women of Maine while disadvantaging Maine women.

Our representatives, Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud, did not support the attack and voted against the measure.

What is at stake here for the women of Maine?

They will no longer have access to primary and preventive health care, breast and cervical cancer screening, annual exams, birth control, HIV testing, STI testing and treatment. The women who use the services of Planned Parenthood generally can not pay for these screenings and treatments on their own. In 2010 Planned Parenthood saw 11,600 patients here in Maine. Many of these women saw no other health-care provider last year.

There is still time to fight back. The legislation will shortly come before the U.S. Senate. We need Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to support women’s health as they have often in the past.

Please contact our senators and urge them to protect health care for Maine women by voting against the elimination of funding for Planned Parenthood.

The Challenge to a Woman’s Right to Chose and Women’s Health

If you are one of the majority of Californians who support a woman’s right to choose, the time is now to make your opinions known to your representatives. As we know the loss of reproductive freedom of choice will lead to an increase in children being raised in homes that are not prepared financially or emotionally to provide them with a healthy upbringing. The loss of access to birth control for the poor and more extremely a threat to birth control in general is an insult to the rights of humans to form responsible relationships within modern standards.

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is mounting an effort to compromise the reproductive rights of women by eliminating federal funding for abortion by the introduction of HR 217. This bill is sponsored by Mike Penee R-Ind and is cosponsored by 147 other Republicans including Tom McClintock. HR-217- Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act amends Title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions. Planned Parenthood’s Heath centers are a prime target even though they do not perform abortions.

The Republican focus is double sided. They seek to both to eliminate government spending and to reduce the rights of women to seek abortions.

The provisions of HR 217 are:

1. the bill would allow public hospitals to refuse medically necessary abortions to pregnant women who are rushed in with life-threatening emergencies.

2. It would permanently deny abortion coverage to women who depend on the federal government for their health care, including Native Americans, federal employees, Peace Corps volunteers, poor women and women in federal prisons.

3. The proposal would prohibit anyone who receives a federal subsidy to buy insurance in the new health care exchanges from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage (i.e. reinstates the Stupak abortion coverage ban).

4. It would change tax laws in order to penalize businesses that offer abortion coverage and prevent women from deducting medical expenses related to abortion care.

The provisions of House Bill 3 are:

1. This bill would bar outright the use of federal subsidies to buy any insurance that covers abortion well beyond the new exchanges.

2. Tax credits that are encouraging small businesses to provide insurance for their workers could not be used to buy policies that cover abortions.

3. People with their own policies who have enough expenses to claim an income tax deduction could not deduct either the premiums for policies that cover abortion or the cost of an abortion.

4,People who use tax-preferred savings accounts to pay medical costs could not use the money to pay for a abortion without paying taxes on it.

5. It would make restrictions on federal funding for abortions that are now renewable every year permanent. It would allow federal financing of abortions which creates a new category of forcible rape which excludes statutory or coerced rape such as date rape. and in cases where a woman is in danger of death from her pregnancy but not serious health damage. It would free states from having to provide abortions in such emergency cases

The Battle against Roe v. Wade at the state level

In 2010 more that 600 measures were introduced to limit access to abortion and 34 secured passage.

29 governors are considered solidly anti abortion up from 21 before the election

In 15 states both the legislature and the governor are anti abortion compared with 10 last year.

87% of counties currently have no abortion providers

Current Supreme Court precedent restricts the governments ability to bar abortions prior to viability considered between 22 and 26 weeks. Nebraska has enacted a law last year that directly challenges this precedent and bans abortions after 20 weeks and includes a very narrow consideration for a woman’s life and physical health and lacks any exceptions for the discovery of severe fetal anomalies. Copycat laws are pending in other states.

CALIFORNIA IS DIFFERENT

1. A woman’s right to choose is ensconced in our constitution and statutes.

2. According to a Field Poll last July- 70% of all Californian’s support abortion rights as they are or want them further liberalized. 75% of independents favor making no changes to California law along with 40% of Republicans.

This attempt to turn back the rights of women for reproductive freedom and the rights of modern adults to form relationships with responsibility is an assault on the evolution of humanity. We are not animals that are destined to live at the whim of forces beyond our control but human beings that in order to mature, must take responsibility for the content of our lives.

Women’s Health adds nurse midwife

McDonough District Hospital is pleased to welcome Mary C. Thompson, Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM), as the newest member of the healthcare team for Women’s Health Center of Macomb, Inc. She joins Troy Eckman, MD; Sharie Harden, CNM; Brenda Powell-Allen, RNC, Women’s Health Nurse Practitioner (WHNP) and Sybil Mudloff, WHNP.

