We Have A Republican Party Waging A War Against Women And Women's Healthcare.

In addition to the the "War on Women" there is a "War on crime", a "War on Drugs", a "War on Christmas", a "War on Coal, and a "War on Terror". They are all stupid slogans. They don't mean anything.

Of course Democrats are going to say that Republicans are part of a "War on Women", and Republicans are going to say Democrats are part of a "War on Faith".

It is easy to insult people on the other side of the political aisle. That isn't a solution, it is just a partisan attack.

Ah, yes. The repetition of Max's views because he believes someone doesn't "get" his point.

Yeah, that's it.

Or you'll just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

81 pages later...

on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

213 pages later...

And you STILL won't have listened to a single word from anybody.

Yep.

INSANITY.

Not mine, yours.

I am glad you cleared that up.

That particular panel wasn't making decisions about abortion, it was supposed to iron out ACA particulars about covering women's health needs. For instance, women should have a pelvic exam and pap test at least yearly, the ovaries can develop cysts, there is such a thing as endometriosis which is a disorder that allows the lining of the uterus to grow outside the uterus, attach to the fallopian tubes and the ovaries and can extend to the intestines, bladder and other areas. It can be painfully crippling, cause bleeding so heavy it makes some women anemic and this can even affect young teen girls. It can make pregnancy impossible, and if an embryo does implant most likely it will miscarry. I don't need to mention the importance of prenatal care as well as a safe delivery. However, every thing I listed are things that can only happen to women. I've had all the usual equipment since I was born, luckily I have avoided ovarian cysts, endometriosis some of the other ailments and I still get a check up yearly.

These are a few of the conditions that should be covered by insurance but some argue that men should get a lower rate/or something because they will never have ovarian cysts or need care for the other conditions.

That's why it would be useful to have women on the panel, women in both parties need women's health care. Its not a left or right wing thing.

EXACTLY.

neptuneblue wrote to: maxdancona

Because it does not immediately concern you, you already have a preconceived notion that a war against women's right isn't happening. You don't want to admit what is right in front of you and try to sway the conversation elsewhere.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Real Music writing to: maxdancona

What neptuneblue wrote to you Max is a completely accurate assessment of you. There is a mountain of evidence to back up and support what neptuneblue wrote to you. Just maybe, if you made any effort to understand and acknowledge the validity of what was said to you, more people might actually listen to what you have to say.

It's taken a lot of beatings over the past few years.

You have no idea how difficult it is for me to pass up a straight line like that. I already had to replace hard with difficult.

I know how you feel, and so does Edmund Blackadder. (Last line in clip.)

The Trump Administration’s Irresponsible Use of Research in Pushing Its Abstinence-Only Agenda into Title X

Laura D. Lindberg,Guttmacher Institute
Kinsey Hasstedt,Guttmacher Institute

First published online: May 16, 2018

The Trump administration’s recent funding opportunity announcement for Title X family planning services grants seeks to advance a number of long-standing socially conservative priorities. Among them is an emphasis on harmful abstinence-only-until-marriage messages—especially (but not only) directed at adolescents—that promote abstinence as an “optimal health outcome” for Title X clients. This marks a stark shift from the evidence-informed and patient-centered approach to clinical family planning care previously advanced by the Office of Population Affairs (OPA), which administers Title X, and is deeply concerning given that extensive evidence demonstrates abstinence-only approaches can cause considerable harm to young people.

The funding announcement also calls for Title X clinics to have “a meaningful emphasis on education and counseling that communicates the social science research and practical application” of abstinence and marriage. The Trump administration identifies a small set of studies in a series of frequently asked questions (FAQ) as the social science evidence base for its abstinence-only approach, and relies on them to describe how providers should counsel Title X clients on abstinence. The administration’s responses misrepresent the body of available evidence by ignoring limitations identified by the authors of the research themselves and obfuscating the studies’ fundamental conclusions.

Misrepresenting evidence

First, to support its assertion that having sex for the first time earlier versus later in life is associated with higher numbers of sexual partners, STIs and adolescent pregnancies, the Trump administration points to a 2015 systematic review of 65 studies. This review examined studies “on the associations between early first sexual intercourse and later sexual/reproductive outcomes,” with the intent of informing policymaking intended to delay sexual activity.

Given that it is being cited to advance major shifts in the Title X program, it is problematic that the Trump administration disregards the review authors’ conclusion: “Given the limitations and issues with current understandings of the associations between early first sexual intercourse and later sexual and reproductive outcomes…it is hard to make confident evidence-based predictions and recommendations for public policy.” This is in part because the review actually found mixed results among studies, with “some” showing an increased risk of pregnancy among adolescents who had sex early and “mixed” results for risk of STIs. The authors further warned that their findings should be “interpreted with caution,” because individual studies employed different definitions of “early first sexual intercourse” and “data have been poorly or incorrectly analyzed.” The authors also highlighted the bias of previous research in “ignoring the possibility that early initiators may experience positive sexual or reproductive outcomes.”

