11
19

New Mammogram Guidelines Raise Concerns

by Liza Doubossarskaia, NOW Communications Intern

On Monday the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released a report containing new guidelines regarding breast cancer screenings, which became a subject of controversy and criticism. According to the updated recommendations, women are advised to start regular screening for cancer at the age of 50, not 40. Furthermore, women between the ages of 50 to 74 are encouraged to reduce their mammogram screenings from once a year to once every two years. The panel also suggested that it is unnecessary for women to perform breast self-exams.

Some women are understandably concerned about the new guidelines and the effect these guidelines might have on women's health and health insurance. Critics of the guidelines are quick to point out that the lives of numerous women in their 40s were saved by timely detection of cancer through a mammogram screening. But according to the report, mammogram screenings prevent one death out of every 1,904 women ages 40 to 49, so the risks involved in the mammogram screening actually outweigh the benefits. It goes without saying that women whose lives were saved by the procedure would strongly disagree with such a claim.

However, it is also hard to deny that the report's recommendations have a legitimate foundation. For several years now, most cancer experts and advocacy groups have been recommending raising the age at which to start mammogram testing. There are serious risks involved in getting mammograms that should be considered. Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, lists radiation and overtreatment as major health threats associated with mammograms. "Increasing the age of mammograms to age 50 for most women, and reducing the frequency to every two years could save lives because it would drastically reduce radiation exposure," says Zuckerman.

Overtreatment is a result of false alarms, which comprise 90 percent of worrisome mammogram findings and can lead to unnecessary procedures, according to Zuckerman.

Regarding the recommendations against breast self-exams, there is no scientific data to support effectiveness of self-exams in breast cancer prevention. Zuckerman writes that "by the time a cancer is large enough to be felt in a self-exam, it will soon be found anyway, in the shower or while dressing." Also, self-exams can lead to numerous false alarms.

One important thing to keep in mind is that the USPSTF guidelines are directed at the average woman. In fact, women who are at a high risk of breast cancer due to hereditary or environmental factors are strongly encouraged to start getting mammograms in their 40s and sometimes earlier.

Still, a concern remains that these new guidelines will negatively impact health care coverage. Will insurance companies continue covering mammograms for women under 50? According to the New York Times, "the guidelines are not expected to have an immediate effect on insurance coverage but should make health plans less likely to aggressively prompt women in their 40s to have mammograms and older women to have the test annually." As of right now, insurance companies maintain that they will continue covering mammogram testing, and private insurers are "are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s."

Clearly feminists will need to stay on top of this issue to ensure that insurance companies don't use the new guidelines as an excuse to further deny women critical health care.

Read more:

National Research Center for Women & Families

Our Bodies Ourselves

New York Times

Washington Post

Register or log in to leave a comment. [Log in] [Register...]
11
17

Stupak Update

by Erin Matson, NOW Action Vice President

We've been hustling here at the Action Center in light of this past week's events. I'm sure by now you've heard quite a bit about the House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the health care reform bill. Make no mistake -- if adopted in the Senate and included in the final bill, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment will be the worst setback to women's constitutional right to abortion since that right was recognized in 1973. It's a huge deal, and talking heads are downplaying its reach and significance.

I want to make a few things clear about the amendment, especially how it will affect young women and women with incomes on the lower end of the spectrum.

1. Women who receive a government subsidy (i.e., individuals with incomes up to $88,000/year for a family of four), will not be able to receive insurance coverage for abortion.

2. Private insurance companies would be prohibited from covering abortion if even one person participating in a plan that was offered through the new regional health insurance exchanges was receiving a government subsidy for health care.

3. Women who use 100% of their own money to participate in a plan offered through health insurance exchanges where at least one person in that plan receives a government subsidy would be prevented from having abortion coverage, unless they purchase an additional "abortion rider."

4. Private insurance companies that currently cover abortion would be discouraged from doing so entirely -- because they would have to modify their plans to participate in proposed health exchanges. (Many private insurance plans currently provide abortion coverage.)

5. A public health insurance option that would be established by the federal government and paid for by individual premium payments is also prohibited from providing abortion coverage. It is estimated that those low- and moderate-income individuals and families who do not have employer-based health insurance would be joining the public plan.

This amendment effectively bans abortion for all low-income and many middle-income women. And the notion that women can just purchase an "abortion rider" -- "just in case" insurance that comes with an additional cost -- ignores the realities of women's reproductive needs and financial limitations.

To state the obvious, no one plans an unintended pregnancy. No one plans a pregnancy that goes wrong and must be terminated. But I don't expect Reps. Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitts to understand that.
Hit the phones, call your senator and ask your friends to do the same.

1 comment » Register or log in to leave a comment. [Log in] [Register...]
11
12

Protest Stupak Amendment Next Two Mondays

by Liza Doubossarskaia, NOW Communications Intern

Strip Stupak!

