women's health Archives - Page 4 of 11

Hypersensitivity to pain, my ass!

Published on October 10, 2014

2236 views

A multitude of reports have emerged in recent years denoting the over use of pain killers and other medications. With narcotic pain killers, in particular, data suggest a four-fold increase in opioid use since 1999, and over 100,000 deaths by opioid overdose during same time period. The data also indicate a close correspondence between the increase in prescriptions for pain killers and pharma sponsored marketing, ‘research’ and policy changes that have inculcated medical agency guidelines over the last decade.

For women, this is a particularly troubling trend, as other research indicates we are the primary targets of narcotic prescribing; women take 50% more pain killers than men. We also take 36% more medications than men in general. Speculation about why women take more pain killers than men, often involves psychosocial characteristics including a reduced sensitivity to pain, a predisposition to pain causing diseases, and a predilection to report the pain to one’s physician. Women seek out medical treatment at a much higher rate than men.

What often fails to get mentioned is that:

Pain medications don’t work as well in women because as we’ve reported before few females, rodents or otherwise, are used in the development of these medications.
Even when female animals or women are used in drug development research, cycling hormones are not analyzed as factors in the effectiveness of the medication.
For the myriad of pain related disorders affecting women, many lack evidence-based diagnostic criteria (less than 30% of Ob/Gyn practice guidelines are based on actual evidence) and frequently physicians and the lack of effective diagnostic criteria hastens many to presume an underlying psychosocial or mental health issue.

I personally think the psychosocial arguments that women are more sensitive to pain than men are nonsense. Rather, I think there is a lot more inherent to our physiology that makes pain related conditions not only more likely, but more difficult to treat.

Consider for example, the menstrual cycle and childbirth. These amazingly complex, biochemically radical, pain-inducing, often life-altering experiences are just a ‘normal’ part of female existence. I dare any man to experience the exponential and repeated cyclic change in biochemistry, akin to a repeated drug addiction and withdrawal pattern, that is the female menstrual cycle. The myth of female hypersensitivity to pain, based largely upon the ineffectiveness of pain or medications that were never designed for her changing biochemistry, is just that, a myth. And though I do admit, some humans are more sensitive to pain than others, the contrived experimental methods that designate women as hyper-sensitive do great damage to our understanding of women’s health and the differing pharmacokinetics across the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, postpartum or menopause.

And then of course, there is endometrial sloughing, necessitating a cramping mechanism to propel the tissue outward or the grandmother of all pain experience, childbirth where women deliver 8lb humans through a cavity opening that expands only to 10 centimeters, often times choosing to not utilize pain medications. These ‘normal’ events of a woman’s life are not indicative of a ‘hypersensitivity to pain’.

No, I don’t buy this mumbo jumbo that women are somehow more sensitive to pain than men. If anything, most women have a higher tolerance to everyday pain than most men. But there is a rationale to perpetuating this myth; it limits innovation in women’s health.

Why innovate when a company can make billions prescribing the same old medications at higher and higher dosages, to more and more people? Why address the needs of half the population, when one can blanket the market with drugs for the entire population? And to that point, why develop more accurate diagnostic criteria or more effective medications for conditions that only effect a small subset of the total population; especially when medications developed over 50 years ago can be used? If these medications are addictive, have side effects that necessitate other medications and are extremely difficult to withdraw from, well then, those are just added bonuses. It’s a wonderful business model, albeit a little less than ethical.

Despite the obvious marketing excess, we as consumers bear as much responsibility for the increase in narcotic prescriptions as does the pharmaceutical industry. We are letting this happen. Let’s face it, it is much easier to take a pill to make the pain go away (or eat a pint of ice cream to alleviate stress) than go after the root problem. It is difficult to address root causes. It is especially difficult if one is suffering from a medical condition that is chronic, pain-inducing, poorly understood, not easily diagnosed, and for which there are no effective medications. Women disproportionately suffer from these types of conditions – think fibromyalgia, endometriosis or even migraines. We also make 80% of all family medical decisions. So ladies, we need to stand up and begin educating ourselves and our families about health and disease. We must demand more research and we will probably have to lead it ourselves.

