women's rights Archives - Hormones Matter

To the Man Laughing on the Trump Tape

Published on October 10, 2016

1764 views

“Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor.” –Ginetta Sagan

Dear Laughing Man on the Trump tape:

It doesn’t matter what your name is because you really could have been any number of men. What I want to tell you is that you are the bigger problem than Donald Trump. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that you probably didn’t even want to laugh. It certainly wasn’t funny. I bet deep down, laughing with him actually made you feel gross. I know because I, myself, have done the same. I have laughed at and permitted and been silenced by and let slide misogyny of all kinds in a way I would never tolerate racism or any other form of discrimination. So I guess I should say we are the problem. And it’s not okay. Let me say that again. IT IS NOT OKAY!

It is not okay that I worked for a radio station that objectified women as shtick and that I went along with it and even supported it. It is not okay that my boss, in response to saying my knees hurt, told me to “stay off them.” It is not okay that a different boss, after I told him that I wasn’t going to sleep with him, forced himself on me anyway. That these things are mild compared to the stories of many women I know is definitely not okay.

Last year, I started teaching a gender studies class where the focus is on feminism in the context of equality for all. I was excited to teach it because I admire so many of my students for being smart, compassionate, and aware. I was also excited to teach it for the students who weren’t as aware but were open to learning about oppression in all its many forms. It turns out I was the one who learned the most. What I learned was that in the nearly 20 years since I was a college student, things have not changed much. One student asked me what she should do about her boss who was treating her badly ever since she turned him down for a date. Another explained that a co-worker sexually assaulted her and when she asked to be switched from working shifts with him, he wanted to know why she was ruining his life. A third student admitted that she had been sexually assaulted by her best friend and then had to have breakfast with his family like nothing had happened.

Laughing Man, I cried in my car after class every day that semester. I thought my tears were outrage at the world. I was seething with anger and disbelief that nothing had changed since the days I experienced these things. I think now my tears were just as much out of guilt. Why haven’t we made the world better for these young women? Why do men not only think it’s okay but even appropriate to act this way? Because, like you, I haven’t spoken up.

I have been complicit to my own oppression. Sometimes I still am, so as not to rock the boat, or be seen as a bitch, or even more horrifyingly—to be liked. That is not okay, either. Like you, I thought staying silent was easier.

This is because it is, in the short run anyway. Laugh and say nothing and you avoid conflict with a bully who, when provoked, may turn his malice on you. It almost seems smarter. Yet the price we’re paying for all that silent complicity is much higher. More hate, misogyny, anger, and fear. We are the reason that things have not changed.

I will no longer stay silent in the face of sexism. You, Laughing Man, should join me. So should the man that receives regular texts from his friend bragging about the women he’s slept with and attaching pictures of their panties, all the while calling them sluts. So should the man that, with the same voice he uses to tell his daughter that she can be the boss, also uses phrases like “tight as a two-year-old” and “femi-Nazi.” It’s the men that perpetuate the idea of being “friend-zoned” as if a woman owes you more than that. It’s the fraternities that encourage date rape. It’s the men that think calling someone a “pussy” is an insult because they buy into the idea that all things female are inferior. These are the men that need to speak up. Because we have let things get so bad that it must be more than women to make the change.

Men like you have the power to create a better world one “Hey man, that’s not cool” at a time.

Will the Donald Trumps of the world listen to you? Maybe not. But they definitely aren’t going to listen to me. It’s the people that say nothing that are letting the opportunity for change slip through their hands.

This society that we have helped create isn’t just poisonous for me, Laughing Man. It’s poisonous for you, too. Remember how gross laughing at Donald Trump made you feel? I don’t think you really want to laugh at things that aren’t funny, disrespect women you don’t even know, stuff down your emotions so you can “be a man.” These things are harmful for both of us. We owe our daughters and our sons more than that.

Now, Laughing man, it’s time to stop laughing. It’s not funny. And it’s not okay. It’s time to speak up–not just because you have a wife or a daughter or a mother. You shouldn’t have to care about a woman to care about all women. We are people. ALL of us. And we are in this together.