Their office is located in Health Services Building I on the MDH campus, 833-5959.

Thompson attended Carl Sandburg College in Galesburg where she received her Associate of Science in Nursing degree in 1990.

Thompson completed her Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree from Blessing-Reiman College of Nursing in Quincy in 2002.

She continued her education at Frontier School of Midwifery and Family Nursing in Hyden, Ky., completing her Master of Science in Nursing—Midwifery degree in 2010. Thompson worked at McDonough District Hospital in the Obstetrics Department as an LPN and RN for 27 years, where she also served as a Certified Lactation Consultant.

Thompson is a member of the Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM), and the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric & Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN).

Thompson and her husband, Dale, have lived in Macomb for 20 years. They have three sons, Mark, Matthew, and Michael. In her spare time, Thompson enjoys walking, reading, knitting, and travelling.

McCollum blasts GOP plan to defund women’s health services

“Dumb.” That’s how Rep. Betty McCollum characterized proposed cuts to federal family planning funding and a Republican effort to defund Planned Parenthood. At a St. Paul Planned Parenthood clinic Thursday, she also noted that Republicans refused to cut Pentagon funding for NASCAR, but remain adamant about cuts she says could have devastating effects for Minnesota women and children.

Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota president Sarah Stoesz introduced McCollum at the press event.

“It’s a challenging time for women’s health and for all of us who care about women in this country,” she said. “We’ve been under quite an attack,” referencing conservative bloggers’ campaign against the health care nonprofit as well as congressional actions to bar federal funds from going to its clinics.

“We do provide abortion services — that’s true we do — it’s about 5 percent of what we do, but primarily what we do is protect the lives and health of women,” she said.

To underscore that point, a clinic patient told the story of her sister, who lives in rural Minnesota near Mankato and whose life she says was saved by the health care group.

“Planned Parenthood is the reason my sister’s cervical cancer was found early and treated successfully,” she said. “My sister’s story has a very happy ending because of Planned Parenthood.”

GOP budget cuts in the U.S. House would eliminate federal Title X funding, a part of which helps support cancer screenings at clinics such as Planned Parenhood’s.

“Who would have though that we would have to be concerned about women’s reproductive rights, women’s rights in 2011 in America,” she said.

She said that the proposed cuts and calls to defund Planned Parenthood involve debates over abortion, but the services of Planned Parenthood are much broader.

“Yes, there are needed at times — it should be extremely rare and in a moment of difficult emotional crisis for women — to look at having an abortion, but that’s 5 percent of what Planned Parenthood does,” said McCollum.

“Ninety-five percent of what Planned Parenthood does is the first line of defense in women’s reproductive health and total overall health,” she added.

She continued, “We can make smart cuts or we can make dumb cuts — and cutting Title X is a dumb cut.”

In the Republicans’ proposed budget, Title X funding would be completely slashed from the federal budget, and those funds are used for health care screenings for women and birth control services. Under federal law, the funds cannot go to abortion services.

Republicans targeting WIC as well

The GOP is also proposing cuts to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program.

“We heard defense spending was off the table, that we could not cut defense spending, but what the House decided we needed were two different engines for one piece of military equipment and that we had to protect the military’s ability to purchase decals for NASCARs,” she said.

“I think there’s room to cut in the Pentagon. There should be room for children, and women who are expecting, to have access to basic nutrition in the United States of America.”

McCollum has been a major force in trying to cut NASCAR funding from the federal budget, a cause that resulted in death threats being sent to her office.

“And they are talking about more cuts,” she continued, adding that a government shutdown is looming. “No more of these stupid, dumb cuts that are going to hurt women, hurt families, and hurt communities. It’s so foolish to even talk about cutting nutrition for women who are either nursing or preparing to deliver a child.”

McCollum, who recently visited Yemen where citizens are calling for Democratic reforms and more rights for women, said she spoke with people who were surprised by Republicans’ plans to cut programs for women and children.

“When they pick up the paper and read that we are cutting it off, they said, ‘This isn’t the America we know,’” she said.

Ultimately, she said that the majority of Americans support Title X programs — even Republicans.

“There are a lot of Republicans and independents that support access to mammographies, cervical cancer screenings and ensuring families can plan by having access to birth control,” she said.

“We can’t let a small group of people hold us hostage on the way forward in the United States.”

Hot flashes at menopause may signal a lower risk for heart attacks and stroke

Hot flashes and night sweats at menopause are uncomfortable and annoying to many women. But they are also associated with a reduced risk of future heart attacks and strokes, researchers reported Thursday.

