What’s a Woman To Do?

MOMocrats welcomes guest author Linda Tarr-Whelan's comments on the health insurance reform bill and the promise it holds for women and children. Please support the MomsRising campaign at the post's end!

Health care for women is in the news these days. But what does it all mean?  Having just researched for my new book what different decisions emerge when 30% women are at the table, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Congress were made up of 30% women, instead of 17%.  But more on that in future posts!

For today, I’m riveted by news stories that a “very prestigious independent medical panel” has recommended big changes in our health care routines.  As a colon cancer survivor and former nurse, it leaves me with more questions than answers. They talked about preventing deaths from breast cancer, but then told us to cut out several key steps we have learned to take.

We have walked, done relays, worn pink ribbons and educated ourselves to take practical steps:  do breast self-exams, have the mammograms we need after the age of 40 and regular doctors’ visits. Could these common-sense precautions really be unnecessary?  Really?

Oh RNC, honestly (or not!)? How the RNC asks people to work the system against health care reform

This afternoon, I received the following message from the RNC:

Subject: Your Call Can Make the Difference

** URGENT CALL TO ACTION ** After months working in secret behind closed doors, Harry Reid this week finally unveiled his 2,074-page government-run health care plan. His plan would increase health care premiums, increase taxes on families and small businesses by half a trillion dollars, cut Medicare by another half trillion dollars, and allow federal funds to be used for abortions. Click here for 10 things you should know about the bill. Harry Reid has scheduled a critical vote this Saturday night that will allow the Senate to take-up his bill. If that vote succeeds, Harry Reid will be dangerously close to finally imposing President Obama's government-run health care scheme on America. Two Democrat Senators - Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) - are critically important to defeating Saturday's vote. The RNC urges every concerned citizen to call Sens. Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln TODAY and tell them to vote against Harry Reid's liberal bill when it comes up for a vote on Saturday. This is the best opportunity there will be to stop President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from imposing their government-run health care plan on America. Again, please call Sens. Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln TODAY and tell them to vote against Harry Reid's health care bill when it comes up for a vote on Saturday. Republican National Committee | 310 First Street, SE | Washington, D.C. 20003 p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e: info@gop.com Paid for by the Republican National Committee. 310 First Street, SE - Washington, D.C. 20003 - (202) 863-8500 www.gop.com Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Unsubscribe Copyright 2009 Republican National Committee

Et tu, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued new guidelines for pap smears, which screen for cervical cancer. Previously, they suggested beginning testing after becoming sexually active and testing annually starting in your twenties. Now, they say women in their 20s only need to be checked every two years and testing should begin after 21. Women in their thirties should only be tested every three years after three clear test results, according to the new guidelines. The new guidelines are based on the newer science, which also shows that unlike other cancers, cervical cancer tends to be slow growing and the doctors say that less frequent testing will lead to less frequent procedures, which, they claim, could lead to disrupted fertility.

Cervical cancer rates have dropped by 50% due to regular pap testing.

The ACOG is quick to add that this should not disrupt women's annual exam schedule.

In the last month, women's health care  has taken a heavy and hard hit. Women's reproductive care hit the metaphorical equivalent of the Great Wall of China with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which just received endorsement from the US Conference on Catholic Bishops. Prominent women, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner have publicaly criticized and opposed this amendment, saying it is an insult to women's health care and an assault on privacy and access to legal care.

Next, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced that it is changing its guidelines for mammography and no longer recommends routine screening for women between the ages of 40 and 49. The American Cancer Society, however, continues to "recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40."

Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer, American Cancer Society said, “The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40.

"Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider. When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions."

BRUNNER SAYS U.S. HOUSE ACTION MOVES WOMEN'S RIGHTS BACKWARD

MOMocrats are happy to welcome back guest poster Ohio Secretary of State and Senate Candidate Jennifer Brunner as she comments about the Stu-Pitts action in the House and the untenable effect it has on women's right to access legal health care. She sent this official statement, which we are running in its entirety:

Ohio Secretary of State and U.S. Senate candidate Jennifer Brunner today called the House passage of a last-minute anti-choice amendment to health reform an insult to Ohio women and an assault on the right to privacy -- and strongly urged the Senate to protect a woman's right to choose. Brunner said that while passage of the health care reform bill is on balance a positive step, it is critically important that America not allow the anti-choice forces to achieve through Congressional statute what the courts have repeatedly refused - the elimination of a woman's right to choose.