Fetal Rights Versus Maternal Rights: The Slippery Slope of Personhood

by R S

Published on December 31, 2013

3791 views

Perhaps you’ve seen the case of Erick and Marlise Munoz, who reside in Tarrant County, Texas. Marlise is comatose due to a pulmonary embolism and is on life support because she is pregnant. In previous conversations, Marlise had expressed to her husband that she wouldn’t want to be on life support should she become comatose. These wishes, and the wishes of her husband, are being disregarded by the hospital. Current laws in Texas protect fetal rights over the rights of the mother; this means that Marlise will be kept alive until her child can be delivered safely, even though neither she nor her husband desired this outcome. This baby may face many developmental challenges because Marlise has been deprived of oxygen, so Erick will be facing another hurdle.

I had thought that the missing safeguard for the Munoz couple was a living will, which many younger people assume is for senior citizens; that if Marlise had a living will expressing her wish to be removed from life support, she wouldn’t be kept alive. Wrong. Texas law has the authority to void a living will in the interests of keeping a fetus alive. However, this point differs from state to state.

This case accentuates the importance of having a living will at any stage in life, senior or not, as well as discussing your wishes about being kept on life support with your family or partner. However, even a living will may not protect your wishes if you happen to become pregnant; this depends upon which state you reside in.

When did the rights of an unborn child become more important than the rights of the mother, and what is the desired outcome of the fetal rights movement? The term “fetal rights” applies the same legal protection to fetuses as children, meaning that mothers can be imprisoned and sentenced for decisions they made while pregnant that may have endangered the life of the fetus. And, as Vince Beiser of Mother Jones writes, “such tactics may be paving the way for abortion – the ultimate violation of “fetal rights” – to legally be declared murder.”

Take, for instance, the case of Sally DeJesus, a woman residing in North Carolina, profiled in the Mother Jones article “Fetal Abuse”, who briefly relapsed into drug addiction while pregnant, but still sought treatment and delivered a healthy baby. Because she admitted her mistake of using drugs while pregnant to healthcare workers out of the desire to keep her baby healthy, she’s now facing up to three years in prison.

Women’s rights advocates are concerned because this could mean that people struggling with addiction while pregnant won’t seek help because of these legal penalties, and will further endanger their own health and the health of their unborn children. Furthermore, this law penalizes women who use illegal drugs and ignores women who may be endangering their fetuses with legal substances, such as cigarettes or alcohol. If the goal is to protect unborn children from irresponsible or uninformed mothers, it is a sloppy one. It also appears to lead more women into the prison system rather than a system of supportive rehabilitation. If the state cares about the lives of the unborn children it claims to protect, it won’t lead them to have mothers in prison with untreated addiction problems.

What we’re left with is a mass of sticky questions. If the state has the right to keep someone alive against their will and the wishes of their family, who has to foot the hospital bills? Since the Munoz family would not have chosen to deliver the child now being kept alive by the hospital, who will pay for the care of the child that will likely face developmental challenges due to oxygen deprivation? Who is responsible for the child when the state decides life or death?

The fact that the state of Texas can overlook a living will to preserve the life of a fetus also raises the question of how far that can go. What’s the point of making a living will if the state can override it? If the state’s interest is in preserving life at all costs, why honor the “do not resuscitate” clauses at all? Presumably this won’t happen, because the lives of unborn children seem to be more important than the adults responsible for them.

In states where fetal rights advocates have passed legislation, people, especially women who are or may become pregnant, find they don’t get to choose how they live or die. If they’re struggling with addiction, they may further endanger their own lives to stay out of prison for endangering the fetus, rather than seek medical help. Furthermore, certain cases in Alabama and Mississippi are toeing the line for prosecuting women who’ve miscarried due to illegal drug use. Clearly these laws are being put in place to establish personhood for fetuses so that abortion laws can be challenged. That leaves pregnant women in certain states faced with the possibility of jail time for miscarrying, depending on certain factors. Abortion may be legal, but endangering the life of an unborn child, sometimes unintentionally, may become illegal. It’s a frightening state of affairs when the life of a fetus becomes the keystone of determining what happens to the life of a woman. Think of Ireland’s draconian anti-abortion laws and how they led to the 2012 death of Sita Halappanavar, who died while under hospital care because she was refused a badly needed abortion during a life-endangering miscarriage. Sita’s life ended because it was deemed that her fetus, which had already died, was more important than Sita’s own life.

What if Endometriosis Was a Men’s Health Issue?

by Jordan Davidson

Published on October 4, 2013

4372 views

As a health journalist and a co-founder of Endo Warriors, a support organization for women with endometriosis, I often get asked “what is endometriosis?”

