#National Institute for Reproductive Health

[wunderkammerett]

Photographs Illustrative of the Cololian Method of Treating Stiff Joints: Elbow Exercises by National Library of Medicine Via Flickr: Collection: Images from the History of Medicine (IHM) Format: Still image Extent: 1 photoprint. NLM Unique ID: 101406474 NLM Image ID: A023090 Permanent Link: resource.nlm.nih.gov/101406474

[macleod]

The Mexican Supreme Court has officially ruled to decriminalize abortion across the nation.

The Supreme Court declared that “the legal system that criminalized abortion in the Federal Penal Code is unconstitutional [because] it violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate."

GIRE, a reproductive rights group in Mexico City, also noted that this ruling means any federal public health service or federal health institution must offer abortion to any patient who requests it.

Source: Pink News, September 6, 2023

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Heya!

I was wondering if you have any go-to sources or tips on finding reputable sources concerning health(care) in English? I'm not really looking for information about one specific issue, but rather some help in how to figure stuff out on my own? if that makes sense.

I got this question because I've was looking up information on PCOS and I found that in my native language the reputable/trustworthy websites have very little information on it. In my native language I know which websites are credible as well as how to recognise harmful language/stereotypes/etc, but I found that this is a lot more difficult for me in English. While I have some good info on PCOS now (and am talking about it with my doctor), I would like to feel more secure(?) while looking up information in English on different topics in the future and so I was wondering if you have any tips

Thank you for your time!

hi anon,

what a great question! some of my most-used go-to English resources are:

Mayo Clinic:

Cleveland Clinic:

Clue:

the US' National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

and Planned Parenthood, which I've included as a hyperlink because it won't let me do the other thing. for some reason.

I hope these are helpful!

[reasonsforhope]

Mexico’s Supreme Court threw out all federal criminal penalties for abortion Wednesday [September 6], ruling that national laws prohibiting the procedure are unconstitutional and violate women’s rights in a sweeping decision that extended Latin American’s trend of widening abortion access.

The high court ordered that abortion be removed from the federal penal code. The ruling will require the federal public health service and all federal health institutions to offer abortion to anyone who requests it.

“No woman or pregnant person, nor any health worker, will be able to be punished for abortion,” the Information Group for Chosen Reproduction, known by its Spanish initials GIRE, said in a statement.

Some 20 Mexican states, however, still criminalize abortion. While judges in those states will have to abide by the court’s decision, further legal work will be required to remove all penalties.

Celebration of the ruling soon spilled out onto social media.

“Today is a day of victory and justice for Mexican women!” Mexico’s National Institute for Women wrote in a message on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. The government organization called the decision a “big step” toward gender equality...

The Details

The court said on X that “the legal system that criminalized abortion” in Mexican federal law was unconstitutional because it “violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.” ...

-via AP News, September 6, 2023. Article continues below.

The decision came two years after the court ruled that abortion was not a crime in one northern state. That ruling set off a slow state-by-state process of decriminalizing it.

Last week, the central state of Aguascalientes became the 12th state to drop criminal penalties.

Abortion-rights activists will have to continue seeking legalization state by state, though Wednesday’s decision should make that easier. State legislatures can also act on their own to erase abortion penalties.

For now, the ruling does not mean that every Mexican women will be able to access the procedure immediately, explained Fernanda Díaz de León, sub-director and legal expert for women’s rights group IPAS.

What it does do — in theory — is obligate federal agencies to provide the care to patients. That’s likely to have a cascade of effects...

Lifting Abortion Restrictions Across Latin America

Across Latin America, countries have made moves to lift abortion restrictions in recent years, a trend often referred to as a “green wave,” in reference to the green bandanas carried by women protesting for abortion rights in the region.

The changes in Latin America stand in sharp contrast to increasing restrictions on abortion in parts of the United States. Some American women were already seeking help from Mexican abortion rights activists to obtain pills used to end pregnancies.

Mexico City was the first Mexican jurisdiction to decriminalize abortion 15 years ago.

After decades of work by activists across the region, the trend picked up speed in Argentina, which in 2020 legalized the procedure. In 2022, Colombia, a highly conservative country, did the same.

-via AP News, September 6, 2023. Headings added.

[darkmaga-retard]

1. Abortion

Walz is unabashedly pro-abortion, in both rhetoric and policy.

For example, two bills that Walz signed into law last year make Minnesota one of the most pro-abortion states in America.

The first bill, the Protect Reproductive Options Act, codified into Minnesota law a "fundamental right ... to obtain an abortion." The bill imposes no limits on abortion. Minnesota, in fact, is one of just seven states (and Washington, D.C.) that imposes no legal gestational limit on abortions. The second bill, Minnesota Senate Bill 2995, essentially eliminated "nearly all the protective and modestly pro-life features of existing Minnesota law," according to National Review.

"Abortion is health care," Walz said earlier this year.

If you combine Walz's radical pro-abortion views and record with Harris', then you generate "the most pro-abortion presidential ticket America has ever seen," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America.

2. LGBTQ agenda

Not only does Walz support the LGBTQ agenda, but he has turned Minnesota into a "trans refuge."

Last year, Walz signed a bill — the so-called "Trans Refuge" Act — and an executive order protecting so-called "gender-affirming" procedures for children while prohibiting legal action against people who travel to Minnesota for so-called "gender-affirming" care.

Walz has also banned "conversion therapy."

There is, of course, also the law that requires period products to "be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12." This means that boys' bathrooms in Minnesota schools do make available pads and tampons.

