Monthly Archives: November 2009

New Breast Cancer Guidelines Will Disproportionately Affect African-American Women

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made big news last week when they announced new guidelines for breast cancer screening, which suggest mammograms every two years for women ages 50-74; the old guidelines suggested that women over 40 get a mammogram every year.  Reactions from women, especially from breast cancer organizations and survivors, were generally not good, with one survivor saying that the new guidelines felt like a slap in the face.

Ashton Lattimore explains another reason why these new guidelines are problematic: they disproportionately affect African-American women, which could lead to devastating effects. She writes that African-American women “have the highest breast cancer death rate of any race, are at increased risk for developing the diseases at younger ages, and are disproportionately prone to an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer” known as triple negative, which progresses beyond stage one more quickly than other forms, and is also more resistant to traditional treatment. African-American women are also are more likely to be diagnosed at later stages of cancer and less likely to receive the necessary follow-up care. Additionally, “the U.S. Department of Health reports that Black women ages 35 to 44 have a breast cancer death rate more than twice that of white women in the same age group.”

These statistics show a definite bias towards the needs of white women in the study, which puts many African-American women, who actually need earlier and more frequent mammograms, in significant danger of not getting the care they need.

2 Comments

Filed under Women's health

Not Enough Room, Not Enough Money, Turning People Away: The Recession and Domestic Violence Shelters

A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette suggests that the recession is exacerbating the already arduous situations of domestic violence victims. Mackenzie Carpenter writes that “the stresses of the past year’s recession and continued financial uncertainty” are both “fueling increases in abuse” and “making it harder for victims to escape it.”

She recounts the terrifying, but not unusual, story of a 38-year-old Millvale woman whose boyfriend began to beat her more and more frequently after she lost her disability benefits, and money got tight: “He pulled her up by her neck, pointed a gun at her, tried to break her hand and told her he would like to kill her.” When she called a domestic violence shelter, they told her that they were full, and she would need to try to find a friend she could stay with, and as she says, “finally a few days later, I called [the shelter] back and they took me in.”

“She was lucky,” says Carpenter, who follows up with these statistics:

Five years ago, 72 women and children were turned away by the shelter, a number that rose steadily but slowly until last year, when 600 women and children were turned away, up from 222 the year before. For the first four months of this fiscal year, which began July 1 and ends June 30, 445 people already have been told to go elsewhere, which means the shelter is on track to set a record.

Shirl Regan, the director of the Women’s Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh, notes, “It’s been an explosion,” while Janet Scott, the associate director, calls the numbers “unprecedented” and adds that “I have never experienced so long a period where we were consistently full.” Although they are constantly on the phone trying to find other shelters in the regions where women and children can stay, those shelters are often full, in which case they are placed in facilities for homeless people. Carpenter adds that the same trend can be seen nationally. “According to the 2008 National Census of Domestic Violence Services, 8,927 victims were denied services during a one-day census conducted Sept. 17, 2008. That’s up from 7,707 on the same day in 2007.”

After officials at the Pittsburgh shelter started noticing a substantial jump in the number of women looking for a place to stay, they decided to ask victims whether the abuse was tied to financial worries. As of July, 68% have said yes.

Still, Brian Namey, spokesman for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, cautions against blaming the economic downturn alone for the prevalence of abuse: “The recession does not cause domestic violence, but an economic downturn can exacerbate existing abuse,” he said. “A poor economy can increase stress levels in relationships and limit options for victims to escape violent relationships.” Additionally, job loss can cause abusers to be home more frequently.

On top of all this, the recession has caused shelters to receive much less help from federal funds. Whereas the shelter used to be able to help some women transition to new housing by paying their security deposit and first month’s rent, this practice cannot be sustained in the midst of a poor economy, making it more difficult for women to start a new life outside of the shelter. Despite the growing number of obstacles, Regan says that they will not stop trying to help every woman and child who shows up at the shelter: “We will do everything we can to help families stay safe. Even if we don’t have room, we’ll find a way.”

For more information on the Women’s Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh, and the great work they do, click here.

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Baltimore Bill Requires Truth from Crisis Pregnancy Centers

A bill that just passed the Baltimore City Council for the second time this session would require crisis pregnancy centers to post notices saying that they don’t provide birth control or abortion referrals. Naturally, anti-choicers are up in arms about having to tell the truth to women seeking unbiased information about their options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy:

Pro-lifers said the city clinics are being targeted.

“In essence, we feel that it’s an unnecessary form of harassment for the clinics that do a great job with women who want to keep their children and for women that are undecided that don’t know what exactly they’re getting into,” pro-life supporter Bill Wingard said.

As our previous blog post on the subject noted, these centers often shame women into carrying their pregnancy to term and steamroll them giving the child up for adoption. Additionally, they often spread untruths about abortion, claiming that it causes breast cancer, infertility, or severe depression, when no peer-reviewed scientific study has found these claims to be true.

