Cleveland, U.S.A. — After 10 years of debate regarding the risks and benefits of hormone therapy, 15 top medical organizations have come together to issue a statement of agreement regarding the benefits of hormone therapy for symptomatic menopausal women. It was July 9, 2002, when the controversial, highly publicized Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) published its assessment of hormone therapy for the prevention of chronic disease and concluded that risks exceeded benefits.

The new joint statement, prepared by The North American Menopause Society (NAMS), the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and The Endocrine Society, concludes that hormone therapy is still an acceptable treatment for menopausal symptoms. This statement has been endorsed by 12 other leading organizations in women’s health.

The purpose of this statement is to reassure women and their providers that hormone therapy is acceptable and relatively safe for healthy, symptomatic, recently postmenopausal women. Over the last 10 years, there has been a complete abandonment of hormone therapy in some settings accompanied by reluctance to treat women who would benefit from relief of their symptoms. As a result, some women have sought unproven alternative therapies.

“We want to emphasize the difference between taking hormone therapy short-term for treatment of menopausal symptoms versus taking hormone therapy for prevention of chronic diseases. Many women can safely take hormone therapy for relief of menopausal symptoms when they work closely with their provider to assess their personal risks and benefits,” said Dr. Margery Gass, Executive Director of NAMS. “Women and clinicians have been frustrated by the many conflicting recommendations over the past 10 years. This statement should be reassuring to all.”

Roger Lobo, MD, Past President of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine added, “Physicians can help patients determine, based on their own particular characteristics and history, whether or not they are good candidates for hormone therapy and what type of HT will provide them the greatest relief at the lowest risk. A decade of research and analysis has shown us that the generalized conclusions of the WHI do not apply to younger women at the beginning of the menopausal transition.”

“The results of the WHI and the conflicting reports that followed led many women to believe hormone therapy may not be a safe treatment for menopausal symptoms,” said Janet E. Hall, MD, immediate Past President of The Endocrine Society. “We want women to know that there are options out there for relief of their menopausal symptoms. The level of risk depends on the individual, her health history, age, and the number of years since her menopause began.”

When it comes to the safety and effectiveness of hormone therapy, one commonly heard lament is, “Even the experts don’t agree.” This statement was prepared to address this misperception by presenting evidence-based key concepts about hormone therapy to assist women and their clinicians in making informed decisions about use of hormone therapy when appropriate.

Major points of agreement among the societies include:

• Hormone therapy is an acceptable option for the relatively young (up to age 59 or within 10 years of menopause) and healthy women who are bothered by moderate to severe menopausal symptoms. Individualization is key in the decision to use hormone therapy.
• If women have only vaginal dryness or discomfort with intercourse, the preferred treatments are low doses of vaginal estrogen.
• Women who still have a uterus need to take a progestogen (progesterone or a similar product) along with the estrogen to prevent cancer of the uterus. Women who have had their uterus removed can take estrogen alone.
• Both estrogen therapy and estrogen with progestogen therapy increase the risk of blood clots in the legs and lungs, similar to birth control pills, patches, and rings. Although the risks of blood clots and stroke increase with either type of hormone therapy, the risk is rare in women ages 50-59.
• An increased risk in breast cancer is seen with 5 or more years of continuous estrogen with progestogen therapy, possibly earlier. The risk decreases after hormone therapy is stopped.

The statement is being published in the journals of The North American Menopause Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and The Endocrine Society and has been endorsed by the Academy of Women’s Health, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Asociacion Mexicana para el Estudio del Climaterio, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Society for the Study of Reproduction, the Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists of Canada, and the SIGMA Canadian Menopause Society.

The article Researchers Agree Hormone Therapy for Menopause Is Safe appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

During a recent investigation carried out for BBC World Service and Radio 4, Natalia Antelava gathered direct evidence of what seems to be a state-run secret program of forced sterilization in Uzbekistan. Uzbek women victims of sterilization and doctors gave their own account to the BBC journalist, uncovering the details of this absurd secret policy pursued by the ex-Soviet state.

