Intrauterine device (IUD)

The study finds that the pill is significantly less effective at preventing pregnancy than long-lasting contraceptive methods such as the intrauterine device (IUD), building on earlier research that has drawn the same conclusion. In fact, women using IUDs or implants were a staggering 20 times less likely to get pregnant than women who used shorter contraceptive methods like the pill.

Yet few women in the U.S. currently use this type of contraception because IUDs are often very expensive — with co-pays costing hundreds of dollars — and rarely covered by insurance plans. As the study’s lead author, Dr. Brooke Winner, told Reuters:

Nationally, only about 5 percent are using long-lasting methods like IUDs and implants. We know one of the barriers to why they’re not using them more frequently is up-front costs. If [more] women were using these products nationally, there would be a very significant drop in unintended pregnancies, which would have far-reaching effects.

Although the birth control pill is the most commonly used contraceptive in the U.S., its effectiveness diminishes when women miss any of their daily pills or struggle to fill their monthly prescriptions on time. So if IUDs are significantly more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill, doctors ought to be encouraging more women to use them. As another one of the study’s authors points out, “If there were a drug for cancer, heart disease or diabetes that was 20 times more effective we would recommend it first.”

Fortunately, President Obama’s new birth control regulation that expands access to birth control may help both doctors and women address this issue. Because the new policy would eliminate co-pays for contraceptives, IUDs would become a viable option for the women who currently can’t afford them — and, as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, removing cost barriers to contraceptive services greatly increases the number of women who choose to use the most effective methods.

Out of 178 nations, the U.S. is one of three that does not offer paid maternity leave benefits, let alone paid leave for fathers, which more than 50 of these nations offer. Here’s how the U.S. stacks up to 14 other countries:

In comparison, Canada and Norway offer generous benefits that can be shared between the father and mother, France offers about four months, and even Mexico and Pakistan are among the nations offer 12 weeks paid leave for mothers.

American women are offered 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which exempts companies with fewer than 50 paid employees, but in 2011, only 11 percent of private sector workers and 17 percent of public workers reported that they had access to paid maternity leave through their employer. And for first-time mothers, only about half can take paid leave when they give birth.

At the same time that working women in the U.S. lack a benefit widely available across the globe, almost 50 percent of families had two working parents in 2010, and 26 percent of households were headed by single parents. Without guaranteed paid maternity leave, many of these working women face significant financial hardship by having to choose between their paycheck and their families.

Women are forced to put their careers and financial future at risk simply because they want to have children. During their pregnancy, they face being fired unfairly or not being able to properly care for themselves. They should not have to worry about making ends meet without paid maternity leave on top of that.

Adam Peck contributed to this report.

Our guest bloggers are Jessica Arons, director of the women’s health and rights program, and Lucy Panza, CAP policy analyst.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare.” This landmark piece of legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama drastically reforms the way health insurance works in our country. Below, we outline 10 reasons why women in America have so much riding on the Supreme Court’s decision:

1. Obamacare guarantees coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing. Preventive care promotes health and saves money. Yet many preventive care services are out of women’s reach due to high co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance. More than 50 percent of women have delayed seeking medical care due to cost, and one-third of women report forgoing basic necessities to pay for health care. But under the health reform law, insurers are now required to cover recommended preventive services such as mammograms, Pap smears, and well-baby care without cost sharing. More than 45 million women have already taken advantage of these services. And starting this August more services, including contraception, gestational diabetes screening, and breastfeeding supports, will be added to the list of preventive care that must be covered at no additional cost.

2. Maternity care will be required in new insurance plans. Coverage for maternity care—health care that only women need—is routinely excluded in the individual insurance market. Only 12 percent of plans sold in the individual market even offer maternity coverage, which is frequently inadequate because of waiting periods or deductibles that can be as high as the cost of the birth itself. But once Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014, about 8.7 million women will have guaranteed access to maternity care in all new individual and small group plans.

3. Women will no longer be denied insurance coverage for gender-related reasons. In today’s insurance market, it is common for insurers to refuse to cover women because of gender-based “pre-existing conditions,” such as having had a Cesarean section or being the victim of domestic violence or sexual assault. Thankfully, this practice will be outlawed under Obamacare in 2014. In the meantime, adults with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months can purchase affordable coverage through temporary Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans.

