Hurrah for Israel’s Photoshop Law!

Guest blogger Talia bat Pessi is a Harvard-bound teenage Femidox (feminist Orthodox) pro-Israel Jew. Her work has appeared in over 40 publications, including the Jewish WeekMs. Magazine blog, Jerusalem PostGirl w/ Pen!, Jewish Press, and FBomb. She’s not quite sure how she manages to find spare time, but when she does, she enjoys going to rock concerts, fuzzying with her rescue dog, eating (a lot), messing around in Photoshop, and procrastinating on the Internet.

As of January 1, what the media has dubbed the “Photoshop Law” has gone into effect in Israel. This law mandates that models working in Israel have to have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of at least 18.5, the lowest healthy BMI possible, and companies have to clearly label advertisements containing pictures that were even slightly Photoshopped. Foreign ads must also comply. Considering 10% of teenagers in Israel suffer from eating disorders and anorexia is the number-one killer in the 15-24 age group, this law was sorely needed.

Rachel Adato, the sponsor of the bill, has been very involved in women’s health throughout her career. She served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Women’s Health and Advisor to the Minister of Health on Women’s Health, and was a member of the Steering Committees for Prevention of Violence Towards Women and Establishing Medical Centers for Victims of Sexual Assault, as well as a member in four delegations to the UN on women’s health.
[Read more...]

The Best and Worst News for Women in 2012

As a political junkie coming off a surreal election season, I can offer only the faintest apologies for skewing American. I’m sure for every pick I made, there are three I had to leave out. I invite you to show me the error of my ways–and your bests and worsts–in the comments section below. Happy New Year!!!!

The Best

1)   President Obama Wins Reelection
Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC promo pretty much says it all: ”We are not going to have a Supreme Court that overturns Roe vs. Wade. We are not going to repeal health reform. We are not going to give a 20% tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. We are not going to amend the United States Constitution to stop gay people from getting married. We are not eliminating the Department of Energy. We are not letting Detroit go bankrupt. We are not vetoing the DREAM Act. We had the choice to do that and we said ‘no.’” No president can do everything, but without Barack Obama in the White House, we’d have to do so much more.

2)   The Affordable Care Act Was Upheld
The entire country held its breath, and we progressive folk were the ones who got to exhale! Surprising everyone, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the vast majority of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act—and most notably, the individual mandate—was constitutional and would move forward.
[Read more...]

No Better Time for Plan B

I have a package of Potassium Iodide tablets in my Go Bag, and I’m happy most days not to think about either, but I feel better knowing that they’re there. For those of you unfamiliar with either, or both–Potassium Iodide protects the thyroid from radiation poisoning, and a Go Bag is an emergency preparedness kit with enough supplies for a person to survive without outside help for at least three days.

If you didn’t know, consider yourself lucky. Or blissfully ignorant. I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective. That–and what the future happens to bring to yours.

Me, I decided back in the days of the dirty bomb scares that I’d rather have a package of ominously-packaged pills in the house than to one day wish I had bought some as an invisible deadly force fried my body. Same goes for the Go Bag. I put the pills in the bag, put the bag behind the couch, and honestly, including today, I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve thought about either in the past ten years.

Isn’t that how worst case scenario preparation should work? Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and try not to scare the bejesus out of yourself in the meantime. Anything less would be irresponsible when it’s a matter of life and death, right?

[Read more...]

The Debate Surrounding Health Care Administration and Reform Continues

Guest blogger Cheryl Jacque is a contributing researcher and writer to the online health administration resource The Health Administration Project. Today, Cheryl examines what health care reforms mean to health care administration and its clients, including women that are now eligible to receive certain services without being charged co-pay fees.

As many estimate that health care in the US could soon rise to 20% of GDP spending, lawmakers have been debating a massive overhaul of the entire system. Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) estimates that its reforms will allow 32 million more Americans to receive insurance. Although many of these changes are already underway, debate continues on how to best care for the country’s large and uniquely diverse population.

For many struggling American families, the ACA undoubtedly offers many appreciated benefits. Under the new regulations, those with family plans can keep their children covered until age 26 regardless of marital status, student status, living situation, or if they have a pre-existing condition. As increasing numbers of young people are graduating from college without immediate job prospects, parents and their children are collectively breathing a sigh of relief knowing they can remain covered while looking for work in a struggling market.