Bakhor, a 32-year-old Uzbek woman, said that for some months after she gave birth to her second baby she “kept bleeding heavy black lumps, and the pain was unbearable.” She understood something was wrong, but she could not imagine what it was. Then, when she was able to afford an ultrasound check, the shocking news was unveiled. She had had a hysterectomy during the cesarean section. The doctor explained to her, “You don’t have a uterus anymore” and added “What do you need more children for? You already have two.”

The same thing happened to Adolat. She always dreamed of having four children, but after her second daughter she realized she could not get pregnant. When she consulted a doctor, she found out she had been sterilized during the cesarean section when giving birth to her daughter.

“I was shocked. I cried and asked: ‘But why? How could they do this?’ The doctor said, ‘That’s the law in Uzbekistan,’” she said. Nigora, 24, is another victim. She had an emergency cesarean section, and the day after, her baby died. She was also told she was sterilized, and now she will not be able to have children.

These are just some of the hundreds of stories of the victims who have been surgically sterilized without their knowledge or consent under the Uzbek regime’s abominable policy. It is very likely that the majority of these stories will remain obscure and that most of the victims are still unaware of what happened to them, especially those in the rural areas.

The first reports of forced sterilization cases in Uzbekistan emerged in 2005, when the pathologist Gulbakhor Turaeva gathered evidence of around 200 uterus removals. This practice became a state policy only in 2009, although it seems to have originated in the late ’90s. Instead of promoting contraceptive methods, the government adopted forced sterilization and reproductive organs removal as a means of birth control and to curb fertility.

President Islam Karimov introduced the surgical contraception policy under presidential decree PP-1096 called “On additional measures to protect the health of the mother and child, the formation of a healthy generation.” The Ministry of Health argues that the sterilization program is intended to control the country’s growing population and, also, that it is carried out only on a voluntary basis, with the consent of both parents and after specialist consultation. The government strongly denies allegations of forced mass sterilization and says it has “nothing to do with reality.”

Nevertheless, doctors and medical professionals who were interviewed stated the opposite. They said that over the last few years, the number of cesarean sections has dramatically increased in relation to the practice of sterilization. Cesarean birth “makes it very easy to perform sterilization and tie the fallopian tubes,” said an Uzbek surgeon at a hospital near Tashkent.

There is an official directive not to let the birth rate rise above a certain figure, and doctors have a quota for the women to sterilize each month. There is a plan for each district health department, and doctors are ordered to persuade women and convince them about sterilization procedures.

“On paper, sterilizations should be voluntary, but women don’t really get a choice,” stated a doctor. “It’s very easy to manipulate a woman, especially if she is poor. You can say that her health will suffer if she has more children. You can tell her that sterilization is best for her. Or you can just do the operation.”

The doctors who fail to reach their quota risk reprisal and fines, so because of this, they often opt for sterilization during cesarean sections. Under the pressure of a dictatorial government, doctors become party to an abhorrent crime of which women are the victims, being unconsciously mutilated and slaughtered like animals.

While the world keeps a deafening silence, and Western countries pretend not to care for lurking interests and economic ties, you can take action, and sign the petition of Avaaz  to call U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to publicly condemn Uzbekistan’s forced sterilization and human rights violation. It is time to break the silence.

The article Uzbekistan’s Forced Sterilization Secret Program appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Mitt Romney’s Republican rivals have called him a weak candidate. Their motives are purely political, and wrong, but they’ve got the label right.

Romney’s constant backpedaling on issues he once supported, like universal health care, has given the impression of a man without a center. The most recent episode came during an interview with an Ohio news network in which Romney said he did not support a bill sponsored by Missouri Senator Roy Blunt that would allow employers to deny coverage of their employees contraceptive care on religious grounds. The bill was in response to an Obama administration mandate that employers pay for their employees’ birth control needs.

