A lot has been in the news about coverage parity for women's health and what it means for insurance companies and employers with healthcare coverage. Yesterday, the aptly named Blunt amendment was defeated in the US Senate, which would have allowed insurance companies to refuse to cover certain services like birth control. Under the yet-to-be-implemented Affordable Care Act, this would greatly reduce the amount of protected essential services, and provide yet another obstacle between women (especially those without means) and their access to legal health services in our country.
As you can tell from that introduction, I happen to hold a certain stance on this topic already. However, it is the reasons for such a stance that hold the most importance. My thought process is thus:
The discussion about the receipt of legal medical services (like birth control) belongs between a woman and her healthcare provider. I know this amendment would not directly infiltrate that relationship in any way, but if a woman knows that her health insurance does not cover medications that some feel are immoral, for her, there is a cost factor in that discussion that could lead to a different decision, a factor has nothing to do with her health. I find this problematic, especially when there is no other segment of medical care that is disputed in the same way. Other kinds of procedures that come close are more elective, and insurance companies often will make coverage exceptions for what is deemed "medically necessary."
Let's talk for a moment about medical necessity. Pregnancy is not a disease, but it is a condition of health that causes physiological changes that are life-changing in scope. Pharmaceuticals have been developed to prevent this condition for women who do not feel their lives or bodies can handle it at any particular time. The medication is prescribed by healthcare professionals, and can be medically indicated for more than just pregnancy prevention (birth control can be very helpful for conditions such as endometriosis and anemia). This sounds pretty medical to me. There is also strong evidence that women who put more space between pregnancies have better health outcomes, including both physical and mental health.
Regarding the moral argument, republican heterosexual married women who only have sex with their husbands need birth control too. That is what makes this argument so interesting to me. If we take a small slice of the population who in the eyes of some are the only ones doing the right thing, and determine they need these services also, the entire argument self-destructs. This is a universal concern, not only for women, but for the men who love and support them, and who are planning or not planning to have families of their own. When I am faced with the medical argument, this whole thing merely becomes an arbitrary decision to cover some services over others, and such practices just don't make sense.
Of course, I know that just because the Blunt amendment failed does not mean that individual states will decide to add birth control to their list of essential services. But at least we do not have a preemptive platform for such "medical discrimination" to take place everywhere. That to me is an excellent step. What do you think?
Read more about the Blunt amendment here.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Snowed in! Time for some hot-weather inspired comfort food.
Read on for how to make these babies in your own oven!
1. Mediterranean-inspired white bean hummus
Ingredients:
1 can white beans, drained with water set aside (sometimes called cannelini, sometimes called white kidney beans)
1 T tahini
2t lemon juice
2 cloves garlic
2T olive oil (or more if you're feeling it)
A nice smattering of the following (I didn't measure, just do about a teaspoon of each except the cayenne and black pepper, which you should just sprinkle in).
paprika
cumin
black pepper
ground coriander seeds
cayenne pepper
fresh or dried parsely
Salt to taste
Salt to taste
Method:
Place all ingredients into a food processor and blend. If the consistency is too dry or sort of "cakey," add small amounts of the bean-water you set aside. When desired consistency is achieved, taste and adjust seasonings as necessary. Add salt if needed. Enjoy with pitas or crackers or veggies!
2. Baked curry fries
Ingredients:
2 medium sized russet potatoes or whatever you have
olive oil, enough to coat potatoes (probably about 1/4 cup or less)
3 T curry powder, or make your own! I do equal parts cumin, ground coriander, and turmeric, plus cayenne, black pepper, garlic powder, salt, onion powder, and maybe a little cinnamon if I'm feeling it.
