What is the relation between these trends and phenomena? I'm working on the answer but for now, the question is sufficient.
Births to Asian, black and Hispanic women in the United States are on the verge of surpassing births to non-Hispanic whites and will likely pass the 50% mark this year.
Over the past two decades, the US has seen soaring rates of maternal mortality and pregnancy-related complications that particularly affect minorities and those living in poverty.
The US spends more money on mothers' health than any other nation in the world, yet women in America are more likely to die during childbirth than they are in most other developed countries, according to the OECD and WHO.
Nearly one in three women who gave birth in 2006 had only briefly (9%) or never met (19%) their primary birth attendant.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The NIH Consensus Development Conference on VBAC has been big news in the Maternal Care Advocacy community. Was this the first NIH conference that alluded to the presence of bloggers? Amy Romano found that mention notable. Here is an interesting picture of the social networks between tweeters who have included #NIHVBAC in their tweets as of this morning, March 10, 2010. Made by Marc Smith, ConnectedAction.net, using NodeXL. Anyone can use this open source tool to make similar network maps.
Note the centrality of tweeters' networks in the NIHVBAC map, compared to a social network map of tweets on the key words "Maternal Mortality" done early last month. Patterns of social networks differ by topic and participants. More to come!
Friday, May 30, 2008
A few news items of note:
Great press coverage in the Seattle Times yesterday about a program near and dear to my heart -- the Birth Attendants of Olympia, WA, are a dedicated group of doulas and childbirth educators who provide education and doula support to incarcerated women who are pregnant and mothering their babies.
and from the CDC, we find that the increased cesarean rate is in fact, creating more preterm births. Here's the MSNBC link to the story and some selected quotes:
Finally, something you don't see every day: Photographs ofa woman's cervix every day through her cycle. It is an amazing sight. Check out My Beautiful Cervix
Great press coverage in the Seattle Times yesterday about a program near and dear to my heart -- the Birth Attendants of Olympia, WA, are a dedicated group of doulas and childbirth educators who provide education and doula support to incarcerated women who are pregnant and mothering their babies.
and from the CDC, we find that the increased cesarean rate is in fact, creating more preterm births. Here's the MSNBC link to the story and some selected quotes:
"Researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the March of Dimes compared single births — not twins or other multiple births, which are at an increased risk for pre-term birth — in 1996 and 2004. The rate of premature births rose by about 10 percent in that period, they said.
The number of premature births rose from 354,997 in 1996 to 414,054 in 2004, the study published in the journal Clinics in Perinatology showed.
"When one looks at the numbers carefully, there was an increase of 60,000 who were pre-term, and 92 percent of them were by Caesarean section," Fleischman said."
and
"The increase in pre-term births is really being driven by the Caesarean section rate, and really demands good research to sort out what percent of those are not medically indicated deliveries," Fleischman said in a telephone interview.
"My gut tells me its significant, but I can't give you an estimate and a percent," Fleischman added."
Finally, something you don't see every day: Photographs ofa woman's cervix every day through her cycle. It is an amazing sight. Check out My Beautiful Cervix
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
In the News....
attendance at childbirth education classes has dropped. It has been my first time being interviewed and quoted by a reporter. The USA Today article has been my 15 minutes of notice and has been gratifying. It has also renewed my commitment to get more of my writing published. Tracing this news story throughout the media channels has been interesting too.
Here's a little something about male doulas in Canada. Unfortunately for doulas, when someone like Vince Vaughan comes in to define who and what a doula is to the mass market, they may be in for some troubles. (as in, do you think that film Klingendorf's Tribe was of benefit to cultural anthropologists? ) The public comments were interesting. Many equated the impact of a male doulas to that of doctors in terms of their right to be physically close to a birthing woman. Only occasionally did someone recast the doula's role as emotionally, physically supportive, not clinical. Whereas physician are trained to emotionally detach, doulas typically cathect with their clients. Additionally, some men expressed concern and discomfort around the notion of another man seeing one's wife during this intimate process --- and it's true that many men have experienced this, with male doctors. I wonder how men respond when the women they are with are treated roughly by doctors--any studies about that?
Men and reproduction ... men and childbirth education. In the classes we observed during the course of our research on childbirth education, men were clearly the primary audience for the educators. More on those findings soon.
attendance at childbirth education classes has dropped. It has been my first time being interviewed and quoted by a reporter. The USA Today article has been my 15 minutes of notice and has been gratifying. It has also renewed my commitment to get more of my writing published. Tracing this news story throughout the media channels has been interesting too.
Here's a little something about male doulas in Canada. Unfortunately for doulas, when someone like Vince Vaughan comes in to define who and what a doula is to the mass market, they may be in for some troubles. (as in, do you think that film Klingendorf's Tribe was of benefit to cultural anthropologists? ) The public comments were interesting. Many equated the impact of a male doulas to that of doctors in terms of their right to be physically close to a birthing woman. Only occasionally did someone recast the doula's role as emotionally, physically supportive, not clinical. Whereas physician are trained to emotionally detach, doulas typically cathect with their clients. Additionally, some men expressed concern and discomfort around the notion of another man seeing one's wife during this intimate process --- and it's true that many men have experienced this, with male doctors. I wonder how men respond when the women they are with are treated roughly by doctors--any studies about that?
Men and reproduction ... men and childbirth education. In the classes we observed during the course of our research on childbirth education, men were clearly the primary audience for the educators. More on those findings soon.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Surrogacy outsourcing to India ....
This week Judith Warner wrote her column on Outsourced Wombs, generating over 150 comments. Mine, however, was not published, even after I submitted it twice. So I decided to blog it.
I was interested in the variety of responses to the idea of presumably infertile American women contracting with Indian women to be gestational carriers (no genetic connection). Folks raised issues of exploitation, the free market, empowerment and entitlement. Strong opinions and feelings characterized most postings. As a sociologist studying reproductive practices, experiences and meanings, I am fascinated by the discussion.