Romney said, correctly, that the presidential primaries needed to be about bigger things than birth control. “I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there,” was his response to the question.

But later that same day, Romney reversed his position. During an interview with a reporter for the Boston Herald, Romney said he had “always” supported the bill. When questioned about the sudden change, his aids claimed that he had misunderstood the earlier question. Transcripts of the Ohio interview clearly show that the reporter had accurately described the bill and the reasoning behind it.

Romney’s flip flops on controversial issues to appease conservative voters have become so commonplace that they’re no longer front page news. But a few days later, on the same question of employer support for employee birth control costs, Romney took another nose dive which could, and should, come back to haunt him if he manages to actually win the Republican nomination.

In response to a Georgetown Law School student, Sandra Fluke, who had testified before Congress that employers should pay for their workers’ contraceptive care, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Worse, Limbaugh suggested that Fluke should post videos of herself having sex on YouTube, “…so we can all watch.”

When a reporter asked Romney to comment on Limbaugh’s rant, how did the Republican frontrunner and would-be leader of the American people respond?

“Not the words I would have used,” said Romney.

That almost sounds as if Romney agrees with Limbaugh’s deeply offensive comments. He would have just used less colorful language. Or does Romney believe, as is probably the case, that women who testify before the US Congress should not be subjected to vile, personal attacks by conservative media celebrities?

We’ll never know what Romney actually thinks about Limbaugh’s comments, and that’s not okay. Romney’s defenders point out that Limbaugh is just a right wing radio shock jock whose job is to sell advertising by vilifying Democrats, liberals, intellectuals, and all others who disagree with his angry, narrow world view. He’s not a politician or presidential contender, so it made no sense for Romney to take him on.

But Limbaugh is also one of the most influential opinion leaders of the Republican party. Romney should have had the courage to clearly and unequivocally condemn Limbaugh’s comments. He might have alienated ultraconservative voters who enjoy Limbaugh’s witless drivel, but he would have demonstrated to millions of American women, Democrats and Republicans, who were deeply offended by Limbaugh’s sexist comments that he has the backbone to do the right thing when necessary. Instead, Romney wimped out by uttering the most neutral, noncommittal comment his staffers could concoct.

If Romney can’t put politics aside for one moment and stand up to a bully like Limbaugh, who will he stand up to? He may be the best choice among the three remaining Republican contenders, but so far Romney has shown little of the leadership and judgment necessary for the office he aspires to.

Image Courtesy of  Gage Skidmore

The article Romney’s Feeble Response to Limbaugh A Sign of Weakness appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), the national coalition of religious denominations and groups dedicated to reproductive justice, launched a national campaign to demonstrate the widespread support for expanded access to birth control and contraception among people of faith.

The campaign – “I’m a Fan of Birth Control” – involves hundreds of clergy and religious leaders and activists of all faiths in public awareness and educational programs about the importance of birth control as preventive health care for women.

“The Catholic hierarchy and some religious extremist groups have turned the inclusion of contraception coverage in the health care law into a public battle about their ‘religious freedom.’ The opposite is the case. They are using religion as a cover to discriminate against women,” said Reverend Alethea Smith-Withers of the RCRC Board of Directors.

“While we respect that there are differing religious views on contraception, the fact is that religiously affiliated employers that are objecting to covering birth control in their health plans are publicly funded, serve the public, and employ people of all faiths. They must comply with the law,” she said. Strictly religious institutions such as churches that exist to inculcate religious faith are already exempt from this law.

Denominations with official positions and statements favoring the use of contraception and birth control include The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism. Excerpts of denominational statements are available on the RCRC website at www.rcrc.org.

RCRC’s position on contraceptive coverage is that access to birth control should be a priority for all society and should be covered by health plans and insurers as preventive care. The decision to become pregnant and have children is one of the most important decisions couples and individuals can make. Full access to birth control, without co-pays or other obstacles, is a key factor in enabling women to reach their potential and in building strong families.

