The MBTA should not allow advertising from crisis pregnancy centers
Posted: February 20, 2012 Filed under: Abortion, Advertising, Health, Health Communication | Tags: Abortion, Boston, CPC, Crisis pregnancy center, Daybreak Inc., Guttmacher Institute, Health, MBTA, Reproductive Health 2 Comments »The MBTA is where you’ll usually find ads for Jamba juice and Jansport backpacks, local research studies, and public health campaigns. Currently, though, much of this highly-coveted space is occupied by ads for Daybreakinc.org, an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center. The ads don’t tell you that Daybreak has an anti-abortion agenda; they claim to offer “compassion,” “empowerment,” “hope,” and most inaccurately, “options.” This is in fact the major criticism of crisis pregnancy centers—that they misrepresent themselves as neutral parties. They are not, and they should not be allowed to advertise their heavily-biased and manipulative services on the MBTA.
The point of a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) is to keep pregnant women from having abortions, often by delaying them with offers of pregnancy tests and ultrasounds until it’s too late. What is truly sinister about CPCs is their use of untrue or misleading information to scare women away from choosing abortion, with false claims such as: abortion causes breast cancer, abortion is psychologically damaging, abortion can lead to sterility, and birth-control pills cause abortion. A 2006 Congressional investigation found that 87 percent of the centers surveyed provided false or misleading medical information.
Daybreak is guilty of this type of misinformation, although they are careful not to appear so on their website. It’s no wonder they are covering their behinds—legal action has been taken against CPCs in a number of states regarding their deceptive advertising in New York, California, Ohio, Missouri, and North Dakota.
According to their website, Daybreak claims to provide “accurate information about pregnancy, fetal development, lifestyle issues, and related concerns” as well as offer “accurate information about abortion procedures and risks.” They say “our advertising and communications are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer.” But when you dig in deeper, you will find a sample if misleading and just plain untrue “facts” on their website:
- Daybreak claims: “[Plan B] It may alter the uterine lining which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, resulting in an early abortion.” (This is wrong—the dissolution of a fertilized egg is NOT “early abortion.”)
- Daybreak claims: “Complications may happen in as many as 1 out of every 100 early abortions,” when according to the Guttmacher Institute, “the risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.”
- Daybreak claims: “Women who have experienced abortion may develop the following symptoms: guilt, grief, anger, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, difficulty bonding with partner or children, eating disorder,” when the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion reported that “the best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.”
- On the particularly appalling “For Men” section of the Daybreak website, they write: “Many women who have had abortions report that they were waiting for their boyfriends/husbands to stop them. Some even say that they sat on the table hoping the father of their baby would ‘rush through the door to rescue me and take me away somewhere safe.’” (Um, citation needed?)
I’m not trying to make the argument that free pregnancy counseling is a bad thing or that the people at Daybreak are “bad” people, but pregnancy counseling, or any counseling for that matter, should be unbiased and informative. No where on the Daybreak MBTA ads are women informed that the the “free pregnancy counseling” is actually anti-abortion counseling, and that is dishonest, manipulative, and ultimately wrong. Women facing unplanned pregnancies need to know all their options, without the implication that one is better than another, and they need real medical information, not the “facts” listed above.
The MBTA is currently under fire for proposed fare increases and service cuts. They may be desperate for funds, but that does not excuse this moral misstep. CPCs are a growing threat to women’s health and the MBTA is the last place Bostonians should be exposed to anti-abortion propaganda.
Quick hit: Shaming fat kids doesn’t solve anything
Posted: January 3, 2012 Filed under: Health, Health Communication | Tags: Childhood obesity, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, fat shame, fat stigma, Georgia, Health, Obesity 1 Comment »According to the Georgia Strong 4 Life childhood obesity campaign website, “Ignoring this problem is what got us here.”
It’s true that childhood obesity is a big problem, but you know what DIDN’T cause the childhood obesity epidemic?
Ignoring the problem.
You know what did?
- Income disparity
- Food deserts
- Fast food advertising
- The whole fast food industry
- Corn subsidies
- Policies like the one declaring that pizza counts as a vegetable in school lunches
- Lack of safe outdoor play space for inner city kids
- Video games
- Lack of funding for physical education
- Poverty
You know what this ad does?
Help families alleviate/prevent childhood obesity- Blame this kid for being a fatty fat.
Know what blaming kids for being fat does?
Makes them lose weight- Encourages a culture of fat stigma and fat shaming that fuels bullying
- Increases negative psychological, emotional, and health outcomes among overweight and obese children, such as low self-esteem, body image disturbance, eating disorders, and even suicide.