Walz, moreover, is described by his critics as "anti-parent."

Walz's record on issues related to the LGBTQ agenda has earned him high praise from GLAAD, which released a statement on Tuesday celebrating his "proven record" on these issues.

3. COVID pandemic and religious freedom

Walz, like many other Democratic governors, instituted harsh restrictions on residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But Walz took heat from Christians during the pandemic for enacting policies they argued were religiously discriminatory. Case in point: In May 2020, Walz signed an executive order allowing retail shops to re-open at 50% capacity — while still prohibiting in-person religious gatherings to 10 people.

After pushback from Catholic and Lutherans — who promised to buck Walz's restrictions — Walz allowed churches to re-open at 25% capacity.

"Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties," said Erick Kaardal, special counsel at the Thomas More Society.

Levi Secord, pastor of Christ Bible Church in Minnesota, added of Walz's record on religious freedom:

Walz and Democrats in Minnesota sought to coerce religious institutions to hire against their sincerely held beliefs. Democrats enacted a change to employment law that would have forced religious institutions, including churches, to hire against their beliefs about sexuality and gender. Thanks to a groundswell of opposition from local churches, this was eventually reversed. Sadly, under a new proposed amendment, Walz’s party is trying again to undermine religious liberty.

Earlier this year, however, Walz did sign a law that clarified religious protections under the state's Human Rights Act.

"Governor Tim Walz is a radical progressive," said Dr. Andrew Walker, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[saddiedotdk]

Kamala Harris accomplishments as VP:

Cast tie-breaking vote for the American Rescue Plan of 2021.

Passed the American Rescue Plan, resulting in $1.9 trillion in economic stimulus.

Extended the Child Tax Credit through the American Rescue Plan.

Extended unemployment benefits through the American Rescue Plan.

Passed the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for electric school buses in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding to combat wildfires and droughts in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for replacing lead water service lines.

Engaged with lawmakers at least 150 times for infrastructure investment.

Led diplomatic mission to Guatemala and Mexico to address migration issues.

Launched the "Central America Forward" initiative.

Secured $4.2 billion in private sector commitments for Central America.

Visited Paris to strengthen US-France relations.

Visited Singapore and Vietnam to bolster economic and strategic ties.

Visited Poland to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Visited Romania to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Launched the "Fight for Reproductive Freedoms" tour.

Visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota.

Passed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.

Promoted racial equity in pandemic response through specific initiatives.

Chaired the National Space Council.

Visited NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center to promote space policies.

Passed the Freedom to Vote Act in the House.

Passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the House.

Built coalitions for voting rights protections.

Supported the Affordable Care Act through specific policy measures.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Passed initiatives for debt-free college education.

Hosted a STEM event for women and girls at the White House.

Championed criminal justice reform through specific legislation.

Secured passage of the bipartisan assault weapons ban.

Expanded background checks for gun purchases through legislation.

Increased the minimum wage through specific policy actions.

Implemented economic justice policies.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Secured funding for affordable housing.

Secured funding for affordable education initiatives.

Launched the "Justice is Coming Home" campaign for veterans' mental health.

Proposed legislation for easier legal actions against financial institutions.

Strengthened the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Secured investment in early childhood education.

Launched maternal health initiatives.

Launched the "Call to Action to Reduce Maternal Mortality and Morbidity".

Made Black maternal health a national priority through policy actions.

Increased diversity in government appointments.

Passed legislation for renewable energy production.

Secured funding for combating climate change.

Passed infrastructure development initiatives.

Secured transportation funding through the infrastructure bill.

Developed a plan to combat climate change.

Reduced illegal immigration through policy actions.

Equitable vaccine distribution through specific policy measures.

Supported small businesses through pandemic recovery funds.

Secured educational resources during the pandemic.

Promoted international cooperation on climate initiatives.

Secured international agreements on climate change.

Passed economic policies benefiting the middle class.

Criticized policies benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

Promoted racial equity in healthcare through specific actions.

Promoted racial equity in economic policies.

Reduced racial disparities in education through specific initiatives.

Increased mental health resources for underserved communities.

Secured funding for affordable childcare.

Secured federal funding for community colleges.

Increased funding for HBCUs.

Increased vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secured policies for pandemic preparedness.

Ensured equitable vaccine distribution through policy actions.

Secured international cooperation for COVID-19 responses.

Reduced economic disparities exacerbated by the pandemic.

Passed digital equity initiatives for broadband access.

Expanded rural broadband through specific policies.

Secured cybersecurity policies through legislation.

Protected election integrity through specific actions.

Secured fair and secure elections through policy measures.

Strengthened international alliances through diplomacy.

Supported the Paris Climate Agreement through policy actions.

Led U.S. climate negotiations through international initiatives.

Passed initiatives for clean energy jobs.

Secured policies for energy efficiency.

Reduced carbon emissions through specific legislation.

Secured international climate finance.

Promoted public health policies through specific initiatives.

Passed reproductive health services policies.

Supported LGBTQ+ rights through specific actions.

Secured initiatives to reduce homelessness.

Increased veterans' benefits through legislation.

Secured affordable healthcare for veterans.

Passed policies to support military families.

Secured initiatives for veteran employment.

Increased mental health resources for veterans.

Passed disability rights legislation.

Secured policies for accessible infrastructure.

Increased funding for workforce development.

Implemented economic mobility policies.

Secured consumer protection policies through legislation.

Engaged in community outreach through public events.

Organized public engagement efforts.