This measure has increased the number of insured Americans aged 19 to 25 from 64% to 73% between 2010 and 2011, suggesting that while the US health care crisis has not yet been solved, some actions are having a positive affect.

One of the most controversial aspects of the health plan has been the changes to Medicare, which don’t begin til 2014. Under some Medicare drug plans, after an individual’s drug plan has spent a certain amount of money for covered drugs, the individual is responsible for paying the full costs of prescription drugs until they reach the amount required for catastrophic care coverage, a period widely referred to as the coverage gap, or “donut hole.” While the Affordable Care Act is making an effort to shrink the coverage gap, it won’t be fully closed until 2020, a fact that the plan’s opponents continue to criticize.

Perhaps the most surprising group to see major changes in coverage is also the largest. Beginning this past summer, all women were given assured access to preventative health services and are no longer subject to additional insurance fees and charges. These services will include annual visits to doctors, AIDS virus screening and counseling about sexually transmitted infections, breastfeeding supplies, and even screening and counseling services for domestic violence. Women aged 30 and over will be offered even more services, including DNA testing for the human papilloma virus, which can lead to cervical cancer. In addition, beginning in 2014, insurers will no longer be allowed to charge women higher premiums than men. It is estimated that these additional preventative services will save millions annually.

The final aspect of the health care bill that is causing opponents, like the CEO of Papa John’s pizza, to declare reform akin to socialism is that all companies with more than 50 employees will be subject to fines if they do not provide their employees with health insurance. Many industry analysts say this will cost companies millions annually and will continue to give the United States a reputation that is unfriendly towards business interests.

Health care reform is still a work in progress. While the Affordable Care Act provides coverage at lowered rates to millions who would otherwise go uninsured, the coverage gap in Medicare illustrates that there will still be those that do not receive the care they need. Many also argue that until Americans begin to make health decisions, health care will always be expensive, and this reform still fails to address that.

When it Comes to Politics, Don’t Listen to Sex and the City

For many women, Sex and the City signifies the sexually adventurous and independent woman, one who does not take any crap and knows what she wants. For others, the show is the complete opposite of independence and instead showcases very materialistic women endlessly looking for the right man to marry while discussing shoes, drinks, and parties. Sex and the City falls in the same category as Madonna, you either love her or cannot stand her.

There is something so off putting about Sex and the City to me. The constant discussion of fashion and appearance, the neverending hunt for relationships, and the often shallow discussions of anything that is not fashion or relationships, along with Carrie’s constant shrieking (when she sees a mouse, when she looses a shoe, gets picked up by a man, encounters dogs, when it rains, basically all the time). Besides, how can all these women have so much money to spend when they actually never work? While browsing for anything good on TV I found an episode that depicted the women sitting around a table outside at a restaurant discussing politics and Carrie’s new politician boyfriend. Just before the lunch conversation, Carrie’s voiceover stated that she and her partner were compatible since he knows about politics and she knows about fashion, and both are very similar. During lunch, one of the women noted the irony of Carrie dating a politician, since she was not even registered to vote. Samantha then said that she would vote for whomever was the best-looking man running for office, or for president. Carrie’s voiceover said something like “Here we were, four girls talking politics.”

[Read more...]

Why Sherri Chessen’s Abortion Still Matters

Reading the recent coverage around the first apology in 50 years from the manufacturer of thalidomide to those affected by the drug, I was reminded of another half-century anniversary. Fifty years ago, Sherri Chessen – an Arizona wife, mother, and local host of the TV show Romper Room – sparked a national debate when she sought a therapeutic abortion.

In the summer of 1962, Chessen (then known as Sherri Finkbine) was pregnant with her fifth child. During this pregnancy, she learned that medication she had taken, which her husband brought back from a trip to England, contained thalidomide. The drug, which was introduced in the 1950s and primarily used in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia, had initially been hailed as a wonder drug of sorts, and was considered safe for use in pregnant women to treat morning sickness and insomnia. But by the early 1960s, doctors and researchers had become aware that thalidomide could cause both miscarriage and horrible fetal deformities, including babies born without limbs. [Read more...]