Along with many posters, I agree we need to know more about what is actually happening, how it is experienced by the Indian women, their families and the US couples. From my knowledge of surrogacy (and ivf methods), it seems we have the practice of wealthy white educated American women (who undergo treatments to extract their eggs, presumably) and their husbands providing sperm to create a viable embryo. They pay desperately poor uneducated women to inject a range of drugs to their bodies in order to accept the implanted embryo (which may/not cause long term health damage to both the surrogate and the adopting mother). The surrogate is then implanted with a fertilized embryo and will carry a pregnancy to term (~ 40 weeks +/- 4); assume long term risks associated with pregnancy and birth; manage a postpartum without lactating, by use of drugs to suppress milk production (unless she will be expressing the colostrum and early breastmilk for the baby's optimal development; deposit check in bank and then what?
The babies will leave an environment and experience they have come to know in that 40 weeks, and be taken into one with new smells, rhythms, sounds and emotions. If they are treated like most babies born in America, they will be provided suboptimal nutrition (manufactured formula); probably less than optimal skin-to-skin contact and baby wearing, unless supplemental nursing systems are utilized by the new mother; possibly impacted by adopting mother's employment status--how much maternity leave does she have, if any; or is she resourced enough to not need to work for income for some months? The babies are nurtured, loved, indulged, and treasured. Their lives are worth the cash paid for them, $6K, plus the travel expenses, $6K, plus whatever else is laid aside for their immediate and future expenses. How much money do these parents put into the nursery? clothing? toys? How many of these purchases are 'essential' to baby's developmental needs and how many are 'optional' or 'culturally determined needs'? What is the value of this child compared to the previous child born of the same woman? Socially? Morally? Economically? Politically? Hard questions.
The western women will have a baby. They will have demonstrated their right, and ability to have a baby, via a network of new relationships and technologies and economies.
Some questions I have (which were not answered in the Marie Claire article on the same topic last year).
On average, how many attempts does it take to be impregnated? What health consequences are faced with this process?
How many attempts until the presenting surrogate is rejected? What compensation does she receive?
How are labors managed? How many cesareans are performed?
How do women plan to spend the the money they receive? How _does_ it get spent? How will their new found wealth be viewed in their own communities? Where are the blogs in low income India on this topic?
How do the contracting couples relate to the baby? What are the long term health consequences for surrogates and the infants they produce?
Clearly many folks posting have strong moral, ethical, economic, political views on the practice. Also clear is that in the US and Indian cultures, a free market mentality rules, in contrast to several European countries where such transactions are illegal. Where is the social science and medical research showing us what these practices are and what they mean in both cultures? Where is the funding for this type of research and its dissemination in useful, relevant, and trustworthy venues to the greatest number of people?
This is a new social experiment. wow.
This week Judith Warner wrote her column on Outsourced Wombs, generating over 150 comments. Mine, however, was not published, even after I submitted it twice. So I decided to blog it.
I was interested in the variety of responses to the idea of presumably infertile American women contracting with Indian women to be gestational carriers (no genetic connection). Folks raised issues of exploitation, the free market, empowerment and entitlement. Strong opinions and feelings characterized most postings. As a sociologist studying reproductive practices, experiences and meanings, I am fascinated by the discussion.
Along with many posters, I agree we need to know more about what is actually happening, how it is experienced by the Indian women, their families and the US couples. From my knowledge of surrogacy (and ivf methods), it seems we have the practice of wealthy white educated American women (who undergo treatments to extract their eggs, presumably) and their husbands providing sperm to create a viable embryo. They pay desperately poor uneducated women to inject a range of drugs to their bodies in order to accept the implanted embryo (which may/not cause long term health damage to both the surrogate and the adopting mother). The surrogate is then implanted with a fertilized embryo and will carry a pregnancy to term (~ 40 weeks +/- 4); assume long term risks associated with pregnancy and birth; manage a postpartum without lactating, by use of drugs to suppress milk production (unless she will be expressing the colostrum and early breastmilk for the baby's optimal development; deposit check in bank and then what?
The babies will leave an environment and experience they have come to know in that 40 weeks, and be taken into one with new smells, rhythms, sounds and emotions. If they are treated like most babies born in America, they will be provided suboptimal nutrition (manufactured formula); probably less than optimal skin-to-skin contact and baby wearing, unless supplemental nursing systems are utilized by the new mother; possibly impacted by adopting mother's employment status--how much maternity leave does she have, if any; or is she resourced enough to not need to work for income for some months? The babies are nurtured, loved, indulged, and treasured. Their lives are worth the cash paid for them, $6K, plus the travel expenses, $6K, plus whatever else is laid aside for their immediate and future expenses. How much money do these parents put into the nursery? clothing? toys? How many of these purchases are 'essential' to baby's developmental needs and how many are 'optional' or 'culturally determined needs'? What is the value of this child compared to the previous child born of the same woman? Socially? Morally? Economically? Politically? Hard questions.
The western women will have a baby. They will have demonstrated their right, and ability to have a baby, via a network of new relationships and technologies and economies.
Some questions I have (which were not answered in the Marie Claire article on the same topic last year).
On average, how many attempts does it take to be impregnated? What health consequences are faced with this process?
How many attempts until the presenting surrogate is rejected? What compensation does she receive?
How are labors managed? How many cesareans are performed?
How do women plan to spend the the money they receive? How _does_ it get spent? How will their new found wealth be viewed in their own communities? Where are the blogs in low income India on this topic?
How do the contracting couples relate to the baby? What are the long term health consequences for surrogates and the infants they produce?
Clearly many folks posting have strong moral, ethical, economic, political views on the practice. Also clear is that in the US and Indian cultures, a free market mentality rules, in contrast to several European countries where such transactions are illegal. Where is the social science and medical research showing us what these practices are and what they mean in both cultures? Where is the funding for this type of research and its dissemination in useful, relevant, and trustworthy venues to the greatest number of people?
