Buy Your Tickets Today!
Find more information and purchase tickets here.
On January 5, Florida became the 36th state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage, joining a movement that is sweeping across the United States. With federal judges striking down same-sex marriage bans left and right, it seems inevitable that we will soon live in a country that recognizes the freedom to marry. Yet, although more Americans than ever support marriage equality, the fight for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in our society is not over, as they continue to face significant barriers to quality medical services.
Full equality includes access to high-quality medical care, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The obstacles that have historically prevented LGBTQ patients from obtaining medical care continue to plague our modern health care system. Sure, the American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a mental illness. But a concerning number of health care providers still refuse to serve LGBTQ individuals, and until the passage of the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies were not required to extend domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples. Moreover, the stigma that surrounds homosexuality prevents many patients from disclosing their sexual orientation to doctors. Because the LGBTQ community faces higher rates of certain conditions, including depression and substance abuse, failing to discuss sexual activity can lead to inadequate treatment.
One of the U.S. health care system’s most serious shortcomings is its failure to prepare doctors to work with LGBTQ patients. Young doctors are emerging from medical school ill-equipped to deal with the specific needs of the LGBTQ community. A 2006 study published in Family Medicine surveyed 248 medical students, finding that the vast majority of students held positive attitudes toward LGBTQ patients and hoped to provide them top-tier care. Unfortunately, the same group of students failed spectacularly when tested on LGBTQ-specific health concerns. Another study revealed that most medical schools throughout the United States and Canada devote minimal (if any) instructional time to LGBTQ issues, and that the quality of such instruction varies drastically across institutions. And significantly, many doctors report that they feel uncomfortable discussing sexual behavior with LGBTQ patients. Continue reading
On January 22, 1973 — 42 years ago today — the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, wherein a Texas woman sought an abortion, but existing legislation in Texas prevented her from doing so. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that it was unconstitutional for states to interfere in the process of a physician providing a first-trimester abortion. Before the ruling, it was illegal for physicians to perform an abortion in 30 states. In the remaining 20 states, it was illegal for physicians to perform abortion unless it was deemed medically necessary.
Women, their autonomy, and their right to decide their future were not given as reasons why Roe v. Wade was decided the way that it was. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the Supreme Court, stating that the case was a right to privacy issue that was protected under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Before his death in 1999, Justice Blackmun stated outright that Roe v. Wade was not about women’s rights. Ronald Rotunda, law professor at Chapman University, recalls a 1994 conversation with Justice Blackmun where he explicitly spelled out the ruling’s intentions: “Roe ‘protected the woman’s right, with the physician, to get an abortion.’” Rotunda made clear that “Blackmun emphasized the italicized phrase with his voice. He spoke of the case as a doctor’s rights case, not a woman’s right case.”
Some reproductive rights supporters think Roe v. Wade faltered in not explicitly prioritizing women’s rights to control their own bodies.
Each January, reproductive justice advocates celebrate the Roe v. Wade decision because it is absolutely essential that a woman is able to obtain an abortion if that is what she decides — because she, and she alone, should decide her future and fate. However, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade was never about women’s rights. Numerous legal scholars in favor of reproductive rights have taken issue with how Roe v. Wade was handled. Their criticisms are largely that: (1) the Supreme Court went beyond its role of judicial power and into that of legislative power by making abortion legal in all 50 states, and (2) the Supreme Court failed to make the decision about a woman’s right to choose her own future. Below is only a brief cross-section of these criticisms. Continue reading
Editor’s Note: The following post was written by Esteban Camarena.
Within a week of returning to the Capitol, the new majority of the House of Representatives initiated once more a confrontation against women’s health by introducing legislation that would limit access to the legal and medically safe procedure of terminating a pregnancy. Legislation that is being proposed would place legislative burdens for a woman, if she chooses, to go to a doctor and undergo an abortion 20 weeks after gestation.
In the United States, a great majority of abortions occur before 21 weeks. Those that occur after that time frame are commonly due to severe fetal abnormalities and risks to the life of the mother. Due to this fact, many doctors are opposed to this type of law because it prevents them from providing the best medical care possible to their patients. A majority of doctors recognize that abortion is a very safe medical procedure; in fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 99 percent of women who undergo this procedure do not demonstrate any complication.