Which is funny since it is estimated that 176 million women worldwide have endometriosis and yet no one knows about this global health issue.

Sometimes I say “it’s a secondary autoimmune disease where the lining of the uterus is found outside of the uterus and throughout the abdominal cavity — to varying degrees — causing chronic pain and infertility.

And other times I say “it sucks.”

Nancy Peterson of the ERC said “If 7 million men suffered unbearable pain with sex and exercise and were offered pregnancy, castration or hormones as treatment, Endo would be a national emergency to which we would transfer the defense budget to find a cure.” And, I don’t disagree.

If 7 million American men had unbearable pain every time they ejaculated, no one would ever suggest chopping off their balls. If they went to a health clinic that also offered pregnancy prevention services, we wouldn’t shut those clinics down. If 7 million American men were in pain every time they masturbated, urinated or tried to have sex we wouldn’t tell them “it’s all in their head” or “to take the pain like a man.” No, we would listen and try to find them a cure that didn’t include castration or drug-induced de-masculinization.

But that’s not the case.

Instead we have 7 million American women with chronic pain related to the tissue in their uterus and their menstrual cycle. 7 million American women who have pain before, during and after their menstrual cycle. 7 million American women who experience pain while exercising, having sex and going to the bathroom. So we offer them chemical-menopause and hysterectomies and when those don’t work we throw our hands up in the air and say “well, at least I tried.” Better luck in your next life, perhaps you’ll come back as a man.

The menstrual cycle is the butt of all jokes directed towards women. Bad day? Is it your period? Is Auntie Flo in town?

Seeing red? Are you on the rag?

No, actually I’m just mad that the idea of healthcare for women makes people want to cover their ears and run screaming.

Free birth control for women?

Great idea!

That is until some political pundit insinuates women should just learn to shut their legs.

Maybe instead we should learn to listen to the myriad of women on birth control for issues beyond planning pregnancies. Maybe women should just get easy access to low cost birth-control without having to recite their medical record.

October is health literacy month and when it comes to health literacy, Americans are kindergartners trying to eat the paste off their fingers.

We think Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are two different things; getting outraged at the notion of Obamacare yet think the idea of ‘affordable’ healthcare is quite nice.

Access to low-cost health care for everyone? Let’s shutdown the government!

Rather, if we want the government out of our private healthcare, then how about they get out of our uteri as well?

The Quest for Contraception and the Plight of the Inbetweener

by Lana Hanson

Published on September 6, 2013

2215 views

When you read about what women did in ancient Greece and Rome to ward off unwanted pregnancies, you’re tempted to do a full-on spit-take! I mean, our doomed sisters had to rely on wild dances and fancy amulets to keep sperm out of the egg’s personal space.

Ever wonder how that worked out for them?

Well, we women of today also face so many nightmarish birth control options – all sorts of pills and devices that could kill us – that the ancient one of crossing your fingers as you open your legs actually sounds like a refreshing idea.

So is it really preposterous for us to want safe and affordable contraception? Is it too much to ask that a woman be able to avoid the dilemma aborting a fetus or not by safely and affordably not getting pregnant at all? Not all of us pine away to be like that ideal reality show rabbit – AHEM! I mean multi-mother – Michelle Duggar.

The struggle for reasonable contraception only gets worse for “Inbetweeners”: that growing segment of women who fall between the cracks of “too poor” and “earns too much income to qualify for…” Inbetweeners defy many stereotypes: they can be married, single, or divorced, childless or not. They can be women who’ve been thrown for a loop yet not knocked down, by huge financial setbacks like divorce, loss of home, death of a spouse, personal illness, depression and/or job loss. Inbetweeners often don’t appear “needy” in appearance or attitude though they are.

You can think of Inbetweeners as the Indiana Joneses looking for what I’ll call The Holy Grail of Contraception. Sure, their jobs might not entail surviving fire pits or jumping over piles of writhing snakes; but they toil long hours for minimum wage and have no affordable health insurance.

This propels them to the doors of Planned Parenthood, where they hope to find some contraceptive security. But Planned Parenthood has it’s own struggles. Often Planned Parenthood is at the mercy of the companies and programs that supply its contraceptives and arbitrarily change their prices. That means countless women suddenly and inexplicably get kicked off programs that have supply reduced cost birth control, leaving these Inbetweeners in the dust because they’re sorely stretched to pay the staggering full price on just a one month’s supply of birth control. And Planned Parenthood staffers, no matter how sympathetic, can only shrug and say “I’m sorry.”

