Unconscionable, part 2

After decades of public and private debate, a sweeping health care plan was passed by Congress that included provisions for every American to be covered by health care insurance, thus gaining access to basic medical care. Women across the nation cheered when they learned that all forms of contraception were on the list of basic care to be covered without a copay.

When some religious institutions insisted they should be exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraception based upon the "conscience" of the institution, President Obama overcame hostile reactions from the religious right and stood by women, providing that the insurance company will have to pay for it instead of the employer.

We applaud this decision by the President to stick by women and ensure their access to contraception, no matter their employer.

But for those of us in Missouri, the fight is not over! Senator Lamping has proposed a bill that would allow any employer, no matter the nature of business, to claim a religious exemption to providing any particular health insurance coverage based upon their personal religious beliefs.

AND, there is a movement to get a ballot initiative on the November ballot to enshrine this religious exception into our state constitution!

That any employer would claim his/her "conscience" to be more important that the right of individuals to receive equal access to medical care is, quite frankly, unconscionable. We do not accept the premise that employers can hide behind God in order to discriminate against a segment of their employees. There is nothing godly in discrimination.

Contraception is indeed basic health care. 98% of all women use modern forms of contraception during their fertile years. There is nothing more basic to a woman's health than the timing of children. Nor is there anything more basic to her role as a productive employee.

Should where a woman works be the determining factor in whether she is eligible for insurance coverage? Certainly not. Should she face religious discrimination by her employer and be refused this basic care? Unconscionable.

We must all fight back against this ridiculous move to take away our contraception and to grant special privileges to the religious values of the few.

Unconscionable

by the Reverend Rebecca Turner

After decades of public and private debate, a sweeping health care plan was passed by Congress that included provisions for every American to be covered by health care insurance, thus gaining access to basic medical care.

Since its passage, HHS and the FDA have made decisions about which medical procedures and pharmaceuticals are to be considered basic care, must be offered in every plan, and are to be fully covered without a co-pay by the insured. Women across the nation cheered when they learned that all forms of contraception were on the list of basic care.

Then another debate began: Some religious institutions insisted they should be exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraception based upon the "conscience" of the institution. President Obama met with Catholic leaders to hear their views, but ultimately decided that only churches, not hospitals or universities, could claim an exemption for religious reasons.

I applaud this decision by the President.

The distinction between church and other institutions is a fair one. Churches are primarily for those of that particular faith. But universities and hospitals exist for a wider public. If they do not require their employees to practice their religious faith, they should not expect those employees to live their private lives by the standards of that faith.

That any religious organization would claim its organizational "conscience" to be more important that the right of individuals to receive equal access to medical care is, quite frankly, unconscionable. That this particular care is women's health care is a clear act of discrimination against female employees of all faiths.

The Obama decision does not require that a hospital perform abortions or sterilizations. It does not require a doctor to prescribe contraception. It does not require a religious school to dispense emergency contraception. It only requires that all institutions who provide health care insurance plans meet the government standards.

Contraception is indeed basic health care. 98% of all women use modern forms of contraception during their fertile years. There is nothing more basic to a woman's health than the timing of children. Nor is there anything more basic to her role as a productive employee.

Should where a woman works be the determining factor in whether she is eligible for insurance coverage? Certainly not. Should she face religious discrimination by her employer and be refused this basic care? Unconscionable.

Susan G. Komen Lets Breast Cancer Win

I woke up this morning to the devastating news that the Susan G. Komen Foundation officially pulled its funding from Planned Parenthood.

Literally two weeks ago, I walked into my local Planned Parenthood to get a second opinion on a lump that I had found back in September. When my OB/GYN’s office returned to me an inconclusive result from the first exam, I knew I needed to talk to someone else. I am 23 years old, and found an irregular lump that was tugging from the inside – a big, red flag for anyone who has ever taken a women’s health course.

Both my mom and maternal grandma have had significant issues with their breasts, too (both have been “flagged” for benign tumors), so I wasn’t taking any chances. I had my first mammogram in December, and got a less than positive response from my OB/GYN.

Because I am so young, my insurance only covers one mammogram/ultrasound every few years. I’d like to thank my Republican representatives and opponents of preventative health care for this appalling set up. The rate of breast cancer in young women is rising, but the men running our country are turning the other way. No one seems to understand that preventative care not only saves lives, but money as well. Every other country in the developing world uses a preventative care system, but the U.S. does not.

To get a second opinion, I went to the last place I ever expected to have to go for a second screening and opinion: Planned Parenthood. It was the only place in St. Louis that was willing to get me in, and understand that I’m a student essentially without insurance in the state of Missouri (shout out to the Indiana Republicans who screwed me over on that, too.) The cancer screening and exam was free, thank God. The nurses and doctors at Planned Parenthood were so incredibly polite and understanding during my ordeal, considering how much of a basket case I was at the time.

To me, at that point, sitting in the waiting room, it didn’t matter how much I worked out, how much organic food I stuffed into my mouth, or how healthy I stayed – my genetics were going against me and I was in a state of despair.

Regardless, it turned out to be benign, but an irregular growth, nonetheless. But thanks to Planned Parenthood, it was caught and now I will monitor the lump for the rest of my life, in case it develops to a malignant cancerous tumor.

I am so disappointed that Susan G. Komen, so called “crusaders” for women, pulled its funding to provide breast cancer screenings to young women like myself whose insurance doesn’t carry over into another state, or women who can’t afford to see an OB/GYN. That’s not crusading for women, or promoting health and wellness for anyone. Susan G. Komen gave into the demands of baseless, science-lacking factions who would rather see thousands of women like myself develop breast cancer and struggle for the rest of their lives.

I used to run in every Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure I could, and now I know, at the end of the day, they never really had my interests at heart. I will never run in one of their races or donate to their cause again, until they acknowledge the millions of young women and poor women who rely on Planned Parenthood's cancer screening services. Only then will I know that they actually have my best interests at heart.

So, thank you, Susan G. Komen, for showing your true colors, and it’s definitely not pink in support of women. This issue is not about abortion, it’s not about birth control – it’s about women having the right to access the health care services they need, and you just deprived millions of us from getting them.

- Chelsea

Here’s My "Male Perspective" by Ben Conover

For my first year of undergraduate studies, I made my way to Boston University in hopes of studying philosophy and classics. One of my professors suggested I pair my activism in LGBT matters with media and take the Women’s Studies class on the topic. So I enrolled in the once-a-week class with optimism.

On the first day of class, I walked in and took a seat around a circle of about 30 women and one other man. While I was not used to having class in which there were very few male students – I went to an “all-guys” high school – I was not bothered by the skewed percentages. After all, it was what I had expected since it was a Women’s Studies class.

While I was getting a few dirty glances from some of the students – those “Why are you here?” stares – my uneasiness only slightly increased; as far as the course material went, it was one of my favorite classes. How can you not enjoy a class where you write your term paper comparing gender representations between two alternative music magazines and a final that analyzes the stereotypes and gendered biases in How I Met Your Mother?

One of the basic principles you learn in a Women’s Studies class: it is unfair to generalize about people based on gender, race, etc. Our class often discussed how the public perceptions of women were based largely around stereotypes and limited diversity among public personas. Women of color were grossly underrepresented, as well as any women that did not fit stereotypical norms of appearance, gender, or sexuality. Similarly, there is not one feminist writer/thinker/perspective that represents all views. Simply, it is problematic and often erroneous to generalize about the “female” or “woman’s” perspective. Another important topic in Women’s Studies is equality; gender equality, sex equality, and just equality in general are always at the forefront of discussion.

In this particular class, however, both principles were violated. Now I am not talking about “man-hating” or anything like that. Certainly this can be a tendency of discussion for a group of young female cohorts, but it is vehemently denounced by most feminists. However, after our discussions that would thoroughly cover the different perspectives on a topic from various women’s points of view, my teacher would turn towards my chair and ask, “So Ben, what is the male perspective on this?”

The first time this happened I was slightly stunned, meekly replying that I felt unequipped to speak for all men. “Right, right okay Ben, can you give us a male perspective?” So I talk about the role of masculinity in my life and the general verbal/emotional abuse that comes with being labeled feminine within the social circles I occupy. Sure, I can represent a man’s perspective. I can add to the many voices that make up men’s perspectives, but I certainly feel no ability to speak for all men, or “the male perspective.”

This question reoccurred time after time. Finally, I went up to my professor and told her I felt it was problematic to be asked for the male perspective in light of our diversification of perspectives of women.