This is a new social experiment. wow.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
I spoke with my colleague Barb Berhmann the other day. She is the author of The Breastfeeding Cafe: Mothers Share the Joys, Challenges and Secrets of Nursing, a beautiful example of what happens when you blend the best of intellectual analysis with women’s experience. Her book is rich with stories and commentary on breastfeeding in the United States. An eloquent statement to the realities of the times in which women undertake the feeding of their infants, through their bodies, in a culture where this is not the standard practice.
Do we care about mothers and babies in our culture? As of September 2006, there were only 55 hospitals and birth centers designated as 'baby friendly'. What does that make all the other places where babies are born? Here is all they have to do to become baby friendly (Mother Friendly is another story):
The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative promotes, protects, and supports breastfeeding through The Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding for Hospitals, as outlined by UNICEF/WHO. The steps for the United States are:
1 - Maintain a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff.
2 - Train all health care staff in skills necessary to implement this policy.
3 - Inform all pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding.
4 - Help mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth.
5 - Show mothers how to breastfeed and how to maintain lactation, even if they are separated from their infants.
6 - Give infants no food or drink other than breastmilk, unless medically indicated.
7 - Practice “rooming in”-- allow mothers and infants to remain together 24 hours a day.
8 - Encourage unrestricted breastfeeding.
9 - Give no pacifiers or artificial nipples to breastfeeding infants.
10 -Foster the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and refer mothers to them on discharge from the hospital or clinic
Ironically, just as the Ad Council public health campaigns, and politicians like Dennis Hastert spout off about putting warning labels on formula and exhort us to breastfeed our babies, women are still getting kicked off airplanes in Vermont for doing just that. What, breastfeed your baby but not in public? Stay home? Stay covered up? What is this, some far off fundamentalist world where women should do that reproductive business cloistered in the home? Ironically, the rest of the world is gawping at Britney’s slimmed abs and viewing Anna Nicole’s cesarean. What does it all mean?
Well, I know of a few sociologists and anthropologists who are examining these phenomena, and I’ll be highlighting their work and contributions in my next few posts. As Reproductive Issues play out in our personal, regional, national and international lives, I’ll be there to tell some of the stories I hear, from the intellectuals and the women I encounter.
Do we care about mothers and babies in our culture? As of September 2006, there were only 55 hospitals and birth centers designated as 'baby friendly'. What does that make all the other places where babies are born? Here is all they have to do to become baby friendly (Mother Friendly is another story):
The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative promotes, protects, and supports breastfeeding through The Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding for Hospitals, as outlined by UNICEF/WHO. The steps for the United States are:
1 - Maintain a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff.
2 - Train all health care staff in skills necessary to implement this policy.
3 - Inform all pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding.
4 - Help mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth.
5 - Show mothers how to breastfeed and how to maintain lactation, even if they are separated from their infants.
6 - Give infants no food or drink other than breastmilk, unless medically indicated.
7 - Practice “rooming in”-- allow mothers and infants to remain together 24 hours a day.
8 - Encourage unrestricted breastfeeding.
9 - Give no pacifiers or artificial nipples to breastfeeding infants.
10 -Foster the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and refer mothers to them on discharge from the hospital or clinic
Ironically, just as the Ad Council public health campaigns, and politicians like Dennis Hastert spout off about putting warning labels on formula and exhort us to breastfeed our babies, women are still getting kicked off airplanes in Vermont for doing just that. What, breastfeed your baby but not in public? Stay home? Stay covered up? What is this, some far off fundamentalist world where women should do that reproductive business cloistered in the home? Ironically, the rest of the world is gawping at Britney’s slimmed abs and viewing Anna Nicole’s cesarean. What does it all mean?
Well, I know of a few sociologists and anthropologists who are examining these phenomena, and I’ll be highlighting their work and contributions in my next few posts. As Reproductive Issues play out in our personal, regional, national and international lives, I’ll be there to tell some of the stories I hear, from the intellectuals and the women I encounter.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Bodies change over time; how does birth fit in to this picture?
Interesting article on how much our body types have changed (ok, using records of MEN from war documents, but still).
How does this play into the natural childbirth notion of "women's bodies know what to do"? I've always had trouble with that argument, based on my understanding of nutrition, culture and illness in past times. And, as Sheryl Nestel points out in her article, "Other Mothers: race and representation in natural childbirth discourse" in Resources for Feminist Research Winter 1994/95, vol 23 (4):5, racial notions underlie much of the rhetoric in past efforts to promote natural childbirth. I especially appreciate her reading of the film "birth in the squatting position" as one which "depends for its resonance on powerful cultural understandings of the raced female body as primitively sexual and prolifically reproductive". How do we understand this film's place in efforts to promote unnecessary medical interventions?
In some ways, one would think that women's bodies would be even better equipped to give birth these days, with adequate nutrition, bigger bodies, etc. if we take the argument that bodies today are bigger, healthier because of adequate prenatal nourishment, and improved nutrition in the first two years of life.
Biology, culture and medical practice. A fluid and complex mix of forces..... food for thought.
HEALTH July 30, 2006
The New Age: So Big and Healthy Grandpa Wouldn’t Even Know You
By GINA KOLATA
The past 100 years has seen a change from small, sickly people to humans who are so robust their ancestors are almost unrecognizable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/health/30age.html?ex=1154923200&en=7ddec209c7d2821b&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Friday, July 07, 2006
Roe versus Reality — Abortion and Women's Health
Alexi A. Wright, M.D., and Ingrid T. Katz, M.D., M.H.S.