And Ms. Inbetweener can dream on about the possibility of getting a reduced-cost IUD! If she’s not destitute enough, these programs snatch that possibility from her desperate uterus, ‘cause the regular price for an IUD runs into the hundreds. In many cases, using birth control isn’t totally about avoiding unwanted pregnancy. For example, an IUD stanches periods that can be out of control and create havoc in the life of the sufferer. And many women have limited birth control options due to age or lifestyle habits.

But of course sorry is what an Inbetweener will be if she gets knocked up and can’t provide for the needy little cherub that’s been conceived. Her choices boil down to: Cough up big bucks to stay baby-free, leave the whole responsibility for “protection” with her partner (fuggeddabboudditt!), or have one baby after another, get even poorer and more dependent on public assistance, and find herself accused of “living off the system.”

Inbetweeners aren’t financially irresponsible; it’s just that once the bills are paid, they don’t have much left for food, never mind paying for reproductive freedom. Yet they wish to make mature choices about reproducing – and shouldn’t that be respected???

Any which way an Inbetweener tries to seek help, she is discriminated. There’s just no way to win at being a grown, responsible and sexual woman in America.

Still, we women have always been more resilient than we’ve ever let on. The ladies of ancient Greece and Rome knew it in their bones as they whirled feverishly to stave off undesirable futures. Their light fingers rubbed the milky amulets while prayers dripped from their quivering lips. Though their choice always teetered between peril and bliss, they still fiercely claimed it.

Let’s not be lesser sisters than our ancient ones – let’s keep up the good fight for safe and affordable contraception they started as best they could, long ago!

Birth Control vs Hysterectomy in Catholic Hospitals

by WS

Published on September 4, 2013

6649 views

I was raised Catholic but did not agree with some of Church doctrine and left the Church as a young adult. In my wildest dreams, I never imagined that I would have a hysterectomy and be castrated in a Catholic hospital (or any hospital for that matter) for a benign ovarian cyst. You can read about my Unnecessary Hysterectomy here. I suspect many other women have had healthy organs removed at this greater metropolitan Catholic hospital or some other Catholic hospital. With hysterectomy the second most common surgical procedure and the prevalence of Catholic hospitals growing, millions of women likely have had unnecessary hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals. This made me wonder, why would the Catholic Church condone (and profit from) unnecessary hysterectomies but prohibit contraception. It seems a bit hypocritical at least, unethical at worst.

A Spider Web of Contradictions in Catholic Hospitals

Catholic doctrine prohibits contraceptives. Yet, Catholic hospitals perform hysterectomies and ovary removals (castrations) for benign conditions that can typically be treated with less drastic measures such as contraceptives. Hysterectomy is permanent birth control. So is removal of ovaries. How is hysterectomy justified but not contraceptives?

In an article entitled Do Religious Restrictions Force Doctors to Commit Malpractice, the hazards of treatment at religious hospitals are discussed. In the case of a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy, removal of the fallopian tube which negatively affects fertility complies with Catholic doctrine while an injection of methotrexate that preserves the tube and fertility does not.

According to Catholic moralists, an injection that destroys an ectopic embryo is a direct abortion, while removing the part of a woman’s reproductive system containing the embryo is not.

But the end result is the same – a pregnancy is terminated. So why not at least preserve the woman’s fertility and health-promoting hormone production by administering the drug versus removing her fallopian tube?!

Another story in the cited article involved a woman with Lupus who was pregnant with a nonviable anencephalic fetus. Although continuing the pregnancy risked the woman’s health and her very life, pregnancy termination was denied.

The above situations would be considered medical malpractice since they caused harm to the patients. And what makes even less sense is that neither of these were viable pregnancies. Catholic Church dogma caused (intentional) harm to these women.

Another treatment done in Catholic hospitals that has me scratching my head is endometrial ablation. Although it reduces fertility, pregnancy can still occur but can be dangerous to mother and unborn child. So some form of birth control is recommended after ablation if tubal ligation was not also performed. Yet according to Is the Novasure System Ethical?, Novasure ablation has been given a passing grade by the Catholic Church. With the Church’s mandate against contraceptives, I wonder how many women are prescribed contraceptives to treat their heavy bleeding BEFORE this procedure is offered. However, in defense of the article, it does state that drug therapy is typically the first-line treatment after doing a full work-up to determine the cause of the bleeding. And if that fails then D&C should be the next step which should include polyp removal if polyps are found. However, it does not mention removal of fibroids despite being a common cause of abnormal bleeding. Although the article recommends starting with conservative treatments, the high rate of unwarranted hysterectomies and ablations indicate poor compliance with these standards.

According to a study published in 2008, the long-term problems caused by ablation too often lead to hysterectomy, the rate being highest (40%) for women having the procedure before age 41. This is further discussed in Endometrial Ablation – Hysterectomy Alternative or Trap?. However, again, in defense of the above cited Novasure article, it was published in 2005, three years prior to this study on the long-term effects of ablation. And, in addition to surgical risks, the article does mention the long-term risks of accumulation of blood in the uterus and the risk of impeding diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia or cancer. Despite this 2008 study showing the long-term harm of ablation, the use of this procedure does not appear to be declining.

According to Catholic Doors,

To obtain a hysterectomy is a mortal sin.
The ruling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stipulates that the only time a woman is morally permitted to have a hysterectomy is when the uterus is so damaged it presents an immediate threat to her health or life. [National Catholic Reported; August 12, 1994]
In general, an hysterectomy is morally justified if the removal of the uterus is necessary for grave medical reasons. It is not justified when the purpose is direct sterilization.
Therapeutic means which induce infertility are allowed (e.g., hysterectomy), if they are not specifically intended to cause infertility (e.g., the uterus is cancerous, so the preservation of life is intended). [Humanae Vitae]

Unnecessary Hysterectomy, Ethical Principles and the Hippocratic Oath

Birth control issues aside, how do all these overused gynecological procedures comply with the three ethical principles of the Catholic Church – respect for persons, beneficence, and nonmaleficence? For that matter, how do they comply with the Hippocratic Oath to “first, do no harm?” Since they cause harm, they violate the three ethical principles of the Catholic Church as well as the Hippocratic Oath. One must question if women are getting INFORMED CONSENT in any facility, religious or secular, but that is a topic for another day.

Ascension Health defines beneficence as follows:

As a middle principle, the principle of beneficence (and nonmaleficence) is the basis for certain specific moral norms (which vary depending on how one defines “goodness”). Some of the specific norms that arise from the principle of beneficence in the Catholic tradition are: 1) never deliberately kill innocent human life (which, in the medical context, must be distinguished from foregoing disproportionate means); 2) never deliberately (directly intend) harm; 3) seek the patient’s good; 4) act out of charity and justice; 5) respect the patient’s religious beliefs and value system in accord with the principle of religious freedom; 6) always seek the higher good; that is, never neglect one good except to pursue a proportionately greater or more important good; 7) never knowingly commit or approve an objectively evil action; 8) do not treat others paternalistically but help them to pursue their goals; 9) use wisdom and prudence in all things; that is, appreciate the complexity of life and make sound judgments for the good of oneself, others, and the common good.

Why is Hysterectomy So Pervasive at Catholic Hospitals?

For Catholic hospitals with accredited Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs, resident minimum surgical requirements may very well increase the rate of unwarranted hysterectomies. But that is certainly a poor excuse for removing an organ. Even so, if they can get around the GME abortion requirements for religious reasons (Catholic hospitals will not perform abortions) they should be able to do the same for hysterectomies, 98% of which do not meet the “grave medical reasons” test.

Hysterectomies and ablations (that too often lead to hysterectomy) are big business. Hysterectomies are estimated at generating $5-16 billion annually, and so revenues may be another reason Catholic hospitals prefer gynecological procedures over medical (pharmaceutical) intervention (birth control or other). Refusing to prescribe contraceptives may increase their ablation and hysterectomy business and therefore their bottom line. So the 76% of hysterectomies that don’t meet ACOG criteria may be even higher in Catholic hospitals. And the ongoing negative health effects of these procedures further contribute to the bottom line of these “health care” conglomerates.

Could profits trump Catholic doctrine on contraceptives and Catholic ethical principles when it comes to performing destructive gynecological procedures in Catholic hospitals?

My experience certainly proves this as all my sex organs were removed for a benign ovarian cyst, certainly not a “grave medical reason.” I can say the same for many other women with whom I’ve connected since my unwarranted hysterectomy and castration. And the overuse of ablation appears to be just as rampant. This procedure is being done on women in their 20’s and 30’s, many of whom are now considering hysterectomy or have had one to get relief from the post-ablation pelvic pain.

