NEWSCONTRACEPTION

Last month, we asked you to take action for no co-pay birth control coverage, as part of a National Women's Law Center and Planned Parenthood blog carnival putting pressure on Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Now, we can announce that these efforts from Change.org members and across the blogosphere have paid off: yesterday, HHS made the long-awaited and very welcome announcement that birth control will now be entirely covered for women with insurance.

This victory was won by pressure from many organizations and individuals across the country, including petitions on Change.org from CREDO Action and member Augusta Christensen, with thousands pressuring Secretary Sebelius to protect women's health. This change will significantly increase women's contraceptive access and ability to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Even better, not only is contraception fully covered, other women's preventative health services and breastfeeding expenses are now co-pay free as well.

Unfortunately, not all women will reap the benefits of this decision. In fact, for uninsured women who already struggle the most with access to contraception and health services, it doesn't do them much good at all.

Two days ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) announced their recommendation that all birth control methods -- from sterilization to the morning-after pill -- be categorized as preventative care, and as such free from co-pays under insurance coverage. This calls for a carnival!

Fortunately, the National Women's Law Center and Planned Parenthood are holding a birth control blog carnival today. So bloggers across the internet have a chance to join the party and celebrate the IOM's report, which also suggested that standard annual visits, STI testing, and domestic violence screening be among those no-cost services offered to women.

But today isn't just a day for doing a little victory dance, because we still need the Department of Health and Human Services to accept the recommendations. Things are looking hopeful: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebellius also commented favorably on the historic findings, pointing out, "Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist." Yet pressure from groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have tried to derail the birth control preventative care train.

It may be one of the most absurd policies my home state has ever come up with: using carrying condoms as evidence for arrest and prosecution for intent to commit prostitution. It's simultaneously wildly offensive to individuals who opt to be prepared to engage in safe sex and a severe public health danger -- in a city that distributes free condoms to combat sky-high rates of HIV, no less, which makes it doubly ridiculous.

The New York State Legislature is considering doing something about this, with a bill sponsored by Sen. Velmanette Montgomery that would prohibit law enforcement from using condom possession as grounds for arrest and prosecution. Unfortunately, it's been considering doing something about this ludicrous situation for years, with a version of the bill introduced and doomed to die on a regular basis. But this year is the year to change all that, right? And New York City Council Member Jessica Lappin is getting on board with a proposed resolution in support of the No Condoms as Evidence Bill.

New York City is a tad schizophrenic when it comes to condoms. Sure, you can pick them up for free in bars and clubs all around the city (they even have an NYC logo), an attempt to combat high rates of HIV/AIDS by promoting safe sex. On the other hand, carrying condoms can get you arrested.

It seems too absurd to be believed, yet law enforcement in New York, as well as San Francisco and Washington, D.C., use possession of condoms as evidence for arrest and prosecution of suspected sex work, an illegal profession in the United States. It's a legal problem that could be fixed by the passage of the No Condoms as Evidence Bill (Assembly Bill A1008/Senate Bill S323), current in the New York State Senate and Assembly Codes Committees. Yet despite the blatant hard-too-believe ludicrousness of criminalizing condoms, the same piece of legislation has been introduced and failed to pass for years.

In November, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy was ready to capitulate to pharmacies who threatened a big bad lawsuit if they weren't permitted to refuse to dispense emergency contraception (EC). Never mind that these pharmacies had a weak case; the Board didn't want to shell out any money to defend women's contraceptive access, so they were all ready to give in. But concerned Change.org members, Washington state residents, and NARAL Pro-Choice Washington took advantage of the public comments period to let the Board know just what they thought of that kind of spineless behavior. And their voices were heard.

Fellow Women's Rights blogger Amie Newman reports on RH Reality Check that, last week, the Board of Pharmacy voted that there would be no rule change, and women will retain access to legal drugs at any pharmacy in the state. Under the preserved rules, any individual pharmacist may refuse to dispense a given drug on grounds of their "conscience," but the pharmacy as a whole must have somebody willing to dispense the item in their place. This latter regulation is what a group of pharmacies led by Ralph's Thriftway wanted to change, so that an entire pharmacy could bear the "no EC here" stamp.

Since Plan B emergency contraception is a time-sensitive drug, barring people from purchasing this at a number of pharmacies in the state could cost many women the opportunity to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. And though EC was the main target of this push by pharmacies claiming a "moral" opposition, the proposed change would have allowed them to refuse to dispense any legal drug to any person they didn't feel like serving. One of the concerns Newman brought up along these lines would be a pharmacist refusing to dispense HIV/AIDS medication to a gay person out of homophobia.

With over 80% of the 5,300 comments directed at the Board of Pharmacy being registered in opposition to changing the rule on contraception access, including a couple hundred emails from Change.org members signing a petition from NARAL Washington, it seems clear that the outpouring of criticism pushed the Board members to do an about-face. And though the pharmacies plan to go through with their threatened law suit, women's rights legal defenders feel confident that the current rule will stand up in court.

Photo credit: Michael Lemmon

Since we reported in January on outrageous police policies in Washiginton, DC, New York City, and San Francisco, CA, in which condoms are being used as evidence of prostitution, essentially criminalizing safe sex preparations, a steady stream of Change.org members have denounced the policy. At this time, over 20,000 emails have been sent to the mayors of NYC, DC, and San Francisco telling them that carrying condoms isn't a crime and to direct police and prosecutors to stop treating it that way.

Today, December 17, is International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. Sex workers are a whopping 18 times more likely to be killed than other women; as Tracy Clark-Flory explores on Salon's Broadsheet, sex workers make attractive targets because they have to work their illegal trade in secret and often fear going to the police to report violence. In addition, police often take crimes against sex workers less seriously, heightening their vulnerability to somebody who wants to kill without having the full force of the law coming down after him.

As Audacia Ray writes for the Guardian, "It is not just violent clients who hurt sex workers." State policies and stigma create the vulnerability these primarily women face, jeopardizing their lives and health. Ray focuses on problems in Uganda in particular, but we don't need to go overseas to see policies harmful to sex workers. I can look right in my own backyard, New York City, and see how we're putting sex workers at risk by criminalizing carrying the items that can protect them against HIV/AIDS.

The Urban Justice Center, which runs the Sex Workers Project, has created a petition pressuring New York State legislators to finally pass a bill (that's been introduced multiple times) that would ban the use of condoms as evidence. Join them and 4,000 Change.org members in protecting sex workers' right to protect themselves against fatal disease as a first step toward improving these women's safety.

Photo credit: uberzombie

Via the ACLU comes word that some Walgreen pharmacies in Texas refuse to sell Emergency Contraception to men. Despite a corporate policy that abides by the FDA’s federal guidelines, which state that anyone 17 years and over can purchase the Morning After Pill, when Adam Drake tried to buy the pill in a Walgreens in Houston, the pharmacist turned him down. He went to the manager, but she stuck by her pharmacist and turned Drake away. Let me count the ways this is such a disgusting phenomenon.

First, the ACLU focuses on gender discrimination. This country has a long legal history which prohibits gender discrimination just like this -- for men as well as women. This Walgreens violated Drake’s rights, not to mention federal rules. Beyond legal concerns, there’s the fact that the effectiveness of emergency contraception is time-sensitive. Being in  Houston, Drake was able to go to another pharmacy, but others -- particularly not in urban areas -- may not be so lucky.

So refusing to sell EC to men is dangerous and illegal, but it also embodies the sexism at the root of the anti-choice movement. When Drake complained to Walgreens, a representative told him that "the pharmacist has the right to refuse service, and that the store has an unwritten rule that they will not sell the product to men unless the woman is present because he may give it to an underage person." (Add this to the frustration over the FDA's decision to deny EC access to underage women against any scientific reason.) Sure, technically any person could be planning to get an over-the-counter medication for somebody else who's not supposed to have it.