Participated in over 720 official events, averaging three per day since taking office.

Supported efforts to modernize public health data systems.

[intersexcat-tboy]

Examining Miscalculations and Intersex Definitions Regarding Sax's .018% Claim

The debate surrounding the definition of intersex and their characteristics has been a topic of debate within various professional fields, advocacy organizations, and studies for decades. Amidst this discourse includes a response from Dr. Leonard Sax, who claims to provide a "clinician's standpoint" despite lacking specialized expertise in these conditions, having only served as a primary care physician.

However, his arguments stand in stark contrast to those of Fausto-Sterling, a world-renowned professor of biology and gender studies. Furthermore, they diverge significantly from the consensus among major health associations, medical organizations, intersex rights groups, and human rights organizations.

Leading/Major Health Associations

The definition of intersex is resoundingly clear among leading health associations. The World Health Organization recognizes that intersex individuals are those "born with natural variations in biological or physiological characteristics, including sexual anatomy, reproductive organs, and/or chromosomal patterns that do not fit traditional definitions of male or female." Similarly, the National Institute of Health acknowledges individuals who are "born with, or who develop naturally in puberty, biological sex characteristics that are not typically male or female." The National Health Services emphasizes that intersex "involves genes, hormones, and reproductive organs, including genitals, and a person's physical sex development can differ internally, externally, or both."

Major/Leading Medical Associations

Major medical associations provide crucial insights into the understanding of intersex variations. The The American Medical Association adopts a broader definition, recognizing those with "a congenital condition with inconsistent chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomic sex development." Likewise, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (PDF - which trains and accredits physicians in Australia and New Zealand) recognizes the significance of "congenital variations in a person's physical, hormonal, or genetic characteristics that do not match strict medical definitions of female or male sex." Additionally, the Center for Disease Control highlights the concept of "variations in physical sex characteristics, including anatomy, hormones, chromosomes, or other traits, that differ from expectations generally associated with male and female bodies." The International Symposium on Disorders of Sex Development notes there to be over 40 conditions

Leading Intersex Rights organizations

Intersex rights organizations, including Intersex Human Rights of Australia and Brújula Intersexual in Mexico, explicitly disagree with Dr. Leonard Sax's narrow definition of intersex individuals. They align themselves with more inclusive perspectives. For instance, Intersex Society of North America (working with) InterACT still use Fausto-Sterling's estimates over a decade later. Intersex Campaign for Equality in the United States also uses Sterling's estimates, believing the figures may even be higher than 2%. Intersex Asia and Intersex Russia both use estimates ranging from 0.5%-1.7%, Russia even including PCOS by name (which would be higher than 1.7%). InterAction from Germany's Intersex Rights suggests a range of 1-2 individuals per 100 births, highlighting how the medical community tries to "keep the frequency as extremely low as possible". Stop Intersex Mutilations from France posits there are over 40 variations and also suggests the prevalence might surpass 1.7%. Additionally, OII Europe presents prevalence estimates of 1:200 and 1.7% in their materials.

These organizations stress that intersex variations encompass a wide spectrum of biological and physiological characteristics beyond chromosomal ambiguity, challenging Sax's limited viewpoint.

Major human rights organizations

unequivocally support intersex individuals. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasizes that intersex individuals are "born with a wide range of natural variations in their sex characteristics that don't fit the typical definition of male or female." Amnesty International notes that intersex encompasses "a wide umbrella of natural variations" (1.7%) and human rights abuses faced by intersex individuals. Human Rights Watch and the Human Rights Campaign underline the broader definition of intersex, acknowledging variations in genitalia, chromosomes, gonads, internal sex organs, hormone production, hormone response, and secondary sex traits, noting 1.7% as a prevalence rate. These human rights organizations underscore the importance of acknowledging intersex variations to ensure the protection of human rights.

Other Medical Orgs

Additional medical organizations like the Société Internationale d'Urologie (PDF) (an international professional organization dedicated to the field of urology), and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (uses 1.7%, says sex is not based on chromosones) adopt definitions that align with broader medical perspectives, they recognize the complexities of intersex conditions and advocate for understanding beyond binary definitions. Furthermore, the Endocrine Society acknowledges CAH to be part of a continuum of disorders, acknowledging the variations in severity.

Examining oversights: Discrepancies in Calculations

What's interesting is that even within Sax's own criteria, defining intersex as when 'the chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female,' there's an evident inclusion of conditions like 'sex reversals' and ambiguous genitalia. However, Sax overlooks contributors such as mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD), as well as Swyer Syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome, despite the former being the second leading cause of ambiguous genitalia.

Let's do the math

CAH (.0077) + CAIS (.0076) = .0153

+ ovotestes (.0012) + Idiopathic (.0009) = .0174

+ PAIS (.00076) = .01816

Fausto-Sterling includes de la Chapelle syndrome and MGD, although not as separate statistics. MGD is amalgamated with Turner's statistics, and de la Chapelle syndrome is grouped with other sex chromosome variations. However, Sax completely disregards these conditions when he discards several categories from his estimates, effectively throwing out qualifying numbers and ignoring their potential impact on the overall prevalence of intersex conditions.

While newer studies suggest a prevalence of .004 for de la Chappelle, we also have to consider that neither study includes Swyer Syndrome (+.00125), and PAIS is now recognized as at least as common as CAIS, with the latter being less likely to cause ambiguous genitalia at birth, and more likely to be identified in childhood.

The leading causes of ambiguous genitalia are CAH (.0077), PAIS (.00076), MGD (.005) and ovotestes (.0012), which places us just below (.01466) the ambiguous genitalia observed at birth from Mothers And Babies Reports from Australia, if we account for 15% (0.0006) of de la Chapelle births having ambiguous genitalia, it brings ambiguous genitalia at birth to a total of .015% found before.

If he includes CAH, PAIS (since CAIS is often not identified until childhood), ovotestes and idiopathic causes under his definition of intersex, it leaves us with .005% of births with ambiguous genitalia without a possible causing condition. This gap can easily be explained by his exclusion of MGD and de la Chapelle syndrome.

If we count only CAIS (.0076) and CAH (.0077), and the newer study estimate of de la Chapelle (.004), it already surpasses Sax's estimate at .0193.

With the addition of ovotestes (.0012), idiopathic (.0009), MGD (.005) and Sawyer syndrome (.00125) it brings us to .022%. With older estimates of PAIS (.00076), .0234%; with newer ones (.0076), just a bit above .03%, which is over two thirds an increase of Sax's original estimate.

There is overwhelming support for a more comprehensive understanding of intersex variations that emphasizes the importance of respecting a wide range of biological and physiological characteristics beyond mere genital and chromosomal definitions. This approach is essential in safeguarding human rights and ensuring equitable treatment for all individuals

TLDR;;

The collective stance of experts and organizations, spanning from health associations to human rights advocates, sharply contrasts with the limited definition created by Sax. He claims to know other clinicians' thoughts, without any evidence to back it up. As stated previously, he also lacks education and clinical experience on intersex individuals, he is a family doctor.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Newsom warns of ‘forces of darkness’ ahead of presidential debate

The California governor repeatedly blasted Republicans and suggested the country is on the brink of fascism.

Newsom warns of ‘forces of darkness’ in State of the State video

By Lara Korte

06/25/2024 01:32 PM EDT

SACRAMENTO, California — Gov. Gavin Newsom struck a somber tone in his annual remarks to Californians on Tuesday, warning that the state’s democratic values are at stake while taking the opportunity to castigate Republican opponents for rolling back reproductive rights and failing to pass meaningful immigration reform.

“This year, we face another extraordinary moment in history — for California, for the country, and for the world,” he said. “We are presented with a choice between a society that embraces our values and a world darkened by division and discrimination.”

For a State of the State address, Newsom’s speech leaned heavily into national issues, playing up his role as a surrogate for President Joe Biden ahead of the first presidential debate with Donald Trump on Thursday. Newsom opened with a “warning from the past,” harkening back to 1939 Europe when the forces of fascism were spreading across the continent and then-Gov. Culbert Olson implored Californians to preserve civil liberties and democratic institutions.

The second-term governor has increasingly positioned himself as an attack dog for national Democrats while batting down questions of whether he himself would challenge Biden for the White House in 2024.

Newsom’s pre-recorded remarks were intercut with images and videos — including a picture of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis popping up as Newsom mentioned “California bashers.”

The speech echoed Democrats’ national talking points in a stark and dramatic fashion — accusing “extreme” Republicans of lying to women to control their bodies with draconian policies and characterizing residents of red states as fugitives, fleeing from abortion laws written by men a century ago.

“We are protecting women, medical providers, doctors and health care facilities from the forces of darkness in this country,” he said.

The governor also emphasized California’s status as a border state, arguing Congressional Republicans have chosen cynicism, partisanship and chaos instead of doing their job.

“Republicans in Congress, when presented with an opportunity to assist border states, have turned their backs,” Newsom said.

As an avid consumer of conservative media, Newsom also sought to settle the score with detractors, defending the blue state’s efforts to curb homelessness and crime. The governor touted the billions of dollars California has spent on housing and homelessness since he took office in 2019 and his efforts to hold local governments accountable.

He also slammed red states for criticizing California’s crime rates while dealing with high homicide rates of their own, criticizing what he described as “wall-to-wall right-wing media coverage about lawless blue cities and blue states.”

Throughout the speech, Newsom sought to position California as a “beacon” of American exceptionalism and civil liberties — arguing it was Democratic policies that made it that way.

“There’s only one state in America with a dream — the California Dream,” he said. “It’s a dream built on opportunity, a dream built on pushing boundaries and celebrating, not merely ‘tolerating,’ diversity.”

Filed under:

California,

Gavin Newsom,

2024 Presidential Debates,

[coochiequeens]

Good news for women!

By Cecilia Macaulay

BBC News

Sierra Leone has passed what has been described as a "ground-breaking" law to improve women's rights.

President Julius Maada Bio made an apology to women for their poor treatment in the past: "For so long we haven't been fair to you," he said.

The law states that 30% of public and private jobs must be reserved for women.

The Minister of Gender and Children's Affairs says women have been "crying" out "for years" for this change.

"It means a lot to women in Sierra Leone," Manty Tarawalli told the BBC's Newsday radio programme, adding that no other sub-Saharan African country had passed such a law.

The law lets girls who are still at school know "there are opportunities for them in Sierra Leone for employment for business" and for them to contribute to the economy, Ms Tarawalli said.

Under the new Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Act (GEWE), women also benefit from ringfenced senior positions in the workplace, at least 14-weeks of maternity leave, equal access to bank credit and training opportunities.

There are harsh repercussions for employers who do not stick to the new gender ratios, including hefty fines of £2,000 ($2,500), and even potential prison time for institutions like banks that do not give women fair access to financial support. It is thought this will make it easier for women to start their own businesses.

The government says the employment law will apply to any business with more than 25 employees, but a final decision has not yet been made.

Ms Tarawalli said the move was "important" but that "more steps will have to be taken before the country can say fairness has been achieved across the genders".

Discrimination against women in the workplace is a "big issue," according to the minister, and the new law will "change the status quo," she said.

For Sierra Leone to become a middle-income country it must engage the 52% of the population who are women in the economy, Ms Tarawalli added.

Prior to the law, the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency (UNFPA) said that "progress has been made in expanding opportunities for women and girls" but warned that "gender inequality and denial of women's rights are still prevalent at all levels in Sierra Leonean society".

As for gender equality in the continent as a whole, UN Women also says thatprogress has been made, but "the majority of women work in insecure, poorly paid jobs, with few opportunities for advancement".

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Nicholson at HuffPost:

On the first night of their national convention, Democrats highlighted three stories of how abortion restrictions after Roe v. Wade was overturned had hurt women and couples, hoping to underscore the importance of reproductive rights in one of the most poignant presentations Monday night. The message: Abortion bans put lives at risk. Giving the stage over to one couple and two women who had experienced the harm of abortion hurdles in the prime-time window of the convention’s first night shows how important Democrats see the issue for Kamala Harris’ presidential race.

An Economist/YouGov poll taken from Aug. 11 to Aug. 13 found that 75% of respondents said abortion rights were “very” or “somewhat” important to them, with 81% of female respondents feeling that way. Former President Donald Trump, who is campaigning while out on bail after his felony convictions in New York state, has said the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which tossed out Roe’s almost 50-year precedent, was good because it sent the issue of abortion to the states rather than preserving a national right. But many states have enacted total or near-total bans on abortion, and others have made abortions conditional on medical diagnoses that the woman’s life is in danger, which in turn has led to women being denied treatment until they were close to dying. “Because of Donald Trump, more than one in three women of reproductive age in America lives under an abortion ban. A second Trump term would rip away even more of our rights,” said Amanda Zurawski, who stood with her husband, Josh, on an otherwise darkened stage to discuss her experience in Texas.

[...] Kaitlyn Joshua, who was denied care in Louisiana, said she had to go to several medical facilities to confirm she was miscarrying. “Two emergency rooms sent me away. Because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, no one would confirm that I was miscarrying. I was in pain, bleeding so much my husband feared for my life,” she said. “No women should experience what I endured but too many have.” Hadley Duvall of Kentucky, the third speaker, said she had been raped by her stepfather and became pregnant at the age of 12. “I can’t imagine not having a choice. But today that’s the reality for many women and girls across the country because of Donald Trump’s abortion bans,” she said. Kentucky is listed as one of the 14 states that now have a total ban on abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

At the DNC Monday night, three women (alongside a man who was the husband of one of the speakers) who were harmed by their state’s abortion ban laws spoke the truths about how abortion bans harm women. #DNC2024 #DemConvention

[imaginebetterfutures]

I am officially a cited expert on the history of vaginal anatomy studies! Look mom! I did it!

Okay so here's the story. Way back in ye olde 2014 I was commissioned by The Sweethome (now Wirecutter) to review tampons. As part of my research for that review, I stumbled across some really fascinating old research on vaginal shapes. I wrote about that research for a group blog I used to be a part of, and about the weird little obsession I developed with some long lost research.

All I could really dig up was a set of studies done in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s by a woman named Paula Pendergrass. Pendergrass published a handful of studies about the shape of the vagina, which she measured by doing plaster casts of willing women. And what she described in her work was actually a set of different vagina shapes: the conical, the parallel sides, the heart, the pumpkin seed, and the least fortunately named slug.

But the thing that surprised me most was that after this one small set of studies by Pendergrass, that's it. There was nothing more. And it's not like Pendergrass had answered the question definitively, her work is full of ideas for how to better measure these shapes, and suggestions to collect more data. Why wasn't there anything else here? Why hadn't she continued this work? Why hadn't anybody asked more questions? I needed to know! So I managed to track her down and cold call her house in Arkansas (because journalists like me have no shame) to ask her why she stopped measuring vagina shapes.

Here's what I learned:

There’s no market for this data. Companies that manufacture vaginal products are looking only to confirm that things like tampons fit inside. They don’t care much about the specifics beyond that. But the big reason she highlighted was the one that made me both sad and angry. When she was doing the work, people were grossed out by it. “It’s off-putting to a lot of people, and I’ve had trouble with it since I started,” she said. “People who were embarrassed I was doing this, They said I was a a dirty old woman doing this.” A dirty old woman. For wanting to know the shape and size of the human vagina.

I wanted to chase this story further, but I could never sell it. In part because it's unclear if it matters clinically what the shape of someone's vaginal canal is. And yet... it's just so... INTERESTING!

But I let it go, after that blog post. (Well, that's not entirely true, I actually ordered a dental casting kit and had plans to cast my own vaginal canal using her study's instructions. But I never got around to it.)

FLASH FORWARD TO TODAY. And I get an email from a friend named Perrin Ireland who is apparently helping someone with a book about vaginas. Did I know that my blog was cited in a scientific journal, she asked? No! I DID NOT!!!

