Archive for the 'Andrea Friedman' Category

Who really cares about women’s health? Listen to your doctor

Published on December 14, 2012 in Andrea Friedman and Reproductive Health. 5 Comments
Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, National Partnership

Cross posted from RH Reality Check.

The October 18 edition of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) features a compelling “sounding board” titled, Legislative Interference with the Patient-Physician Relationship. “Increasingly in recent years,” the authors argue, “legislators in the United States have been overstepping the proper limits of their role in the health care of Americans to dictate the nature and content of patients’ interactions with their physicians.” The piece addresses laws regarding a number of areas of health care, but a primary focus of the interference the authors challenge is women’s health, and particularly access to abortion care.

This argument comes not from an advocacy group with a political agenda, but from leaders of the medical community — the heads of the American College of Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American College of Surgeons. It follows on the heels of a resolution by the American Academy of Family Physicians and a Statement of Principles on the Role of Governments in Regulating the Patient-Physician Relationship by the American College of Physicians.  The piece was endorsed just this week by the Council of Medical Special Societies, which represents 39 organizations and over 700,000 physicians.

And around the country, state medical associations have been taking up the cause, openly opposing harmful laws.  From the Idaho Medical Association:

“It is the policy of the IMA [Idaho Medical Association] to oppose inappropriate interference by the government and third parties that causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.”  (Idaho Medical Association House of Delegates July 27 – 29, 2012, Resolution 04 (12) Protecting the Patient-Physician Relationship)

And the Texas Medical Association:

“The sanctity of the patient-physician relationship is the foundation of health care in America, and it must be preserved to assure candid communication and allow patients to evaluate their care options. The Legislature’s role should not be to dictate how physicians and patients communicate with one another or what procedures and diagnostic tests must be performed on a given patient.” (Letter from the Texas Medical Association opposing SB16 requiring an ultrasound before a woman can obtain an abortion, full letter available here.)

These statements are a sharp rebuke to legislators around the country busy passing laws that interfere with women’s health care. These are laws that mandate ultrasounds whether or not they are medically necessary; laws that require women to receive baseless, medically inaccurate information such as being told abortion causes breast cancer or suicidal tendencies; laws that make women wait as much as three days before getting an abortion; and laws that limit access to medication abortion, forcing some women to have an unnecessary surgical procedure, and the list goes on. As stated in the NEJM, “by reducing health care decisions to a series of mandates, lawmakers devalue the patient–physician relationship. Legislators, regrettably, often propose new laws or regulations for political or other reasons unrelated to the scientific evidence and counter to the health care needs of patients.”

Anti-choice lawmakers often try to argue that these laws promote women’s health and protect women from bad decisions.  But the reality is just the opposite; they harm women by taking the important decisions about their individual care away from them and their doctors and instead put them in the hands of politicians.

The medical community has been clear, intrusive laws restricting abortion care undermine the relationship between health care providers and their patients and are based on political ideology, not on providing the best possible care. This latest series of rebukes should put to rest the specious, transparent and patently false argument that these laws help women.  They have no purpose other than to put up barriers to accessing abortion care and shaming and stigmatizing the women who are able to overcome those barriers.

They do not promote women’s health – they harm it.  Don’t believe me?  Just ask your doctor.

 

 

Election 2012: A Win for Reproductive Rights, But We’re Not Taking Anything for Granted

Published on November 8, 2012 in Andrea Friedman and Reproductive Health. 3 Comments
Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, National Partnership

This election was a rebuttal to those politicians and activists who are trying to turn back the clock on women’s reproductive rights and health, but it was also a sobering reminder that women’s basic reproductive health care is under siege and at risk.  On November 6th, women sent a clear message that our right to truly be equal participants in society, our right to control our bodies and therefore our lives, cannot and will not be taken for granted. 

After we pause to celebrate, we must look to the future and how we will advance real access to comprehensive reproductive health care for all women. A woman should be able to access safe abortion – in her community and without unnecessary medical procedures and delays.  Yet in many states, women are forced to travel long distances, undergo biased counseling and unnecessary invasive procedures, and deal with needless and insulting waiting periods.