Way to go, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.
Well intentioned Facebook meme misses the point
Posted: July 1, 2011 Filed under: Abortion, Bodies, Feminism, Health, Teen Pregnancy | Tags: Body image, bully, Facebook, Health, Obesity, Stereotype, Violence and Abuse, Youth 4 Comments »A 15 year old girl holds hands with her 1 year old son. People call her a slut. No-one knows she was raped at 13. People call a girl fat. No-one knows she has a serious disease which causes her to be over weight. People call an old man ugly. No-one knows he had a serious injury to his face while fighting for our country in the war. Re post this if you are against bullying and stereotyping. 95% of you won’t
I keep seeing this Facebook status meme pop up from time to time, and every time, it makes me angry. Sure, I’m against bullying and stereotyping (is anyone really pro bullying and stereotyping?) but I don’t at all agree with the message here.
Sure, it’s important not to assume that all teen mothers became mothers by choice. It’s important not to assume that every teen mother became pregnant through consensual sex or irresponsible behavior. Yes, it’s important to understand and recognize that some pregnancies are the result of rapes, and that some young women are forced to carry their babies to term because of shitty barriers to contraception, Plan B, and abortion access. Maybe she was forced to carry the baby to term because of parental notification laws, or the crowds of anti-Choice protesters outside her local Planned Parenthood, or even simply because abortion is too stigmatizing or incompatible with her family’s beliefs or culture to consider.
But even if a teenage girl did become pregnant through consensual sex – even if she was irresponsible – even if she had consensual, unprotected sex with multiple partners – she still doesn’t deserve to be called a slut. Nobody deserves to be called a slut, ever, for any reason. Because there’s nothing wrong with having sex. Even when you’re young. Even when you’re not married. Even if it’s with multiple partners.
Sure, it’s important to realize that there are a myriad of different reasons why a person might become overweight. It could be the result of an illness, or a medication, or a genetic condition and no fault of her own. But it could also be a result of an eating disorder, or stress eating, or poverty, or a lack of education about nutrition. It could be because she’s too busy working 14 hours a day to shop at a grocery store and prepare healthy meals. It could also be because she loves food and doesn’t really care if she conforms to the unrealistic American beauty ideal of the size 2 supermodel. She might be happy with her body exactly how it is.
But no one deserves to be discriminated against or bullied for being fat, ever, for any reason. Even if their weight appears unhealthy, even if they just fucking love to eat hamburgers. Because fat people deserve respect, even if they’re fat because they’re lazy, even if they’re unhealthy. Because people come in all different shapes and sizes, for all sorts of reasons. Because there’s no wrong way to have a body. And because someone else’s weight is really none of your business.
Yes, it’s important to realize that sometimes people look different and sometimes they were injured while serving our country. But sometimes people look different because they were injured for some other reason. Maybe it was a car accident. Maybe it was a drunken hang-gliding accident. Maybe there was an accident at work because of lax safety standards. Maybe it wasn’t an injury, but an illness, or a condition that developed over time, or maybe they were just born that way. Maybe there’s nothing wrong with a person’s face other than the fact that it doesn’t look like the faces we see in magazines. Maybe it’s not a person’s face, but their body. Maybe they use a wheelchair or a cane. Maybe they sound different when they speak. Maybe they cannot speak, or cannot hear, or cannot see. No one deserves to be called ugly, no matter what they look like or sound like or how they came to be that way.
Though I can recognize that the meme is well-intentioned, it suggests that while some people don’t deserve to be bullied or stereotyped, other people do. Because they “brought it on themselves” by acting irresponsibly or just because they don’t have a “good excuse” for being the way they are. But nobody deserves to be stereotyped or bullied, for any reason.
When someone falls outside the norm, they become a target for bullying and stereotyping just because they’re different. And everyone is different at least some of the time. There’s no point to trying to determine who “deserves it” and who doesn’t. Because bullying and stereotyping is cruelty, and no one ever deserves that.
So if 95% of people aren’t reposting this status meme, let’s hope it’s because they agree that EVERY 15 year old mother, EVERY overweight person, and EVERY person who’s body is in some way “different,” deserves our respect and compassion.
Too big for a stroller?