Is Medical Abuse of Women the New Standard of Care?

by Robin Karr

Published on September 18, 2014

4933 views

Over half a million hysterectomies are performed every year in the U.S. Up to 90% are considered to be medically unnecessary. Therefore, healthy hormone-producing sex organs are “routinely” removed. For this reason, removal of healthy sex organs is considered to be the ‘standard of care’ for women. If this doesn’t alarm you, it should. The U.S. leads the world in hysterectomies – not something to take pride in for sure.

I should note here that approximately 60% to 70% of hysterectomies include removal of the ovaries or “castration” which is linked to loss of sexuality, heart disease, Parkinson’s, Osteoporosis and other numerous mental and physical health problems. I wrote about my own story regarding unconsented hysterectomy and castration here. I also wrote about how our hormones animate us here and about how the loss of hormones resulting from castration can lead to severe depression and even suicide here.

Unnecessary Cesarean Births

Now, let’s talk about another alarming and often unnecessary surgery being performed on women daily in the U.S., the cesarean. Cesarean is the now number one surgery. The U.S. leads the world in C-sections rates. In fact, 15% of current in-patient surgeries nationwide are Cesarean deliveries. The following data may help shine a light on why so many C-sections are being preformed. The centers for Medicare and Medicaid have found that the average physician’s charges for uncomplicated vaginal delivery in the U.S. is just under $4,500. But for an uncomplicated cesarean delivery, it is $7,000. Hospitalization costs are doubled, going from an average of a little over $5,000 to over $10,000.

C-sections are necessarily exhausting hospital, surgical, and nursing services and as a result, they’re causing an increase in waiting time and nursing coverage for other needed procedures. Consider that for every 5% increase in U.S. C-section rates, there may be as many as 14 to 32 more maternal deaths and $750 million to $1.7 billion in health-care expenditures. Why then, do C-section rates keep rising? Could money be the incentive? You decide…

Unsafe Birth Control

Money is too often an incentive when it comes to unnecessary surgeries, medical devices, drugs, etc. and this seems to be especially true in reference to women. Birth control is something most every woman has to confront and manage in some way. Birth control pills are long associated with well-known risks such as blood clots, stroke, and heart attack, etc.

One would think that after so many years, there would be a safer method of birth control, but that isn’t the case at all. Many women are undergoing irreversible sterilization every day in our country via a permanent method of birth control known as “Essure”. Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting women have been coerced by their doctors into agreeing to having the Essure coil implanted. Sadly, this form of birth control is not the risk-free procedure that the gynecological community would have us believe. Instead, many women with the Essure coil in their body are now suffering unspeakable pain and serious medical conditions – some leading to hysterectomy.

The Essure coil intentionally causes an inflammatory response that encourages the growth of scar tissue, which then blocks the openings to the fallopian tubes – thereby preventing pregnancy. The problem is that the inflammatory response is intentionally chronic and the metals all too often evoke severe allergic reactions causing the coil to migrate, become misplaced, or even perforate the uterus, fallopian tube, and other organs. Obviously, a variety of problems are likely to develop when a woman’s body begins the fight to reject the Essure coil. It’s estimated that over 800 women have filed reports with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regarding the adverse effects Essure has had on their physical health.

Morcellation

Let’s move onto another alarming issue in women’s health that has only recently come to light – at least for those of us who aren’t gynecologists or the maker of medical devices. In April 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication discouraging the use of laparoscopic power morcellators for the removal of the uterus and uterine fibroids. Based on an analysis of currently available data, the FDA cited a risk of the spread of unsuspected cancerous tissue.

The strange thing is that most women who undergo hysterectomy or myomectomy (removal of fibroids only) have no earthly idea that something called a morcellator is ever used. Most have never even heard of such a device. In other words, women are not giving their doctors consent to use this device to splice up their uterus or fibroids. When you consider that over 600,000 hysterectomies are performed every year (never mind all the myomectomies performed), the number of women who may have been subjected to morcellators could be quite substantial.