No woman’s decision should be made for her because she can’t afford abortion care.  For too many women, that’s exactly what happens, and we cannot rest until we repeal the discriminatory and harmful Hyde Amendment banning coverage of abortion in Medicaid.

The election victory was not untarnished.  In Montana, voters approved an amendment to create a burdensome parental notification requirement that takes away young women’s rights and endangers their health.  Montana became the 39th state requiring parental involvement in a young woman’s abortion decision. Even as we move forward, new barriers are being put up.

We look to our champions who stood with us, and the new ones who are now joining us, to stay vigilant in this fight.  Women did not ask for this fight, but it is one we will continue – and November 6th was a step in the right direction.

Unscientific Method: The Akin Argument in Legislating Women’s Health

Published on August 31, 2012 in Andrea Friedman, Repro Health Watch and Reproductive Health. 8 Comments
Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs

The recent comment by Representative Todd Akin (R-MO), that women don’t get pregnant from “legitimate” rape because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” provoked an unusual outcry, but the strategy he is using is not unique. The use of bad science is part of a long-term effort to limit – or eliminate – women’s access to abortion and it has been effective in legislatures and encouraged by the courts.

The roadmap for passing legislation based on questionable science that will then be upheld in court is clear. Find someone with a scientific background to make an “Akin argument” – proclaim a scientific fact that justifies the conclusion that abortion is bad for women’s health. Repeat the “Akin argument” over and over as fact. Write it into legislation and then tout the proposal as being good for women’s health. When challenged in court by the real science, point to the initial scientific conclusion you made up, demonstrating medical uncertainty. Then note that the state’s interest is helping women. You’ve just secured a law that harms women in the name of helping them.

The legislative efforts are on-going. For example, a bill in Kansas earlier this year included a requirement that the physician tell a woman seeking an abortion that it will bring “risk of breast cancer and risks to the woman’s reproductive health.” The National Cancer Institute and others have solidly rebutted this proposition. Yet if this bill passes, Kansas will become the sixth state requiring doctors to inaccurately assert that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Similarly, five states require women to be told about an invented connection between abortion and future fertility.

The courts’ stamp of approval continues as well. Just this past July, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a South Dakota law that requires abortion providers to inform a woman seeking an abortion that she may be at risk of an “[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.” This ruling came despite overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary.

The 8th Circuit was not acting alone, it was relying on precedent from the Supreme Court. In 2007, the majority on the Court put its stamp of approval on using bad science to restrict access to abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart. In upholding a ban on a particular abortion procedure without a health exception, the majority gives deference in regards to medical decisions — not to science nor to a woman and her doctor, but to legislatures. The majority purports to be helping women with this decision, stating, “[w]hether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.”

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine says it best.  In Gonzales, “[f]or the first time, the Court permits congressional judgment to replace medical judgment.”

Promoting abortion restrictions by arguing that they are being imposed for the woman’s own health and well-being, when in fact the opposite is the case, is one of the most cynical and unfortunately very effective strategies that opponents of abortion rights choose to deploy. In a recent piece, American’s United for Life President Chairmaine Yoest states, “it’s very important to establish… this foundational argument that there really are harms for women…It rounds out the pro-life position by putting a marker down to say, here’s why being pro-life is a pro-woman position.”

These distortions of medical facts should be rejected and should never become the basis for laws.  We cannot let “Akin arguments” be used to undermine women’s health care. Neither courts nor politicians should impose their judgment, but instead should let women and their doctors make their own personal medical decisions, informed by evidence-based science.

This blog post was published in conjunction with Repro Health Watch, an exciting new edition of the Women’s Health Policy Report, which compiles and distributes media coverage of proposed and enacted state laws, ballot initiatives and litigation affecting women’s access to comprehensive reproductive health care. 

New Resource: Repro Health Watch Highlights War on Women’s Health in the States

Published on May 21, 2012 in Andrea Friedman and Repro Health Watch. 0 Comments
Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs

Facts matter. When the facts about women’s health are a central part of the discussion about access to reproductive health care, the conversation changes – and now more than ever, we need that change.

In the past year, women’s health has faced attack after attack – and not just from Congress. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 135 new provisions restricting reproductive health and rights, 92 of which restricted access to abortion care, were instituted across 36 states in 2011. And already this year, state legislators have introduced 944 provisions related to reproductive health and rights, half of which would restrict abortion. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the “war on women” is nowhere near over.