Taking on FSD and the Pharmaceutical Companies – Orgasm Inc.

Orgasm Inc. is a documentary by Liz Canner focusing on the recent “discovery” of FSD or Female Sexual Dysfunction. We know that pills such as Viagra can help men with erectile dysfunction. And we also know that the prescription drug industry is big, profitable business. Just how big you might wonder? According to the documentary “The pharmaceutical industry is the third most profitable in the world”. But it is also extremely profitable in America as “The USA makes up just 5% of the world’s population but it accounts for 42% of the world’s spending on prescription drugs”.

Canner explores how pharmaceutical companies scrambling to make a huge profit by telling women that they indeed are abnormal frame FSD as a disorder, even though there are no actual medical discoveries that point to FSD as a disorder. In fact, we find out that all initial meetings discussing FSD were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and that pharmaceutical companies have made it their plight to help define and discover FSD.

[Read more...]

Bad News for Virginia Abortion Clinics – and Women

Well, the reprieve for Virginia abortion clinics didn’t last long.

Earlier this summer, the state’s Board of Health voted to exempt existing clinics from satisfying new and expensive building requirements. Their decision was in response to a 2011 bill that required abortion clinics to be regulated as hospitals. According to pro-choice advocates, those requirements – which included such non-medical specifications as hallway width and drinking fountain installation – were so restrictive that up to 17 of the state’s 21 clinics could be forced out of business.

[Read more...]

The Naked Truth: Armpits4August on Female Body Hair

Guest blogger Chloe Marshall is a London based freelance journalist who regularly writes articles for queer publications, including g3 magazine, Out in the City, and Transliving International. Chloe also contributes her writing to feminist, activist causes, Armpits4August being the most exciting yet. Armpits4August are busy exposing their pits and challenging beauty ideals, and Chloe is part of a dedicated team who are spreading the word.

It’s summer in the UK, and vest tops and shorts are getting a well deserved outing from our wardrobes. But wait, doesn’t that mean we have to get our beach bodies ready? Honed, toned, de-haired, and otherwise made more pleasing to the male gaze? Or maybe not. Many women across the UK are taking the challenge of growing out their armpit hair throughout the month of August, to question these prescribed beauty ideals and raise money for a crucial women’s health cause.

[Read more...]

De-Queering the Fetus

recent article by Alice Dreger, Ellen K. Feder, and Anne Tamar-Mattis documents the controversial application of prenatal dexamethasone in pregnant women. The impetus for this pharmacological therapy is to stop virilization in female fetuses that may be affected by a form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) called 21-hydroxylase deficiency or 21-OHC CAH.

Don’t allow the medical jargon to turn you away from what’s taking place here: the steroid is administered to pregnant women with the goal of stamping out intersexed bodies while ultimately minimizing the likelihood that a female will grow to be butch, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender. Yes, you read that right. This is an ongoing medical project that is motivated by homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and cissexist ideals. Let’s back up a bit and unpack some of the medical jargon that complicates our understanding of systemic hate.

CAH is a disease of the endocrine system (the hormone regulating mainframe of the body). There are variations of CAH and the one of interest here is 21-OHC CAH. 21-OHC CAH leads to an over production of androgens, which could lead to a genetic female fetus “developing along a more masculine pathway neurologically and genitally” (5). The term for this masculinization is virilization, which manifests in many ways but can lead to masculinized female genitalia, of which is a surface motivation (e.g. justification on grant applications) for the use of prenatal dexamethasone. CAH is a serious disease and as such, every U.S. state requires that newborns be screened for it. However, at case here are fetuses that may be affected by CAH, not newborns that are affected by it. The authors expose that 87.5% of those fetuses that are exposed to prenatal dexamethasone stood no chance to benefit from the therapy at all.