Second, the Trump administration takes components of well-regarded recommendations for providing sexual and reproductive health care for adolescents out of context, and flatly ignores the overall conclusions, which focus on providing comprehensive, unbiased services for adolescents.

Seeking validation for its abstinence-only counseling approach, the administration cites a technical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). In reality, the AAP’s “Contraception for Adolescents” report centers on how clinicians can best provide contraceptive counseling and method options to young patients. It identifies counseling on abstinence as “an important component of sexual health care” for adolescents, but in the context of patient-centered adolescent health care and more holistic counseling on sexual decision making and contraceptive care. The administration also ignores the report’s conclusion that many adolescents do not adhere to being abstinent all of the time, and that “existing data suggest that the effectiveness of abstinence for pregnancy and STI prevention over extended periods of time is likely low.”

Similarly, under the guise of instruction for providers, the Trump administration points to an article in the Journal of Adolescent Health that details clinical best practices for counseling adolescents on abstinence. The administration advances a directive approach, asserting that providers “[share] the risks that may be associated with certain choices and introduce risk-free alternatives.” In contrast, the article’s authors advise a “motivational interviewing” approach widely utilized by health care providers, which focuses on enabling adolescents to identify and invest in their own behavioral change. In addition, while the administration continues to advance confusing, coded language like “sexually risk-free,” the cited article makes clear that clinicians must use concrete, specific definitions and ask detailed questions about sexual behaviors to “minimize the confusion and complex social meanings attached to sexual abstinence.”

Finally, the Trump administration seeks to support supposed links “between early sexual initiation and decreased educational attainment, economic status, and adult monogamy.” The handful of studies cited to support this assertion are weak. For example, the administration cites one paper that is not only unavailable, but also seems to examine the impact of sexual initiation after age 18 among adults 20–40 years ago, which likely does not reflect the experiences of today’s young people. And the administration elevates other work that has not previously garnered much—if any—attention from the research community, having been cited very little in peer-reviewed literature.

A patient-centered approach

Decades’ worth of evidence—including from some of the very research the administration misrepresents in its FAQ—has shown that the sexual and reproductive health needs of adolescents are best served by medically accurate and complete information and by comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services. This holistic approach includes, but is certainly not limited to, counseling on abstinence.

For instance, national Quality Family Planning (QFP) guidelines, established by OPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2014 and updated as recently as December 2017, provide evidence-informed clinical recommendations that adolescents should be given comprehensive counseling on preventing pregnancy that includes information on abstinence, contraception and STI prevention. For adolescents who indicate being sexually active, QFP guidelines demonstrate how providers should help their patients choose and use the methods of contraception that will work best for them. QFP guidelines undergo rigorous review, and reinforce recommendations of nationally recognized professional medical organizations such as AAP, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (SAHM).

These same professional medical associations flatly reject the administration’s abstinence-only approach. In a position paper on abstinence-only policies and programs, SAHM notes that “providing ‘abstinence only’ or ‘abstinence until marriage’ messages as a sole option for teenagers is flawed from scientific and medical ethics viewpoints,” urging that such approaches be “abandoned.” Clinical recommendations from SAHM, AAP and ACOG all advise that providers foster open communication and that they offer counseling on abstinence in the context of comprehensive information on contraception and sexual health. Moreover, the administration broadly ignores ample evidence that risks associated with adolescents’ sexual activity are influenced by broader systemic and policy factors, including economic resources, gender-based expectations, and access to comprehensive sexual health information and contraceptive care.

It is particularly concerning that the Trump administration is pressing its abstinence-only approach within the nation’s publicly funded family planning program for all Title X clients, not just adolescents. Public policies promoting abstinence until marriage have long sought to influence the sexual behaviors of unmarried women specifically, many of whom are sexually active and in need of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and care. And, just as pushing this ideology in educational settings disproportionately harms young people of color and other marginalized youth, expanding it to the Title X setting will disproportionately impact marginalized communities: two-thirds of Title X clients live at or below the federal poverty level, and more than half identify as people of color.

This influence is not accidental, but rather an intentional component of the Trump administration’s broader, coercive agenda to restrict people’s sexual and reproductive health and rights—particularly those who obtain publicly funded services. Policymakers should not be in the business of forcing providers to parrot misinformed ideological messages in public health programs and clinical family planning settings. Instead, policies and funding should rely on high-quality research and reputable findings that demonstrate the need for comprehensive, patient-centered care that respects each individual’s sexual and reproductive health, rights and dignity.