The majority of Americans agree that Congress should focus on more pertinent issues. What occurs between a doctor and his or her patient is very personal, and frankly a politician has no business interfering in that relationship. Every woman needs to be able to make her own medical decisions in consultation with her faith, family, and doctor. It is important to protect this right and tell politicians that it not their health, and it is not their decision.
Este artículo es por Esteban Camarena.
A una semana de regresar a la Capital, la nueva mayoría en la Cámara de Representantes inicio otra vez un enfrentamiento contra la salud de la mujer ya que quiere limitar el acceso legal y medicamente sano a la terminación de un embarazo. La ley que se propone pondría limites legislativos para una mujer, si ella lo decide, acudir a un médico y someterse al procedimiento de aborto después de 20 semanas de gestación.
En los Estados Unidos, gran mayoría de abortos ocurren antes de 21 semanas y los casos en que este procedimiento ocurre después de ese tiempo comúnmente involucran anormalidades severas del feto y riesgos a la vida de la madre. Es por eso que muchos doctores se oponen a este tipo de ley ya que imponen barreras no necesarias a proveer el mejor cuidado médico a sus pacientes. Mayoría de doctores reconocen que el aborto es un procedimiento sumamente seguro, de hecho 99 por ciento de mujeres que se someten a este tratamiento no demuestran complicación alguna según el Centro de Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC).
La mayoría de estadounidenses están de acuerdo que el Congreso necesita enfocarse en asuntos más pertinentes. Lo que ocurre entre un doctor y su paciente es algo muy personal y francamente un legislador no tiene ningún negocio en interponerse en esa relación. Cada mujer necesita poder hacer decisiones medicas en consulta de su fe, su familia, y su doctor. Es importante proteger este derecho y decirle a los políticos que no es su salud y no es su decisión.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 62 percent of women of child-bearing age (roughly 15 to 44 years of age) currently use a contraceptive method. Most contraceptive users are married and on average would like to have two children. This means that a woman might be using a contraceptive method for more than 30 years.
Studies have calculated that if a sexually active woman is not using any contraceptive method, over the course of a year she has an 85 percent chance of becoming pregnant. Using contraceptives greatly decreases this chance, but there are still some possibilities that her contraceptive method could fail to prevent pregnancy.
To maximize your contraception’s effectiveness, use it as correctly and consistently as possible.
When choosing a contraceptive method, you might want to use the safest and most reliable method available. How likely is it that your choice could fail? With the many types of birth control at your disposal, how do you know which is most effective? And why, with even the most effective contraception around, do women still have unintended pregnancies?
Last month, President Obama signed into law the new budget for 2015, which includes coverage for Peace Corps volunteers who need abortions in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. Why is this news item a big deal? Because 63 percent of Peace Corps volunteers are women, a first-trimester abortion costs more than a Peace Corps volunteer makes in a month, and sexual assault is a risk for Peace Corps volunteers. Of course, abortion and sexual assault are difficult subjects, and when you put them both together and remind the public that, until now, Peace Corps volunteers who became pregnant as a result of sexual assault while on the job were subjected to undue financial burdens on top of everything else, you might see a lot of criticism of the Peace Corps. And, for returned Peace Corps volunteers, that criticism might sting.
The Peace Corps Equity Act represents an important step forward.
As a returned Peace Corps volunteer, I have a hard time writing this piece. I feel like I am airing our dirty laundry.
In my experience, most people are unfamiliar with the Peace Corps. And when all that makes the news is that the Peace Corps “fails” its female volunteers with respect to abortion and sexual assault, it’s hard for those of us who know and love the Peace Corps to talk openly about these issues.
The Peace Corps, however, has failed no one — they have had their hands tied by rules put into place decades ago by our government. The Helms Amendment prohibits the use of U.S. funds to pay for foreign abortions, including those of Peace Corps volunteers. The first time I ever heard about it was during training, when we were told that it meant we could not discuss abortion with locals or counsel around abortion as an option. Continue reading