Posted: May 9, 2011 Filed under: Bodies, Health | Tags: Baby transport, Childhood obesity, Health, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Obesity, Tumblr 3 Comments »
Today I discovered Walk, a new Tumblr site sharing photos of kids in strollers who are too old to be using strollers. The sentiment behind the site seems to be that kids who are old enough to walk should walk. The friend who posted it on Facebook wrote “Seriously, if your kid can walk without falling, your kid should walk without falling.” I can see how some might be annoyed by the sight of 7-11 year old squeezed into a stroller, but Walk is perhaps saying more than was intended.
As I looked through the photos, I couldn’t help but notice that a fair few of the kids in strollers were overweight. Considering that childhood obesity is a growing problem in the U.S., this may not be coincidence. According to the CDC, rates of childhood obesity have more than tripled in the past 30 years. The prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 6.5% in 1980 to 19.6% in 2008. Childhood obesity is a serious problem because it sets kids up for a lifetime of chronic illness and health issues. It also makes kids more susceptible to bullying and fat-shaming from their peers and society at large. While the causes of childhood obesity are multifaceted and complex, one is undoubtedly a lack of physical activity.
I strongly believe that when it comes to obesity, it is unfair to put all the blame on the individual. Our society promotes and condones unhealthy eating and sedentary lifestyles in a number of ways: the fast food industry, an economy based on office jobs, car-based societies, corn subsidies, food deserts, etc. For those who are low-income, a healthy lifestyle is almost impossible considering the lack of access to safe public recreation spaces, lack of leisure time, and high costs of fresh, healthy foods.
Perhaps another way that our culture unknowingly reinforces unhealthy behaviors is through “stroller culture.” Now, I’m not saying that there’s anything inherently bad about strollers (like Maggie Gyllenhaal‘s character in Away We Go), but that perhaps we use them too often and for too long. Looking at some of the images on Walk, it seems that might be the case. What are we teaching our school-aged children when we don’t expect them to walk alongside us? If anything, we’re reinforcing the idea that walking from the parking lot to the store is an imposition, or that physical activity is separate from the experience of living every day – something we only experience at the gym or playing sports.
My mother came out to Boston to visit on Mother’s Day. We were heading from my apartment in “Camberville” into the city, and I suggested that we could avoid the 18 minute walk to the T stop by taking a bus. She gave me a lecture on how walking was part of the urban experience and part of a healthy lifestyle. At age 25, is my mom still pushing me out of the stroller?
I’m wary that Tumblr sites like this can often become places for fat-shaming (like People of Walmart) and I would hate for this to happen with Walk. Still, it is a reminder that walking is part of a healthy lifestyle for kids as well as adults.
Crying is not sexy. In related news, bad health journalism makes me cry.
Posted: January 11, 2011 Filed under: Bodies, Dating, Feminism, Gender, Health 7 Comments »
A new study out of Israel suggests that women’s tears serve a “chemosignaling function” that result in reduced sexual arousal and testosterone levels in males.
Here is the abstract of the study:
Emotional tearing is a poorly understood behavior that is considered uniquely human. In mice, tears serve as a chemosignal. We therefore hypothesized that human tears may similarly serve a chemosignaling function. We found that merely sniffing negative-emotion–related odorless tears obtained from women donors, induced reductions in sexual appeal attributed by men to pictures of women’s faces. Moreover, after sniffing such tears, men experienced reduced self-rated sexual arousal, reduced physiological measures of arousal, and reduced levels of testosterone. Finally, functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed that sniffing women’s tears selectively reduced activity in brain-substrates of sexual arousal in men.
Here is the headline on MSNBC.com:
Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying chicks aren’t sexy.
I’m sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
The basic finding in the study – that emotional human tears are a turn off – should not actually be that shocking. (Perhaps a better headline should have been: Science supports common sense.) What is shocking is the ridiculously sexist and sensationalist coverage of the study by MSNBC and a number of other news sources. The Ms. blog has a great roundup of this coverage, and while I don’t want to repeat all their points here, I am going to take a few choice sentences and read between the lines.
Here’s the ending of the MSNBC article:
Other researchers also have detected proteins associated with emotions: They’ve found dopamine and serotonin in tears, as well as prolactin, the desire-squelching hormone that spikes right after a man ejaculates and sends him running to watch SportsCenter rather than sticking around to cuddle.
Bottom line, ladies? If you’re looking for arousal, don’t turn on the waterworks.
Assumptions made/stereotypes reinforced: Men watch sports; men don’t like to cuddle after sex; everyone is heterosexual; women cry all the time for no reason.
Here is one from “Women’s tears kill men’s sex drive” in the Times of India:
They say tears are woman’s best arsenal–and they probably are–for they are powerful enough to dampen a man’s sexual arousal, according to a new study.