With that in mind, the National Partnership for Women & Families is pleased to announce a new feature of our respected Women’s Health Policy Report — Repro Health Watch.  This new resource will highlight media coverage of attacks on women’s reproductive health care in each state, identify policy trends happening across state lines, and offer additional resources, including updates on litigation challenging restrictive new anti-choice and anti-birth control laws.

The website, www.ReproHealthWatch.org, features media coverage of developments in reproductive health policy in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, organized by state and by issue. In addition, readers may subscribe to email updates that link to articles, blogs and video coverage about these restrictions.

Repro Health Watch covers  key issue areas such as:

Abortion:  abortion bans; restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion services; TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers); and laws that directly interfere with the relationship between women and their doctors by interfering with a woman’s medical care through waiting periods, mandatory counseling, parental involvement laws or unnecessary medical procedures, such as mandatory ultrasounds.

Personhood initiatives:  legislative and ballot attempts to redefine life that would criminalize not just abortion but also some forms of contraception and reproductive technologies.

Refusal provisions: laws that allow health providers to refuse to provide certain medical services, such as abortion and contraception, based on their moral or religious beliefs.

Family planning:  access to contraception; attacks on Planned Parenthood; attacks on funding for family planning services; and restrictions that bar family planning funds from going to clinics that are affiliated with clinics that offer abortion services.

Comprehensive sex education: developments on state budgets and legislation that determines whether teens have access to comprehensive sex education, as opposed to abstinence only education.

The courts have been a critical safeguard against some encroachments on women’s rights and health.  Thus, Repro Health Watch also includes “In the Courts,” a section where readers can find basic information on how anti-choice laws are being challenged in the courts and links to more information.

We want to hear from you!  Repro Health Watch is meant to be a resource for you, so take a look – and if you have any thoughts or comments, please contact us at reprohealthwatch@nationalpartnership.org.

A Blog Rally to Protect Medicaid

Published on November 17, 2011 in Andrea Friedman and Reproductive Health. 1 Comment
Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs

There’s been a lot in the news lately about the so-called “supercommittee” in Congress, which has been tasked with trimming more than a trillion dollars from the federal deficit. It’s the supercommittee’s job to figure out which programs will get the budget axe.

It’s old news that critical government programs are on the chopping block, but what these news articles often fail to report is the human cost of cutting these essential programs, including Medicaid.

With that in mind, and with the deadline fast approaching, we’ve asked our fellow members of the Protect Medicaid Coalition to share their thoughts on what’s at stake with the supercommittee’s work– and what its recommendations could mean for women’s health.

Take a look at their blog posts below – what we’ve symbolically called a blog “rally” to show our support for the “Wake Up Congress” rally today at the U.S. Senate – and then join the conversation on Twitter by using the hashtag: #ProtectMedicaid!

Blog Rally Banner

Dear Supercommittee: There’s Nothing “Super” about Cutting Medicaid

Andrea Friedman, National Partnership for Women & Families

As a nation, our conversations often revolve around “family values.” Yet when it comes to showing that we truly value families, politicians sometimes fall short.

At present, Congress is deliberating how best to cut the deficit – and one of our most family-friendly programs may be on the chopping block as the so-called supercommittee searches for cuts. But there’s no question about it: if Medicaid funding is cut, America’s women and families will suffer. More >>

Super Committee and Health Care: How Potential Cuts to Medicaid Could Harm Low-Income Women and Girls

By Davida Silverman, Staff Attorney, NHeLP

“Shared sacrifices.”  “Tough decisions.”  “Everything is on the table.”  This is the rhetoric being used to describe the Super Committee’s daunting task of reducing the national deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.  And it makes sense that politicians and lawmakers want to frame deficit reduction as a great equalizer – “everyone has to give a little” makes it easier to justify major changes, namely budget cuts to federal programs.

