Health care for pregnant women often fails to follow established guidelines, contributing to high rates of interventions like induced labor and caesarean sections, according to a survey released on Thursday by Childbirth Connection and featured in Consumer Reports.

Unnecessary Interventions Common in Maternity Care, Survey Finds

May 9, 2013 — Health care for pregnant women often fails to follow established guidelines, contributing to high rates of interventions like induced labor and caesarean sections, according to a survey released on Thursday by Childbirth Connection and featured in Consumer Reports.

The survey of 2,400 women who had recently given birth found that 41% of women had their labor induced, for reasons such as concerns that the fetus was too large or because the due date had passed. However, research indicates that neither of these reasons by itself typically merits an induction. Additionally, nearly 25% of women who were induced cited pressure from their health care provider to undergo the procedure.

Another troubling finding was that nearly half of women who had previously delivered via c-section wanted to deliver their next child vaginally but were either denied the possibility by their doctor (24%) or the hospital (15%), according to Consumer Reports. Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists encourage women to attempt vaginal deliveries after c-sections, and research indicates potential dangers of multiple c-section births.

The survey highlighted several other findings in pregnancy and maternal care. It found that about half of women who intended to exclusively breastfeed experienced practices that undermined the process. Six months after giving birth, fewer than one-third of women were exclusively breastfeeding, the survey noted.

Additionally, the survey found that many women felt reluctant to ask questions because they thought their providers were rushed, they didn't want to be perceived as difficult or they disagreed with a provider's recommendations.

Maureen Corry, executive director of Childbirth Connection, said, "Our survey suggests that pregnant women need to take a more active role to make sure they get the care that is best for themselves and their babies." She added that pregnant women "need access to trustworthy information about the benefits and harms of interventions, to educate themselves, and be their own advocate" (Keehn, Consumer Reports, 5/8).

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers has reintroduced legislation (HR 1830, S 865) that would create a commission aimed at curing breast cancer by 2020, The Hill's "Floor Action Blog" reports.

House, Senate Lawmakers Introduce Bill Seeking To Cure Breast Cancer by 2020

May 9, 2013 — A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers has reintroduced legislation (HR 1830, S 865) that would create a commission aimed at curing breast cancer by 2020, The Hill's "Floor Action Blog" reports.

The bills -- sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in the Senate and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) in the House -- would form the Commission to Accelerate the End of Breast Cancer. CAEBC would be charged with identifying promising research, developing public-private partnerships and finding other collaborative opportunities to craft treatment and prevention strategies (Kasperowicz, "Floor Action Blog," The Hill, 5/7).

Each year, the panel would be required to report its findings to Congress, the White House and the public (Viebeck, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 5/7). The legislation calls for $8 million to fund the commission in the first year, $12 million for the following two years and "such sums as may be necessary" for each fiscal year thereafter.

In a statement on Tuesday, Whitehouse said, "Breast cancer continues to affect too many of our mothers, wives, sisters, and friends," adding, "This bill sets an ambitious goal of ending breast cancer by 2020, and will help drive our efforts to put an end to this tragic disease."

Last year, a similar bill failed to advance in both the House and Senate ("Floor Action Blog," The Hill, 5/7).

A federal appeals court on Friday approved the Obama administration's request to drop its appeal of a ruling that granted a preliminary injunction to the owners of a Christian publishing company who oppose the federal contraceptive coverage rules, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

Obama Administration Drops Appeal of Publisher's Contraceptive Coverage Case

May 9, 2013 — A federal appeals court on Friday approved the Obama administration's request to drop its appeal of a ruling that granted a preliminary injunction to the owners of a Christian publishing company who oppose the federal contraceptive coverage rules, the Christian Science Monitor reports (Richey, Christian Science Monitor, 5/6).

Tyndale House Publishers filed a lawsuit against HHS, the Treasury Department and the Labor Department on Oct. 2 -- one day after the company was required to offer contraceptive coverage to its 260 full-time employees. Specifically, Tyndale's owners object to covering emergency contraception and intrauterine devices, which they consider equivalent to abortion.

The lawsuit stated that the company has been denied a "religious employer" accommodation because HHS maintains that any for-profit company does not qualify as a religious entity. According to court filings, Tyndale is an incorporated business that is owned by Tyndale House Foundation, a not-for-profit that "receives 96.5% of all of Tyndale's distributed profits."

In November, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted Tyndale the preliminary injunction. Walton ruled that the contraceptive coverage requirement "substantially burdens" the company's religious beliefs by imposing "considerable" penalties for noncompliance. The federal government in January filed an appeal to the ruling (Women's Health Policy Report, 1/16).

Appeal Dismissal

The administration in April asked the judge to dismiss the appeal because another religious challenge to the contraceptive coverage rules already was before a separate three-judge appeals court panel in Washington, D.C.

Tyndale House objected to the dismissal, but the government argued that "[n]o statute or rule permits a prevailing party to require that an enjoined party pursue" an appeal.

Matt Bowman -- an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Tyndale House -- called the administration's move a "retreat" and claimed a victory for the publisher.

"We will continue to argue that the administration cannot disregard the Constitution's protection of religious freedom for all family business owners and must offer a comprehensive exemption to the mandate," Bowman said (Christian Science Monitor, 5/6).

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Tuesday introduced a bill (S 886) that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in Washington, D.C., the AP/Washington Post reports.

Sen. Lee Introduces 20-Week Abortion Ban for Washington, D.C.

May 9, 2013 — Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Tuesday introduced a bill (S 886) that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in Washington, D.C., the AP/Washington Post reports. The measure is based on the disputed theory that a fetus can feel pain at that point of development.

D.C. leaders called the legislation an intrusion on local affairs.

Lee's bill mirrors a measure (HR 1797) introduced in the House by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

The House last year voted on a similar measure (HR 3803), but, while a majority supported it, it failed to garner enough support because it was considered under special rules (AP/Washington Post, 5/8).

The antiabortion-rights group Live Action on Wednesday released a video that depicts abortion provider LeRoy Carhart making what group calls offensive and insensitive remarks about abortions later in pregnancy, the New York Times reports.

Activist Group Targets Abortion Provider Carhart in Latest Undercover Video

May 9, 2013 — The antiabortion-rights group Live Action on Wednesday released a video that depicts abortion provider LeRoy Carhart making what the group calls offensive and insensitive remarks about abortions later in pregnancy, the New York Times reports.

Live Action released the video as part of a national campaign seeking to portray practitioners and clinics offering abortions later in pregnancy as "riddled with illegal or cruel practices," according to the Times (Eckholm, New York Times, 5/8). In April, the group released videos of abortion providers in Washington, D.C., and New York City that it said suggest the employees would not care for an infant born alive after a failed abortion (Women's Health Policy Report, 4/29).

The newly released video depicts two women -- one allegedly 22 weeks pregnant and another 26 weeks pregnant -- who pretended to seek abortions at separate visits in December 2012 and March of this year.

Carhart's Comments

In the videos, Carhart answers the women's questions about abortions performed later in pregnancy, describing a two- to four-day process that involves a fatal injection to the fetus, then dilating the cervix, trying to induce labor and, if that fails, pulling out the fetus "in pieces." He initially describes the tools in a joking manner as "A pickax, a drill bit," but then says, "No, ... there's just instruments that have been developed" (New York Times, 5/8).

When questioned about whether carrying the dead fetus will trigger decay, Carhart responds, "No, it's like putting meat into a Crock-Pot, OK?"

Carhart also explains which states allow abortions later in pregnancy and says that if an infant is born alive, he will "have to send it to the hospital," adding, "There's just absolutely no option" (Sun, Washington Post, 5/7).

In addition, Carhart counseled the women, saying to one that "it's your life that's going to be affected by this pregnancy and be affected by the termination." He adds, "I mean, this baby is a part of you forever" (New York Times, 5/8). He also outlines alternatives to abortion, including continuing the pregnancy, adoption and foster care.

Carhart's Comments on a Former Patient

According to the Washington Post, the undercover videos also captured remarks Carhart made about a former patient who died in February following an abortion he performed. The Maryland medical examiner's office at that time said the women died of natural causes and suffered a rare complication called an amniotic fluid embolism.

When probed about the patient's death, Carhart said that she had suffered an "allergic reaction" to her pregnancy that was unrelated to the procedure and that the fetus had severe deformities. According to experts, such an embolism produces symptoms similar to a severe allergic reaction, which might explain why Carhart chose to describe the incident in that manner, the Post reports (Washington Post, 5/7).

The Maryland Board of Physicians has launched a preliminary inquiry -- prompted by complaints from the antiabortion-rights group Operation Rescue -- into the case to determine if further investigation is warranted.