Just as a man’s sex organs have lifelong (non-reproductive) functions, so do a woman’s. Any procedure that disrupts their normal functioning can cause permanent adverse effects. At least medications can be stopped if the side effects outweigh the benefits.

For more information on the necessity of the uterus beyond the childbearing years, watch this video.

Participate in Research

Hormones Matter^TM is conducting research on the reasons for and outcomes of hysterectomy. If you have had a hysterectomy, please take this important, anonymous survey. The Hysterectomy Survey.

To take one of our other Real Women. Real Data.^TM surveys, click here.

To sign up for our newsletter and receive weekly updates on the latest research news, click here.

The History and Future of Abortion Laws in America

by Lisbeth Prifogle, MFA

Published on September 3, 2013

2443 views

The article you are about to read is neither an look at the morality of abortion nor a defense for women’s rights. It is a look at the history, future and constitutionality of abortion laws. I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I’m not republican or democrat. I am not a feminist. I don’t believe we should categorize and label ourselves over generalities because each choice we make has the potential to redefine who we are and who we think we are. That being said, it was extremely difficult to drudge through websites to find facts on this subject. The argument for/against abortion has been so politicized that every site has a slant. I did my best to leave politics behind and just look at the facts on this subject.

In the Beginning

When America was founded, abortions were legal. There were those for it and against it then as there are now, but it did not affect the laws. There were homes for unwed mothers and campaigns to “adopt not abort,” but the state did not have any laws on the books until the mid-to-late 1800’s.

The American Medical Association

The American Medical Association (AMA) was the catalyst for the first abortion laws, but for reasons you wouldn’t likely expect. Through criminalizing abortion, the AMA could push midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths out of business by eliminating their principle procedure – abortions. Think about this, the AMA was against abortion for reasons related to business, position and profit and used the morality argument as the wedge.The AMA set the stage for what we see now. It introduced the pro-life side so it could corner the market on the abortion business. The AMA argued that abortion was immoral and dangerous and by 1910, every state had laws forbidding it unless it was to save a woman’s life, in which case a physician would perform it. No more midwives, apothecaries or homeopaths.

Did these laws protect women? No, back-alley abortions increased and more women died from complications. These back-alley abortions weren’t necessarily only unwed or unfit mothers either, women who had medical complications with the pregnancy but couldn’t afford to go to a physician could no longer seek out a midwife or other practitioner to conduct the procedure.

Margaret Sanger

In the 1900’s Margaret Sanger started educational campaigns for contraceptives because she opposed abortion. (For more information about Margaret Sanger, her involvement in founding Planned Parenthood, and her involvement in the Eugenics Movement in America read The History of Birth Control and Eugenics). As a proponent of the eugenics movement she had an agenda to keep, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit,” (Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12), but she did not pursue this agenda via abortions. As a nurse she cared for many women who died from complications of botched abortions and was very opposed to the practice because of the danger it imposed on women. Interestingly enough, Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, what we now know as Planned Parenthood. Today, Planned Parenthood performs legal abortions with government funds. Although it is ironic, I suspect that Sanger would likely approve of the procedure today because it is now a much safer procedure for women than it was during her time.

Roe v. Wade

Jumping ahead a bit to 1973, we come to the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. Texas, along with most other states had strict abortion laws that only allowed it if the women’s health was in danger. In this case, a 21-year-old woman brought a class action suit opposing the constitutionality of the law against abortion. She won. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws restricting women from having an abortion violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Today, this case is still the basis for the approval or rejection, and appeal of state and federal laws.

Today

The controversy remains heated. In 2012, Arizona passed a law that made it illegal for women to have abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but in May 2013, aU.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the measure violates controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent under the court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. It was a unanimous ruling. However, prior to the Court of Appeals decision, federal judge James Teilborg ruled the law constitutional because it did not prohibit women from ending their pregnancy, just forced them to do it earlier in the pregnancy.

More recently, on July 18, 2013 Texas Govenor, Rick Perry signed a law making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Texas joins 12 other states with similar laws.