"Sandra Jones was on her way to a Nebraska operating room to have an abscess drained when she learned that, once again, she had defied medical odds. Six months earlier, doctors had diagnosed breast cancer in the 31-year-old mother of two. Because her test results were positive for the breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) and she was at high risk for ovarian cancer and recurrent breast cancer, they had recommended bilateral mastectomy, chemotherapy, and a hysterectomy, but Jones (whose name has been changed to protect her privacy) was not ready to give up childbearing. Her doctors warned that though it would be extremely difficult for her to conceive after chemotherapy, she should actively avoid pregnancy for at least six months, since it would complicate her disease and the drugs would increase the risk of serious birth defects. After struggling through treatment, Jones returned home to find that her husband had left her. Now, a few weeks later, routine preoperative tests revealed that she was pregnant. "
This is an interesting look at the human costs of US abortion policy and politics.
Alexi A. Wright, M.D., and Ingrid T. Katz, M.D., M.H.S.
"Sandra Jones was on her way to a Nebraska operating room to have an abscess drained when she learned that, once again, she had defied medical odds. Six months earlier, doctors had diagnosed breast cancer in the 31-year-old mother of two. Because her test results were positive for the breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) and she was at high risk for ovarian cancer and recurrent breast cancer, they had recommended bilateral mastectomy, chemotherapy, and a hysterectomy, but Jones (whose name has been changed to protect her privacy) was not ready to give up childbearing. Her doctors warned that though it would be extremely difficult for her to conceive after chemotherapy, she should actively avoid pregnancy for at least six months, since it would complicate her disease and the drugs would increase the risk of serious birth defects. After struggling through treatment, Jones returned home to find that her husband had left her. Now, a few weeks later, routine preoperative tests revealed that she was pregnant. "
This is an interesting look at the human costs of US abortion policy and politics.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
I'm a sociologist navigating the world of women who create networks of care wherever they go. These networks of women occupy a particular niche - they cross lines of class, ethnic origin and emotional and physical health. They intersect people's lives when a new social being emerges. They are there to be available for liminal support, because it was during this liminal period that something transformative occurred.
Another sociologist writes a book showing how assuming the work of breastfeeding; sustaining another life, physically, is costly in terms of time and energy and also rewarding in terms of having a satisfying relationship with another human. Often, that satisfaction translates back into their own, satisfying lives. They role model satisfaction. except they complain, too. They complain about not having enough support for themselves, but believing that every woman deserves it, and men too. And babies and children too.
But what does this support really mean? How does it manifest itself in everyday lives?
All this for another day. I must go forage for food at my local Trader Joe's and deposit a small check in our credit union account. Greasing the wheels of everday life. While my husband attempts to edit two research papers while both children also 'read' on the bed with him, the memory foam bed, that has cuddled and embraced us to lovely periods of sleep. We bought a king size. We are able to invest in our lives, and it is highly satisfying. It is why we work with others to insist that we know of a type of care that we believe is so vital, that it should be supported. We have to tell these stories, though, or the structures that support these satisfying relationship practices will be threatened. And indeed, they are. But we reach out online to share with others in other geographic communities the bounty of what we have. Sometimes it is a story in exchange for relationship. An american midwife in Malawi is having her story shared with doulas in the Pacific Northwest, and material and informational resources are now flowing between these network nodes.
It is a means to survival. To be a key provider of quality, satisfying care to others, is to offer value in the world. It is rewarded, not always by money, but but other key values, which must and do co-exist with real economic difference. I know Microsoft retirees and single mothers on the edge, full time workers and entreprenurial, hard working women. They are always thinking, engaging, they are not afraid to go into the liminal space where one body becomes two.
Another sociologist writes a book showing how assuming the work of breastfeeding; sustaining another life, physically, is costly in terms of time and energy and also rewarding in terms of having a satisfying relationship with another human. Often, that satisfaction translates back into their own, satisfying lives. They role model satisfaction. except they complain, too. They complain about not having enough support for themselves, but believing that every woman deserves it, and men too. And babies and children too.
But what does this support really mean? How does it manifest itself in everyday lives?
All this for another day. I must go forage for food at my local Trader Joe's and deposit a small check in our credit union account. Greasing the wheels of everday life. While my husband attempts to edit two research papers while both children also 'read' on the bed with him, the memory foam bed, that has cuddled and embraced us to lovely periods of sleep. We bought a king size. We are able to invest in our lives, and it is highly satisfying. It is why we work with others to insist that we know of a type of care that we believe is so vital, that it should be supported. We have to tell these stories, though, or the structures that support these satisfying relationship practices will be threatened. And indeed, they are. But we reach out online to share with others in other geographic communities the bounty of what we have. Sometimes it is a story in exchange for relationship. An american midwife in Malawi is having her story shared with doulas in the Pacific Northwest, and material and informational resources are now flowing between these network nodes.
It is a means to survival. To be a key provider of quality, satisfying care to others, is to offer value in the world. It is rewarded, not always by money, but but other key values, which must and do co-exist with real economic difference. I know Microsoft retirees and single mothers on the edge, full time workers and entreprenurial, hard working women. They are always thinking, engaging, they are not afraid to go into the liminal space where one body becomes two.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
News Release
Embargoed for Release Until:
Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 9:00 a.m. EST
Kaiser Family Foundation
2400 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
For Further Information Contact:
Rob Graham or Heidi Hess at (650) 854-9400
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION SURVEY SHOWS SLOW START FOR CALIFORNIA'S NEW
"PHARMACY ACCESS" PROGRAM
Only one in 10 women in California ages 15 to 44 know about the new program
Four in 10 don't know that emergency contraception is available in the U.S.
Menlo Park, CA - As the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to
deliberate whether emergency contraception will be made available
"over-the-counter" without a prescription, a new Kaiser Family Foundation
survey finds very few (9%) California women ages 15 to 44 are aware of the
statewide, emergency contraception "pharmacy access" program. Emergency
contraceptive pills are a form of birth control that can be used to prevent
unintended pregnancy in the first few days following unprotected sex or
contraceptive failure, according the FDA. This new program, started in
January 2002, permits women to obtain emergency contraception directly from
participating pharmacists without first contacting a physician, while
"over-the-counter" would allow people to obtain emergency contraception
off-the-shelves at participating retailers without a pharmacist consultation
or a physician's prescription.