Transvaginal Mesh

Unlike the morcellator, transvaginal mesh is something that has been in the news a lot over the past couple of years. Most people have seen the advertisements on television regarding mesh-related lawsuits. The truth is that transvaginal mesh has been labeled a risky medical device by the FDA due to the high numbers of health complications associated with its use. Thousands of women have filed vaginal mesh lawsuits after suffering from the many complications related to transvaginal mesh surgery.

One urogynecologist, Dr. Richard Reid, told ABC news: “Since a mesh scar is quite fibrous and the bladder is very soft, it’s considered to be a compliance mismatch – which means the same as rubbing a piece of cheese over a metal grater.” In July 2011, the FDA issued a formal warning saying that transvaginal mesh was a “greater risk” with “no evidence of greater clinical benefit”. Johnson & Johnson removed its product from sale earlier this year and class actions are already underway in the U.S., Canada, and now Australia.

The HPV Vaccine

As alarming as all the information I’ve shared so far may be, there is even more alarming information regarding the medical abuse of young girls via an HPV vaccine known as “Gardasil”. As if targeting women wasn’t enough, many doctors are recommending the Gardasil vaccine to girls as young as nine and there’s no shortage of information regarding the many serious side-effects associated with this vaccine.

But, perhaps the most troubling thing about Gardasil is the negative effect it may have on the ovaries. At least one Gardasil ingredient, polysorbate 80 is a known cause of ovarian deformities. Another Gardasil ingredient, L-histidine, carries significant risks as well. Because it’s a naturally-occurring substance in the human body, injecting it could have the effect of causing an autoimmune response. It would seem very probable that Merck -the maker of Gardasil- would almost have to have known that the vaccine would be putting young girls at risk for ovarian problems and even ovarian failure – leading to full blown menopause and all the associated health risks.

As of September 2013, there have been more than 57 million doses distributed in the United States, though it is unknown how many have actually been administered. There have been 22,000 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports following the vaccination.

Medical Abuse?

I’ll ask my original question I posed in my title: “Is medical abuse of women the new standard of care?” While I’m not sure abuse has become the “new standard of care” exactly, I’m very sure that women cannot afford to simply trust that their doctor will do what’s best for them. That kind of blind trust is just not a good idea. The sad reality is that we must take charge of our own health. We cannot rely on doctors to do what is right for us. Doctors are under extreme financial pressure and it is just too easy for them to recommend expensive surgery or an unneeded medication for a condition that can be treated alternatively. Research in women’s health issues remains inconsistent, incomplete and often slipshod. Too often, women wind up being experimental “guinea pigs” for surgeons without ever being told of all the potentially life-shattering risks to which they are being exposed.

A Buffer Zone for Abortion Patients or Free Speech?

by R S

Published on February 3, 2014

2064 views

Recently, the Supreme Court heard McCullen v. Coakley, or the Massachusetts Buffer Zone case, in which pro-life activists claim that their right to free speech is violated by the standard buffer zone (35 feet) around Massachusetts abortion clinics. The buffer zone allows anti-abortion protesters to picket behind the line while ensuring the safety of patients and staff. Now, anti-abortion activists are seeking to remove this buffer zone.

Staff and pro-abortion activists are concerned that the removal of the buffer zone will endanger the physical safety of patients and staff at clinics, not to mention the emotional toll that abortion seekers will face entering a clinic. Currently, women seeking a termination to their pregnancy still have to pass the buffer zone, where protesters may verbally interact with them or use graphic signs to intimidate them. With the buffer removed, patients will have to interact directly with people whose goal is to prevent their entrance. Whether that is achieved through verbal intimidation, spitting, preventing the patient from exiting their car, or starting a fight, seems not to matter to some fanatical protesters.