Assumptions made/stereotypes reinforced: There is a “war” between the sexes; women are constantly fighting men’s sexual advances; women do not want sex; man’s sexual arousal is a powerful force.
Here’s one from “The crying game: a woman’s tears aren’t sexy” in Ars Technica:
Finally, scientists have confirmed what men have known for ages: crying women are a turnoff….
While this study should make guys feel better about being turned off when their lady cries, the women out there should remember that you—and your tears—are actually the ones in charge here.
Assumptions made/stereotypes reinforced: Again, there is a “war” between the sexes; the status quo for women is that they should be a turn-on for men; the status quo for men is that they should be turned-on by women; women can only gain control via manipulating men with their emotions.
When I first got wind of this, the big question on my mind was this: why were they only studying the effect of women’s tears on men? What about woman to woman, man to woman, or man to man crying? This is the sort of thing a health reporter should do: ask questions. Be critical. The only one who asked that question – or any question, for that matter – was the New York Times:
The researchers are currently studying men’s emotional tears, so the scientific implications of, say, the weeping of the new House speaker, John A. Boehner, remain an open question. But Dr. Sobel said he believed that men’s tears would also turn out to transmit chemical signals, perhaps serving to reduce aggression in other men.
Dr. Sobel said the researchers started with women because when they advertised for “volunteers who can cry with ease,” they could not find men who were “good criers,” readily able to fill collection vials. Fortunately, he said, “we have a male crier now.”
But not even the New York Times could resist the tantalizing allure of a witty, sexist headline:
In Women’s Tears, a Chemical That Says, ‘Not Tonight, Dear’
The more I study health communication, the more I realize just how pathetic, lazy, sensationalist, and socially abhorrent most health reporting really is. I’d cry about it, but that wouldn’t be sexy.
“Emotional Eating” is more than just emotional
Posted: December 10, 2010 Filed under: Health | Tags: emotional eating, Health, lifestyle, Mental health, Sleep deprivation, snacking, Symptom 4 Comments »
In addition to working full time, I study health communication. You know, how people communicate about their health, how we can better bridge the communication between healthcare providers and everyone else, and how we can use communications to educate and motivate people to live healthier lives. For a class assignment, I was given the charge of making a “lifestyle transformation challenge.” I had to pick a behavior I wanted to change and track my progress towards making it a long-term lifestyle change. The point of this was to gain a full understanding of just how hard making a lifestyle transformation really is – an important thing to know if you are trying to convince others to do it.
So what behavior did I decide to change? I’m a snacker. A big one. I feel most comfortable when I am eating something. My favorite foods are ones that you can eat over a long period of time – foods like artichokes or tacos that are more of a hobby kit than an actual meal. I don’t have much of a sweet tooth, but I certainly have a salt tooth. Anything I can munch mindlessly while watching tv, writing or studying is a-okay by me. Anything with cheese is even better.
My lifestyle transformation challenge was to try to cut back on snacking, especially at night. I came up with what I thought was a really creative way to do it – nothing like any diet plan I had ever seen. I would give myself an hour-long window to eat dinner, and that would be it for the night. I would not count calories or stress about what I ate for dinner, as long as I ate it within the hour window and didn’t nosh afterwards. I thought this would be easy.
Long story short: I failed to transform my lifestyle and stop snacking in the evening. But the good news, I suppose, is in what I learned along the way. During this challenge, I read Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, a powerful book about my generation’s relationship to achievement, perfectionism, and food, by Courtney Martin. I had of course heard of “emotional eating” prior to reading the book, but had never realized what it really meant or considered my snacking habits to fall under that category.
I have come to really hate the term “emotional eating” and all that it conjures up. The idea that millions of women are crying into a bowls of ice cream or “eating their feelings” is a myth. It’s a myth with plenty of moral stigma attached – weakness, gluttony, failure, loneliness. (Cat ladies? Cathy comics?) The reality is that when stressed, depressed, tired, etc., one is more likely to consume more calories for a number of reasons that are much more complicated than just “eating your feelings.”
In Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, Courtney Martin described a “perfect girl/starving daughter” dichotomy in each of us, and while I’m sure her book resonated more with some than others, it was so true to my own experience that I now consider it gospel. You see, girls of my generation were raised by feminist moms– moms that told us that girls could be or do anything. These were also moms that managed (somehow) to work and raise us and take care of the home at the same time. They were “supermoms” and we grew up observing their busy schedules and overachiever lifestyles. And we became overachievers. We are breaking barriers in the sciences, outnumbering men in colleges, playing competitive sports, and we still look beautiful and feminine and thin. We don’t sleep much because all of this takes time. We are Martin’s “perfect girls.”