But here it is! Gender Bias in the Study of Genital Evolution: Females Continue to Receive Less Attention than Males, Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 62, Issue 3, September 2022, Pages 533–541. The author, Dara Orbach, writes:

When Pendergrass et al. (1996) demonstrated that human females have differently shaped vaginas, their findings were “offputting”, Pendergrass reported being called “a dirty old woman”, and gynecologists did not recognize the value of the research (Evelith, 2016). While a national research center exists in theUnited States ofAmerica for most major organ systems (e.g., National Eye Institute), female reproductive anatomy is categorized under the umbrella of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The research environment and social taboos have historically and still continue to hinder scientific inquiry in the field of female genital evolution.

Is my name spelled incorrectly? Yes! Do I care? No!

But truly it's nice to know that even though I couldn't chase this story and really report it out fully, it seems to have made some dent on at least one person who is asking questions about why we don't know more about the internal anatomy of people with vaginas.

If you like this, you'll also enjoy reading the one about how I spent weeks trying to build a replica vaginal canal in my kitchen to test menstrual cups on.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Grand jury declines to indict Ohio woman who miscarried of abusing a corpse | The Washington Post

By Kim Bellware

An Ohio grand jury has declined to indict Brittany Watts, the 34-year-old woman charged with abusing a corpse after experiencing a miscarriage at home in a case that drew national attention to the ways women may be criminalized for their pregnancy outcomes in a post-Dobbs landscape.

The Trumbull County grand jury that had been investigating Watts’s case for a month on Thursday returned what’s known as a “no bill” for felony abuse of a corpse charges; as a result, charges against Watts will be immediately dismissed.

Trumbull County prosecutor Dennis Watkins said through a spokesperson that he plans to address the grand jury’s decision within the next day. Watkins was widely criticized for pursuing the case against Watts and was last month urged by medical and legal professionals to drop the case.

Neither Watts nor her lawyer, Traci Timko, responded to request for comment Thursday.

In a statement, Yveka Pierre, senior counsel at If/When/How, a group of reproductive rights lawyers that provided legal support in Watts’s case, said she was relieved to see the end of a “dehumanizing” case against Watts.

“Brittany should have been able to focus on taking care of herself after her pregnancy loss. She should have been able to process, and grieve with her family and community” Pierre said. “Instead, she was arrested and charged with a felony.”

Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights (OPRR), among the chief professional groups to condemn Watts’s charges, in a statement hailed the grand jury’s decision as a “firm step against the dangerous trend of criminalizing reproductive outcomes.”

Lauren Beene, a doctor and co-founder of OPRR, told The Washington Post Thursday that charging pregnant people like Watts who are in the midst of life-threatening complications and devastating pregnancy losses can have a chilling effect on health care; women may not be able to get the care they need or be afraid to seek out the care they need, leading to negative outcomes like higher maternal mortality.

Watts’s case also drew attention to Ohio’s existing Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. Despite Ohio voters last year approving Issue 1, a law enshrining the right to abortion in Ohio’s constitution, there are about 30 TRAP laws on the books that have not been repealed and that interfere with reproductive care, Beene said.

“If people are miscarrying like Watts was and the fetus still has a heartbeat but it’s a nonviable fetus, Issue 1 should protect her,” Beene said. “But without taking down the TRAP laws, like the fetal heartbeat law, health care institutions may be afraid to provide the care and may not understand what they can and can’t do.”

The Post previously reconstructed Watts’s days leading up to her miscarriage, drawing on medical records, call recordings and interviews with Watts and her lawyer.

Watts miscarried at home last September after four days in and out of the hospital where she had been told her nearly 22-week pregnancy was not viable. There was still detectable fetal cardiac activity, which complicated how quickly a decision could be made to induce Watts, despite doctors indicating she was at increasing risk of death. Abortion in Ohio remains legal up to 22 weeks.

At home, Watts delivered a roughly 15-ounce fetus over the toilet. When blood, stool and tissue from the delivery clogged the toilet, Watts removed what she believed was blocking the flow and placed the contents in a bucket outdoors, records show. When she returned to the hospital after her delivery, a nurse who inquired about the fetus later reported Watts to police.

Police eventually removed Watts’s toilet and found the fetus lodged in the pipes. Timko, Watts’s attorney, said her client had no criminal record and was being “demonized for something that goes on every day,” but a municipal judge found there was evidence to bind Watts’s case over for a grand jury investigation.

A coroner’s report later confirmed the fetus died in utero and was not injured by Watts’s actions. Neither prosecutors nor health care workers who treated Watts disputed that her pregnancy loss was natural.

The decision to charge Watts sparked concerns among women’s health advocates and others that the risk of being criminalized for pregnancy outcomes was growing. On Thursday before the grand jury announcement, a rally in support of Watts had been scheduled in the Warren Courthouse Square. A fundraiser for Watts that began in December has raised more than $230,000.

[partisan-by-default]

The move worries reproductive justice advocates who say the state’s abortion ban – among the strictest in the US – has placed pregnant women’s lives in jeopardy. The appointment could undermine the committee’s ability to accurately examine the impact of the law on deaths during and in the immediate aftermath of pregnancy, they say.

“This appointment speaks volumes about how seriously certain state leaders are taking the issue of maternal mortality,” said Kamyon Conner, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, an abortion assistance group that advocates for reproductive health equity. “It is another sign that the state is more interested in furthering their anti-abortion agenda than protecting the lives of pregnant Texans.”

Dr Ingrid Skop, a San Antonio-based OB-GYN, has long been vocal about her views on abortion.

Skop serves as vice-president and director of medical affairs for the national anti-abortion research group Charlotte Lozier Institute and is a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She is also a plaintiff in a US supreme court lawsuit seeking to revoke the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the key abortion drug mifepristone, which she argues is “dangerous” despite years of evidence showing the drug is safe. She has authored a number of research papers that were ultimately retracted for misleading errors.