Prenatal dexamethasone is a steroid that is theoretically used to stop the effects of 21-OHC CAH. However, the drug is experimental and there is no substantial support for its use. In the U.S. it is categorized as “off-label,” which means that it is not FDA approved. As it stands, there is very little known about the impact of the therapy but it may alter “fetal programming,” which can result in serious metabolic problems that may not be apparent until adulthood. For 30 years, the steroid has been used to combat virilization in female fetuses and yet, little is known of its impact because there are few long-term studies that explore its impact—of those, the populations are not representative and the protocol does not meet national or international scientific standards. In fact, the Endocrine Society set up a task force to look at the effectiveness of the pharmacological therapy. The task force found very little support for the use of the steroid and “could not even say with confidence whether prenatal dexamethasone works to reduce genital virilization” (2).

Nonetheless, it has been administered to pregnant women on false pretenses. The pregnant women were/are not informed that the “off-label” steroid is experimental, that benefits and risks have not been established due to lack of adequate testing and scientific protocol, and that exposed fetuses are studied retrospectively effectively rendering moot any correlation between the drug and the fetus born one way and/or raised another.

The “most prominent promoter” of this therapy is Maria New, a pediatric endocrinologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. By 2003, New has “treated” more than 600 pregnant women with dexamethasone in order to prevent virilization in CAH-affected female fetuses. That number is as high as 2,144 fetuses. This is where the story turns sour and scary—or more sour and scarier.

Despite a lack of support for prenatal dexamethasone Maria New insists that it “has been found safe for mother and child” (15-16). The authors of the article do some bold investigative work and turn to New’s grant applications discovering some interesting motivations for the continued use of the steroid.

Those few studies that do exist show that girls affected with 21-OHD CAH exhibit “behavioral masculinization.” These girls are on average “more interested in boy-typical play, hobbies, and subjects that non-affected females, less interested in becoming mothers, and more likely to grow up to be lesbian or bisexual” (6). Some clinicians find that of those females with 21-OHD CAH, 5% may ultimately identify as male. “Behavioral masculinization” is a euphemism for non-traditional gender performance or expression in women, females, and/or girls. It seems that the underlying motivation has less to do with ambiguous genitalia (which is problematic itself) and more to do with minimizing “tomboyism,” non-heterosexuality, and trans* embodiment.

Interestingly, the U.S. National Institutes of Health have funded Maria New’s work in figuring whether or not prenatal dexamethasone works to stop “behavioral masculinization.” Said another way, the U.S. government funds New’s work in stopping queerness and/or trans*ness in those potentially affected with 21-OHD CAH. Please, read that again for the sake of letting it sink in.

One justification for using prenatal dexamethasone is to minimize the chances of having a child that is intersex so that “corrective” surgeries will not be necessary. However, such “corrective” surgeries are elective and yet this reason is used as grounds to administer this potentially dangerous drug.

The unknown effects of prenatal dexamethasone are as potentially damaging and traumatic to intersex bodies as invasive “corrective” surgeries that claim to “fix” a problem when the problem isn’t the fetus at all. The inspiration for this pharmacological therapy is stigma and anxieties surrounding intersexed and/or queer bodies. It is a medical intervention that works to ensure the production of relatively normative bodies no matter the cost to those that are at risk of teetering between cissex and intersex embodiment. The anxiety/fear-inspired application of prenatal dexamethasone points us to the intersection of sex, gender, and sexuality and those systems that work to keep them aligned more nicely.

Speaking to parents of children with CAH, Maria New “showed a picture of a girl with ambiguous genitalia and said: The challenge here is to see what could be done to restore this baby to the normal female appearance which would be compatible with her parents presenting her as a girl, with her eventually becoming somebody’s wife, and having normal sexual development, and becoming a mother. And she has all the machinery for motherhood, and therefore nothing should stop that, if we can repair her surgically and help her psychologically to continue to grow and develop as a girl” (italics mine 6).

For New, the prominent cheerleader in prenatal dexamethasone therapy, girl/female/woman are one and the same and are heterosexual desiring motherhood and marriage. For New, queer variation is inconceivable. For New, prenatal dexamethasone is the ultimate in conversion therapy because it gets at the “problem” before it is a problem. It does so even though the long-term impact is unknown and potentially fatal. New, and her supporters, will do whatever it takes to ensure that queerness is squashed at every chance. For the record, you can contact Maria New at maria.new@mssm.edu.