There have been many instances in which patients and staff, especially staff who escort patients to their cars, have been verbally or physically assaulted by anti-abortion protesters. This piece in Mother Jones features several interviews with family planning staffers who have witnessed instances of intimidation and the physical prevention of women entering the clinic by protesters looking to start a fight. In very rare instances, clinic workers and volunteers have been shot and killed by anti-abortion activists, and some people fear that the elimination of the buffer zone may lead to more intense violence and loss of life.

To see what entering and exiting a clinic without a buffer zone would be like, read the second half of this piece in Think Progress. Protesters can trail patients to and from their cars and pass them flyers and videotapes. That in itself doesn’t seem terrifying, but the breach of personal privacy causes patients to turn back simply from the intimidation. Clinic staff can call the police if protesters break any physical boundaries, such as physically touching a patient, but some protesters feel they have nothing to lose.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of these activists, the consequences would reach further than family planning clinics, it seems. Other politically motivated activist groups would be free to confront their targets with impunity, as long as outright violence does not take place. Take, for instance, these gun rights activists carrying assault weapons who waited in a Texas parking lot to confront a small group of gun control activists. That kind of behavior is not only menacing, but downright threatening. The line between free speech and aggressive scare tactics could become very thin if it’s federally protected.

Free speech is one of the cornerstones of citizenship in the United States, and it’s vital to the existence of good journalism, political debate, and political protest. However, when the protection of free speech trumps the physical safety of other citizens, there is cause for concern.

Fetal Rights Versus Maternal Rights: The Slippery Slope of Personhood

by R S

Published on December 31, 2013

3790 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.

Citizen Activists in the Internet Age and the War on Women

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on April 25, 2012

2100 views

With all of the negativity and the downright stupidity of the American political scene, I thought some positive trends deserved attention, and hence this post. There is a resurgence of citizen activism that is successfully and positively changing the legislative process. This inspired me. I hope it inspires you.

Passage of the JOBS Act

For those of you not on the investment bandwagon, the JOBS Act which stands for the Jumpstart Our Business Startups will legalize crowdfunded investment for small companies like ours and democratize the investment process. It will allow average, everyday citizens, not just the super wealthy, to invest small amounts in new companies- it will allow crowd-funded investment. You can read more about the legislation here.

What is truly remarkable about this legislation is the story of this bill came to be. Three entrepreneurs wanted to fund their start up. Eighty-year-old SEC rules prohibited the crowdfunding of investment to private companies (Kickstarter and other crowdfunding platforms are not technically investment. They more akin to sponsorship). These three guys decided to change the laws and regulations. They began a grassroots, Internet driven campaign and with much effort and persistence, succeeded. No ALEC or other nefarious Super PAC, just three guys and an idea. How cool is that?! Citizen activists have power in the Internet age.

SOPA

SOPA –the Stop Online Piracy Act was stopped dead in its tracks by the Twitterverse. At first glance, the legislation looked benign enough; who wouldn’t want to stop online piracy? On closer inspection, however, this legislation would have seriously limited the ability of Internet users to do business, especially small blogs, content related and social media type ventures. SOPA was stopped by intense Internet activism beginning with millions of average users and then followed by wide-scale Internet blackouts by Wikipedia, Digg, even Google protested. Citizen activists have power in the Internet age.

RWA

A few months later came a less well known bill, the Research Works Act (RWA), that would have prevented public access to taxpayer funded research by giving all rights to the publishing houses. RWA was pushed by Elsevier, one of the most powerful and profitable academic publishing houses worldwide. Scientist, academics, and average citizens rose up and said NO, promising to boycott Elsevier (the Cost of Knowledge protest) had it passed. The outcry killed the bill and I think might ultimately change the business of academic publishing for the better. Indeed, more and more universities are opting for open source publishing venues to counteract the high cost and the access barriers publishing houses have instituted in recent decades.