 Let’s face it:  there is no equality in what they are doing.  Regardless of the rhetoric, one thing is clear: the poor and vulnerable will be the losers in any political deal.  More >>

Tell Congress That Preserving Medicaid is Critically Important to Women and Families

By Danielle Garrett, Health Policy Analyst, National Women’s Law Center

The deadline for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (The Super-Committee) to reach an agreement is fast approaching. The Committee is undoubtedly debating cuts to many programs that provide vital services to millions of Americans, including Medicaid. In these last days leading up to the Committee deadline, we must let Congress know that an agreement that includes Medicaid cuts could be devastating to women and families.

It’s easy to view Medicare as a program that helps your parents or grandparents and Medicaid as a program only for the poorest of the poor — a program that doesn’t affect you or anyone you know. But you would be surprised how many people, including people you probably know, are helped by the Medicaid program. More >>

Keep Medicaid Safe to Keep Women Healthy!

By Keely Monroe, Program Coordinator, Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need

With a little over a week for the Congressional super committee to complete its work, we must raise our voices to ensure Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are protected in the final deficit reduction package. 

What does the Super Committee have to do with women’s health?  A LOT, because the committee is considering making big cuts in programs like Medicaid that are important for the health of women across our lifespan! More >>

How Washington’s Budget Priorities Injure Immigrant Women

By Anjela Jenkins, Policy Analyst, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

Many women in the United States take a huge step forward under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). With the ACA’s provisions for more affordable private healthcare, expanded access to public health coverage, and mandated insurance coverage for the wide range of preventive care services, the future looks bright. But the Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction—more commonly known as the supercommittee—is changing that. Many women, including many Latinas, stand to be hurt as the supercommittee tries to reach a deal to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. More >>

Why Now is the Time to Support, Not Undermine, Medicaid

By Natalie Camastra, Policy Intern, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), as the only national organization advocating for reproductive justice and health for millions of Latinas, their families and their communities, strongly urges the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or “Supercommittee” to reexamine their logic when considering cuts or reforms to Medicaid in order to achieve deficit reduction. In this time of economic recession, high rates of uninsurance, and disturbingly high levels of poverty, especially for Latinas, NLIRH argues we must reaffirm our commitment to the health of the nation’s most vulnerable, not inhibit Medicaid’s ability to serve these groups. Cuts will only serve to decrease the positive economic impact Medicaid has in our states and potentially raise health care costs by shifting towards disease treatment and emergency room costs: both consequences have a real human toll that the Supercommittee must take into account as the November 23 deadline approaches. More >>

 

 

 

Dear Supercommittee: There’s Nothing “Super” about Cutting Medicaid

Published on November 17, 2011 in Andrea Friedman and Medicaid. 1 Comment

Blog Rally Banner

Andrea Friedman

Andrea Friedman, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, National Partnership

As a nation, our conversations often revolve around “family values.” Yet when it comes to showing that we truly value families, politicians sometimes fall short.

At present, Congress is deliberating how best to cut the deficit – and one of our most family-friendly programs may be on the chopping block as the so-called supercommittee searches for cuts. But there’s no question about it: if Medicaid funding is cut, America’s women and families will suffer.

Currently Medicaid pays for 48 percent of all births in the United States, and 64 percent of births resulting from unintended pregnancies. One in four children is insured through Medicaid. The program plays a significant role in improving maternal health and reducing infant mortality, low birth weight babies, and avoidable birth defects. It is the single largest source of public funds for family planning services and provides essential reproductive health services. And it is a vital source of primary and preventive care, covering doctor and hospital visits, cancer screenings, access to prescription drugs, and other services that help keep women healthy.

In short: Medicaid provides critical health care for millions of lower income women who would otherwise be uninsured and go without the care they need.

Reduced federal funding could force states to cut already-low reimbursement rates to providers, which will likely cause some providers to withdraw from the program or limit the number of Medicaid patients they see. It would also force states to impose deeper cuts that restrict eligibility or reduce Medicaid services. This means dramatically higher out-of-pocket costs for health care for those who need help the most.  In practice, it would mean denying women and children care they urgently need.

In this recession, millions depend on Medicaid family planning services to avoid unintended pregnancies. They also depend on Medicaid for the care they need to have healthy babies.  Already, maternal mortality rates in the United States are among the highest in any industrialized nation. At a time when women and families are struggling to make ends meet, any cut to the Medicaid program would have serious – and potentially catastrophic – implications for millions of women and children.