I couldn't believe it when I read the news in The Washington Post. I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, but it still seems outrageous—even for this administration. Of course, this is the same administration who demonstrated that "W Stands for Women" by eliminating the White House Office of Women's Initiatives and Outreach (where I am almost embarrassed to admit that I interned, shortly after the scandal with that other White House intern) in its first day of office (which was also my birthday, by the way). Not that I hold a grudge ... ok, back to the point.
According to insiders, the Office of Women's Health has had a quarter of its operating budget taken away by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And apparently they've already allocated or used what's left—so essentially they have no money to run programs and would have to halt operations for the rest of the year.
Julie Davids is the Executive Director of CHAMP (Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project).
Imagine that you live in a country where HIV infection rates are on the rise. In your nation's capital, one out of every 20 people is HIV positive. In some socially marginalized communities, nearly half of people are HIV positive.
In this place, about half of all people who need to be taking HIV medication to stay healthy are unable to access medication on an ongoing basis, and some have died while on waiting lists for drugs. Hundreds of thousands of HIV positive people pass through prisons and jails each year, and no effort is made to coordinate education, prevention or social services for them.
If you are reading this post from the United States, you live in that country. The epidemic in Washington, DC rivals that of some African nations; people in South Carolina and West Virginia have died on waiting list for AIDS drugs; and Black gay and bisexual men, at the intersection of the gay and Black epidemics that comprise the majority of cases in our nation, have rates of HIV that average 46% across urban centers.
My four-year old daughter makes me proud in the toy aisle at Target. We're looking for a gift for one of her girlfriends who is turning five soon. My daughter's mimicry of my intense hatred towards a slew of popular young girls' dolls like Barbie and Bratz may be rote but it's firmly implanted. For a toy company like Bratz or Mattel, makers of all things Barbie, there is no getting around my maternal barricade; at least for as long as my daughter believes that mama knows best. This, however, is not the case for millions of young girls in this country. Girls as young as three-years old are now the direct targets of marketing campaigns hawking things like toys and clothing with obvious overtones of sex and sexuality. Add advertising and media content that over-emphasize the importance of physical appearance and sexual appeal for women and according to the American Psychological Association's (APA) latest report, The Sexualization of Girls, you've got a "broad and increasing problem" that is "harmful to girls."
We join with our friends at Catholics for Free Choice and throughout the entire sexual and reproductive health and rights movement in saluting Frances Kissling as she looks forward to a new part of her journey. Today's New York Times has a wonderful profile and you can read her writing for Rewire here.
The very complexity of scientific studies can make them their own worst enemy. Valuable research is too often communicated in technical language and rigid formats that make it difficult for non-experts to interpret and evaluate the findings. Worse, some groups deliberately use outdated, incomplete, misleading and outright false information to further an ideological or religious agenda. This creates an environment in which it is increasingly difficult for the public and legislators to distinguish scientifically sound studies from agenda-driven junk science.
It needn't be that way. Social science research, with its focus on human behaviors, relationships and social institutions, can be a rich source of material for journalists, policymakers and program administrators. Indeed, social science findings have their greatest impact when they are useful to—and used by—groups that channel research into practice to improve people's lives.
Here's an idea for Campaign 2008 .... Tivo the whole thing so you can fast forward past the boring parts. Like the Oscars, this campaign runs the risk of people tuning out too soon. This past week, from Hollywood to the Christian Right, its been a battle for the Elites, and more evidence that the cultural extremes are out of touch with reality.
At least the Oscars only lasts for one day. The campaign news gets recycled through multiple news casts, trying to make something out of nothing, like those interesting, but useless, Pilobus performances at the "green" Oscars. We salute the National Resources Defense Council's efforts to use the Oscars to promote more "green practices" knowing that every little bit helps, but not even Scorsese could have directed Leonardo DiCaprio's "green" lines to pass the laugh test amidst all the excess that is Oscar night. Al Gore and the triumph that An Inconvenient Truth is, was an authentic dose of reality against a backdrop of extravagance.
The promise of dramatically lessening—and someday, eliminating cervical cancer completely is a goal we can all get behind. Right? Well, maybe in the long run but not too quickly—and not this week. What should be a slam dunk on the public health front has, at least temporarily, gotten sidetracked because of an overly aggressive marketing campaign by Merck which has fueled charges by right wing groups like the Family Research Council that parental rights are being violated and that giving adolescent girls the HPV vaccine will somehow lead them away from abstinence and down the path of sexual depravity. Assuming, of course, that we accept the dubious proposition that HPV—that little known virus—plays a significant role in a teenager's decision to engage in or abstain from sexual activity. Research shows it does not.
Last week, an article in Time Magazine, written by Nancy Gibbs, addressed the burgeoning business of so-called, "crisis pregnancy centers" or CPC's. If you recall Tyler's post about the L-Word episode that featured such a center, you'll remember what hypocritical hoaxes they conjure and the trickery and deceit they market.
There are 19 million women worldwide currently living with HIV/AIDS, but living with HIV is just one aspect of these women's lives. Reproductive rights organizations like Ipas and HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations like the International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS have been working for years to raise awareness of the comp[img_assist|nid=2482|title=True Love|desc=|link=none|align=right|width=100|height=80]lexity of HIV-positive women's sexual and reproductive realities, and a new project called Lifeboat offers a unique space to challenge stereotypes about HIV-positive women's lives. Specifically, Lifeboat seeks to shed light on the reality of HIV-positive motherhood, using film to present compelling, complex images of mothers living with HIV/AIDS.
According to The New York Times, "Mom's Mad. And She's Organized." Yesterday's article is about MomsRising.org, a motherhood advocacy organization that made a documentary film about motherhood in America (watch the preview below). The organization is raising consciousness about pay, equity and work-family balance—framing them as economic and family issues "which resonate for a younger generation of women" (who apparently think feminism is a bad word).
