According to the Guttmacher Institute, complications from unsafe abortions in the developing world contribute to 47,000 preventable deaths each year. The advocacy organization points out that reducing the number of unsafe abortion procedures worldwide is a public health imperative, since every woman should have the right to make safe reproductive choices for herself without risking her life.

In order to raise awareness about the essential need for safer abortion services, the Guttmacher Institute released a video highlighting the disparity between access to reproductive rights across the globe, as well as the commonalities between women who seek abortions:

In all parts of the world, women have abortions for similar reasons, often for the very same reasons that woman who have access to modern contraception choose to use birth control. Women want to be able to delay having children if they are financially unable to care for a child or additional children, if they are not in a stable relationship with a partner who can help them care for a child, or if they still need to finish their education. But contraception isn’t readily available in many of the countries where women are dying from botched abortion procedures. Guttmacher estimates that about 222 million women in the developing world are trying to avoid pregnancy, but aren’t using a modern form of contraception, putting themselves at risk for an unintended pregnancy and an unsafe abortion.

On the other hand, Guttmacher points out that the legality of abortion — unlike access to contraception — has absolutely no correlation to the abortion rate, since women have abortion procedures regardless of the law. In fact, some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in countries in Latin America and Africa, in places where abortion is highly restricted but where women have many unintended pregnancies because they lack adequate access to contraceptive services. On the other hand, some of the lowest abortion rates are in countries in western Europe, where modern contraceptives are more readily available and where abortion is safe, legal, and accessible.

Expanding access to contraception, rather than restricting abortion, will ultimately save women’s lives. As the video puts it, “It is the basic right of every woman to decide whether and when to have a child without having to put her health or her life at risk. It is time for all countries to make that right a reality.”

Healthcare Finance News flagged a survey today by Medicare Today and KRC Research that found roughly six out of ten seniors describe themselves as “very satisfied” with their prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Another three out of ten characterize themselves as “somewhat satisfied,” for a grand total of 90 percent:

Both categories of satisfaction have been on a relatively steady upward climb since the program’s creation in 2006. Those in the “very satisfied” category jumped by a full 9 percentage points, and among those seniors that have actually received medicines, “very satisfied” increased 11 percentage points. Prior to 2010, there was a gap in coverage colloquially referred to as the “donut hole” that forced seniors to pay all out-of-pocket expenses between certain levels of drug costs. Obamacare closed this gap to help seniors save thousands of dollars on their prescription drugs, although the donut hole will be re-opened if the health care reform law is repealed.

Mitt Romney repeatedly slammed Obamacare during the first presidential debate Wednesday night, asserting that while his own Massachusetts health reform law was an innovative way to insure Americans, Obamacare is an overreach and “government takeover” of health care. Attempting to tack to the center in the final month of the presidential campaign, Romney made a series of contradictory claims about his health care plan in order to make it seem as appealing as possible to voters.

But he repeatedly ran afoul of his own past statements and widely accepted policy realities, cherry-picking the most popular consumer protections that Romneycare shares with Obamacare while appealing to his conservative base and distancing himself from the law as a whole.

Here are six instances when Romney embraced provisions of the law he also promised to repeal:

– First of all, I like the way we did [health reform] in Massachusetts.

– Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

– Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That’s already offered in the private marketplace; you don’t have — have the government mandate that for that to occur.

– And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state.

– The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.

– We’ll put in place the kind of principles that I put in place in my own state and allow each state to craft their own programs to get people insured.

Notice that Romney suggests that his plan will protect consumers by imposing government mandates, and then he proceeds to slam Obamacare for imposing government mandates.

This is not the first time that Romney has held up the consumer protections in his reform law as a potential archetype for the nation, and while he has a lengthy history of heralding Obamacare’s individual mandate as a creative and responsible mechanism for reforming insurance without skyrocketing consumers’ premiums, he has sprinted away from it during his campaign for the presidency.

Romney’s campaign health care plan is different from what he presented during Wednesday’s debate. Under his plan, Romney would transition Medicare from a defined-benefit program into a system of vouchers, block grant Medicaid to the states, and rely on demonstrably inefficient and ineffective policies such as high-risk pools and allowing consumers to purchase coverage across state lines to insure Americans.

October marks National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, advancing the fight to combat one of the most common diseases among women. However, while great strides have been made in the fight against breast cancer, the same is not true for ovarian cancer. From 1998 to 2007, while breast cancer’s mortality rate decreased 2.2 percent, the mortality rate for ovarian cancer fell just 0.8 percent. In fact, mortality rates for ovarian cancer have hardly decreased since the “War on Cancer” was declared 40 years ago.

Over 15,000 women die of ovarian cancer each year, making it the most deadly of gynecologic cancers. Part of the reason mortality rates for ovarian cancer remain fairly static is because the disease is difficult to detect early, since there is nothing equivalent to a mammogram that helps doctors make an early diagnosis, and it is normally not discovered until it has become a real problem. As a result, less than 20 percent of patients are diagnosed when the disease is in an early stage.