While I’m a firm believer of State rights under the Tenth Amendment (which is why each state has different abortion laws). Legislation should not be based on what is considered right or wrong according to a politician’s beliefs; laws should be based on what is safe for the citizens the law is supposed to protect. Is an abortion after 20 weeks unsafe? That is a discussion we have not had. It’s certainly not common; according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights organization, it is estimated that only that 1.5 percent of abortions takes place after 21 weeks of pregnancy.

The Slippery Slope

In recent years, several states have passed “wrongful birth” laws. These laws prohibit medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors who withhold information from a woman that could cause her to have an abortion. Who are these laws protecting? The patient? The politicians’ re-election campaigns? The doctors? Take a minute to set your personal beliefs aside and think about this – there are laws that allow doctors to withhold medical information that could jeopardize the life of both the mother and fetus. How is that safe? How is that even remotely constitutional? How is it more morally acceptable to potentially allow both mother and child die in order to prevent an abortion? Yet, we the people have accepted it.

The Future

While most arguments about abortion never make it past debating morality and women’s rights, these laws and debates should dive into much deeper issues – state rights, separation of church and state, and the role of the government in our everyday lives. I can’t say whether or not abortion will be legal or illegal in five years or fifty, but one thing I know for sure is the absurdity of the bills introduced, laws passed, and what politicians say will continue to get out of control. Unless, we as citizen’s speak up.

I’m sure we all remember Representative Todd Akin’s statement in August 2012 on the subject of his opposition to abortion even in the case of rape, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

More recently, in January 2013, a bill was introduced in New Mexico that would prevent abortion in the case of rape or incest because it would be considered “tampering with evidence in cases of criminal sexual penetration or incest.” This bill would make an abortion in the case of rape and incest a third degree felony potentially punishable by up to three years in prison!

I wish I was making this up, but as the saying goes, the truth is stranger than fiction. In my opinion, it’s all razzle dazzle to distract the public from the fact that we don’t need, nor should we have laws for or against abortion, but instead have regulations that monitor the safety of the procedure as it changes with technology. Maybe in the future voters will see the deeper issues in this debate and undo what the AMA set in motion in the pursuit of profit, power and prestige.

176 Million Reasons

by Lisa Graham

Published on July 26, 2013

2146 views

I have a disease which cannot be described-
Its symptoms vary and its cause is unknown;
Doctors routinely mistreat it to the dismay
Of 176 million women worldwide.

As women we are captive to this farce.
The promised cure an enigma, a cruel mirage.
Young girls not yet women left hollow,
Emptied of their organs, told to smile wider.

We find that diagnosis leads merely
To more confusion. There is no
Medical consensus. We are sheep,
Dosed and herded, penned together.

We are the women that doctors fear,
we stumble in crying, we live with pain.
Nobody wants us to say what we need.
The stigma is worse than the disease.

Lisa lives in Homer Alaska with her amazing husband, and is an advocate for endometriosis awareness, education, and higher standards for women’s health worldwide. She works in Quality Assurance, and she dreams of saving the world with poetry and organic vegetables. She is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree in Project Management.

On the Radio: Chandler Marrs and Leslie Botha Talk Hormones and Health

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on July 17, 2013

2034 views

Earlier this week, I had the great pleasure of speaking with Leslie Carol Botha on her radio show, Holy Hormones Honey, the Greatest Story Never Told, KRFC FM Fort Collins. We spent an hour discussing everything from pregnancy – postpartum mental health and the state of hormone research to women in clinical trials and vaccine safety. We even talked politics, just a bit.

Front and center was the need for more research and data in all areas of women’s health and the Hormone’s Matter^TM solution, a series of crowdsourced studies under the Real Women, Real Data^TM, program. Currently, we have three studies underway with many more planned.

The Oral Contraceptives Survey
The Hysterectomy Survey
The Gardasil -Cervarix HPV Vaccine Survey
The Lupron Survey (launching soon)
The Ablation Survey (launching soon)

In the end, we decided, that we needed to found the Hormones Matter^TM University or HMU. Seems like a good idea to me, what do you think?

I had a blast talking about women’s health and hormones and look forward to doing it again. If you want to know why I do, what I do or just want to learn a little bit more about me and why hormones matter in health, have a listen.

To listen to the interview: Do Hormones Matter in Women’s Health? Leslie Botha Interviews Dr. Chandler Marrs on Holy Hormones the Greatest Story Never Told.

To keep abreast of all the latest women’s health news, sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Hormones Matter

Where health, hormones, and a whole bunch of other stuff, make sense.