Luckily, City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake knows exactly what the bill will do:

“I’m not interested in harassment — not interested in there being an aura of burden on these centers. All I’m interested in is making sure when a women comes in, when she’s in crisis, that she knows what she’s getting when she walks in,” Rawlings-Blake said.

Women deserve accurate, unbiased information about all their choices when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. This bill would take one step to ensuring that happens.

3 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Contraception, Pregnancy, Reproductive Rights, Women's health

What Does Ellen and Portia’s Marriage Mean for Same-sex Marriage in the U.S.?

Saturday’s New York Times features an article about comedian Ellen DeGeneres discussing on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime talk show her recent marriage to actress Portia de Rossi. The wedding, filled with what the article suggests “may have been the most public display of gushingly romantic affection between two gay or lesbian celebrities,” came less than a week after Maine voters rejected same-sex marriage, making America’s widespread adoration of DeGeneres all the more interesting in terms of figuring out where exactly Americans stand on the issue of gay marriage.

In the handful of states where same-sex marriage is legal, legislatures and courts — not voters — have made it so. A few polls in recent months have suggested that while a majority of Americans believe that gay couples should be able to enter into unions with some of the legal protections of marriage, a minority believe that gays and lesbians should be permitted to “marry,” per se. Same-sex marriage doesn’t fit into the kind of family that many Americans believe should be idealized; it offends many others’ deeply felt religious principles.

And yet Ms. DeGeneres, who exchanged vows with Ms. de Rossi during a span last year when same-sex marriage was legal in California, seems more popular than ever — and among audiences squarely in the mainstream.

There are various explanations for the seemingly contradictory nature of Americans rejecting same sex marriage in several states, yet fully embracing Ms. DeGeneres. Some LGBT leaders suggest that the movement’s success will soon reflect Ellen’s. Toni Broaddus, the executive director of the Equality Federation, for example, says that “The story of Ellen is, in a way, a sort of metaphor for the story of the movement.” Others, like journalist Rachel Maddow, maintain that Ellen’s status as a comedian who “danc[es] in her sneakers and mak[es] everybody else get up and dance too” makes her unthreatening by nature.

However, the article purports that she is perceived as less threatening by virtue of her gender as well. The article suggests that this may be the case because demeaning stereotypes about gay men typically don’t extend to lesbian women. The article’s author, Frank Bruni, names a whole slew of lesbian entertainers on primetime TV, but gay men are not yet as accepted in the mainstream.

The article concludes by elucidating the radical nature of DeGeneres and de Rossi’s marriage—whilst also emphasizing that they are simply two people in love. This attitude is perfectly encapsulated in this simple phrase describing the image of the couple feeding cake to each other: “They look like countless other newlyweds. Then again, not.” We would like to congratulate Ms. DeGeneres and Ms. DeRossi for their recent nuptials, and furthermore state that we are hopeful that the public’s love of Ms. DeGeneres is a sign that opinions on same-sex marriage are evolving.

Comments Off

Filed under Equality, LGBT, Sexual orientation

The Goal of the “Men’s Rights” Movement: Eliminate All Women’s Rights

Kathryn Joyce, whose writing on crisis pregnancy centers we covered here, has written another groundbreaking article, this time about the growing power of the “men’s rights” movement.

Joyce explains that men’s rights advocates’ (MRAs) primary complaints concern the current status of domestic violence law in the United States, which they believe discriminates against innocent fathers, and in doing so, impinges on their civil rights. A statement from one of these organizations, RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), goes as far as to suggest that “domestic violence laws represent the largest roll-back in Americans’ civil rights since the Jim Crow era!”

Although these groups have long been recognized as a sort of lunatic fringe, and admittedly, their rhetoric is hard to take seriously, Joyce points out that these groups have recently been “racking up very real”—and rather scary—accomplishments. She writes,

In 2008, the organization claimed to have blocked passage of four federal domestic-violence bills, among them an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to international scope and a grant to support lawyers in pro bono domestic-violence work. Members of this coalition have gotten themselves onto drafting committees for VAWA’s 2011 reauthorization. Local groups in West Virginia and California have also had important successes, criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases, and winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory.

Joyce argues that they’ve managed this by presenting a new, more “polished” image to the world. They’ve scaled down their rhetoric, organized, and now present their cause as wanting nothing more than equality, and as being “innocent victims, ‘just one 911 call away’ from losing everything they have earned and loved.” This message seems to be effective—even while many in their ranks are still convicted batterers.

One of their attention-grabbing claims is that men and women experience domestic violence at equal rates. MRAs defend this claim by citing a study done by Miles Straus, suggesting that men are victims of domestic violence in 45-50% of cases. However, Joyce notes that this study has been criticized for being “cherry-picked,” “taken out of context,” and for ignoring crucial distinctions between types of violence, for example, equating a woman pushing her husband in self-defense with a husband pushing his wife down the stairs. Many of their other claims have similarly been proven misguided by researchers and critics, which makes the fact that these groups are actually gaining political ground all the more befuddling.