But we are also “starving daughters” – weak, needy girls who are tired and lonely and just want to be cuddled, looked after, and loved. There is a hole in our center – you could call it spiritual, you could call it psychological – that wants to be filled with love and comfort. Every now and then the break-neck pace of overachieverdom overwhelms us and the “starving daughter” comes out. I can literally hear mine repeating the phrase “I am just so tired” or “I am NOT okay” over and over in my head. These are the days we spend on the couch, watching TV and feeling weepy. And for many of us, these are the days we eat – consciously or not – in an attempt to fill that hole. Thanks to Courtney Martin, I am now able to recognize my starving daughter self for what she is – my own body telling me I’m putting too much pressure on myself. She’s telling me that I don’t need another resume-builder; I need comfort, rest and love.
But there are other ways to look at the issue of “emotional eating.” From a more medicalized perspective, there is a strong correlation between obesity and stress, depression, and sleep deprivation. And let’s remember that according to medicine, stress and depression and sleep deprivation are legitimate medical ailments with diagnoses, treatments – the whole shebang. Overeating is a symptom of these diseases. Eating is soothing, and therefore a quick and dirty method for coping with anxiety or stress. Not to mention the fact that busy (and often stressed) people don’t have a lot of time for grocery shopping or meal prep, and often grab less-healthy foods on the fly. Sometimes their only option is a vending machine. And when you need energy NOW, your choices will reflect that with sugar, caffeine, and carbs. With depression comes apathy and the need to self-soothe. Again, these symptoms make it more likely that one will eat to soothe, and will care less about what they are eating so long as it is satisfying (warm, filling, sweet, salty, etc).
And finally, sleep deprivation is a huge factor in so-called “emotional” eating. For one, if you’re awake for 19 hours a day, you’re likely to consume more calories than someone who is only awake for 16. Also, sleep has a big effect on your metabolism and the way you process food. Sleep deprivation can actually cause you to gain weight, or make it harder to lose weight. Also, sleep deprivation makes us tired – and contributes to anxiety and depression, for which we often use food to cope. I am not going to lie. The more I learn, the more I realize sleep deprivation is a big part of my problem.
I now understand that the reason my lifestyle transformation failed was that I was trying to treat a symptom instead of the disease. I was trying to stop snacking when I should have been addressing the reasons why I snack. Working full time and being a full time student was just too much for me. I was stressed out and living with more anxiety than usual. And I had physical symptoms too – particularly a sore neck that some days hurt so badly I couldn’t turn my head. I wasn’t sleeping much, and homework kept me from spending as much time with my friends – the people who give me love. I also gave up exercise (the great stress-reducer) partly because I didn’t have the time, but also because I didn’t have the energy. I also didn’t have time or energy to go grocery shopping or cook. All of these things were factors in my snacking. There were physical factors, mental factors, and environmental factors contributing to my low level of health, for which snacking was a coping mechanism. Taking away my coping mechanism without making any other changes simply wasn’t going to work.
The irony in all of this is that I have been studying health all semester. I began this semester as a “perfect girl,” pushing myself to do it all because working full time while I was in school was a smart career move and the financially responsible thing to do. I made it about halfway through the semester before the “starving daughter” took over. But during this difficult time, I managed to learn some things.
There are a lot of messages out there that tell us that success and achievement are more important than happiness, or even one’s health. Those are the messages I pretty much bought into, and despite my new-found perspective, I still have trouble challenging them. After all, we are a nation of workaholics that tends to view illness as weakness, and obesity as failure. Even though we often view medicalization as a bad thing, this is one of those times that medicalizing an issue can actually be helpful in overcoming the moral stigma attached to it. And as Courtney Martin showed us, sociology – looking at “emotional eating” on a society-wide level – can also be a tool for overcoming stigma.
Now that the semester is finally coming to a close, I am committed to making a real lifestyle transformation: the decision to drop to working part-time. While my “perfect girl” cringes at my laziness and self-indulgence, my “starving daughter” is hopeful. With the extra 16 hours a week, I will be able to sleep more, exercise more, and get to the grocery store before it closes. I will be able to see my friends on weekends. Surely it will be a financial hit and probably not the smartest career move, but it is a real step towards reaching balance and achieving mind/body health. It is my hope that by treating the real problem, some of the symptoms – like snacking – will clear up on their own.