Of the 8% of women surveyed last summer who had used emergency contraception
in California, only a tiny fraction report that they obtained the pills
directly from a pharmacist under this new program. To date, approximately
18% of all pharmacies in California are providing emergency contraception
directly to women, according to the Pharmacy Access Partnership -- an
organization that trains pharmacists to participate in this program.
"Even in California, a state that has enacted polices to make access to
emergency contraception easier, actual knowledge and use is still quite
low," said Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and Director of Women's
Health Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation and the lead author of the report.
"It is too soon, however, to assess how much this new pharmacy program will
ultimately affect awareness of and access to emergency contraception."
Overall, there is also considerable confusion about emergency contraception.
While recognition of the term "emergency contraception" is high, with over
three-quarters (81%) of California women ages 18 to 44 saying they have
heard of it, over four in ten women (46%) had heard the term but do not have
knowledge of a contraceptive method that is used after sex. Furthermore,
four in ten (39%) of the women surveyed do not know that emergency
contraception is available in the U.S. and half (49%) of adult women who had
heard of emergency contraception, mistakenly thought that it was the
"abortion pill," also known as RU-486 (which is used to terminate a
pregnancy, unlike emergency contraception which prevents a pregnancy from
occurring).
When emergency contraception is accurately explained, however, the survey
finds a large majority of Californians (74%) say they approve of using
emergency contraception when birth control fails, with only 18% saying that
they have a religious or moral objection to its use. Two-thirds of the
women surveyed (65%) also say they would be more likely to take emergency
contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy if they already had a pack at
home in advance of needing it.
Few people learn about emergency contraception from their health care
providers. In fact, television news is the leading source of information
about emergency contraception. While only one in ten (12%) women who had
heard of emergency contraception say their doctor or health care provider
had discussed it with them, over eight in ten (84%) say that they would turn
to a health care professional to learn more about this birth control option.
The report, "Emergency Contraception in California," is based on the
findings of a survey designed and analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation
with Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA). It was conducted from
April 29 to September 2, 2003 and included interviews with 1,151 females and
males ages 15 to 44 living in California. Parental consent was obtained for
respondents under 18.
Key California Findings
Knowledge about emergency contraception is limited
>> One in ten (9%) women ages 15 to 44 know that in California, women can
obtain emergency contraceptive pills directly from a pharmacist without
having to contact a physician.
>> Two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed know that there is something a woman
can use after sex to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy. Awareness was
the same for men and women.
>> Young adults are more likely to know of an option compared to older
adults (77% of those 18 to 24 compared to 62% of those 25 to 34 and 64% of
those 35 to 44).
>> Four in ten (39%) adult women incorrectly say that emergency
contraception isn't available in the U.S. or that they are not sure.
>> 49% of adult women ages 18 to 44 incorrectly state that emergency
contraception is the same as the "abortion pill" or RU-486. An additional
26% state that they do not know if they are the same.
Few have had experience with emergency contraception
>> One in ten women (8%) and men (10%) in California report that they or
their partners have used emergency contraception.
>> Almost one-quarter (23%) of sexually active adults ages 18 to 24 report
that they or their partners have used emergency contraception, compared with
8% of those ages 25-34 and 2% of those ages 35 to 44.
>> Among teens ages 15 to 17, 10% of those who are sexually active state
that they or their partners have used emergency contraception.
>> Half of the respondents (52%) who have experience with emergency
contraception obtained the pills from a health care clinic.
Television news -- not doctors -- is major source of information about
emergency contraception
>> One in ten (12%) adult women surveyed have discussed emergency
contraception with a doctor or other health care professional. Physician
communication is just as low (13%) among women who received a gynecological
exam in the previous year.
>> Among adults who know about emergency contraception, they typically
learned about it from TV news (46%), friends (14%), and school (12%).
>> Two-thirds of Californians (65%) say that if a doctor informed them about
emergency contraception, they would be more likely to take it or recommend
it to their partner if needed. Teens in particular say this would increase
the likelihood that they would use or recommend this option (87%).
************************************************************************
Emergency Contraception
According to the FDA, emergency contraceptive pills are a form of
contraception that can be used following unprotected sexual intercourse to
prevent unintended pregnancy. This method is designed to be used in cases
of unprotected sex or possible birth control failure, and not as a regular
form of contraception. Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy from
occurring by preventing ovulation, disrupting fertilization, or inhibiting
implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Emergency contraceptive
pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant (in contrast to
mifepristone, also known as RU-486). Research finds that emergency
contraceptive pills reduce the risk of pregnancy by up to 89% if taken with
72 hours of intercourse.
The California Emergency Contraception Pharmacy Access Program
This California program was implemented in January 2002, following the
October 2001 passage of SB 1169 in the California legislature. The program
allows pharmacists, under a standing collaborative agreement with a
physician, to provide emergency contraception directly to a woman without
requiring her to contact a physician first. To date, 18% of pharmacies are
participating in this new program. In order to participate in the program,
pharmacists must receive emergency contraception training in accordance with
California law. Each woman who receives emergency contraception directly
from a pharmacist must receive a standardized fact sheet that includes the
"indications" for use of the drug, the appropriate method for using the
drug, and the need for medical follow up. As opposed to "over-the-counter"
status by which a woman could simply buy emergency contraception off the
shelf at a retail outlet, the California program requires a woman to obtain
the pills directly from an
eligible pharmacist.
*************************************************************************
Methodology
This report is based on data collected from a telephone survey of 1,151
females and males ages 15 to 44 living in California. The interviews were
conducted in English and Spanish by Princeton Data Source, LLC under the
guidance of Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA), from April 29 to
September 2, 2003. Before interviewing respondents under age 18, a parent
or guardian first completed a short survey and gave consent for their child
to be interviewed.
The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.2% for the total sample, +/- 6% for
teens ages 15 to 17, and may be larger for subgroups.