4. Women will no longer be charged more for their insurance coverage just for being women. Under a practice known as “gender rating,” insurers currently charge women higher premiums than men for identical health benefits. As a result, women now pay $1 billion more than men each year for the same health plans in the individual market. As of 2014, however, under the Affordable Care Act, gender rating will become illegal in all new individual and small group plans.

5. Women have more control over their health care. Already, women no longer need a referral to see their obstetrician-gynecologist thanks to Obamacare. And they get to choose their primary care physician and their child’s pediatrician from their plan’s list of participating providers.
Read more

Fire fighters respond to Wednesday's clinic fire. (Source: wsbtv.com)

Clinic workers believe the fire started on the third floor. They said two unknown men went upstairs and left shortly afterward, minutes before the fire was discovered.

“We have patients here. They’re under anesthesia. This could have been life-threatening,” employee Angela Buckner told Channel 2’s Ross Cavitt.

On Sunday, a fire was reported at another clinic in Gwinnett County. In addition to the recent fires, women’s health clinics reported break-ins and stolen computer equipment in March after the Georgia legislature approved a restrictive bill preventing abortions after 20 weeks. Clinic workers said the thefts were attempts to intimidate doctors who perform abortions and fought against the bill. “They’re treating us like terrorists,” Richard Zane, whose Atlanta Women’s Health Center was burglarized, told a local Patch site.

Gov. Nathan Deal signed the 20-week ban, which has no exemption for cases of rape or incest, into law earlier this month.

President Obama declared this week as women’s health week, and though we too often hear about the attacks on women’s health, it seems like a good time to think about the positive measures in Congress — be them very few — to protect women’s health.

Believe it or not, Congress does have a few bills out there that are protections of women’s health, instead of attacks on it. So here are the top three bills in Congress aimed at protecting women’s health:

– The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act aims to protect pregnant workers from discrimination in the workplace by ensuring that their employers cannot deny them necessities to their prenatal health. Mothers-to-be sometimes need a water bottle or a stool to sit on, particularly as they near their delivery date or if they have any complications with their pregnancy. Yet women have been fired to trying to access these necessities on the job. The bill, introduced by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA) and George Miller (D-CA), requires employers to meet these needs.

– The Violence Against Women Act has been hotly debated in both the House and Senate, but at its core, it is a bill meant to safeguard women’s health. Unfortunately, rape and assault are a part of the health care that many women receive in their lives — roughly one in six women is sexually assaulted, and one in four experience domestic violence. VAWA protects victims of domestic violence so that incidents occur less frequently, but it also sets up rapid response for when those incidents do occur.

– The Protecting Women’s Access to Health Care Act is a Republican response to all of the attacks on Planned Parenthood. Introduced by Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL), the bill seeks to ensure that Planned Parenthood can not be denied funding under Title X, Congress’s family planning funding. Dold said, “We should not discriminate against hospitals and organizations that provide access to basic, preventative, and in some cases life-saving services.”

Aside from these legislative efforts, President Obama’s contraceptive mandate requires that employers provide contraception to their employees — an important step for improving women’s health and access to health care. So there is some good news for women’s health, with Democrats and some Republicans supporting legislation in favor of women’s interests. Now the nation will have to wait and see if Congress agrees to pass these measures.

Our guest blogger is Jessica Arons, director of the women’s health and rights program at the Center for American Progress. Cross-posted from RH Reality Check.

People always say good health is the greatest gift, so let’s make health a priority this Mother’s Day. Now that I am a mother myself, I am even more appreciative that I have health insurance that covers the care I need. All moms deserve the kind of quality, affordable care that I was lucky enough to receive while pregnant and postpartum, and Obamacare is working to make that dream a reality.

While pregnant, what did I need the most—that is, besides a foot massage? Maternity care, of course. My prenatal visits reassured me that my pregnancy was progressing as it should and my insurance allowed me to use the provider of my choosing, labor in the setting I wanted, and get the emergency care I ultimately needed. Unfortunately, only 12 percent of plans in the individual health insurance market currently offer maternity coverage. Thankfully, starting in 2014, Obamacare will require all new health plans to cover maternity care as the essential health service that it is.