Hot flashes, which doctors call vasomotor symptoms, are a major issue in women’s health because there are so few effective remedies to relieve them. In recent years, however, some studies have suggested that hot flashes and night sweats may also be a sign of potential cardiovascular problems. The idea is that hot flashes may be a response to some type of dysfunction in blood vessels that could also raise the risk of heart attack and stroke.

However, a new study, published in the journal Menopause, suggests that idea is an over-simplification. Researchers analyzed data from 60,000 post-menopausal women who were part of the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study. They found that the timing of hot flashes appears to matter greatly. Women who had hot flashes or night sweats at the start of menopause were actually at a slightly lower risk for stroke, heart disease and death compared with women who never had hot flashes or night sweats. The risk reductions were 17% for stroke, 11% for heart disease and 11% death.

“It is reassuring that these symptoms, which are experienced by so many women, do not seem to correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Emily Szmuilowicz, a co-author of the study from Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, said in a news release.

However, women in the study who did not have hot flashes or night sweats at the onset of menopause but developed them later in menopause (they were having symptoms at an average age of 63) had a 32% higher risk of heart attack and a 29% higher risk of stroke.

Women who developed hot flashes and night sweats at the onset of menopause and continued to have them into later menopause had no increased or decreased risk.

It’s not clear why hot flashes at the time of menopause are linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular events. But the authors wrote: “One possibility is that perimenopausal vasomotor symptoms represent a physiologic response to the normal perimenopausal hormonal fluctuations, and the absence of these symptoms may signify a blunted vascular response to these hormonal changes.”

Far fewer women develop hot flashes years after menopause begins, the authors note. But more research should be devoted to the link between late symptoms and cardiovascular risk. Hot flashes occurring well after menopause may be a marker for instability in blood vessels, they wrote.

Va. OKs bill to likely close most abortion clinics

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia took a big step Thursday toward eliminating most of the state’s 21 abortion clinics, approving a bill that would likely make rules so strict the medical centers would be forced to close, Democrats and abortion rights supporters said.

Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican and Catholic, supports the measure and when he signs it into law, Virginia will become the first state to require clinics that provide first-trimester abortions to meet the same standards as hospitals. The requirements could include anything from expensive structural changes like widening hallways to increased training and mandatory equipment the clinics currently don’t have.

While abortion providers must be licensed in Virginia, the clinics resemble dentists’ offices and are considered physicians offices, similar to those that provide plastic and corrective eye surgeries, colonoscopies and a host of other medical procedures.

Democrats and abortion rights supporters said the change would put an estimated 17 of the state’s 21 clinics out of business. Most of the clinics also provide birth control, cancer screenings and other women’s health services.

“This is not about safety for women. This is about ideology, and this is about politics,” said Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. “The women of the commonwealth are going to be the ones left to suffer.”

Abortion rights supporters warned of legal challenges while supporters heralded it as a way to make the procedures safer.

“It is not about banning abortions,” said Sen. Jill Vogel, R-Winchester. “It is simply caring for women who are about to have an invasive surgical procedure and creating an environment for them where they have the opportunity to do that in a place that is safe.”

No other state requires clinics that provide early abortions to meet hospital standards.

Nineteen states, including Virginia, require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after 12 weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortions and laws concerning the procedures.

More than 27,000 of the 28,000 abortions performed each year in Virginia are completed during the first-trimester, Keene said.

“Does Virginia really want to take the lead in such obstruction?” asked Sen. Maime Locke, D-Hampton, who called the bill “draconian and patriarchal at best.”

Democrats argued it wouldn’t pass constitutional muster because it would put an undue burden on poor women and those in rural areas, where clinics likely would close. They also argued it would violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution by treating abortions differently than similar procedures.

“Absolutely all that will be accomplished by this vote is to restrict access to a safe and legal procedure to poor women,” said Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple, D-Arlington. “This does nothing to end abortions. It is purely discriminatory. It makes me heartsick.”

Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, said the bill would likely be deemed unconstitutional “because its transparent purpose and effect would be to make such early abortions far more difficult if not impossible for many women to obtain.”

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who supported similar legislation as a state senator, said he believes the law would be constitutional.

“For over 25 years, Virginia abortion clinics have not been held to minimal health and safety standards,” he said. “As a result, women who walk into these clinics are often not treated with the care and respect that any human being deserves.”

Anti-abortion bills typically die in a Democrat-controlled Senate committee, but Republicans in the House tacked it onto a bill that already had passed the Senate. Doing so allowed the bill to sidestep the committee and forced a vote on the Senate floor, where Democrats hold a 22-18 majority.

Two anti-abortion Democrats voted with Republicans, and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican, cast the tie-breaking vote after hours of debate.

After it becomes law in July, the state Board of Health will take public comments before issuing the guidelines. The board is appointed by the governor.