************************************************************************
The survey report and an emergency contraception fact sheet are available
online at http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/whp021804pkg.cfm .
The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation
dedicated to providing information and analysis on health care issues to
policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the general public.
The Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser
Industries.
************************************************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe to email alerts from the Kaiser Family
Foundation,
please visit http://www.kff.org/register . If you need help or have
questions,
please send an email to subscriptions@kff.org.
If you know anyone who would be interested in this alert, please pass it on.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation -- on the web at http://www.kff.org/
************************************************************************
Embargoed for Release Until:
Wednesday, February 18, 2004, 9:00 a.m. EST
Kaiser Family Foundation
2400 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
For Further Information Contact:
Rob Graham or Heidi Hess at (650) 854-9400
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION SURVEY SHOWS SLOW START FOR CALIFORNIA'S NEW
"PHARMACY ACCESS" PROGRAM
Only one in 10 women in California ages 15 to 44 know about the new program
Four in 10 don't know that emergency contraception is available in the U.S.
Menlo Park, CA - As the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to
deliberate whether emergency contraception will be made available
"over-the-counter" without a prescription, a new Kaiser Family Foundation
survey finds very few (9%) California women ages 15 to 44 are aware of the
statewide, emergency contraception "pharmacy access" program. Emergency
contraceptive pills are a form of birth control that can be used to prevent
unintended pregnancy in the first few days following unprotected sex or
contraceptive failure, according the FDA. This new program, started in
January 2002, permits women to obtain emergency contraception directly from
participating pharmacists without first contacting a physician, while
"over-the-counter" would allow people to obtain emergency contraception
off-the-shelves at participating retailers without a pharmacist consultation
or a physician's prescription.
Of the 8% of women surveyed last summer who had used emergency contraception
in California, only a tiny fraction report that they obtained the pills
directly from a pharmacist under this new program. To date, approximately
18% of all pharmacies in California are providing emergency contraception
directly to women, according to the Pharmacy Access Partnership -- an
organization that trains pharmacists to participate in this program.
"Even in California, a state that has enacted polices to make access to
emergency contraception easier, actual knowledge and use is still quite
low," said Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and Director of Women's
Health Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation and the lead author of the report.
"It is too soon, however, to assess how much this new pharmacy program will
ultimately affect awareness of and access to emergency contraception."
Overall, there is also considerable confusion about emergency contraception.
While recognition of the term "emergency contraception" is high, with over
three-quarters (81%) of California women ages 18 to 44 saying they have
heard of it, over four in ten women (46%) had heard the term but do not have
knowledge of a contraceptive method that is used after sex. Furthermore,
four in ten (39%) of the women surveyed do not know that emergency
contraception is available in the U.S. and half (49%) of adult women who had
heard of emergency contraception, mistakenly thought that it was the
"abortion pill," also known as RU-486 (which is used to terminate a
pregnancy, unlike emergency contraception which prevents a pregnancy from
occurring).
When emergency contraception is accurately explained, however, the survey
finds a large majority of Californians (74%) say they approve of using
emergency contraception when birth control fails, with only 18% saying that
they have a religious or moral objection to its use. Two-thirds of the
women surveyed (65%) also say they would be more likely to take emergency
contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy if they already had a pack at
home in advance of needing it.
Few people learn about emergency contraception from their health care
providers. In fact, television news is the leading source of information
about emergency contraception. While only one in ten (12%) women who had
heard of emergency contraception say their doctor or health care provider
had discussed it with them, over eight in ten (84%) say that they would turn
to a health care professional to learn more about this birth control option.
The report, "Emergency Contraception in California," is based on the
findings of a survey designed and analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation
with Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA). It was conducted from
April 29 to September 2, 2003 and included interviews with 1,151 females and
males ages 15 to 44 living in California. Parental consent was obtained for
respondents under 18.
Key California Findings
Knowledge about emergency contraception is limited
>> One in ten (9%) women ages 15 to 44 know that in California, women can
obtain emergency contraceptive pills directly from a pharmacist without
having to contact a physician.
>> Two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed know that there is something a woman
can use after sex to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy. Awareness was
the same for men and women.
>> Young adults are more likely to know of an option compared to older
adults (77% of those 18 to 24 compared to 62% of those 25 to 34 and 64% of
those 35 to 44).
>> Four in ten (39%) adult women incorrectly say that emergency
contraception isn't available in the U.S. or that they are not sure.
>> 49% of adult women ages 18 to 44 incorrectly state that emergency
contraception is the same as the "abortion pill" or RU-486. An additional
26% state that they do not know if they are the same.
Few have had experience with emergency contraception
>> One in ten women (8%) and men (10%) in California report that they or
their partners have used emergency contraception.
>> Almost one-quarter (23%) of sexually active adults ages 18 to 24 report
that they or their partners have used emergency contraception, compared with
8% of those ages 25-34 and 2% of those ages 35 to 44.
>> Among teens ages 15 to 17, 10% of those who are sexually active state
that they or their partners have used emergency contraception.
>> Half of the respondents (52%) who have experience with emergency
contraception obtained the pills from a health care clinic.
Television news -- not doctors -- is major source of information about
emergency contraception
>> One in ten (12%) adult women surveyed have discussed emergency
contraception with a doctor or other health care professional. Physician
communication is just as low (13%) among women who received a gynecological
exam in the previous year.
>> Among adults who know about emergency contraception, they typically
learned about it from TV news (46%), friends (14%), and school (12%).
>> Two-thirds of Californians (65%) say that if a doctor informed them about
emergency contraception, they would be more likely to take it or recommend
it to their partner if needed. Teens in particular say this would increase
the likelihood that they would use or recommend this option (87%).