Last weekend feminist activists watched in distress as, one by one, 240 members of Congress, many of whom were Democrats, voted to pass the Stupak Amendment, which severely interferes with a woman's right to choose. If the Stupak Amendment is included in the final version of the health care reform bill, it will: prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion; prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion; and make it next to impossible for low-income women to obtain an abortion.

The Democratic leadership might have decided to compromise women's rights in order to push through the health care bill, but women whose lives are directly affected by Stupak's draconian measures will not stay silent.

Signs at the November 9th protest against the Stupak Amendement

Just this Monday, activists from NOW and the Feminist Majority gathered to express their discontent by staging a rally in front of the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. I was there and am happy to report that the rally was a smashing success. There were about 30 of us altogether -- an impressive number considering we only had 24 hours to organize the event. We proudly marched around the block, letting our voices be heard, so that our representatives would know how ardently we disapprove of their actions. All of the activists present had great energy, and everyone around us was definitely paying attention.

Activist: My Body. My Money. My Choice.

As we walked, other women stopped to cheer us on and state their displeasure with the Stupak Amendment. Quite a few of them asked for our NOW stickers, so we gladly passed them out.

Our rally also attracted a couple of anti-choice protestors. One of them followed us around, shouting at us from a megaphone. His intent was clear: he was trying to intimidate us, to make us go away. However, his megaphone proved to be no match for the combined power of our voices, and we easily drowned him out.

NOW encourages you to join us and other activists Monday, Nov. 16 and 23, from 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm in front of the Russell Senate Office Building. This is a great opportunity to network with your fellow women's rights activists and get some fresh air while you're at it.

Women are 51 percent of the population, yet we are continuously subjected to discriminatory laws. It is time we let our politicians know that their disregard for reproductive health care is unacceptable and that we will not idly stand by and watch as our rights are being taken away.

10 comments » Register or log in to leave a comment. [Log in] [Register...]
11
07

CALL NOW - Women's Rights and Lives Are on The Line

by Erin Matson, NOW Action Vice President

TAKE ACTION:
Please call your Representative RIGHT AWAY and tell her or him to vote NO on the anti-abortion, anti-woman Stupak Amendment. Then forward this message to everyone you know who supports women’s rights!

Here’s what’s going on:

The House is debating the health reform bill as I write, and a final vote will be later this evening. There will be only TWO amendments allowed before the final vote:

The Republican alternative to the bill that’s on the floor
The Stupak, Ellsworth, Pitts, Smith (NJ), Kaptur and Dahlkemper amendment that would drastically restrict women’s access to legal abortion services.

Every NOW member and all women’s rights supporters should call their Representatives immediately with a short message: I am a constituent / donor / voter /supporter of (name your congressperson) and I’m calling to urge you to please vote AGAINST the upcoming Stupak amendment. This amendment is a direct effort to curtail women’s access to reproductive health care. Your vote today will determine my vote next November!

The general number, 202-225-3121 is jammed, so go here to find the direct line to your Member: http://www.capwiz.com/now/dbq/officials/. If the Washington, DC office is busy, find your congressperson’s district office number at this same link.

According to the American Public Health Association, “The Stupak amendment would prohibit the ‘public option’ created in the legislation from covering abortion services. In addition, the amendment would prohibit any individual receiving subsidies for their insurance premiums from purchasing a plan that offers abortion services. The amendment could significantly impact lower and middle-income women who are not able to afford to purchase separate supplemental coverage for abortion services.”

At the Healthcare for America Now blog ( http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/11/07/call-today-to-defeat-the-stupak-anti-abortion-amendment/ ), there is a list of Members who need phone calls the most. If your Representative is on this list, call their DC and/or district offices and hit redial until you get through:

Leans pro-choice but needs shoring up:

Arcuri (D, NY-24) - 202-225-3665
Bean (D, IL-08) - (202) 225-3711
Bishop, S. (D, GA-02) - (202) 225-2203
Boswell (D, IA-03) - (202) 225-3806
Butterfield (D, NC-01) - (202) 225-3101
Cardoza (D, CA-18) - (202) 225-6131
Chandler (D, KY-06) - (202) 225-4706
Cooper (D, TN-05) - 202-225-4311
Costa (D, CA-20) - 202-225-3341
Doyle (D, PA-14) - 202-225-2135
Edwards, C. (D, TX-17) - 202-225-6105
Etheridge (D, NC-02) - (202) 225-4531
Gordon (D, TN-06) - (202) 225-4231
Kratovil (D, MD-01) - (202) 225-5311
Langevin (D, RI-02) - (202) 225-2735
McMahon (D, NY-13) - (202) 225-3371
Michaud (D, ME-02) - 202-225-6306
Minnick (D, ID-01) - (202) 225-6611
Neal (D, MA-02) - (202) 225-5601
Nye (D, VA-02) - (202) 225-4215
Obey (D, WI-07) - (202) 225-3365
Owens (D, NY-23) - (202) 225-4611
Ruppersberger (D, MD-02) - 202-225-3061
Ryan, T. (D, OH-17) - 202-225-5261
Salazar (D, CO-03) - 202-225-4761
Space (D, OH-18) - (202) 225-6265