The amendment, offered by anti-choice Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), was adopted late Saturday by a vote of 240-194. The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women - even if they pay for it with their own funds. The Stupak-Pitts amendment would leave Ohio women worse off than they are today by denying them the right to use their own money to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system - a policy far more far-reaching than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortions since 1977. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"By voting yesterday to block women from essential reproductive health care services, the anti-choice obstructionists in Congress have abandoned Ohio women and would legislate a woman's constitutional right to choose ineffective at best," Brunner said. "The final health care bill must not only guarantee each Ohioan's right to the health care they need when they need it, it also must also provide access to reproductive health services for all, regardless of income level and regardless of whether or not they receive government subsidized care," Brunner added. "Universal health care is based on the principle that health care should be equally accessible to all citizens. Universal health care does not allow income to determine who gets care and services, and who does not. The Stupak-Pitts amendment violates this basic tenet."

It's a Mad World in the US House of Representatives when it comes to Health Care Reform

The US House of Representatives just asked women to take a sucker punch in the ovaries, "Sacrifice your fair access to LEGAL health care for the GREATER GOOD."

I think women have been sacrificing too much for too long for the greater good. Elected officials -- put in office, by the way, most likely largely by women -- have no right to not ask but IMPOSE such a sacrifice on women.

I don't think it's time to suck it up and take another one for the team, with all due respect, Madame Speaker Pelosi, and I'm flabbergasted you think that's the right thing to do.

Let's get one thing crystal clear: I am personally opposed to abortion. That's right, I am. My husband and I rejected prenatal testing and even had a specialist threaten to drop us from care because we would not sign a paper agreeing to selective reduction or abortion.That was our choice for us, and we don't extend our personal choices or morals to anyone else.

What we do extend to others is a trust and respect in their ability to choose what is best for them and their family and their own life situation.That's because we inherently believe in the individual's right to free will and choice.

Sort of, you know, like the founding principles of the great nation of the USA.

That's also my guiding principle behind believing utterly in a woman's right to choose for her reproduction, a legal right, by the way.

The Stu-Pitts of Congress, and Women's Health Care From the Waist Up

Forgive me if I sound a little bitter despite being deeply moved by the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act this past weekend in the House. It IS a huge achievement and one-third of what we need to get the bill to President Obama to sign. I'm proud and grateful so many wonderful elected representatives who truly want to help Americans were able to move mountains and pass the bill.

It's just that, well, that was quick. We had a wonderful feminist moment there, didn't we, when we realized that women are treated differently than men by health insurers. We finally exposed the widespread practice of gender-rating--or disparate pricing by gender--for health insurance coverage that unfairly requires women to pay more than men with similar health status. We learned how eight states still allow insurers to consider domestic violence as a "pre-existing condition" to deny women coverage. We saw documentation of how common it is for women to be uninsured and underinsured whether it's employer-based coverage or self-procured, and how this made health insurance reform of particular interest to women. A quick statistic from the Commonwealth Study linked immediately above:

Six in ten women with moderate incomes (between $20,000 and $40,000) report being unable to pay medical bills, being contacted by a collection agency for unpaid medical bills, changing their way of life to pay medical bills or paying off medical debt over time, as did almost half (46%) of middle-income women.

Women rallying support around health insurance reform, I maintain, helped lift poll numbers for the public option and lift some of the curse extremist Teabaggers had tried to cast on the bill.

"Off With Their Heads!" (Hey, They Aren't Using Them Anyway)

I'm sure by now most MOMocrats readers have seen the video of Billionaires for Wealth serenading Bill McInturff as he speaks to America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). But, if you haven't yet witnessed the spectacle, please feast your eyes:

I saw the video on Rachel Maddow. "Gleeful" might be too weak a word to describe my reaction. My husband, ever the professor, reminded me that I'd be all kinds of annoyed if someone interrupted a meeting of say, Trust for America's Health or the National Partnership for Women and Families.

I thought about that all evening. You know what? He's right. I would be FURIOUS. And if that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. I'm ready to fight for health care reform. 