************************************************************************
Emergency Contraception
According to the FDA, emergency contraceptive pills are a form of
contraception that can be used following unprotected sexual intercourse to
prevent unintended pregnancy. This method is designed to be used in cases
of unprotected sex or possible birth control failure, and not as a regular
form of contraception. Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy from
occurring by preventing ovulation, disrupting fertilization, or inhibiting
implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Emergency contraceptive
pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant (in contrast to
mifepristone, also known as RU-486). Research finds that emergency
contraceptive pills reduce the risk of pregnancy by up to 89% if taken with
72 hours of intercourse.
The California Emergency Contraception Pharmacy Access Program
This California program was implemented in January 2002, following the
October 2001 passage of SB 1169 in the California legislature. The program
allows pharmacists, under a standing collaborative agreement with a
physician, to provide emergency contraception directly to a woman without
requiring her to contact a physician first. To date, 18% of pharmacies are
participating in this new program. In order to participate in the program,
pharmacists must receive emergency contraception training in accordance with
California law. Each woman who receives emergency contraception directly
from a pharmacist must receive a standardized fact sheet that includes the
"indications" for use of the drug, the appropriate method for using the
drug, and the need for medical follow up. As opposed to "over-the-counter"
status by which a woman could simply buy emergency contraception off the
shelf at a retail outlet, the California program requires a woman to obtain
the pills directly from an
eligible pharmacist.
*************************************************************************
Methodology
This report is based on data collected from a telephone survey of 1,151
females and males ages 15 to 44 living in California. The interviews were
conducted in English and Spanish by Princeton Data Source, LLC under the
guidance of Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA), from April 29 to
September 2, 2003. Before interviewing respondents under age 18, a parent
or guardian first completed a short survey and gave consent for their child
to be interviewed.
The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.2% for the total sample, +/- 6% for
teens ages 15 to 17, and may be larger for subgroups.
************************************************************************
The survey report and an emergency contraception fact sheet are available
online at http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/whp021804pkg.cfm .
The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation
dedicated to providing information and analysis on health care issues to
policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the general public.
The Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser
Industries.
************************************************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe to email alerts from the Kaiser Family
Foundation,
please visit http://www.kff.org/register . If you need help or have
questions,
please send an email to subscriptions@kff.org.
If you know anyone who would be interested in this alert, please pass it on.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation -- on the web at http://www.kff.org/
************************************************************************
Friday, February 13, 2004
Ok, here is another call to action, this time by the National Women's Health Network:
Bush Delays Denies Women Access to EC- February 13, 2004
On Friday, February 13 Barr Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and
Drug Administration has requested an additional 90 days to review Barr's
application for over-the-counter distribution of Plan B, the emergency
contraceptive pill.
We are deeply concerned that this is a delay tactic and another example
of the Bush Administration imposing politics on the scientific
decision-making process. FDA's own advisory committee reviewed the
scientific evidence on Plan B in December of last year and
overwhelmingly voted (23-4) in favor of making the product available
without prescription. Moreover, after reviewing the full scope of
research data that has been collected on emergency contraception, the
expert panel agreed unanimously that the data show Plan B to be safe for
use in the non-prescription setting.
The Bush administration, in an effort to placate political allies in
conservative groups, is blocking women's access to a safe and effective
product that could help prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the
number of abortions.
In light of the recent news that FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan may
soon be stepping down, leaving the FDA without a leader in charge, this
postponement is particularly worrisome. We must not allow President
Bush to use a bureaucratic delay to hide the truth that he is denying
women in the United States access to emergency contraception.
Even if you've already written to the FDA expressing your support for
emergency contraception, write again and urge them to make emergency
contraception available without prescription NOW tell them we won't
accept any more delays at the expense of women's health. Send your
email to Commissioner McClellan at fda.commissioner@fda.hhs.gov
Please cc: nwhn@womenshealthnetwork.org and send this alert to any
friends and colleagues who you think may be interested in taking action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for more ways to get involved...
To unsubscribe to this list, send an e-mail to majordomo@lists.his.com with the body of the message containing...
unsubscribe nwhnforum (or nwhnactivist) [your e-mail address here]
Please forward this message to those who would be interested in receiving regular women's health information alerts and updates.
NWHN Activist is an open broadcast list and anybody can subscribe to it. To subscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@lists.his.com with the body of the message containing...
subscribe nwhnactivist [your e-mail address here]
NWHN Forum is open to National Women's Health Network members only. Members can use this list as a way to communicate with each other on various women's health topics. To request a subscription, send an e-mail to majordomo@lists.his.com with the body of the message containing....
subscribe nwhnforum [your e-mail address here]
Bush Delays Denies Women Access to EC- February 13, 2004
On Friday, February 13 Barr Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and
Drug Administration has requested an additional 90 days to review Barr's
application for over-the-counter distribution of Plan B, the emergency
contraceptive pill.
We are deeply concerned that this is a delay tactic and another example
of the Bush Administration imposing politics on the scientific
decision-making process. FDA's own advisory committee reviewed the
scientific evidence on Plan B in December of last year and
overwhelmingly voted (23-4) in favor of making the product available
without prescription. Moreover, after reviewing the full scope of
research data that has been collected on emergency contraception, the
expert panel agreed unanimously that the data show Plan B to be safe for
use in the non-prescription setting.
The Bush administration, in an effort to placate political allies in
conservative groups, is blocking women's access to a safe and effective
product that could help prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the
number of abortions.
In light of the recent news that FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan may
soon be stepping down, leaving the FDA without a leader in charge, this
postponement is particularly worrisome. We must not allow President
Bush to use a bureaucratic delay to hide the truth that he is denying
women in the United States access to emergency contraception.
Even if you've already written to the FDA expressing your support for
emergency contraception, write again and urge them to make emergency
contraception available without prescription NOW tell them we won't
accept any more delays at the expense of women's health. Send your
email to Commissioner McClellan at fda.commissioner@fda.hhs.gov
Please cc: nwhn@womenshealthnetwork.org and send this alert to any
friends and colleagues who you think may be interested in taking action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for more ways to get involved...