Method:
Preheat your oven to 400 degrees farenheit. Cut the potatoes into sticks, about 1/3 inch in width. I leave the skins on for extra flavor, but peel if you'd rather. The best way to cut the potatoes is to cut off the ends, slice them the long way into planks, then separate your planks into 2 piles with flat bottoms, and cut into sticks. Place your sticks into a large mixing bowl and pour the olive oil over them. Then add some of your curry powder, a little at a time with mixing in-between to ensure that all your fries are coated. Arrange them in one layer on a cookie sheet lubricated with cooking spray, or on top of parchment paper. Bake about 30-40 minutes until crispy on the outside and soft on the inside. Serve immediately with a nice yogurt sauce or just ketchup. Yum!
Please ask if my recipes don't make sense! I'm a new blogger and all that. I hope you all are having an excellent leap day, and if you prefer politics to cooking, don't worry, there will be more to come.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Transvaginal ultrasounds and state legislatures. What do I think?
As a follower of several news blogs on reproductive health (not to mention my part-time life as a public health student studying such topics), I have been thinking lately about the transvaginal ultrasound bill that has been generating buzz in Virginia. I understood from the news that the debate was over the fact that the bill included language about showing patients their fetus as an ultrasound image and having them listen to the heartbeat, something the pro-life side thought might deter them from going through with the procedure. The pro-choice side seems to be saying that forcing women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds is akin to forced vaginal penetration (some are even saying rape). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that a nutshell would encase as much.
You can read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/sunday-review/ultrasound-a-pawn-in-the-abortion-wars.html
My feelings are somewhat mixed. I do not feel that the legislature has any right to dictate what a doctor or health center's steps should be in providing abortion care, and I think this is the heart of the issue. But to compare transvaginal ultrasounds to forced penetration or rape sends the wrong message to women. My thought process is thus:
When I worked at reproductive health clinic that provided abortions in the first trimester, we always did a transvaginal ultrasound before the procedure. Of course, women always have the right to refuse medical treatment (see cobbs v. grant, etc.) but if one of our patients refused an ultrasound, she would not be allowed to obtain the abortion procedure. Ultrasounds were necessary because we needed to medically determine that the pregnancy was inside the uterus: Ectopic pregnancy, or pregnancy implanted somewhere other than the uterine wall, can be fatal. Not only will the ectopic pregnancy go undetected without an ultrasound (a pregnancy test will still show up positive in this case), the abortion will not work. In addition, certain types of abortion can only be performed when the fetus is a certain gestational age, and ultrasound is one of the most accurate means of measuring the length of a pregnancy. In other words, it must be determined that the dating is sufficiently early to have the either a vacuum aspiration or medication abortion successfully. In our clinic, if a pregnancy was not found in the uterus or if the pregnancy was too far along, we would refer the patient elsewhere for more advanced care.
Again, I do not believe that the legislature belongs in the exam room during an abortion procedure. Every health center must have the freedom to make their own rules, as mine did, about what medical policies should be. But using words like forced penetration and rape make it seem to the general public that transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions are always bad, when in fact, they can be quite helpful. The issue seems to be instead the idea of forcing women to look at the images and hear the heartbeat. In my clinic, we offered women a chance to see the image, but did not force them if they declined. Many wanted to and expressed relief at it not looking like they expected (e.g. not looking like the images on the signs of protesters they had seen).
I understand opposition to this bill, and I myself stand with such opposition. But we must be sensible in our arguments and think about the message we are sending to women about abortion. What are your thoughts?
Welcome!
Lately I have been toying with the idea of making my thoughts and opinions public on the internet, for, if anything, to have a record of what I thought about things as they happened. I don't have a specific theme for these posts as of yet, but I have a feeling the topics will come down to my favorite things: reproductive health politics, bikes, vegetarian cooking, and the higher education system (which I am currently a part of). I'm also a feminist, listener of music, sex-positive thinker, and intellectual. Got me? Good.
I prefer to use the term curious because I like to wonder about things, and my opinions are almost never fixed. Please feel free to comment and I will consider what you have to say and respond if I have the time and energy. I'm almost always willing to see all sides of an argument, or use new pieces of evidence to reconstruct my thoughts. This is my academic side and I like it until it gets me in trouble for seeing things in too many shades of grey.
That's all for now, check back soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)