Access to contraception helps to protect the health of women and children, reduce child and spousal abuse, prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, and treat serious medical conditions such as endometriosis. As an organization dedicated to justice, RCRC believes that society has the responsibility to create the economic, social and cultural conditions that support all members of society and to provide generously for children’s health, education and well-being.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, founded in 1973, is an interfaith coalition of religious denominations and religiously affiliated organizations, theologians, clergy and seminarians, grass roots advocates, and youth on campuses across the country.

The article I’m a Fan of Birth Control Campaign to Support Contraception appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In the world of politics, there is nothing better than an opponent that shoots themselves in the foot. Hence, President Obama is having a much better time currently, than he should be.

Unemployment is still high and the debt is astronomical. Gas prices are high and rising and many of the President’s foreign policy accomplishments are footnotes because of Syria, Iran, and he’s continued throwing of Israel under the bus. But, none of that matters as much, because for the last three weeks the topic of choice has been the controversy regarding birth control and the President’s healthcare mandates.

If this is new to you, here are the bullet points. The Affordable Care Act that President Obama passed, mandates preventative medical care at no cost to anyone. No co-pays, no deductibles. Included in the preventive care list is coverage for birth control pills, the morning after pill, and elective sterilization procedures. Most company insurance plans already provide coverage for birth control, but now it must be covered for no co-pay.

The morning after pills and the sterilization surgeries would be at no cost as well. However, the Catholic Church does not believe in birth control and want waivers for having to provide coverage to employees of their schools and nonprofit organizations. The President refused, and the Republicans had an issue right up their wheelhouse.

So for the last two weeks, Republicans have been chopping at the bit regarding the infringement on religious rights by the President and the President has not been hurt by the debate because all that Americans hear are Republicans railing against birth control pills.  Except, that is not what they are upset about. The issue is that the government should not be trying to make religious organizations do things against their religious beliefs. The real problem however is that the Republicans have again allowed the Democrats to frame the issue.

Most women in the country, 98%, have used birth control pills. Though it is easy to make people who fight against the mandate sound as though they are against birth control, that is not the real issue. The real issue is one of personal responsibility. If you are a woman reading this, or a man that is discussing this with a woman, you need to ask yourself: “Why I should have to pay for your birth control pills?”

That is the real issue. No one disputes that women should be able to get birth control pills, if she wants them. But, why should they be free? Whether a woman uses them is a personal choice, but at what point did we start thinking that other people are required to pay for your choices?

Food is more important than sex, should others pay for your groceries as well? Sterilization surgeries are elective, so it makes equally little sense to not let the person electing to do it, pay for it. I believe there is no difference between that and a woman getting a breast implant. Should we pay for them as well?

This is not only the more effective line of attack, but it is also the more understandable. Not only should the religious employers not have to pay for a woman’s birth control, but also neither should anyone else.

Republicans have allowed themselves to again get distracted by a social issue that does not win the election or overall opinion polls.  If they focused on the personal responsibility aspect of this issue, they would be winning the debate. Because even women could disagree to pay for the decisions that other women make.

This is a classic case of what is right: arguing against the infringement on religious rights, versus being effective in arguing that it is wrong to make others pay for the elective decisions that individuals make in their own lives. If the Republicans continue to make this mistake, not only will they lose the election, but the U.S. will take an even closer step toward a society in which personal responsibility is absent from all areas of life.

Image Courtesy of    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Republicans Dropping Ball on Birth Control Debate appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The U.S. Senate urgently needs to support legislation that would apply longstanding federal law on conscience protection to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), said the chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

In a February 15 letter to all Senators, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston explained how the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” (S. 1476) is especially needed since a new mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will force almost all health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including drugs that can cause an early abortion, and sterilizations. Even many religious organizations will not be exempt from the mandate.