To unsubscribe to this list, send an e-mail to majordomo@lists.his.com with the body of the message containing...
unsubscribe nwhnforum (or nwhnactivist) [your e-mail address here]
Please forward this message to those who would be interested in receiving regular women's health information alerts and updates.
NWHN Activist is an open broadcast list and anybody can subscribe to it. To subscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@lists.his.com with the body of the message containing...
subscribe nwhnactivist [your e-mail address here]
NWHN Forum is open to National Women's Health Network members only. Members can use this list as a way to communicate with each other on various women's health topics. To request a subscription, send an e-mail to majordomo@lists.his.com with the body of the message containing....
subscribe nwhnforum [your e-mail address here]
Women are being called into political action to protect women's health by a corporation.... hmmm
Breast Cancer Hospitalization Bill - Important legislation for all women.
What is the connection between Lifetime and this bill? Why is Lifetime interested in these issues? Is it an example of corporate responsibility?
From their About Lifetime page: Lifetime is dedicated to using the power of the media to make a positive difference in the lives of women. Our Lifetime Commitment public outreach campaigns represent the network's ongoing efforts — on-air, online and in communities around the country — to support women on a range of issues affecting them and their families. In partnership with more than 150 leading nonprofit organizations, Our Lifetime Commitment includes initiatives to Stop Violence Against Women; to inspire women and girls to Be Your Own Hero; to promote the importance of Caring for Kids and to fight to Stop Breast Cancer for Life.
Is anyone aware of any sociological studies of LifetimeTV?
--Well, here's what they want you to do... What do you think?
Sign the pledge and make a difference!
On September 25, 2003, Lifetime Television delivered more than 5 million petition signatures to Capitol Hill, urging Congress to ban "drive-through" mastectomies — the practice in which women are forced out of the hospital sometimes only hours after breast cancer surgery. Sign our petition now to help end drive-through mastectomies once and for all.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) introduced bipartisan legislation that mirrors the House bill sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) which would end this horrific practice. The petitions were collected by Lifetimetv.com as part of Lifetime's campaign against this practice with DeLauro, Landrieu, the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations (NABCO), physicians, advocates and survivors across the nation.
Lifetime Television, NABCO, Rep. DeLauro and Connecticut physician Kristen Zarfos, M.D., have been fighting for this type of access to quality care for all women since 1996. The legislation would require insurance companies to cover a 48-hour minimum stay for mastectomy patients and a 24-hour stay for a woman undergoing a lymph node dissection. The legislation ensures that a doctor and a patient will make a decision together about staying at a hospital after a mastectomy.
While both the American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association believe that most patients require a longer hospital stay, "drive-through" mastectomies have become an unwelcome reality for women who are battling breast cancer. Against the advice of their doctors, thousands of women must leave the hospital while still in pain, groggy with anesthesia and with drainage tubes still in place.
The House version of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act is co-sponsored by 153 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. The legislation is supported by the American Medical Association; NABCO; American College of Surgeons; American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons; Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; National Council of Jewish Women; Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research; Susan G. Komen Foundation; Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization; and Families USA.
If you agree that women require more than one night at a hospital after undergoing a mastectomy, here's your chance to make your voice heard. With the strength of these petition numbers behind us, we will get this legislation passed.
Sign the Pledge
http://www.lifetimetv.com/health/breast_mastectomy_pledge.html
Breast Cancer Hospitalization Bill - Important legislation for all women.
What is the connection between Lifetime and this bill? Why is Lifetime interested in these issues? Is it an example of corporate responsibility?
From their About Lifetime page: Lifetime is dedicated to using the power of the media to make a positive difference in the lives of women. Our Lifetime Commitment public outreach campaigns represent the network's ongoing efforts — on-air, online and in communities around the country — to support women on a range of issues affecting them and their families. In partnership with more than 150 leading nonprofit organizations, Our Lifetime Commitment includes initiatives to Stop Violence Against Women; to inspire women and girls to Be Your Own Hero; to promote the importance of Caring for Kids and to fight to Stop Breast Cancer for Life.
Is anyone aware of any sociological studies of LifetimeTV?
--Well, here's what they want you to do... What do you think?
Sign the pledge and make a difference!
On September 25, 2003, Lifetime Television delivered more than 5 million petition signatures to Capitol Hill, urging Congress to ban "drive-through" mastectomies — the practice in which women are forced out of the hospital sometimes only hours after breast cancer surgery. Sign our petition now to help end drive-through mastectomies once and for all.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) introduced bipartisan legislation that mirrors the House bill sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) which would end this horrific practice. The petitions were collected by Lifetimetv.com as part of Lifetime's campaign against this practice with DeLauro, Landrieu, the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations (NABCO), physicians, advocates and survivors across the nation.
Lifetime Television, NABCO, Rep. DeLauro and Connecticut physician Kristen Zarfos, M.D., have been fighting for this type of access to quality care for all women since 1996. The legislation would require insurance companies to cover a 48-hour minimum stay for mastectomy patients and a 24-hour stay for a woman undergoing a lymph node dissection. The legislation ensures that a doctor and a patient will make a decision together about staying at a hospital after a mastectomy.
While both the American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association believe that most patients require a longer hospital stay, "drive-through" mastectomies have become an unwelcome reality for women who are battling breast cancer. Against the advice of their doctors, thousands of women must leave the hospital while still in pain, groggy with anesthesia and with drainage tubes still in place.
The House version of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act is co-sponsored by 153 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. The legislation is supported by the American Medical Association; NABCO; American College of Surgeons; American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons; Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; National Council of Jewish Women; Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research; Susan G. Komen Foundation; Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization; and Families USA.
If you agree that women require more than one night at a hospital after undergoing a mastectomy, here's your chance to make your voice heard. With the strength of these petition numbers behind us, we will get this legislation passed.
Sign the Pledge
http://www.lifetimetv.com/health/breast_mastectomy_pledge.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)