[foreverlogical]

One of the greater indignities of the Dobbs Supreme Court decision—besides stripping millions of American women of their bodily autonomy—was how deeply out of step it was with the majority of Americans’ beliefs. According to a 2023 Gallup poll, a record-high 69 percent of Americans believed that first-trimester abortions should be legal. Considering this statistic, it’s surprising that Democrats haven’t more robustly rallied people around this issue. One reason may be that they just don’t know how.

Roe gave American women decades of false comfort: Abortion access and reproductive rights could remain firmly in the dominion of feminist causes. Keep Your Hands Off My Reproductive Rights T-shirts became nearly as ubiquitous as Girl Boss tote bags. But although most Americans support abortion access, feminism remains more polarizing. Only 19 percent of women strongly identify as feminists. That number is far higher among young women, but among young men, the word has a different resonance: Feminism has been explicitly cited as a factor driving them rightward. Democrats might not like how this sounds, but what they need to do now is reframe a winning issue in nonfeminist terms.

One way is to talk about abortions as lifesaving health care, which more women have been doing. Another model is to talk about it not as a women’s issue, but as a family issue. This is the strategy of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. For 15 years, NLIRJ has worked in states such as Florida, Texas, and Arizona, training community leaders it calls poderosas to speak with their neighbors. The conversations don’t necessarily begin with abortion at all.

[Read: It’s abortion, stupid]

Most Hispanics in the United States are Catholic. Despite a deeply ingrained religious taboo against abortion, 62 percent now believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That number has risen 14 percentage points since 2007. This remarkable change is partly a reaction to draconian abortion restrictions in several Latino-heavy states. But much credit should also be attributed to years of grassroots work by organizations like NLIRJ to shift the culture.

“We ask them what keeps them up at night,” Lupe Rodríguez, the group’s executive director, told me. Rodríguez holds a degree in neurobiology from Harvard and was a scientist before she shifted into reproductive-justice work. That opening question might yield answers about problems at home or a lack of functioning electricity in their neighborhood. The point, Rodríguez said, is to go past individual “rights” and to connect  “reproductive autonomy and bodily autonomy to the conditions that people live in, right? Like whether or not they’re able to feed their kids, whether or not they have money to pay the rent—like everyday concerns.” In this way, reproductive rights go beyond a niche women’s issue to something that affects every aspect of a community.

None of NLIRJ’s materials uses the term feminist. Rodríguez said this wasn’t a conscious decision, but she stands by it. “Our approach is a lot about certainly freedom, certainly bodily autonomy, certainly folks being able to make the best choices for themselves and their families. But it’s very connected to community and family.”

Poderosas are trained on how to discuss faith and abortion, and voting and abortion. Crucially, they are not required to personally hold pro-abortion views. The organization is nonpartisan. Involvement has no ideological requirement other than believing that everyone should be entitled to make decisions that are appropriate for themselves and their family. “We’re bringing people in that way, by not casting them aside” if they don’t share the same perspectives, Rodríguez told me.

This has proved an effective strategy for Latino advocates across the country, and one that Democrats can learn from. In Florida, NLIRJ and other organizations, such as the Women’s Equality Center, have shifted the narrative around abortion bans to be about the government interfering in private family matters. In Arizona, a recent poll by LUCHA, a family-oriented social-justice organization there, found that 75 percent of Latino voters agreed that abortion should be legal, regardless of their personal views on the matter. In New Mexico, male Hispanic Democratic politicians are campaigning on reproductive rights even in conversations with Latino male voters, whose primary concern is typically the economy. Representative Gabriel Vasquez is banking on this being a matter of family and personal liberty—exactly what drove so many Latino immigrants to America in the first place. “It is not about whether we are pro-choice or pro-life,” he recently told The New York Times. “It is about trusting the people that we love to make those decisions for themselves.”

Latinos have played large roles in getting abortion-rights measures on the ballot in Florida and Arizona this fall. And although just 12 percent of the general electorate considers abortion access a leading issue, according to a 2022 national survey, that number was 19 percent among Latinos.

[Read: Are Latinos really realigning toward Republicans?]

So often, political analysts look at how Latinos vote without asking why. It’s as if they assume that Latinos’ rationales are too foreign to understand. Democrats should not make that mistake now. This pragmatic approach is appealing to Latinos because they are largely politically moderate, working- and middle-class people concerned about their family, and about kitchen-table issues—just like much of the population in swing states. The Republican Party seems to have caught on to this; Democrats can’t afford to miss it.

No self-identified feminist who deserves the title will be supporting the intergenerational-bro ticket of Trump-Vance in 2024. The Democratic Party doesn’t need to pander to those voters, or pass a rhetorical purity test on women’s rights to galvanize them; they’re voting Democratic no matter what. Democrats need to focus on all the other voters—who may not care about feminism but do care about their families’ health and ability to thrive—and reframe abortion as an issue that affects everyone.

[personnotfound]

if you don't vote, someone still gets to be president

idk, i see a lot of people talking about the election and criticizing the democratic candidates, which is great, please do that, but please also acknowledge the stakes and the context here. If you're saying talking about something horrible the dems have done/are doing, and saying not to vote for them because of it, then at least let it be a criticism that does not also apply tenfold to the republicans. Because SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT. It's one or the other. Realistically, it is Trump, or it is Harris. Convincing people not to vote for Harris is advocating for Trump to win. Period. End of. That is what you are doing.