However, these groups are actually quite dangerous beyond their political agenda. Jack Straton, member of the Sexual Assault Task Force, spells out this danger:

“The biggest concern…is not the wasted effort on a false issue,” writes Straton, but the encouragement given to batterers to consider themselves the victimized party. “Arming these men with warped statistics to fuel their already warped worldview is unethical, irresponsible, and quite simply lethal.”

Joyce writes that other critics suggest the tactics used by MRAs are similar to those of abusers themselves in that they minimize existing violence, call it mutual, and discredit victims. As many individuals in these groups only understand themselves as victims, a serious threat of vigilante justice is becoming imminent. This is because, as Joyce writes, “[w]ithin the ranks of the men’s rights movement, vigilante ‘resisters’ are regularly nominated and lionized for acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo.” In more extreme MRA circles, the glorification of these ‘resisters’ included Pittsburgh’s George Sodini, who in March opened up fire in a women’s fitness class, killing three. Instead of blaming misogyny and an unsound mind for instances like these, MRAs suggest that these acts are somehow understandable reactions to feminism, and the way that men are undervalued and emasculated in this society. In other words, violence perpetuated by men against women is somehow women’s fault.

While acts such as these are not explicitly encouraged by all MRAs, a quote from Mark Rosenthal on the topic makes it clear that they are not exactly discouraged either: “In any movement, there is going to be a reasonable voice and people who are so hurt, who are so injured by the injustices, that they can’t afford to step back and try to take their emotions under control. But no movement is going to get anywhere without extremists.”

Joyce has again provided the public with an impressive piece of journalism. Although these groups parade under the rhetoric of ‘equal rights,’ Joyce’s examples show that their goals also suggest a desire to strip away women’s rights, perpetuate misogyny, and normalize violence again women.

1 Comment

Filed under Domestic violence, Women's health

Today is the last day to vote for the WLP!

If you haven’t already, please go to the Women and Girls Foundation’s website and cast your vote for the Women’s Law Project’s grant proposal.

Women and girls in western Pennsylvania are counting on you, and it only takes thirty seconds to vote!

Voting ends at 5 PM today, so don’t forget!

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Democrats Sacrifice Women’s Rights for Political Gains

Women’s Law Project Special Advisor Kate Michelman co-authored a scathing op-ed with former Catholics for Choice president Frances Kissling this week in the New York Times, criticizing House Democrats for passing the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the healthcare reform bill. As we wrote earlier this week, the Stupak-Pitts amendment cripples women’s access to abortion, a procedure which is fundamental to women’s equality.

Michelman and Kissling’s main argument is that the Democrats unquestionably sold women out by allowing the Stupak-Pitts amendment to pass with the healthcare reform bill: “To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for generations to come.” They further argue that, despite pro-choice Democrats’ claims that they were reluctant to sign the bill, and will continue to fight for women’s right to choose despite its passage, the party really invited this bill by “subordinat[ing] women’s health to short term political success.” They furthermore suggest that the results of this ‘compromise’ could be devastating for women’s rights—arguably more so than the actions of “abortion’s strongest foes.”

They write:

Many women — ourselves included — warned the Democratic Party in 2004 that it was a mistake to build a Congressional majority by recruiting and electing candidates opposed to the party’s commitment to legal abortion and to public financing for the procedure. Instead, the lust for power yielded to misguided, self-serving poll analysis by operatives with no experience in the fight for these principles. They mistakenly believed that giving leadership roles to a small minority of anti-abortion Democrats would solve the party’s image problems with “values voters” and answer critics who claimed Democrats were hostile to religion.

Democrats were told to stop talking about abortion as a moral and legal right and to focus instead on comforting language about reducing the number of abortions. In this regard, President Obama was right on message when he declared in his health care speech to Congress in September that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” — as if this happened to be a good and moral thing. (The tone of his statement made the point even more sharply than his words.)

Indeed, it is the job of Democrats and progressives to defend a woman’s right to choose—not to make it sound as if a woman’s choice is immoral and wrong. Furthermore, Michelman and Kissling add that the Democratic Party has also started calling anti-choicers “pro-life”—a rather dishonest signifier.

Currently the Democrats are simply happy to have a congressional majority, and thus, as Michelman and Kissling write, “they seem to think all positions are of equal value so long as the party maintains [this] majority.” If this is the case, however, Democrats seem to be forgetting that they need the votes of pro-choice women, whom they have often recognized as their base, in order to be elected—votes that they will certainly not get if the Stupak-Pitts amendment is part of the final bill. Indeed, we agree with the Michelman and Kissling’s formidable concluding discernment:

In the meantime, the victims of their folly will be the millions of women who once could count on the Democratic Party to protect them from those who would sacrifice their rights for political gains.

Comments Off

Filed under Abortion, Health insurance, Politics, Reproductive Rights, Women's health