It’s Time to End the War on Women’s Health
Republican efforts to dismantle U.S. health care unfairly target one gender

By THE EDITORS on September 1, 2017

It's Time to End the War on Women's Health
Credit: Wenjia Tang

There's something rotten in the state of women's health. As this article is being written in July, Republicans in Congress are engaged in a frenzied effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) put in place by the Obama administration. At least 22 million Americans would lose medical insurance by 2026 under the latest version of this plan—which includes large cuts to Medicaid—and lack of insurance means more sickness and death for thousands, data show. These cuts threaten to affect women more than men—whether by removing basic health coverage, cutting maternity care or sharply limiting reproductive rights.

It's time to take a stand against this war on women's health.

Current events are just the latest insult in a long history of male-centric medicine, often driven not by politicians but by scientists and physicians. Before the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, which required the inclusion of women and minorities in final-stage medication and therapy trials, women were actively excluded from such tests because scientists worried that female hormonal cycles would interfere with the results. The omission meant women did not know how drugs would affect them. They respond differently to illness and medication than men do, and even today those differences are inadequately understood. Women report more intense pain than men in almost every category of disease, and we do not know why. Heart disease is the number-one killer of women in the U. S., yet only a third of clinical trial subjects in cardiovascular research are female—and fewer than a third of trials that include women report results by sex.

The Republican assault on health care will just make things worse. The proposed legislation includes provisions that would let states eliminate services known as “essential health benefits,” which include maternity care. Before the ACA made coverage mandatory, eight out of 10 insurance plans for individuals and small businesses did not cover such care. The proposed cuts would have little effect on reducing insurance premiums, and the cost would be shifted to women and their families—who would have to take out private insurance or go on Medicaid (which the proposed bill greatly limits)—or to hospitals, which are required by law to provide maternity care to uninsured mothers.

The bill, in its current form, would also effectively block funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services to 2.4 million women and men. The clinics are already banned from using federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger, in accordance with the federal Hyde Amendment. So the Planned Parenthood cuts would primarily affect routine health services such as gynecological exams, cancer screenings, STD testing and contraception—and these clinics are sometimes the only source for such care. Regardless of which side you are on in the pro-life/pro-choice debate, these attempts to remove access to such basic services should alarm us all.

The Trump administration also has been chipping away at the ACA's birth-control mandate. A proposed regulation leaked in May suggested the White House was working to create an exemption to allow almost any employer to opt out of covering contraception on religious or moral grounds. Nationwide, women are increasingly turning to highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs). The percentage of women aged 15 to 44 using LARCs increased nearly fivefold from 2002 to 2013. Decreased coverage for contraceptives translates to less widespread use and will likely mean more unintended pregnancies and abortions.

And abortions will become harder to obtain. After Roe v. Wade, many states tried to put in place laws to hamstring abortion clinics. These efforts have only ramped up in recent years, as many states have enacted so-called TRAP laws (short for targeted regulation of abortion providers), unnecessarily burdensome regulations that make it very difficult for these clinics to operate. Recognizing this fact, the Supreme Court struck down some of these laws in Texas in 2016, but many are still in place in other states. Rather than making women safer, as proponents claim, these restrictions interfere with their Supreme Court–affirmed right to safely terminate a pregnancy.

Whether or not the repeal-and-replace legislation passes this year, these attacks are part of a larger war on women's health that is not likely to abate anytime soon. We must resist this assault. Never mind “America First”—it's time to put women first.

This article was originally published with the title "End the Assault on Women's Health"

Trump’s 11 Worst Attacks On Women’s Health
MARCH 7, 2018

From restricting women’s access to family planning services to allowing insurance companies to change women more than men for health insurance, the Trump Administration has tirelessly attacked American women’s health. During Protect Women’s Care Week of Action, Americans are demanding an end to President Trump’s war on women’s health.

Here are the top 11 ways Trump is setting American women’s health back:

1. Letting Insurance Companies Charge Women More Than Men: Prior to the Affordable Care Act, 92 percent of plans in the market charged women up to 1.5 times as much as they charged men, in a practice known as gender rating. The Trump Administration is taking us back to the days when women could be charged more. Under the Trump Administration’s recent “short-term” rule, insurers would be able to skirt the ACA’s gender rating provision that banned insurers from charging different rates for men and women.

2. Letting Insurance Companies Charge More For “Pre-existing Conditions” Like Pregnancy & Being A Woman: The Affordable Care Act prevents insurers from denying, dropping, or charging more because of a pre-existing condition like cancer, or even, having a C-section. But, the Trump Administration’s new “short-term” plan rule allows insurers to deny coverage because someone has a pre-existing condition, and will raise costs and jeopardize coverage for nearly 30 million women who have a pre-existing condition.