The success of citizen activists in social media age is just beginning. Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that deemed corporations people and opened the flood gates for Super Pac sponsored elections, may have been the far end of the pendulum, which now must swing back. Americans have woken up from a decades long slumber and are realizing that they can make a difference. This may bode well for women’s rights, if we wake up and begin the arduous, but completely doable, task of creating and passing the legislation that matters to us (and voting out the scoundrels seeking to limit our rights).

The War on Women

The War on Women, though disputed by many, is evidenced by a very real and dangerous rollback in women’s health rights; rights many of us took for granted. At last tally, over 900 bills had been proposed restricting a woman’s access to health care and limiting her rights to make he own health care decisions, this year alone. Indeed, it wasn’t until the all-male birth control hearings and the subsequent diatribes by Rush Limbaugh, that many of us began to pay attention. Only then was the public outrage palpable, but outrage without focus or discernible goals to change something is, in my mind, a waste. We cannot just get mad. We need to fix this mess. We need new leaders, new laws and a new game plan for protecting the rights of our daughters.

This weekend, women will be uniting across the nation to protest the War on Women. When the outrage settles, we must begin to act. As the citizens responsible for initiating the JOBS act or stopping SOPA and RWA demonstrated, average citizens can change policy. Super PACs and the super wealthy are powerful, but not as powerful as millions of angry, Internet-connected, women. Hell hath no fury…

Let’s focus that fury on ensuring women are granted the basic human rights afforded the male citizenry. If three guys with an idea can change 80 year old, heavily entrenched, heavily bank supported, investment laws, if tweets can lead to the blockage of the media industry’s takeover of the Internet, and if scientists can all but take down a major publishing house, then certainly, women can get laws passed and politicians in office that support women’s rights.

For information about the War on Women protests planned for this Weekend, 4-28-12, click here.

What are you going to do to improve women’s rights?

Subtle but fundamental changes in discourse: is anyone listening?

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on March 14, 2012

2346 views

Discourse Matters

What happens when we change the definition of a person to include everything from a corporation to a barely fertilized female egg? What happens when the corporate person and a collection of cells have more tacit and actual rights afforded than actual sentient beings? Though the loud and often offensive debates over a woman’s manifest right to make decisions about her health have led many to declare a ‘war on women,’ these same trends will serve to erode human rights in general- even for male humans.

Perhaps more of a philosophical question at this point, but when the definitions of words within a language dissociate so radically- person no longer means a human- it is difficult not to wonder what ramifications are before us; the law of unintended consequences will most certainly be at play here.

The Subject in Discourse

Language, and by association conversation or discourse, follow some very specific rules. At the most basic level, a sentence contains a subject, verb and object and, for the most part, words describe something about reality. (We’ve long since dissembled language and reality with mega marketing, political expediency and spin- but that is another topic altogether).

Subjects are usually, he, she, it, they etc., a person or thing. Although the definition of person has evolved over the course of history, it is generally allied with some underlying concept of sentience or thinking. Even though animals can think, we have never defined animals as persons (try as many dog lovers might) and there has always been a clear demarcation between human and everything else. Over the course of two years, however, cultural forces have rendered that definition virtually obsolete. And we have yet to settle on a new definition.

Corporate Privileges in Discourse

By law, corporations are now afforded some of the same (often more) rights than human persons. A corporation is comprised of human persons, but is essentially a contrived legal entity that allows business to transact. What does it mean when a legal contrivance becomes a person? Because corporate persons often have more power and money, there is the very real risk that their market goals will supersede basic human rights. (As a countervailing force, however, the millions of people within corporations connected socially online may overturn this overstep- see my last post).

The Risks of Anti-Abortion Discourse

Similarly, local anti-abortion supporters aligned with local government entities have pushed legislation across multiple regions of the US that grant a fertilized egg, person status; often affording the cell person more rights than the human person. Along with these trends, legislation that either forces women to undergo unneeded medical procedures and/or prevent physicians from providing medical information to women supersede the rights of the human-sentient person in favor of cells. No matter what you believe about abortion, this is a fundamental shift in discourse with significant policy ramifications.