We’re coming to vaccinate your children: the moral case for compulsory HPV vaccination
Posted: November 24, 2010 Filed under: Health, Health Communication, Sexuality, STDs, Teens | Tags: American Journal of Public Health, Cancer, Cervical cancer, HPV vaccine, Human papillomavirus, Sexually transmitted disease, Vaccination Leave a comment »
Are there moral grounds for compulsory HPV vaccination? Joseph E. Balog, PhD, MSHYG, certainly thinks so. In an article in the April 2009 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, Balog concludes that compulsory HPV vaccination is not only morally justified, it’s a social justice issue.
Some are opposed to compulsory HPV vaccination because they are concerned that vaccinating teens for an STI could be seen as condoning or encouraging sexual activity, undermining abstinence messages and providing a false sense of security about protection from STIs. The scientific community is also skeptical of compulsory vaccination, arguing that the mortality rates of cervical cancer are too low to be considered an “imminent harm” and that the benefits might not outweigh the financial costs, as well as the costs to individual liberty.
Balog argues the “rightness” or “wrongness” of compulsory HPV vaccination should be determined by key ethical principles: whether vaccination would reduce harm to individuals and society, and whether vaccination would produce benefits that are at least as good as the alternatives for prevention of death and disease.
HPV meets the standards for compulsory vaccination
In addressing the concern that mortality rates of cervical cancer are too low to be considered an “imminent harm,” Balog argues that HPV still meets the precedent set by other diseases for which we mandate vaccination, such as polio and measles. The risk of a fatal outcome from HPV is relatively low, but it is still comprable to that of polio or measles. The HPV vaccine fits comfortably within the precedent already set for compulsory vaccination.
Eradicating disease trumps the preservation of social ideas
Balog rightly points out that the conservative folks who oppose HPV vaccination because they believe it might promote sexual behavior are more concerned with upholding moral values than they are with preventing real, physical harm. From a public health perspective, prevention of harm is the first priority, especially considering the fact that the types of prevention offered as alternatives to vaccination (abstinence) have been been studied and proven to be ineffective. As Balog argues, it would be wrong to deny teens a real solution in order to uphold a symbolic ideal.
A child’s human rights override parental rights
The law generally respects and protects parental rights over their children. But when it comes to the health and safety of the child, the state may sometimes step in. When it comes to child vaccinations, the state generally upholds the child’s right to healthcare. Since the health threat of HPV affects the child directly and the parent only indirectly, the right of the child to receive the vaccine outweighs parental autonomy. We don’t often think of it this way, but from Balog’s point of view, access to preventative healthcare, like vaccination, is a human right. Of course, any compulsory vaccination program must follow the legal precedent that includes the right of states to allow individuals with medical, religious, and philosophical objections to opt-out. A compulsory HPV vaccine would, of course, include these exceptions.
Compulsory vaccination is a social justice issue
I’m not sure if you’ve seen the ads for Gardasil (the first HPV vaccine on the market), but they are clearly directed to white, middle class women. The reality is, however, that there are huge racial and economic inequalities in rates of cervical cancer and cervical cancer screenings. In the US, incidence of cervical cancer is 50% higher among African American women and 66% higher in Latina women than in white women. While they have the greatest risk, these groups are the least likely to receive cervical cancer screenings (PAP smears) and are also the least likely to get vaccinated. A voluntary vaccination program does not guarantee universal access; the vaccine is prohibitively expensive without health insurance coverage. Public health professionals understand that mandates are not only the most effective way to ensure that the disadvantaged women have access to the vaccine, but also the most effective means of protecting these women from cervical cancer.
Just like children faced the threat of polio in the 1950s, our adolescents are in need of protection against HPV and the array of cancers it can cause. Withholding that protection is unethical, and supporting abstinence as an alternative is both unrealistic and ineffective. But making the HPV vaccine available on a voluntary basis is not enough. It is only with a compulsory vaccination program that all adolescents, regardless of their parent’s values, race, socio-economic background or insurance status, will have real access to the vaccine. Then, and only then, will cervical cancer prevention reach the groups that really need it.
New beginnings, new directions
Posted: September 8, 2010 Filed under: Health, Health Communication, Jewiness | Tags: body policing, emerson, ethical issues, health communication, rosh hashanah 4 Comments »Today is Rosh Hashanah which means that all of us Jews are celebrating the beginning of a new year. (5771? But I was just getting used to writing 5770! Har, har.) Today is also the day I begin my MA program in Health Communication at Emerson College (in partnership with Tufts University). And you can bet pretty soon, I’m going to be even more obsessed with health issues than I already am.