Since I am going over project 2025 - which was written by some very good friends of Trump, and which the man himself has tried to distance himself from without actually addressing any of the contents of the document itself, which align quite well with how he talks about his values and intentions - here are some quotes i have selected to contextualize the stakes of this election (under the cut for length and tw for transphobia, misogyny, )

If you are trans, here is what they think of us, "Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries" (from the foreward by Kevin D Roberts, PhD, on page 1. Kevin is the president of The Heritage Foundation, which describes itself under the 'membership' tab of their 'about' page on their website as the "most influential conservative group in america")

and here are a few of the policies they would like to inact in regards to us, "Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended." (Page 104),

"Reissue a stronger transgender national coverage determination. CMS should repromulgate its 2016 decision that CMS could not issue a National Coverage Determination (NCD) regarding “gender reassignment surgery” for Medicare beneficiaries. In doing so, CMS should acknowledge the growing body of evidence that such interventions are dangerous and acknowledge that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support such coverage in state plans." (Page 474)

"Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexualorientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing" (Bostock in this context is a legal case regarding workers protections against discrimination in the workplace, this is page 584 saying that they would like it to be legal to fire people for being trans)

Or how about this from pages 4-5, "The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civilsociety hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion(“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensi-tive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists." Still the foreward there, same author. Literally calling to restrict speech in the name of 'freedom of speech'. Some irony there. The next paragraph starts by describing 'transgender ideology' (the existence of trans people) as 'pornography'.

Page 5, literally the next paragraph. "Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."

How are we feeling? But what about foreign policy? What about Palestine?

Page 94 reads, "Sustain support for Israel even as America empowers Gulf partners to take responsibility for their own coastal, air, and missile defenses both individually and working collectively"

That does not sound like pulling support from Israel to me.

Oh, also on page 94 is this, "Implement nuclear modernization and expansion. The United States manifestly needs to modernize, adapt, and expand its nuclear arsenal. Russia maintains and is actively brandishing a very large nuclear arsenal, but China is also undertaking a historic nuclear breakout."

Because what we definitely 100% need is more military spending on nuclear weapons. I also cannot help reading that in connection to Palestine, Israel, and our country's allyship with Israel.

I'm getting stressed. I have linked the full document below. Please look up these quotes yourself, check my work, read the context for yourself. Decide for yourself if you feel I have been unfair. Decide for yourself which of the two sets of options is going to do the least damage. Because remember, it's not just the one person you're voting for. The president gets to appoint the people who run the rest of the government. The people Trump likes very much wrote this document.

Please do not play games with weather or not I can be fired from my job for being trans. Please do not play games with my access to healthcare.

It is horrific that we do not have a choice that will end US support for the genocide going on right now. But that choice isn't on the table. Our choices are genocidal fascist or a lot less genocidal fascist.

[someone-will-remember-us]

Women are dying of cancer because of sexism in healthcare, a report in The Lancet has suggested. The analysis says that “unconscious gender bias” and discrimination means that women are too often receiving “sub-optimal care”, with major cancers being missed. Researchers said that a focus on reproductive and maternal health, and on “women’s cancers” – such as breast and cervical cancer – too often meant prevention and treatment of other types of cancer was neglected. Two thirds of deaths from cancer in patients below the age of 50 are those of women, researchers said, with many dying “in the prime of their life”. The Lancet commission, called Women, Power and Cancer, calls for a “feminist” approach to medicine, saying that 1.5 million lives a year could be saved by better detection, diagnosis and elimination of risk factors. A study published alongside the piece found that 24,000 women between 30 and 69 die every year from cancers that could be avoided. Six in 10 could be prevented by earlier diagnosis or improved lifestyles, while four in 10 could be avoided by better access to good treatment. The commission brought together scholars of gender studies, human rights, law, economics, social sciences, cancer epidemiology, prevention and treatment, as well as patient advocates. Too little focus on risk factors Dr Isabelle Soerjomataram, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said: “Discussion about cancer in women often focus on ‘women’s cancers’, such as breast and cervical cancer, but about 300,000 women under 70 die each year from lung cancer, and 160,000 from colorectal cancer – two of the top three causes of cancer death among women, globally. Furthermore, for the past few decades in many high-income countries, deaths from lung cancer in women have been higher than deaths from breast cancer.” She added that there was a need for policies to increase awareness of such risks. The report said that too little focus was given to alerting women to the risk factors for cancer. It cited a study that found only 19 per cent of women who attended a breast cancer screening knew that alcohol was a major risk factor. Researchers also said that women were often served worse than men, even after diagnosis. The authors said: “Sexism within healthcare systems in the form of unconscious gender biases and discrimination can lead to women receiving sub-optimal care. For example, multiple studies have found women with cancer are more likely to report inadequate pain relief and be at greater risk for undertreatment of pain compared to men.” Dr Ophira Ginsburg, the senior adviser for clinical research at the National Cancer Institute’s Centre for Global Health and co-chair of the commission, said: “The impact of a patriarchal society on women’s experiences of cancer has gone largely unrecognised. Globally, women’s health is often focused on reproductive and maternal health, aligned with narrow anti-feminist definitions of women’s value and roles in society, while cancer remains wholly under-represented.” She added: “Our commission highlights that gender inequalities significantly impact women’s experiences with cancer. “To address this, we need cancer to be seen as a priority issue in women’s health, and call for the immediate introduction of a feminist approach to cancer.”

(archive)