This rule, Cardinal DiNardo noted, was finalized on February 10. On the same day the White House announced it would develop a mechanism for applying the rule to non-exempt religious employers, claiming it would shift costs for contraceptive coverage to insurers.

“It is little or no comfort that, rather than being forced to propose such coverage, religious organizations will simply have it imposed on them,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “The argument that they will not really have to subsidize the coverage, because insurers will offer it ‘free of charge,’ runs up against the reality that this coverage will be integrated into their overall health plan, and subsidized with the premiums paid by employer and employee for that plan.”

He added: “The Administration’s rule makes no provision for the rights of insurers, even religiously affiliated insurers, but places responsibility for enforcing the mandate more squarely than ever on their shoulders. This is a radical departure from current law, under which a health plan that excludes contraception can be sold even to federal employees if the carrier has any religious objection to such coverage.”

Cardinal DiNardo outlined the scope of the proposed Senate bill, noting that it does not support discriminatory decisions to withhold basic coverage, does not free anyone from responsibilities under other state or federal laws, and does not allow anyone to deny coverage for high-cost treatments using morality and religion as a pretext.

Cardinal DiNardo explained what the bill does achieve: “It states that the new lists of mandated benefits for private health plans created under PPACA will not forbid those who provide, sponsor and purchase health coverage to negotiate a health plan that is consistent with the religious beliefs and moral convictions of those involved.”  Thus, he said, “it simply ensures that new requirements under PPACA are not used to take away a freedom of conscience that Americans have enjoyed under federal law until now.”

“If the needless dispute over this issue were resolved through this legislation, Congress and the Administration could return to the most pressing of all the real problems – the fact that many millions of Americans still lack basic coverage for health care that supports and sustains life,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “Let us begin the task by respecting each other’s values that call so many of us to work for life-affirming health care for all in the first place.”

The article Cardinal Urges Senate Support of ‘Respect for Rights of Conscience Act’ appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement: The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare.

That is why we raised two serious objections to the “preventive services” regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans—nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease.Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage.

We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

The President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

• It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.
• It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider.
• Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected.

And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

The article Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The so-called “personhood amendment” that aims to criminalize abortion by granting rights to unborn fetuses, was rejected by the voters of Mississippi with more than 55% against according to official results.

The vote has pressed the heated issue of abortion to the frontline ahead of the 2012 general elections. Initiative 26 would have recognized embryos in the Bible Belt as “people with full rights and protection under the law” including making abortion illegal and forbidding certain forms of birth control measures, according to AFP — an amendment which would even override cases of rape, incest and medical situations where the pregnant woman would be at risk.

The organization behind the legislation, Personhood USA, is based in Colorado and have been pushing for their initiative to be on the 2012 ballot for Florida, Montana, Ohio, Nevada and California, wrote NPR.org. One of the co-founders, Keith Mason, commented on the groups failure on Tuesday: “ It’s not because the people are not pro-life. It’s because Planned Parenthood put a lot of misconceptions and lies in front of folks and created a lot of confusion.”

Meanwhile, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Nancy Northup has called ’26’ an “extreme, dangerous and direct assault” on abortion rights. AFP reports that the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy has been law in the US since the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade.

One supporter, Regina Madison, told reporters outside the Jackson polling station “This is the first step for a national fight: abortion would not be legal in this country.”

In a statement by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, they said:

Mississippi voters rejected the so-called ‘personhood’ amendment because they understood it is government gone too far, and would have allowed government to have control over personal decisions that should be left up to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith, including keeping a woman with a life-threatening pregnancy from getting the care she needs, and criminalizing everything from abortion to common forms of birth control such as the pill and the IUD.

Felicia Brown-Williams from the Mississippi for Healthy Families Campaign told the CNN, “I think voters rejected a measure they understood to be dangerous [...] They really tried to manipulate values around faith and family.”