In other words, Walgreens holds the moral high ground over all women who can’t keep their legs closed and if they don’t want to get pregnant, they should personally make the pilgrimage to Walgreens and pray that they aren’t refused service.

Women's health care costs a lot across the board, but what always costs more are the necessary steps that have to be taken when something has gone awry. Unplanned pregnancies, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and infections, and emergency contraception all cost more than any of the alternatives: planned pregnancies, safer sex, and reliable contraceptives. When you look at federal funding spent on solving problems rather than offering prevention, it quickly becomes apparent that our tax dollars aren't being spent in the most efficient ways possible. More importantly, women's health care isn't supported in the ways most necessary for our well-being.

The Prevention First Act is built on a simple idea more commonly associated with women's health care in the Global South: Spend a little up front on contraceptives and sex education to prevent spending more down the line for abortion services and subsidized childcare. Domestic examples are easy to find, and here's a great one: For every dollar spent on family planning services, an estimated three dollars of pregnancy-related and newborn care Medicare expenditures is saved. This isn't just about women's health. This is a basic public health concern.

The Prevention First Act will truly accomplish bipartisan goals by increasing access to services through the national family planning program (Title X). By passing this omnibus package of eight health care-related funding bills, covering everything from emergency contraception to teen pregnancy education, our federal programs will be more fully equipped to support planned pregnancies, eliminating the need for some abortions. It would provide emergency contraception to more sexual assault survivors. It would even support state-specific sex education programs to more effectively teach young people how to have safer, better sex and make better choices about sexual health and contraception.

There's nothing political about safe, affordable health care. Ask your representatives to pass this comprehensive, much-needed bill.

Photo Credit: leoncillo sabino

When I went off the pill for the first time in my adult life earlier this year, my body did some pretty wonky things. My mood swings were wild, my period temporarily stopped altogether (scaring the crap out of me, as you can imagine), and my sex drive went totally haywire. I expected a few weird brain-related side effects — and as far as I can tell, I didn't get dumber — but could any of this have anything to do with what hormonal contraceptives do to women's brains?

According to a new study in the journal Brain Research, birth control pills have a structural effect on the brain. For all of us non-scientists, that essentially means that extended use of the pill can be a bit like being on steroids. Certain parts of your brain gain matter simply because of the hormones.

The study looked at three types of brains: those of men, women not taking hormonal contraceptives, and women on the pill. When compared, women on the pill showed more gray matter in some brain areas, including the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with cognitive activity like decision-making. However, when you start messing with one part of the brain — even the part that makes you smarter — you're likely to end up with an imbalanced brain. You could get smarter... or, as an article in Scientific American put it, "the brain may go all catawampus." Yes, a science magazine used that word. Then again, they also called taking the pill a "steroidal tsunami." Yowza.

As Roxann MtJoy has written before, 40 Days for Life could be more accurately be termed 40 Days for Harassment. The event, underway now for the second time this year, is a chance for anti-choicers to gather outside of reproductive health clinics and hurl insults at women who may or may not be going for an abortion. And though some protesters just seem to get off on telling women they're baby-killers going to hell, ostensibly the goal of these 40 days is to prevent abortion.

But if that's really the goal, and if many of these protesters are well-meaning people who just can't stand what they believe to be the deaths of babies, Paula Gianino, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood ADVOCATES, St. Louis and Southwest Missouri, has a few suggestions. In a letter to the editor, "Pray to end abortion — but also for women's health and future," Gianino makes a few suggestion on how anti-abortion advocates can take action to reduce the incidence of abortion: without harassing women, and without violence.

Gianino's suggestions are intended to be practical ways in which we can reduce the need for abortion while still being "pro-women" and supporting their well-being. Her first item encourages people to speak out against Catholic Bishops' attempts to exert undue influence over the U.S. government by attacking birth control coverage. Gianino further calls upon those who are against abortion to vote for candidates that support birth control and comprehensive sex education; by ensuring that all women have knowledge about and access to birth control, we can reduce the rate of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, in turn impacting the incidence of abortion.