“Well, you are the only one in the class who can provide such a perspective, Ben.”
True enough, but what I am saying is that there is no one male perspective.
“Your insight is very important to this class Ben. I don’t often have too many men in my classes. It is refreshing to have that perspective.”

My former professor’s question is problematic for several reasons. First, it upholds a strict gender binary in its assumption that men and women must have drastically different ideas on the same subject. It also implies that we as men are all the same. I can only speak for myself, but I want to understand other perspectives and I do not think men or women are all the same. A lot can be accomplished from the acceptance of men into the field, especially feminist men with varying backgrounds.

So here’s just one male perspective of being “the guy” in a Women’s Studies class. I expect the questions about why I am a Women’s Studies minor. I expect the questions as to why I took whatever class I happen to be in. I even expect the expectation of others that I am gay – although this is a stereotype in it of itself. But I expect more from my professors and fellow students. I do not represent THE male perspective, as there is no one universal male (or female) perspective and it hurts everyone to generalize about who or what people are supposed to be. So if you do not want to be put into a box of oppressive social “norms,” please do not put others in boxes. But that's just my perspective.

Happy Holidays,
Ben

Ben is a sophomore Philosophy/Psychology major and Women’s Studies minor at Saint Louis University.

The Double-Bind: Anti-Choice Advocates Attack Abortion, but Deny Support to Mothers

In the recent presidential primary debates, the Republican candidates have shown a drastic shift to the right on their stance on abortion. In last few decades, Republican candidates have almost always taken a “pro-life” stance, however, it seems the candidates in this election cycle are taking the issue to the extreme. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Michelle Bachman have been strong proponents for “personhood” legislation, which would define life as beginning at the moment of conception; this legislation is so controversial that the Mississippi Catholic Church called the Prop 26 Personhood Amendment “too extreme” and even the National Right to Life organization opposed it because it would not allow exceptions for pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother, or pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest.

However, rape and incest do not seem to phase the candidates. Newt Gingrich was quoted as supporting an amendment to allow states to decline funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest in 1995, and Herman Cain recently announced that he opposes all abortions, including those to end pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Rick Santorum also stated that abortion should be completely banned regardless of the situation; he described abortions as “traumatizing” and thinks that victims of sexual assault would benefit from carrying their rapist’s baby to term. Santorum would not only make illegal all forms of abortion, but if elected, he would try to limit access to contraception: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” He says, “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Hmmm, I wonder if he's aware that more than 99 percent of women, aged 15–44 have used at least one form of contraception...

The attack on women’s reproductive autonomy does not stop there. Strangely enough, although these candidates are urging women to “choose life” over abortion, the Republican party is also trying to de-fund services that assist mothers and young children. In September, the Republican leadership released its draft Fiscal Year 2012 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill, that reduces funding for health care reform by at least $8.6 billion and makes significant cuts to services for low income women and families. Among other cuts, they proposed a $1.8 million reduction for Title V Maternal and Child Health Services, as well as the termination of the Title V Maternal, Infant and Early Child Health Home Visiting Program, the Pregnancy Assistance Fund, and Title X Family Planning grants, which would result in millions of women losing access to basic primary and preventive health care, including lifesaving cancer screenings, birth control, annual exams and STD testing. According to the Guttmacher Institute, publicly funded clinics such as Title X Family Planning programs are estimated to help to prevent nearly two million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise (ironically) end in abortion.

This alarming lack of support for mothers is echoed by several of the candidates. Santorum, despite his “pro-life” position, was quoted blaming single mothers for the economic struggles of the country and suggesting that it is their voice in the poll booth that Republicans should combat: “Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: it is single mothers who run a household. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families.” What exactly do you propose Santorum? Perhaps a bill that requires a pregnant woman to get married or else be thrown in jail?

How can someone who claims to oppose abortion at all costs also show outright disdain of single mothers? Unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric is far too common in the current political dialogue, all conveying the same message: sexuality (especially female sexuality) and female independence is bad, that women are incapable of making good decisions, and that they should not be entrusted with control over their own bodies. With the upcoming elections, women’s issues are at the forefront, with the emphasis on limiting access to family planning and eliminating the right to choose. Now more than ever, it is important to be outspoken about the importance of reproductive justice, to educate our friends, and talk to our representatives about why reproductive choice is a freedom we do not want to lose.