Aside from the potentially life-threatening position a woman can now be placed in legally, aside from ethical quandaries these laws place a physician in and the very real medical malpractice suits that these laws open the physician up to, this shift in language, motivated by narrow political goals, removes the notion of human rights, human persons, from policy discussions. And although, these policies currently target women specifically, they will ultimately erode rights for all humans. Who is to say other cells or other legal or object entities don’t indeed deserve to be protected over the rights of humans.

Sperm cells for example, are core constituents of human life and until we master asexual reproduction, why shouldn’t all sperm cells be considered sacred and merit the same protective caveats as the female egg? Or to its absurdity, the male penis, testicles and the like, containers of this life-giving force, why shouldn’t they be enshrined and protected until the moment of copulation- a chastity belt perhaps?

Laugh as we might, redefining personhood to include everything from non-human, legal entities to a collection of cells that may or may not evolve into a human being, dismisses the role and rights of actual humans. This change in discourse is a dangerous slope.

Are Women Equal Ender the Law?

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on February 20, 2012

2699 views

The Raucous Birth Control Debate

When I was in my 20s, I was adamantly non-feminist. I considered myself equal to any man. I had control of my reproductive health. I could vote, hold office, play sports and saw no point in fighting those old battles. Boy was that naïve. I still consider myself equal to any man. I realize now, however, that much of the world does not agree. And rather than progressing towards more equality, as a country we seem to be moving towards less.

Here we are over a decade into the 21^st century and we are once again arguing about a woman’s right to manage her own health. We’re arguing about birth control. Partly because of the political and economic dynamics of our time, the issue is more heated than ever. Wedge issues like this re-surface with every election cycle. From a dollars and cents perspective, who wants to pay for medications that 98% of the female population utilizes for years at a time? Birth control is an expensive proposition for any institution.

Economics aside, I would contend that the birth control debate is not about birth control, or even one’s religious beliefs. No, this debate is about whether women are full citizens with all of the rights and privileges as men – including the right to make their own health care choices.

Are women equal to men under the law? Do we have the right to pursue health, happiness and liberty as we see fit? Do we have the right to religious freedom? Or per the current brouhaha, are we a special class of citizen with only some of the rights conferred to the male citizenry?

If the current discussions are any indication, there are many among us that believe that women’s rights are alienable and superseded by the rights of religious institutions or political expediency. How else does one explain the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings on women’s health that included no women, but highlighted the male hierarchy of congressional and religious power? How else does one explain the conservative punditry’s fealty to the male view of women’s health (adroitly portrayed by John Stewart’s Vagina Ideologues ). How else does one explain the utter lack of women, even conservative women, present in these discussions about women’s health?

Maybe these events can be chalked up to the election year machinations of feckless politicians; maybe it is just a power play, positioning one party over the other; we can hope…

I worry, however, that as these conversations continue and the voices of women are denied, the prevailing discourse that women’s health and self-determination are matters of religious conscience and governmental intrusion, will become more and more entrenched. The line between election year politicking and reality is blurring quickly. These debates are defining not only who can speak about women’s health, but which topics are acceptable; only men and only reproduction.

As a woman and a fierce advocate for women’s health research, I find the current trends dangerously recursive. No, these discussions are not about birth control or even religious freedoms. These issues aren’t even about liberal versus conservative or left versus right, though often framed as such. These discussions are about whether women are equal citizens with all the rights and privileges accorded. Do we have the right to make and manage our own health care decisions? If the current discourse continues, the answer is trending towards no, women are not equal.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash.

women's rights

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Unnecessary Cesarean Births

Unsafe Birth Control

Morcellation

Transvaginal Mesh

The HPV Vaccine

Medical Abuse?

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Passage of the JOBS Act

SOPA

RWA

The War on Women

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Discourse Matters

The Subject in Discourse

Corporate Privileges in Discourse

The Risks of Anti-Abortion Discourse

Related posts:

You might be interested in

The Raucous Birth Control Debate

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in