Group Tries To Link Video to Gosnell Case

According to the Times, Live Action has used the videos to draw comparisons with abortion provider Kermit Gosnell, who is on trial for allegedly killing a woman and infants born alive after failed abortions. Live Action President Lila Rose said Carhart was a "grave threat to women and children."

Eric Ferrero -- vice president of communications for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America -- said, "Comparing an offensive and inappropriate comment to Gosnell's horrific crimes is politics at its worst" (New York Times, 5/8).

Health care for pregnant women often fails to follow established guidelines, contributing to high rates of interventions like induced labor and caesarean sections, according to a survey released on Thursday by Childbirth Connection and featured in Consumer Reports.

Unnecessary Interventions Common in Maternity Care, Survey Finds

May 9, 2013 — Health care for pregnant women often fails to follow established guidelines, contributing to high rates of interventions like induced labor and caesarean sections, according to a survey released on Thursday by Childbirth Connection and featured in Consumer Reports.

The survey of 2,400 women who had recently given birth found that 41% of women had their labor induced, for reasons such as concerns that the fetus was too large or because the due date had passed. However, research indicates that neither of these reasons by itself typically merits an induction. Additionally, nearly 25% of women who were induced cited pressure from their health care provider to undergo the procedure.

Another troubling finding was that nearly half of women who had previously delivered via c-section wanted to deliver their next child vaginally but were either denied the possibility by their doctor (24%) or the hospital (15%), according to Consumer Reports. Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists encourage women to attempt vaginal deliveries after c-sections, and research indicates potential dangers of multiple c-section births.

The survey highlighted several other findings in pregnancy and maternal care. It found that about half of women who intended to exclusively breastfeed experienced practices that undermined the process. Six months after giving birth, fewer than one-third of women were exclusively breastfeeding, the survey noted.

Additionally, the survey found that many women felt reluctant to ask questions because they thought their providers were rushed, they didn't want to be perceived as difficult or they disagreed with a provider's recommendations.

Maureen Corry, executive director of Childbirth Connection, said, "Our survey suggests that pregnant women need to take a more active role to make sure they get the care that is best for themselves and their babies." She added that pregnant women "need access to trustworthy information about the benefits and harms of interventions, to educate themselves, and be their own advocate" (Keehn, Consumer Reports, 5/8).

The Oklahoma House on Tuesday approved a bill (HB 1361) that would tighten parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions, the Tulsa World reports.

Okla. House Advances New Requirements for Parental Notification Law

May 9, 2013 — The Oklahoma House on Tuesday approved a bill (HB 1361) that would tighten parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions, the Tulsa World reports (Krehbiel, Tulsa World, 5/8).

The measure now heads to Gov. Mary Fallin (R) (Mills, KRMG, 5/7).

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Randy Grau (R), would require the parent of a minor who is seeking an abortion to show "government-issued identification" and "written documentation," such as a birth certificate, to prove his or her relationship to the minor. The changes would replace a current requirement that parents show "proof of identification."

The bill also would require that a minor seeking a judicial waiver to the parental notification requirement go before a judge in the county in which she lives; currently, the application can be submitted in nearly any state district court (Tulsa World, 5/8).

A federal appeals court on Friday approved the Obama administration's request to drop its appeal of a ruling that granted a preliminary injunction to the owners of a Christian publishing company who oppose the federal contraceptive coverage rules, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

Obama Administration Drops Appeal of Publisher's Contraceptive Coverage Case

May 9, 2013 — A federal appeals court on Friday approved the Obama administration's request to drop its appeal of a ruling that granted a preliminary injunction to the owners of a Christian publishing company who oppose the federal contraceptive coverage rules, the Christian Science Monitor reports (Richey, Christian Science Monitor, 5/6).

Tyndale House Publishers filed a lawsuit against HHS, the Treasury Department and the Labor Department on Oct. 2 -- one day after the company was required to offer contraceptive coverage to its 260 full-time employees. Specifically, Tyndale's owners object to covering emergency contraception and intrauterine devices, which they consider equivalent to abortion.

The lawsuit stated that the company has been denied a "religious employer" accommodation because HHS maintains that any for-profit company does not qualify as a religious entity. According to court filings, Tyndale is an incorporated business that is owned by Tyndale House Foundation, a not-for-profit that "receives 96.5% of all of Tyndale's distributed profits."

In November, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted Tyndale the preliminary injunction. Walton ruled that the contraceptive coverage requirement "substantially burdens" the company's religious beliefs by imposing "considerable" penalties for noncompliance. The federal government in January filed an appeal to the ruling (Women's Health Policy Report, 1/16).

Appeal Dismissal

The administration in April asked the judge to dismiss the appeal because another religious challenge to the contraceptive coverage rules already was before a separate three-judge appeals court panel in Washington, D.C.

Tyndale House objected to the dismissal, but the government argued that "[n]o statute or rule permits a prevailing party to require that an enjoined party pursue" an appeal.

Matt Bowman -- an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Tyndale House -- called the administration's move a "retreat" and claimed a victory for the publisher.

"We will continue to argue that the administration cannot disregard the Constitution's protection of religious freedom for all family business owners and must offer a comprehensive exemption to the mandate," Bowman said (Christian Science Monitor, 5/6).

The Missouri Senate on Monday passed a bill (HB 400) that would require a physician to be physically present when abortion-inducing drugs are administered, the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

Mo. Senate Approves Bill Requiring Doctor's Presence During Medication Abortions

May 9, 2013 — The Missouri Senate on Monday passed a bill (HB 400) that would require a physician to be physically present when abortion-inducing drugs are administered, the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. The bill now returns to the House.

Normally, a woman takes the first drug used for a medication abortion during her visit with the clinician and takes the second drug at home 24 to 48 hours later.

The bill also would require a physician or someone acting on his or her behalf to make a reasonable effort to ensure the woman comes back for a follow-up appointment, unless it has been confirmed that she is no longer pregnant (AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/7).

The North Carolina House on Tuesday approved a bill (HB 716) that would prohibit physicians from performing an abortion if they have "knowledge, or an objective reason to know" that the sex of the fetus is a "significant factor" in the woman's request for the procedure, the AP/Charlotte Observer reports.

N.C. House Passes Ban on Abortions Based on Sex of the Fetus; Comm. Approves Parental Consent for Birth Control, STI Treatment

May 9, 2013 — The North Carolina House on Tuesday approved a bill (HB 716) that would prohibit physicians from performing an abortion if they have "knowledge, or an objective reason to know" that the sex of the fetus is a "significant factor" in the woman's request for the procedure, the AP/Charlotte Observer reports. The bill now heads to the Senate.

The bill would permit women or their relatives to sue physicians for damages for violating the ban. Physicians found to violate the requirement also could face fines. Under an approved floor amendment, physicians would not have a duty to ask a woman if she is seeking an abortion because of the sex of the fetus.

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Pat McElraft (R), claimed that abortion is being used for sex selection in the U.S. The bill's sponsors did not provide specific evidence that the practice occurs in North Carolina, the AP/Observer reports.

Several House Democrats argued that the bill could encourage ethnic discrimination and racial profiling. State Rep. Alma Adams (D) said doctors might be reluctant to perform abortions because of the requirements. "We are putting doctors in a position now questioning the motives of these women," she said, adding, "I don't believe doctors would be willing to take that kind of risk" (Robertson, AP/Charlotte Observer, 5/7).

N.C. House Comm. Advances Parental Consent Bill

Separately, the North Carolina House Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday passed a bill (HB 693) that would require minors to obtain notarized parental consent to receive treatment for various reproductive and mental health services (Basset, Huffington Post, 5/7). The bill now proceeds to the full House.

Under the bill, minors who are not accompanied by a parent or guardian who can give consent would have to present written permission to obtain birth control or receive care for sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, substance abuse and mental illness.

The bill would allow exceptions in medical emergencies, if a minor obtained a judicial waiver from the consent requirement or if the requirement is prohibited under federal health funding regulations, according to the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

If passed, the bill would make North Carolina the first state to require parental consent for STI services (Kardish, AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/7).

Opposition From Experts

Doctors and health advocates who testified against the bill said it would discourage teens from seeking treatment for STIs and mental health issues.

"Here's the bottom line: Everybody wants teenagers to talk to their parents, but public policy is not based on ideal families," said Paige Johnson, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina. She added that teens who cannot talk to their parents because of abuse in the home or other reasons "need to be able to access professional care" (Huffington Post, 5/7).

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Tuesday introduced a bill (S 886) that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in Washington, D.C., the AP/Washington Post reports.

Sen. Lee Introduces 20-Week Abortion Ban for Washington, D.C.

May 9, 2013 — Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Tuesday introduced a bill (S 886) that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in Washington, D.C., the AP/Washington Post reports. The measure is based on the disputed theory that a fetus can feel pain at that point of development.

D.C. leaders called the legislation an intrusion on local affairs.

Lee's bill mirrors a measure (HR 1797) introduced in the House by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

The House last year voted on a similar measure (HR 3803), but, while a majority supported it, it failed to garner enough support because it was considered under special rules (AP/Washington Post, 5/8).

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers has reintroduced legislation (HR 1830, S 865) that would create a commission aimed at curing breast cancer by 2020, The Hill's "Floor Action Blog" reports.

House, Senate Lawmakers Introduce Bill Seeking To Cure Breast Cancer by 2020

May 9, 2013 — A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers has reintroduced legislation (HR 1830, S 865) that would create a commission aimed at curing breast cancer by 2020, The Hill's "Floor Action Blog" reports.

The bills -- sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in the Senate and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) in the House -- would form the Commission to Accelerate the End of Breast Cancer. CAEBC would be charged with identifying promising research, developing public-private partnerships and finding other collaborative opportunities to craft treatment and prevention strategies (Kasperowicz, "Floor Action Blog," The Hill, 5/7).

Each year, the panel would be required to report its findings to Congress, the White House and the public (Viebeck, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 5/7). The legislation calls for $8 million to fund the commission in the first year, $12 million for the following two years and "such sums as may be necessary" for each fiscal year thereafter.

In a statement on Tuesday, Whitehouse said, "Breast cancer continues to affect too many of our mothers, wives, sisters, and friends," adding, "This bill sets an ambitious goal of ending breast cancer by 2020, and will help drive our efforts to put an end to this tragic disease."

Last year, a similar bill failed to advance in both the House and Senate ("Floor Action Blog," The Hill, 5/7).

Statement of Debra L. Ness, President, National Partnership for Women & Families | 05.08.2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE “America’s Families Will Not Be Fooled by Fake Workplace Flexibility Bill,” Nation’s Leading Work/Family Expert Says

Statement of Debra L. Ness, President, National Partnership for Women & Families

WASHINGTON, D.C. — May 8, 2013 — “The legislation the U.S. House of Representatives passed today is blatantly deceptive and harmful to working families. The deliberately misnamed Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1406) was designed to score political points for its sponsors, and it will backfire. Working families need real solutions, not anti-family measures dressed up as something they are not. The Senate should refuse to even consider this bill.

This bill would make it more difficult for workers to get the time they need to manage the demands of job and family. More than 40 percent of private sector workers in this country and more than 80 percent of those who are low-wage workers are unable to earn a single paid sick day to recover from illness or care for a sick child. And more than 40 percent of all workers cannot access even unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act when serious personal or family medical needs arise. These are real challenges for workers and our nation, and they require real solutions.

We commend every representative who stood up in opposition to this bill today, and all those who highlighted proposals that would actually make workplaces more family friendly. Workers urgently need the Healthy Families Act, which would establish a national paid sick days standard, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help combat pay discrimination, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, and measures that will expand the Family and Medical Leave Act and establish a paid family and medical leave insurance program.

The National Partnership for Women & Families has been working to make the country more family friendly for more than 40 years. America’s women and families will not be fooled by this fake workplace flexibility bill and the partisanship behind it. Congress must do better.”

# # # #

NOTE: On Monday, more than 160 women’s, worker and civil rights organizations sent a letter to the House urging it to reject H.R. 1406. Top women’s leaders from the House, policy and advocacy arenas held an audio press conference to discuss the bill, which can be listened to here. 

On April 11th, National Partnership Senior Advisor Judith L. Lichtman testified at the Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Hearing on H.R. 1406. Her written testimony is available here.

The National Partnership for Women & Families drafted and led the fight to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act. The organization promotes fairness in the workplace, access to quality affordable health care and policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family. More information is available at www.NationalPartnership.org.

Statement of Debra L. Ness, President, National Partnership for Women & Families | 05.08.2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE In “Momentous, Historic Achievement,” New York City Council Paves the Way for One Million Workers to Earn Paid Sick Days

Statement of Debra L. Ness, President, National Partnership for Women & Families

WASHINGTON, D.C. — May 8, 2013 —"The New York City Council’s 45-3 vote today to pass a measure that will guarantee approximately one million workers can earn paid sick days is a historic and momentous achievement in the effort to ensure all workers have this fundamental right. Mayor Bloomberg should support working families and promote the city’s health by signing this bill.

For four years, a strong and dedicated coalition of workers, business owners, advocates and lawmakers has been fighting to bring paid sick days to New York City. Their success chips away at the more than 40 million workers in this country who struggle without paid sick days, and builds on the success of paid sick days laws in Connecticut, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Seattle and, soon, Portland, Oregon.

There is undeniable momentum for paid sick days in this country, and New York City should be the push Congress needs to pass a federal standard. The Healthy Families Act has been introduced in Congress, and 86 percent of voters say they support a national paid sick days standard like the one it would provide.

We commend the strong coalition that made this victory in New York City possible, and every member of the City Council who voted to allow workers to earn paid sick days. With this historic win, the nation is closer to the day when no worker has to choose between health, family and job."

Although dental care during pregnancy is safe and beneficial, pregnant women face barriers to obtaining it, including a reluctance by dentist to treat pregnant patients, the New York Times' "Well" reports.

Pregnant Women Often Face Obstacles to Dental Care

May 8, 2013 — Although dental care during pregnancy is safe and beneficial, pregnant women face barriers to obtaining it, including a reluctance by dentist to treat pregnant patients, the New York Times' "Well" reports.

A lack of dental care during pregnancy can have serious consequences on women and their children. For example, untreated gingivitis, which affects 60% to 75% of pregnant women, can escalate to periodontal disease, which in turn can lead to tooth loss if untreated. Additionally, a woman with active tooth decay could spread harmful bacteria to her child through saliva.

According to "Well," dentists might be wary of treating pregnant women because they fear litigation or effects on the fetus, they are not up to date on current practices, or they were taught in dental school to avoid treating women during pregnancy. According to a 2009 study, 77% of 351 ob-gyns surveyed reported that their patients had been "declined dental services because of pregnancy."

A few state organizations and dental associations since have issued practice guidelines outlining which dental procedures are safe during pregnancy. For example, the National Maternal and Child Oral Health Resource Center at Georgetown University last September published guidelines urging ob-gyns to check patients for bleeding gums or oral infection and refer women to a dentist if their last visit was longer than six months ago. The guidelines also urged dentists to provide emergency care in any trimester and consult an ob-gyn if necessary.

Even when dental care is available, many pregnant women do not seek it, according to "Well." Utilization rates for dental services are low among Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for the coverage. For example, only 28% of pregnant women in Oklahoma and 41% of pregnant women in New York who were eligible for Medicaid dental benefits used those services.

Stefanie Russell -- a dentist at New York University -- said addressing the issue will require a coordinated effort among ob-gyns and dentists to reach pregnant women. "[T]hings will change when women realize dental care is their right during pregnancy," she said (Saint Louis, "Well," New York Times, 5/6).

Despite constant attacks on her organization's mission, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards finds the debate around women's health issues "enormously galvanizing," she said in a recent interview with The Hill's "Healthwatch."

Debates on Women's Health Issues 'Galvanizing,' Planned Parenthood Pres. Richards Says in Interview

May 8, 2013 — Despite constant attacks on her organization's mission, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards finds the debate around women's health issues "enormously galvanizing," she said in a recent interview with The Hill's "Healthwatch."

Although some abortion-rights supporters have expressed concern about an intensity gap among younger voters, Richards said she "feel[s] a little bit the opposite," in that many young people born after the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision "just assume this is the law of the land."

Planned Parenthood's college chapters have doubled in the past two years, and Richards said young supporters are organizing "like nothing [she has] ever seen" in nearly seven years with the organization. Meanwhile, "Planned Parenthood patients, former and present," have come out in defense of the organization against political threats, she added. Planned Parenthood's next big push will be to increase its reach with young men, "Healthwatch" reports.

Richards' opponents also praise her tact in handling the politics of women's health debates, according to "Healthwatch." Marjorie Dannenfelser -- president of the antiabortion-rights group Susan B. Anthony List -- said Richards "is really good at what she does," adding, "She's been able to create fear with this threat of a tidal wave of disapproval. ... Who in the political world would not wish for a situation like that?" (Baker, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 5/7).

Tens of thousands of domestic violence survivors could lose access to programs, shelters and other support services because of a $20 million cut in federal funding over the next year mandated under sequestration, Mother Jones reports.

Programs for Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence Survivors Struggle Under Sequestration

May 8, 2013 — Tens of thousands of domestic violence survivors could lose access to programs, shelters and other support services because of a $20 million cut in federal funding over the next year mandated under sequestration, Mother Jones reports.

Although lawmakers quickly passed legislation to mitigate the effects of sequestration on tuition aid for service members and staffing at the Federal Aviation Administration, they "have shown little interest" in addressing cuts to programs that help survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, according to Mother Jones. The cuts took effect "[a]lmost immediately" after lawmakers passed a much-delayed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (PL 113-4), Mother Jones notes.

Sen. Tom Harkin's (D-Iowa) office estimates that the cuts under sequestration will mean 70,120 fewer domestic violence survivors have access to recovery programs and shelters, while 35,900 fewer individuals will be able to obtain non-shelter services, such as restraining orders and sexual assault treatment.

Several Programs Already Affected by Cuts

A number of domestic violence shelters and related programs across the U.S. already are scaling back services or considering closing because of the cuts, according to Mother Jones. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has announced plans to postpone the hiring of 829 military sexual assault response coordinators.

Kim Gandy, president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said, "We're talking about really vital services to people who are already in a terrible situation and really in need of emergency services -- and there aren't alternatives" (Murphy, Mother Jones, 5/6).

An opinion piece and editorials on Tuesday discussed a recent Department of Defense report that found sexual assaults in the military increased by 35% from 2011 to 2012.

New York Times, USA Today Opinions Urge Military Culture, Policy Changes To Curb Sexual Assaults

May 8, 2013 — An opinion piece and editorials on Tuesday discussed a recent Department of Defense report that found sexual assaults in the military increased by 35% from 2011 to 2012. They also commented on charges of sexual battery brought against an Air Force officer who was in charge of sexual assault prevention programs.

~ Maureen Dowd, New York Times: "It has been a bad week for the hidebound defenders of a hopelessly antiquated military justice system that views prosecution decisions in all cases, including rape and sexual assault, as the private preserve of commanders rather than lawyers," columnist Dowd writes. Referring to the recent arrest of Jeffrey Krusinski -- an Air Force lieutenant colonel in charge of the military branch's sexual assault prevention programs -- for sexual battery, she writes that the incident has "a fox-in-the-henhouse echo of [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas, who Anita Hill said sexually harassed her when he was the nation's top enforcer of laws against workplace sexual harassment." Dowd notes that incident preceded the release of a Department of Defense report this week that estimated 26,000 incidences of sexual assault occurred in the military during 2012. "It was the sort of rare confluence of events that can actually lead to change here, especially because it's a nonpartisan issue and because ... [t]hree of the six Senate Armed Services subcommittees are now led by women," Dowd writes (Dowd, New York Times, 5/7).

~ New York Times: "Transforming the military's entrenched culture of sexual violence will require new approaches and a much stronger effort than what the Pentagon has done so far," a Times editorial states. The piece notes that a DOD report found sexual assaults in the military increased from 2011 to 2012, adding, "Those who thought that the crisis could not get any worse have been proved wrong." The report and the arrest of Krusinski "have shown the Air Force's assault prevention efforts to be an absurd joke," the editorial continues. According to the editorial, the "most promising proposal" for combatting sexual assault is a measure by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that would "end the power of senior officers with no legal training but lots of conflicts of interest to decide whether courts-martial can be brought against subordinates and to toss out a jury verdict once it is rendered" (New York Times, 5/7).

~ USA Today: A "mountain of evidence" indicates that the problem of sexual assaults in the military "not only persists but is getting worse," according to the editorial. It notes that after the release of the DOD report finding an increase in sexual assaults, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel argued that final authority to overturn courts-martial decisions should remain with military commanders. "Several members of Congress are seeking to put those decisions where they belong, in the hands of military prosecutors," the editorial states, concluding, "[U]ntil this fundamental change is made, the Pentagon's efforts will continue to be an unfunny joke" (USA Today, 5/7).

A new report showing that reported sexual assaults in the military increased by about 35% over the last two years led the Pentagon on Tuesday to outline a series of initiatives designed to address the problem, USA Today reports.

New Report Shows Rise in Military Sexual Assaults as Pentagon, President Obama Call for Changes

May 8, 2013 — A new report showing that reported sexual assaults in the military increased by about 35% over the last two years led the Pentagon on Tuesday to outline a series of initiatives designed to address the problem, USA Today reports (Zoroya/Brook, USA Today, 5/7).