Despite the rejection, the supporters of Personhood USA are adamant to continue their cause. “We accomplished our mission to be a voice for the voiceless who have no one else speaking for them,” said Mason to CNN. “I want to make a commitment that we will stand with Mississippi until all humans are treated as persons.”

The article ‘Personhood’ Initiative 26 Rejected in Mississippi appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Department of Health and Human Service issued a nearly unanimous recommendation about birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act last week. The panel stated that birth control should be covered 100 percent by insurers to an outcry of opposition from different facets. Some groups condemn the guidelines because it might include the controversial morning after pill.

The Catholics for Choice organization opposes the fact that the guidelines exempt certain religious organizations from having to cover birth control. Some companies worry that the expanded coverage will equal more expensive insurance policies.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) expressed his own outrage of the plan on Monday.  He stated that offering free birth control could mean the end of the entire species.  Speaking on the House floor, King stated:

We have people that are single, we have people that are past reproductive age, we have priests that are celibate. All of them, paying insurance premiums that cover contraceptives so that somebody else doesn’t have to pay the full fare of that? And they’ve called it Preventative medicine.

Well if you applied that preventative medicine universally what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not— that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization.

King also called the new guidelines “bizarre” and “Orwellian.”

“Now none of us would have health to worry about if they prevented us,” he said, “would we, Mr. Speaker?”

That is what insurance is though. We all pay for other people’s treatment.  By King’s logic, I shouldn’t have to pay for overweight smokers with heart disease either. We really need some sort of intelligence test before an elected official can be sworn in. And a far more pressing problem to humanity is global warming which King and his GOP colleagues ignore every chance they get.

The new guidelines were recommended by the panel of experts at the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine. The guidelines will ensure that all health insurance companies fully cover a range of preventative health services for women, including contraceptives, cancer screenings, breast-feeding supplies and HIV testing.

A recent poll states that 77 percent of American voters believe that insurers should cover the cost of contraceptives without co-pays.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.facebook.com/SteveKingIA

The article Rep. King Worries Free Birth Control Could Kill Humans appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A panel of medical experts recommended that all insurance plans be legally required to provide birth control for free, marking a huge advancement for women’s rights. The Obama Administration commissioned the non-partisan Institute of Medicine (IOM) to recommend what preventative health services should be fully covered by health insurance.

Along with birth control, the IOM reports suggested that HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment be paid for by insurers.

Women’s rights groups were excited by the report. “As someone who has worked on women’s rights for nearly 30 years, I can say that today’s news marks one of the biggest advances for women’s health in a generation,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Currently, nearly one in three women finds it difficult to pay for birth control, and that’s why the United States has a far higher unintended-pregnancy rate than other industrialized countries. Making family-planning services available at no cost will help millions of women prevent unintended pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortion.”

Keenan added she was “confident that the Obama administration will adopt the IOM’s science-based recommendation and thus make affordability of contraception a reality for all women.”

The report by the IOM stated that nearly half of pregnancies in 2001 were unintended. The report noted that women who have unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care, smoke, drink alcohol, experience depression and live with domestic violence during a pregnancy. A recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and advocacy group, estimates that unintended pregnancies cost $11.1 billion dollars each year.

Anti-abortion rights and anti-contraception groups are calling for the Obama Administration to reject the IOM’s recommendations because they believe that some emergency contraceptives function as “abortion pills.”

“This is a question of whether the government should mandate every health plan to cover these drugs free of cost,” said Jeanne Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity. “Whatever one’s position is on the issues of contraceptives, abortifacients and such, it does not matter whether proponents of such drugs do not care about the effect on human embryos.

The point is that many Americans do care, and many religious health plans would care, and that they should not be forced to violate their conscience.

This morality crap has gone too far. Really, birth control is bad now too??? I think every insurance plan already pays for a portion of birth control so I don’t really get the debate.

The article Birth Control May Soon Be Free Under Your Insurance Plan appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.