Repro Health Hub

A Chinese company is marketing Olympic-themed condoms in Beijing:

And the athletes will likely to make good use of them. The U.K.’s Telegraph reports that providing condoms to athletes at the Olympic games has become routine: “At the 2004 Athens Olympics 130,000 free condoms were made available to athletes and officials. In the Sydney 2000 Games, each competing athlete was given 51 condoms on arrival at the Olympic Village, but another 20,000 had to be shipped in when supplies began to run low.”

By Tara Sweeney

The Christian Science Monitor today has an article explaining a Patchwork Nation survey evaluating public opinion on whether obtaining an abortion should be made more difficult. The poll is interesting because it delineates attitudes according to some unusual community types.

This survey used data done by Annenberg in 2004, the last time such county-by-county info was calculated.

Assuming attitudes haven’t changed much since then, Obama, who favors safe and legal access to abortion, has a slight advantage.

By Tara Sweeney

If you’re interested in health policy and the blogosphere — and hey, you’re reading this, so chances are you’re at least mildly interested in one or the other — you might want to check out Kaiser’s webcast this afternoon at 1:00 (EST) on “The Health Blogosphere: What it Means for Policy Debates and Journalism.”

The webcast will feature health bloggers from major outlets and a keynote by Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt. I’m hoping someone probes him (figuratively) on Bush’s new proposed HHS regulations.

If committee meetings and conference calls got you tied up all afternoon, don’t worry, I’ll have the wrap-up later on.

By Tara Sweeney

Amie Newman, a Managing Editor at “RH Reality Check” posted today about her experience moderating a session at the recent Netroots Nation Convention called Breaking the Frame: Revitalizing and Redefining Reproductive Rights Media Coverage.

The goal of the session was to “deconstruct[] the extremist, anti-choice messaging and agenda and, with the help of the expert panelists, figure out what our messaging could and should look like when we all work together — professional advocates, bloggers and the mainstream media.”For all of us who didn’t make it down to Austin, Amie was kind enough to share a clip from the session. Check it:

By Tara Sweeney

Where most politicians and the mainstream media have ignored the new HHS regulations, Sen. Hillary Clinton has come out in front of the issue, standing up to the Bush administration and urging HHS to reject the proposal.

Sen. Clinton spoke at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, along with Representative Nita Lowey and repro rights advocates from NARAL Pro-Choice New York, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and Family Planning Advocates of New York State.

Sen. Clinton also has an article on RH Reality Check today, definitely worth checking out.

By Tara Sweeney

The regulations Pres. Bush proposed to the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) last week have gotten some attention, though not enough to effectively communicate just how serious these regulations are.

As Christina Page explains, the regulations would effectively redefine when pregnancy began, leaving behind the bona-fide, AMA-approved definition that pregnancy starts at implantation, and allow the vision that pregnancy starts at conception—when the egg is fertilized, a moment impossible to pinpoint. The regulations read:

There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term “abortion.” Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term “abortion” only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

This proposal begs the question, since when is medical science determined by popular referendum?

So under these regs, any heath care professional, from a doctor to an orderly, would be able to refuse to assist with any procedure or service that prevents pregnancy. That’s a big deal. Low-income women would be at a special disadvantage, since they are more likely to rely on federally funded pregnancy prevention services, like Medicaid and Title IX, which would lose their funding if the new regulations weren’t followed.

Just two weeks ago, on the eve of World Population day, the World Bank suggested that developing countries desperately need contraception in order for women to escape poverty. Our own government, however, is deliberately trying to deprive women of much-needed contraception. Ironic. And scary too.

By Tara Sweeney

Writing about the Gloucester High School pregnancy pact that wasn’t, Nancy Gibbs published an article in TIME titled “Give the Gloucester Girls a Break.” Concluding what was an otherwise astute article, Gibbs writes:

teen parents and their babies face long odds against success in life. Surely they deserve more sympathy and support than shame and derision, if the trend they reflect is not a typical teenager’s inclination to have sex but rather a willingness to take responsibility for the consequences.

Gibbs implies that carrying their babies to term is the only way to take real responsibility for unplanned pregnancies.

Responding to this position, National Institute President Kelli Conlin has a Letter to the Editor in the July 21 issue of TIME:

There are three ways that women and teenagers can take responsibility for a pregnancy: abortion, adoption or parenting. One option is not more responsible than the others. Each is a valid choice, as long as the chosen path is the best for the individual pregnant woman. And that is her decision to make.
Kelli Conlin, President, National Institute for Reproductive Health, NEW YORK CITY

Well said, Kelli.

By Tara Sweeney

In many prisons and jails throughout the country pregnant women are routinely shackled during labor and delivery. Surprisingly, California, Illinois, and Vermont are the only states to have passed anti-shackling legislation.

Prison and jail protocols require ankle shackles and, until recently, stomach restraints. Access to Reproductive Health Care in New York State Jails, a New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) report released last March, argues that shackling violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Shackling seems especially ridiculous when we consider that the majority of women are in custody for non-violent crimes.

A few months ago the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) finally decided to prohibit “face-down four-point restraints and restraint belts that directly constrict the area of the pregnancy.” Further amendments to the shackling policy are in the works. Policies in state jails vary extremely. According to the NYCLU report, only three New York jails have written procedures concerning the shackling of pregnant women; of those three, only two forbid it.

The Second Chance Act of 2007 (HR 1593) was recently passed into law and requires the Attorney General to submit a detailed report to Congress on correctional facility policies regarding the restraint of pregnant women. Facilities must also report on “the reasons for the use of the physical restraints, the length of time that the physical restraints were used, and the security concerns that justified the use of the physical restraints.” The bill should become effective by next spring.

In the past thirty years, the number of incarcerated women has increased by 800%–and women of color are the fastest growing prison population in the US. Groups like the Rebecca Project and the Prison Doula Project are fighting to ensure that pregnant women are never shackled and even to provide for a positive labor experience. We need to respond responsibly with additional anti-shackling legislation and appropriate health care for the safety of these women and their newborn babies.

By Samantha Hurley

In the slight chance that you missed McCain utterly fumbling a question on his stance regarding whether insurance companies that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, here’s another look: