ThinkProgress Logo

Health

NEWS FLASH

Woman Dressed In Giant Birth Control Costume Will Follow Romney On The Campaign Trail | Planned Parenthood’s action fund is sending a costumed package of birth control dubbed “Pillamina” out on the campaign trail to highlight Mitt Romney’s opposition to President Obama’s birth control coverage provision. In a statement introducing Pillamina, Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards noted that her organization wants to emphasize the fact that birth control is “an economic issue for women — period. That’s something that President Obama clearly understands, and that Mitt Romney simply doesn’t.” Romney has said that he opposes requiring insurers to offer birth control coverage without additional co-pays. Image via Planned Parenthood:

NEWS FLASH

Personhood Initiative Fails To Make It Onto The Ballot In Nevada | Anti-choice advocates failed get enough signatures to put a radical constitutional amendment to define life as beginning at conception on the November ballot in Nevada, organizers announced last week. The personhood amendment would have prevented all abortions in the state and even have banned forms of birth control. In December, a Nevada judge rewrote the amendment to make sure voters understood that it could have outlawed birth control. Most Mississippi residents voted against a similar measure last year.

California Puts Initiative To Label Genetically Modified Foods On November Ballot

A California initiative requiring the labeling of genetically modified food will be on the November 6 ballot, state officials announced last week. The initiative requires companies to label food that has been made from genetically modified plants or animals and prohibits them from advertising of such food as “natural.” California Right to Know, the organization fueling the initiative, submitted 971,126 signatures to get the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act on the ballot. According to the organization, the initiative will increase consumer awareness “because consumers have the right to know what’s in our food.”

This year, 20 other states have unsuccessfully tried to pass legislation about labeling for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), so the California initiative would be the first of its kind in the United States. Other countries, including Japan, Australia, China and those in the European Union, already mandate that genetically modified food has to be labeled.

Despite difficulty in passing legislation, polls show that people overwhelmingly support GMO labeling. A 2012 study by the Mellman Group found that 91 percent of voters nationwide want the FDA to require that “foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that.” A similar Zogby report found that “US adults are divided on whether genetically modified foods are safe, but solid majorities are both less likely to buy such foods, and want them clearly labeled.”

And if California’s labeling initiative passes, as Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott explains, the labeling initiative would reverberate nationally throughout the food industry. Product differentiation is costly, and food processors outside of California are likely to apply whatever regulations the state imposes. “If massive food processors like Kraft and Unilever are forced to label essentially all of their products just for the California market, it likely won’t be long before they’re pushing for national labeling—or simply just labeling everything for the national market.”

But opposition to the initiatives has also been powerful. As the New York Times pointed out, the battle over GMO labeling puts consumer groups and organic farmers, who want mandatory labeling, up against conventional farmers, food brands like Kraft, and agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto. It has also added “fuel to a long-simmering debate over the merits of genetically engineered crops, which many scientists and farmers believe could be useful in meeting the world’s rapidly expanding food needs.”

Groups that oppose labeling genetically modified food, who suggest these crops could help meet the world’s growing food demands, say GMOs do not pose a health risk and could be beneficial:

The F.D.A. has said that labeling is generally not necessary because the genetic modification does not materially change the food.

Farmers, food and biotech companies and scientists say that labels might lead consumers to reject genetically modified food — and the technology that created it — without understanding its environmental and economic benefits. A national science advisory organization termed those benefits ‘substantial,’ noting that existing biotech crops have for years let farmers spray fewer or less harmful chemicals, though the emergence of resistant weeds and insects threatens to blunt that effect. [...]

Rather than label food with what consumers might regard as a skull and crossbones, the companies say food producers may ultimately switch to ingredients that are not genetically modified, as they did in Europe.

Regardless, those in favor of the labeling mandate argue that food manufacturers have an obligation to label food that has been genetically modified. For their part, in 2011 the Organic Farming Research Foundation released a report that clearly demonstrated the various economic benefits of the organic food industry, including huge potential economic benefits, offering an alternative to the genetically modified food industry.

Nina Liss-Schultz

Iowa Could Lose $1.8 Billion By Stripping Abortion Funding For Rape And Incest Victims

Forty-one GOP legislators in Iowa have filed a motion with the Iowa Department of Human Services attempting to halt all government-funded abortion services in the state — even in cases of rape or incest. If successful, Iowa would join South Dakota, the only state that currently denies Medicaid funding for abortion services and could lose millions in federal funding:

More than 80,000 women received health care at family planning programs across the state paid for by Medicaid last year, said Planned Parenthood of the Heartland CEO Jill June.

“If (the petitioners) are successful in discontinuing health care for rape victims like this, how will they make up the shortfall that’s been providing other health services for women who depend on it?” June asked. “They need to answer that.”

Iowa already follows the requirements of the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal dollars on abortion services except in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. Further limiting financing for abortion services could jeopardize the state’s federal funding stream.

While Rep. Dawn Pettengill (R), who initiated the petition, said the state will only lose about $4 million in Medicaid dollars if the rule changes, abortion rights activists contend that the state is risking $1.8 billion in annual federal Medicaid funding. This is not the first times Iowa Republicans attempted to restrict spending on abortions. In 2011, Republicans risked federal Medicaid funding by adding an amendment to a $6 billion budget bill that would have eliminated government funding on abortions in the case of rape or incest.

One state should serve as a warning to Iowa Repbuplicans: earlier this year, the Obama administration ended all federal funding of the Texas Women’s Health Program after Texas Republicans decided to block abortion providers from participating the program.

Alex Brown

NEWS FLASH

Over 46 Million Americans Don’t Have Health Insurance | A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that 46.3 million Americans lack health insurance, a statistic that has continued to rise over the last two decades. According to the National Health Interview Survey, the most sobering age group consisted of adults aged 18-64 — 21.3 percent, or 40.7 million individuals did not have health coverage in 2011. The results also pointed to good news in children’s coverage statistics. Only 7 percent were uninsured last year, as opposed to nearly 14 percent in 1997. This change could largely be explained by the increased government-sponsored public coverage for low-income families in recent years. –Angela Guo

VIDEO: ‘Vagina Monologues’ Creator Rebukes Michigan GOP Leaders For Silencing Women

Michigan Democrats Rep. Barb Byrum, Rep. Lisa Brown, and Sen. Rebekah Warren with Eve Ensler (photo via Eclectablog)

Republican leaders in the Michigan House barred two women from speaking on the floor last week after the women spoke out against a GOP-backed bill that would restrict abortion access in the state. One of the women, state Rep. Lisa Brown (D), said during debate about the bill that “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.” A spokesman for the House majority leader accused Brown and Rep. Barb Byrum (D), who was also banned from speaking, of throwing “temper tantrums.”

To fight back against being silenced for saying “vagina” during the debate, Brown participated in a reading of “The Vagina Monologues” at the Michigan capitol yesterday along with Byrum and Eve Ensler, who wrote the play. An estimated 5,000 people gathered for the reading.

To close the night, Ensler gave a speech about how she was “over” the over-regulation and limiting of women’s health options, and she called out the Michigan Republicans who punished Brown for saying “vagina”:

I am over the Michigan state legislature, and any legislature, censoring, rebuking and removing Lisa Brown because they find the word “vagina” contemptible or out of bounds or lacking decorum. My vagina’s got decorum! [...]

I am over brilliant remarks being called “tantrums” and outspoken women being called “crazy” and lacking decorum when they are just smart.

Watch Ensler’s speech (via Progress Michigan):

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up