A cry for help

Here's the letter I faxed to my representatives. I understand they pay more attention to handwritten letters than emailed or typed letters. Click for the large version. It's my last shot at trying to get them (especially Rep. Gallegly and Senator Feinstein) to get a clue about how desperate we are. $4,700 - colonoscopy. $500/mo, ongoing supplies/meds. Health care reform I can actually afford? Priceless. All we have now is a train wreck.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Please Call Your Senators Now for Real Health Care Reform (iflizwerequeen.com)
• Health-Care Reform: Uninsured Young Adults Are a Problem (time.com)
• The Senate Finance Health Bill Has No Clothes (thehealthcareblog.com)

Go Watch It: Rachel Maddow Takes on Americans for Prosperity

In August, I wrote about how astroturfing groups funded by big business and staffed by GOP political operatives and corporate lobbyists — like the Koch Industries-funded group Americans for Prosperity — are influencing the national debate on health care by helping to organize and promote Tea Party gatherings and town hall protests at the local level.

Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow took on Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips in a scathingly direct interview. If you're concerned about the involvement of corporate lobbyists in the health care debate, don't miss this interview! Watch parts one and two below (part two is after the jump).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Hear My Story: I’m insured (for now), but I want health insurance reform

MOMocrats are honored and happy to welcome successful author and advocate Melissa Stanton as a guest blogger covering the ongoing health care reform discussion. Today, the Senate Finance Committee is voting on the health bill. It's a landmark day, and hopefully the Senate will hear voices such as Melissa's on this topic. She offers the perspective so many of us can relate to: a "rags to riches to rags to riches. . ." history of on again/off again health care. Read on for Melissa's story. . .

I’m very lucky. I have health insurance through my husband's corporate job.

That coverage, though, requires that we pay several hundred dollars a month out-of-pocket toward the premiums, and of course for the deductibles, co-pays, etc. But, we didn’t have to apply for the insurance, and since it’s a group health plan, we couldn’t be denied coverage due to any pre-existing conditions. (Have you heard? A c-section can be considered a pre-existing condition.)

Although my family is currently blessed with decent employer-sponsored health coverage, I am a strong believer in health insurance reform, including a public option. Experience tells me that good fortune doesn't always last.

As a child in the mid-1970s, my father and stepfather were both unemployed at the same time due to corporate layoffs. Although my mother and my dad's wife worked, neither had jobs with health coverage. I remember being very sick (with some strange allergy that left me puffed up and covered in hives) and not being able to see a doctor due to our lack of health insurance, and money.

As an adult, my insurance fortunes have varied between near rags and comparative riches.

I landed a staff job with benefits soon after college. However, when the magazine I worked for folded, I spent $400 a month for medical and dental coverage premiums as an unmarried 25-year-old. My access to coverage came through COBRA, the federal law that allows workers to keep their employer-sponsored health benefits for 18 months after a job loss by paying the full cost of the premiums. (In response to the bad economy and the escalating cost of insurance premiums, President Obama signed legislation earlier this year enabling laid off employees to pay just 35 percent of the cost of coverage for nine months. While $350 a month in premiums sure is better than, say, $1,000, it's still a big bill to foot when you're unemployed. Not only that, the discount and the coverage expires.)

Fortunately, I immediately found work after that layoff; however, my new employer (one of the largest magazine publishing companies in the world) hesitated to put people on staff, lest it have to pay for benefits and absorb other employee costs. So I worked as a freelancer, or “independent contractor,” which meant I did the same work as staff members did, but without any insurance, paid vacation, 401-k or job protections. Marriage eventually supplied me with coverage, as did my eventual hiring as a full corporate citizen worthy of a fantastic package of employee benefits.

A decade later, when my husband lost his Wall Street-area, Internet-industry job due to layoffs and accepted a hard-to-turn-down consulting position in Maryland, I left my corporate career in New York. Although I redirected my work efforts toward freelance assignments and caring for our toddler son, because my spouse received no employee benefits (remember, he was a consultant), I sought out a family-flexible retail job that paid just $10 an hour but provided health insurance for a 30 hour week. (These days, with employers, and especially retail employers, slashing hours and benefits, such a work-for-the-insurance option might be nearly impossible to find.)

Soon after, I became pregnant with twins. I quickly became too sick to work and was put on bed rest. I had to quit the job. (I hadn’t been there long enough for disability leave.) We wound up paying nearly $1,000 a month for family coverage premiums through COBRA. We were lucky to be able to keep (and afford) the employer-contracted group coverage. If we'd been forced to shop for private insurance on the open market, the cost would have likely been higher, and my pregnancy would almost certainly have been deemed a pre-existing condition and excluded from coverage. By the time our 18-month access to COBRA expired my husband had become a staff employee, and with that change in status we were once again the beneficiaries of employer-sponsored insurance.