A lot of people ask me what health communication is and at this point I am starting to feel like I can give them a relatively accurate answer. Health communication is essentially communications tailored for the health field – more specifically, the study of creating and disseminating messages that will be effective in getting people to change their behavior – to quit smoking, wash their hands, eat more fruits and veggies, etc. I was attracted to this field because I already work and enjoy working in communications, and I wanted to mix that together with my interest in sexual health and healthy sexuality. Basically, I chose this program because I wanted to learn how to effectively communicate a few messages in particular, like “use a condom,” and “no seriously, just use a freaking condom!”
I’m pretty sure this program was a match made in heaven because I just got the syllabus for my first class and my first assignment is to pick an illness and analyze how it is perceived in our culture. I am so excited; that’s like my hobby. I’m pretty sure I’m already halfway through a video about just that. I know I’m a huge nerd, but I can’t wait to sit down and learn some theory and some skills to create effective health messaging and save the world, one sexually active teenager at a time. But, of course, I can already tell that it’s not going to be that simple.
Today a couple posts on Feministe caught my eye. The first is from former-Feministe blogger Zuzu, and is about fat and health, and succinctly states near the beginning: “Feminists typically agree that body policing is a bad bit of business, correct?” She then goes on to argue that being overweight does not necessarily mean someone is unhealthy, and that “There’s no Duty of Health”:
“Health” seems to be a codeword these days. It’s something to throw around when you get busted as a fat-hater: “I’m just concerned about your health!”
Well, let’s talk about health. First off, why is any individual obligated to be healthy in order to be accorded all the rights and dignity accorded to all human beings? What is this, “Starship Troopers,” with health substituted for military service? If you argue that fat people don’t “deserve” certain rights because in your judgment they aren’t “healthy,” then how do you feel about disabled people and their rights? If your argument is that the disabled can’t help it and fat is a choice, do you make the same argument for religious discrimination? Because religion is a choice, too.
The second is about slut-shaming, and hits on another feminist bulwark - “My body, my business.” And this ties closely into the pro-Choice “My body, my choice” philosophy too. The author illustrates this nicely:
Clearly, there is some conflict between the feminist approach to bodies and healthcare and the health communications goal of getting individuals to make healthier choices. It assumes that there is an objectively “healthier” choice, and also places the burden on the individual to be responsible for his or her own health. Zuzu wrote:
I’ve written about this before, and it ties into the whole good fattie/bad fattie defensiveness thing, but whenever we start focusing on the health of the individual, we erase the systemic problems that contribute to health issues. This is a perfect example of the personal being political.
Institutions love to shift the burden onto the individual, because it means the institution doesn’t have to examine its own behavior or its own contribution to a problem. Let’s look at bullying. States and schools love to have zero-tolerance policies so they can look like they’re being tough on bullying — but then when bullying incidents happen, they just don’t define it as bullying, and suggest that the victim change his or her behavior. Problem solved!
It’s really tricky.
The personal responsibility issue relates pretty directly to what we were discussing here earlier about safer sex, where I argued that the most effective way to prevent STD transmission was to emphasize personal responsibility in sex education and health messaging. But we do have to be careful not to ignore the social structures and institutions that make it difficult to make healthy choices, and perhaps the ethical route is to work towards changing those institutions and systems as well as changing individual behavior.
It’s also problematic to assume that we all agree on what “healthy choices” are. I am a believer in western medicine, but even doctors and scientists don’t always agree on what’s healthy. (Coffee? Having a glass of wine while pregnant? Hormone therapy?) So who am I to tell other people how to live their lives?
On the flip side, health is one of those things that as a society, we feel is important. And so there is some context for health messaging and health education being generally accepted as a positive thing. But there are ethical potholes to be wary of, and I’m definitely going to have them on my mind as I enter this program.
As we enter into this New Year, I plan to keep blogging on sexual health issues. I am excited to see how my new program will influence and inform my thoughts. I am also terrified to see how I will manage full time school and a full time job and my own health in the midst of the stress and chaos – and still find time to blog. It’s going to be a hell of a ride folks, I hope you come along with me.
Now, here’s a sex study that makes sense
Posted: August 31, 2010 Filed under: Gender, Health, Health Communication, Sex Education, Sexuality, STDs 1 Comment »After a dubious study from The Heritage Foundation nearly drove a friend of mine to insanity, it’s nice to see some conclusions based on actual research that account for and acknowledge socio-economic forces at work. In this study, researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (UK) analyzed data from 59 countries. They conclude that sexual health strategies must go beyond individual risk reduction and address social and economic determinants of behavior. (They also use funny spellings like “analyse” and “behaviour.”) (I’m allowed to make jokes because I lived there, ok? Sheesh.)