3. Making Maternity Care More Expensive: Before the Affordable Care Act, 75 percent of non-group plans did not cover delivery and inpatient care for maternity care. The ACA The Trump Administration and its Republican allies continue to advocate for policies, such as short-term and association health plans, that are not required to cover “essential health benefits,” and can thus force women to pay the nearly $20,000 it costs to give birth out of pocket

4. Defunding Planned Parenthood: In January 2018, the Trump Administration announced it would roll back Obama Administration guidance that warned states not to carve Planned Parenthood out of their Medicaid providers, signaling its willingness to place even higher barriers in the way of women’s access to health care

5. Making Women Pay More For Birth Control: The Trump Administration’s proposed rule to let any employer opt out of offering health insurance that covers birth control rolls back the ACA’s guarantee that women may access copay-free contraception.

6. Cutting Medicaid: President Trump’s calls to cut Medicaid put women’s lives and jobs at risk. The Trump Administration’s recent budget slashed Medicaid funding by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. These cuts will jeopardize the care of the nearly 13 million women of reproductive age who rely on Medicaid, including 31 percent of African-American women and 27 percent of Hispanic women in this age group. Moreover, 22.8 percent of women in the workforce are employed in the health industry, meaning their jobs may be at risk as well.

7. Making New Moms Choose Between Working Or Losing Coverage: Almost two-thirds of those who would lose Medicaid coverage as a result of work requirements are women, and disproportionately women of color. This is in part because women are more likely to be caregivers for sick family members and children. Under these rules, a new mom would have 60 days to find health coverage after giving birth or risk their family’s health coverage.

8. Stacking Federal Courts With Anti-Choice Judges: The next generation of American women will face a growing threat posed by an increasingly anti-choice federal judiciary. Twelve of Trump’s judicial nominees were appointed to circuit courts during his first year – more than any other first-year president in American history.

9. Reversing Progress Against Breast Cancer: Republicans’ repeated attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits threaten landmark progress in women’s preventive health. New research finds that the ACA requirement that plans (including Medicare) must cover recommended preventive care without a copay led to a significant increase in the number of women receiving mammography screenings.

10. Cutting Funding For Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs: The administration slashed two years off of five-year grants dedicated to teen pregnancy prevention research, which have already been promised to organizations across the country.

11. Allowing States To Defund Clinics That Offer Abortion Care: Trump signed a bill allowing states to withhold Title X family planning funds from health care providers that offer abortion-related care. Thirteen states used to withhold the Title X money from abortion providers before the Obama administration blocked them. (Because of the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can’t be used to pay for abortions, so the Title X money went to other health services at those clinics.) The legislation allows them to withhold the funds again and redirect them to providers that don’t offer abortion care.

We all understand how political propaganda works. My side is good, the other side is evil. You can Google about all the ways that Obama policies hurt women if you want to see the propaganda from the other side (as we say in Physics, that will be left as an exercise to the reader).

The war metaphor is stupid. Everyone loves a good war... and it is a great way to paint your side as good and the other side as evil. That is the point, right Netptune-- "Republicans are evil".

It does get silly sometimes. For example; how does abstinence hurt women more than it hurts men?

A better question to ask is...

Why is abstinence the only solution to a relationship?

Surprise surprise, a thread on women's issues and some sad git is trying to make it all about him. Like he always bloody does.

Obviously the "other side" is your side of the argument. So, make yourself useful by adding to the discussion your evidence.

Nope. Both sides make this kind of ridiculous political propaganda.

It is nonsense when the right talks about how liberals hate America. It is nonsense when the left talk about the "war on women". I think it is stupid no matter which side is doing it. It isn't an intelligent discussion of the ideas. It isn't any attempt to find common ground or solutions to any problem.

You are saying "Republicans are Evil" and they are saying "Democrats are Evil". Where does that leave us?

So, other than your silly claims, you have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion.
Thanks for wasting my time and everyone else's time with your total complete nonsense.

This is a political propaganda thread. Silly claims is the whole point of this thread starting with the titile.

Since you brought it up, let's remind everyone what is the title of the thread:
We Have A Republican Party Waging A War Against Women And Women's Healthcare.

First of all I believe this to be true.
Second, I presented my evidence of why I believe it to be true.
Third, If you have a disagreement with the trueness of the title of the thread, present your evidence of why.
Fourth, someone stating what they believe to be true and then presenting evidence of why they have that belief is what we should all be doing. I am doing that. Why don't you try doing that? Until then, as usual, you have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation.
Fifth, I guess what you call propaganda is points of views that don't line up with your silly points of view.