Though nothing in President Obama’s landmark health reform law pertains specifically to ovarian cancer, parts of it could help turn some of these sobering statistics around:

• No lifetime caps on treatment. Since Obamacare removes lifetime limits for coverage, women no longer have to worry about their insurance cutting off coverage for their costly ovarian cancer treatments — which usually involve a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, clinical drug trials, and occasionally radiation. Ovarian cancer is the second-most expensive cancer to treat because specialists need to perform surgeries for it, many of the drugs used to combat it are “off-label” (meaning the treatment is not specifically approved by the FDA and insurers may not adequately reimburse patients), and 75 percent of women have a recurrence.
• Clinical trials covered by insurance. Coverage for clinical trials is especially important to women with ovarian cancer because most women have a recurrence and oftentimes develop resistance to initial therapies, making clinical trials more appealing. The largest barrier to participation in clinical studies is cost, and widening access to such trials will likely benefit ovarian cancer patients disproportionately.
• Increased coverage under the Medicaid program. Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid program will have a big impact on ovarian cancer patients. In most states, women with ovarian cancer are not eligible for Medicaid. However, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance estimates the expansion of Medicaid could provide coverage to 2,318 patients, which account for roughly 10 percent of the ovarian cancer population.

Though the Affordable Care Act has proved to be one of the most contentious political issues in recent years, few would disagree these provisions have the potential to vastly improve the way this country treats ovarian cancer. Because many of the law’s provisions will not implemented until 2014, its effects will not be seen for a few years, but the areas where Obamacare attempts to improve the delivery of healthcare could have a big impact on the areas where the treatment of ovarian cancer needs improvement. Politics aside, the future looks promising for ovarian cancer patients.

– Greg Noth

DENVER, Colorado — More than six million young adults now have health insurance because of Obamacare’s new protections. If Mitt Romney wins the presidency and succeeds in his plan to repeal Obamacare, their coverage would be in serious jeopardy.

ThinkProgress asked top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom about what would happen to those young adults who currently have health insurance on their parents’ plan, thanks to Obamacare. “If a state wants to provide that coverage,” Fehrnstrom said, “then they should go ahead and do that.” He did not say what would happen for those not lucky enough to live in such a state, other than to declare he is “optimistic” about their chances of getting coverage.

KEYES: The governor has promised to repeal Obamacare in full, but there are already, for instance, millions of young adults who have received care under its protections. What’s going to happen to those folks if Obamacare is repealed under President Romney?

FEHRNSTROM: Well you’ve heard the Governor speak of his intent to repeal Obamacare because he believes it’s going to act as a wet blanket on the economy. And he would return to the states the power to put in place their own health care solutions. [...] If a state wants to provide that coverage as Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, then they should go ahead and do that.

KEYES: But for states who don’t, the young adults in those states will be left out?

FEHRNSTROM: Well, we’re more optimistic than you are. We think if states are given the ability to once again determine their own health care futures, then they will act to provide coverage.

Watch it:

Of course, states had decades to provide such coverage, and only a handful allowed young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ plans. In states like Arizona, California, and others, no such protections exist at a state level. Several large insurers have pledged to maintain the provision on their own.

Due to the new federal guarantee, however, Obamacare has led to a record drop in the number of young adults who lack health insurance. Those gains could be rolled back without a federal law requiring insurance companies to allow young adults to stay on their parents’ plan.

The Oklahoma State Department of Heath has just announced that it will end its WIC contract with the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliates, effectively cutting off the federal funding that the organization’s clinics rely on to provide health services to low-income women.

The WIC program — which uses federal funds to provide food vouchers to low-income pregnant women, mothers, and young children — has been in partnership with three out of the four Tulsa-area Planned Parenthood clinics for the past 18 years, and the dissolution of the contract may force those clinics to close.The state’s Department of Health did not give a reason for the contract’s termination, saying only that it will not be renewed for “business reasons.”

Jill June, the president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, told the Tulsa World that she believes the decision to end WIC funding to her organization was politically motivated, as anti-choice legislators across the country work to target Planned Parenthood affiliates as a central tactic in their ongoing War on Women:

“We’re going to do whatever we can to preserve our ability to continue to serve these women and children, because we know that’s what they want and we know that we are a very good provider,” [June] said.

The clinics in the Tulsa area have about 3,000 WIC visits a month, a spokesman said. [...]

“I think we deserve some answers, but, more importantly, the women who come to Planned Parenthood, they shouldn’t be caught up in what I fear is a political attack,” June said.

Oklahoma appears to be following in the footsteps of the state of Texas, which cut off funds to Planned Parenthood’s clinics by making the organization ineligible for the Medicaid funding that helps the organization provide services to low-income women. Just as in Texas, Oklahoma’s Planned Parenthood facilities do not actually perform abortions — in fact, they provide critical preventative care like cancer screening and contraceptive services to low-income women who would otherwise be unable to afford that type of care. Politically-motivated attacks on women’s health have already forced at least 50 health clinics in Texas to close, painting a bleak picture of what could be in store for the women living in Oklahoma.