Here is the first part:
The analysis revealed the huge regional variation in sexual behaviour but also showed that there has been less change in behaviour over the past two decades than was thought:
- There is no universal trend towards sex at a younger age. However, a shift towards later marriage in most countries has led to an increase in premarital sex, more so in developed countries and for men. Sexual activity in single people tends to be sporadic.
- Most people are married (or live together in partnerships) and most sex happens in stable partnerships. Marriage does however not always safeguard sexual health.
- Monogamy is the dominant pattern everywhere, but having had two or more sexual partners in the last year is more common for men and in industrialised countries.
- Condom use has increased almost everywhere, but rates remain low in many developing countries.
- School-based sex education improves awareness of risk and ways to reduce it. It increases the intention to practise safer sex and delays rather than hastens the onset of sexual activity.
So, contrary to certain bio-determinist beliefs, it seems as though we aren’t experiencing an “unprecedented rise in casual sex.” No universal trend towards sex at a younger age, either! Instead of looking at rates of “sex outside of wedlock” as evidence of moral decay, this study uses social logic to explain how premarital sex has increased while people aren’t having sex any younger: delay of marriage. And hey, they found that sex education actually “increases the intention to practise safer sex and delays rather than hastens the onset of sexual activity.” (We knew that, but it bears repeating!)
Regional variations in sexual behaviour do not correlate with sexual health status. Higher rates of partner change in industrialised countries are offset by higher levels of condom use and better access to treatment results in better health. The authors explored the main reasons for the variations:
- Some of the variations can be explained by demographic and structural changes. The age structure and ratio of men to women in a population can limit or extend opportunities to form new partnerships.
- There is a striking gender difference in sexual behaviour. Multiple partnerships are more common for men than for women. This is in line with a double standard in most societies that makes non-exclusive relationships more acceptable for men than for women.
- Poverty, deprivation and unemployment work with gender inequity to promote partner change, multiple partners and unprotected sex.
Let’s talk about that “striking gender difference.” At first glance you might see this as support for the bio-determinist argument that men are just less monogamous and/or can’t keep it in their pants. But not so! The authors make sure to first of all use the word “gender” and not “sex” to imply that this is not a XY/XX distinction, but a man/woman, “gender-as-a-social-construct” distinction. They point out, rightly so, that the data correlates with the double standard in most societies that makes non-exclusive relationships more acceptable for men than women (aka the “player” v. “slut” double standard). They also point to the influences of poverty, deprivation and unemployment on promoting partner change, multiple partners, and unprotected sex.
The authors highlight the need to base interventions on evidence rather than myths or moral stances. Approaches focusing exclusively on expectation of individual behaviour change are unlikely to produce substantial improvements in sexual health. Comprehensive multi-level behavioural interventions are needed that reflect the social context. These should attempt to modify social norms and tackle the structural factors that contribute to risky behaviour. Examples include mainstreaming HIV and sexual health in development projects; empowering sex workers through business and IT training; and integrating sexual health education into microfinance schemes. However, the success of these strategies requires decision-makers to accept the reality of sexual practices.
Wow. I have shivers. Can we just read that again?
The authors highlight the need to base interventions on evidence rather than myths or moral stances. Damn straight!
Approaches focusing exclusively on expectation of individual behaviour change are unlikely to produce substantial improvements in sexual health. Comprehensive multi-level behavioural interventions are needed that reflect the social context. Amen!
These should attempt to modify social norms and tackle the structural factors that contribute to risky behaviour. Examples include mainstreaming HIV and sexual health in development projects; empowering sex workers through business and IT training; and integrating sexual health education into microfinance schemes. HELL YES!
However, the success of these strategies requires decision-makers to accept the reality of sexual practices. BAM.
And then, just when you thought this couldn’t get any better? They list and link to their sources and give an explanation of who funded the research. And guess what? It’s academic! Not a lobby group!
It’s work like this that gets me excited to begin my MA in Health Communications at Emerson next week. There is such a need for information about sexual health that serves not to moralize or control, but to actually reduce the spread of STDs based on the reality of sexual behavior and the social forces that influence it.


I’ve been doing some readings for my course in health communication and I have been thinking about the idea of medicalization – how it has changed how we think about our bodies, health, and its implications for health communicators and educators.