Needing an emergency C-section was the first sign that I was no longer calling the shots. It’s fine if my son has his own plans, but not the insurance industry. Insurers currently can deny women coverage for specific health services or entire plans due to gender-related “pre-existing conditions” such as Cesarean sections, breast cancer, domestic violence, and sexual assault. The idea that my surgery could disqualify me from obtaining coverage on the open insurance market is both absurd and deeply offensive. But this discriminatory practice becomes illegal under Obamacare in 2014.

After my son was born, my pediatrician’s office began to feel like a second home with the amount of time I had to spend there his first year. I am lucky enough to have a low co-pay that I can afford, but for far too many families those co-pays are not just a minor inconvenience. Obamacare ensures that families can afford to bring their children in for vaccinations and other routine visits by eliminating cost sharing, such as co-pays or deductibles, for well-baby and well-child care.
Read more

In continuing attacks on women’s access to abortion services, states have considered banning “tele-med” abortions by requiring a doctor to be present when a woman takes abortion-inducing medication or requiring women to meet their doctors face to face. Planned Parenthood clinics in Wisconsin even have stopped providing abortions via medication entirely after lawmakers approved a restrictive law that makes incredibly difficult to continue the practice.

But a new study shows that the extra in-person face time Wisconsin law now requires doctors to spend with their patients is unnecessary. The research found that there was no difference between patients who called the clinic for their follow-up and those who went to the clinic, according to MedPage Today:

“Women choosing phone follow-up are not more likely to experience complications or be lost to follow-up,” she said in her oral presentation. “Phone follow-up is feasible for medical abortion and can assess the need for further in-person follow-up.”

Samberg said medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol has been shown to be safe and effective up to 63 days of gestation. The typical management requires a transvaginal ultrasound one week later and two to three office visits. A pilot study in 2010 showed that a phone follow-up of women undergoing medical abortion was feasible, and that 64% of the women did not require follow-up visits, she noted.

These findings follow a 2011 study proving that telemedicine is a safe and effective way to provide medication abortion services, particularly in rural areas. But despite scientific proof backing up the practice, Republican state legislators have pushed to stop the practice and limit women’s access to abortion care.

Yesterday, Congress took up legislation that could significantly impact women’s health — and no, it doesn’t limit contraception or force anything into their vaginas.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act aims to protect pregnant women in the workplace from common discrimination — not being allowed to carry a water bottle, for example — that threatens their health and stops them from being productive employees, or from working altogether.

Introduced by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA) and George Miller (D-CA), the bill would “ensure that pregnant women are not forced out of jobs unnecessarily or denied reasonable job modifications that would allow them to continue working,” according to a media advisory:

Currently, pregnant working women around the country are being denied simple adjustments – permission to use a stool while working a cash register or to carry a bottle of water to stay hydrated or temporary reassignment to lighter duty tasks – that would keep them working and supporting their families while maintaining healthy pregnancies. [...]

In recent and startling examples, a retail worker in Salina, Kansas was fired because she needed to carry a water bottle to stay hydrated and prevent bladder infections; an activity director at a nursing home in Valparaiso, Indiana was terminated because she required help with some physically strenuous aspects of her job to prevent having another miscarriage; and a delivery truck driver in Landover, Maryland was forced out on unpaid leave because she had a lifting restriction and was denied light duty.

The simple protections offered in the bill are modeled (PDF) on the Americans with Disabilities Act, under which women are not covered because pregnancy is a temporary condition (and not a disability). Existing bills protect certain rights — Title VII protects a woman from being fired because she is pregnant and the Family and Medical Leave Act establishes minimum paid maternity leave — but this bill addresses specific on-the-job discrimination against a woman who is currently pregnant.

U.S. maternity policy are significantly worse than other comparable developed countries — nearly half of working mothers end up missing paychecks because of a lack of paid maternity leave. This bill would be a good first step toward fixing a system that doesn’t work for America’s mothers, but it is just one step in a long road toward fair policies for expecting mothers.