Unknown:

Biggert (R, IL-13) - 202-225-3515
Carney (D, PA-10) - (202) 225-3731
Castle (R, DE-AL) - 202.225.4165
Cuellar (D, TX-28) - 202-225-1640
Davis, A. (D, AL-07) - (202) 225-2665
Dent (R, PA-15) - 202-225-6411
Ellsworth (D, IN-08) - (202) 225-4636
Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11) - (202) 225-5034
Kirk (R, IL-10) - 202-225-4835
Lynch (D, MA-09) - 202-225-8273
Pomeroy (D, ND-AL) - (202) 225-2611
Snyder (D, AR-02) - (202) 225-2506
Tanner (D, TN-08) - (202) 225-4714
Visclosky (D, IN-01) - (202) 225-2461

Leaning anti-choice:

Altmire (D, PA-04) - 202-225-2565
Barrow (D, GA-12) - (202) 225-2823
Berry (D, AR-01) - (202) 225-4076
Boccieri (D, OH-16) - (202) 225-3876
Bright (D, AL-02) - (202) 225-2901
Capito (R, WV-02) - 202.225.2711
Donnelly (D, IN-02) - (202) 225-3915
Hill (D, IN-09) - (202) 225-5315
Jenkins (R, KS-02) - (202) 225-6601
Kildee (D, MI-05) - 202-225-3611
Lance (R, NJ-07) - (202) 225-5361
Lee, C. (R, NY-26) - (202) 225-5265
Matheson (D, UT-02) - (202) 225-3011
Mollohan (D, WV-01) - (202) 225-4172
Ortiz (D, TX-27) - (202) 225-7742
Paulsen (R, MN-03) - (202) 225-2871
Perriello (D, VA-05) - (202) 225-4711
Rahall (D, WV-03) - (202) 225-3452
Ross (D, AR-04) - (202) 225-3772
Spratt (D, SC-05) - (202) 225-5501
Wilson, C. (D, OH-06) - (202) 225-5705

13 comments » Register or log in to leave a comment. [Log in] [Register...]
11
04

Brutal Gang Rape of a Teenage Girl Calls Attention to Violence Against Women

by Mai Shiozaki, NOW Press Secretary

As more suspects are arrested and more information about the savage crime of the gang-rape of the 15-year-old California girl surfaces, the media has done follow-up stories ranging from community outrage, questions of school safety, lack of parental involvement, the state of American youth and even angles investigating the so-called "bystander effect" – why people watched the attack but didn't intervene. Though media have done a good job following this story and getting people to reflect on their moral consciousness, they have yet to raise the issue that plagues and threatens women's lives everyday.

The community denounced violence last week at a rally in front of the school, but this was a specific crime targeting a specific gender – this was an act of violence that targeted a woman. Every minute three women are raped in the U.S. Teenage girls are especially at risk. According to a 2000 National Crime Survey, girls ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely to be victims of rape, attempted rape of sexual assault.

Could it considered a gender-based hate crime? Just last week President Obama signed the landmark hate crime legislation to extend existing federal hate crimes laws beyond the narrow scope of protected federal activities and also includes – for the first time – violent crimes committed on the basis of actual of perceived gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. Prosecutors could use the new hate crime legislation to go after the alleged rapists. The vicious nature of the crime and the possible collaboration and planning of the gang rape could propel prosecutors to use the new legislation.

The 15-year-old girl was preyed upon by a group of men and boys because of her gender. A plan to further weaken and enhance her vulnerability was orchestrated by giving her alcohol. Then she was reportedly brutally beaten and sexually assaulted for more than two hours by as many as 10 men and teens, while a reported 20 or more bystanders watched, laughed, photographed, videotaped and cheered on as the attack took place.

Like most violence, violence against women is not accidental – it has a purpose. It is used as a weapon of war, intimidation, the ultimate power and control, breaking of the family and community, and denying women's status. It is import for the media, the Richmond community, and the nation to identify crimes like the gang-rape as an act of violence against women because we need to make better connections on how to respond and prevent crimes like this from happening. The focus on prevention is what gives crimes against women their defining characteristics, and a chance for law enforcement, parents and communities to respond better.

A statement written by the victim was released last night. In it she says, "Violence is always the wrong choice. We realize people are angry about this but let the anger cause change, change that is necessary to keep our children, our neighbors and our friends safe." We must change the way we look and think about safety for our girls and what we are doing or not doing to protect them.

5 comments » Register or log in to leave a comment. [Log in] [Register...]

:: Next >>