The Pentagon report found that 3,374 sexual assaults were reported last year, up from 3,192 in 2011. The report noted that about 6% of servicewomen and 1% of servicemen in the survey who said they were sexually assaulted did not report the incidents to supervisors. Based on these figures, the report placed the real number of sexual assaults at an estimated 26,000, up from 19,300 in 2010. Additionally, the report noted that one in four service members who were sexually assaulted and received medical care declined to press charges, which likely reflected the victims' fear of retribution (Cloud, Los Angeles Times, 5/7).

At a news conference, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the military "may be nearing a stage where the frequency of this crime and the perception that there is still tolerance of it could very well undermine our ability to effectively carry out the mission and to recruit and retain the good people we need."

Latest Initiatives

Hagel outlined a series of steps intended to make commanders accountable for fostering a climate in their ranks that deters sexual assault and properly cares for victims. He also called for initiatives to reduce stigma for reporting sexual assaults, as well as enhanced prevention training and education programs for officers and new soldiers (USA Today, 5/7).

However, Hagel stopped short of endorsing a proposal that would remove authority in sexual assault cases from commanders. He said that such a move would "weaken the system."

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) at a Senate hearing on Tuesday said that more military sexual assault survivors would come forward only when prosecution decisions are removed from commanders and given to unbiased attorneys. Victims are "afraid of retaliation" from their colleagues and commanders, she said, adding, "There isn't a climate by which they can receive justice in this system" (Barnes, Wall Street Journal, 5/7).

Obama Calls for 'No Tolerance' Approach

President Obama on Tuesday reacted to the new figures by calling for a "no tolerance" approach to sexual crimes in the military. He also pledged to crack down on commanders who ignored the issue, saying he had spoken to Hagel and ordered that officers "up and down the food chain" get the message (Los Angeles Times, 5/7).

"I don't want just more speeches or ... awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way," Obama said. He added, "We find out somebody's engaging in this stuff, they've got to be held accountable; prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period. It's not acceptable" (Epstein, Politico, 5/7).

A federal judge on Tuesday lambasted the Obama administration for appealing his ruling that ordered FDA to make emergency contraception available without age or point-of-sale restrictions, the New York Times' "The Caucus" reports.

Judge Chastises Obama Administration Over Emergency Contraception Appeal; Wash. Post Columnist Weighs In

May 8, 2013 — A federal judge on Tuesday lambasted the Obama administration for appealing his ruling that ordered FDA to make emergency contraception available without age or point-of-sale restrictions, the New York Times' "The Caucus" reports (Shear, "The Caucus," New York Times, 5/7).

Last week, the Department of Justice announced an appeal of U.S. District Judge Edward Korman's April 5 ruling and requested a stay on his court order pending results of the appeal. DOJ argued that a stay is needed "to prevent public uncertainty" about the status of EC availability during the appeal process (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/7).

Separately, FDA last Tuesday approved over-the-counter sales of the EC product Plan B One-Step to people ages 15 and older with proof of age (Women's Health Policy Report, 5/1).

Tuesday's Hearing

At the hearing, Korman called FDA's decision to lower the age limit on Plan B One-Step an attempt to "sugarcoat" the appeal in the EC case. He suggested that the appeal could have dire consequences for young women ("The Caucus," New York Times, 5/7).

Korman specifically criticized the proof-of-age requirement, arguing that DOJ is "making an intellectually dishonest argument," given that it wants consumers to show ID to buy the drugs, but the Obama administration opposes voter ID laws. "You're using these 11- and 12-year-olds to place an undue burden on women's ability to access emergency contraception. If it's an impediment to voting, it's an impediment to get the drug," Korman said (Carmon, Salon, 5/7).

The requirement places an "impossible burden" on groups that are less likely to have IDs, the judge said. "The poor, the young and African-Americans are going to be put in the position of not having access to this drug," Korman said, asking, "Is that the policy of the Obama administration?"

Korman also chastised the government for continuing to draw out the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Franklin Amanat acknowledged that "the court has been frustrated with the pace," but added, "Sometime[s] the people are better served when the government acts deliberately and incrementally" (Hays, AP/KSPR, 5/7).

Korman said he would rule on DOJ's request for a stay by Thursday evening. According to Salon, he is expected to deny the request but defer the stay's enforcement while the case is appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Salon, 5/7).

Obama Administration 'Got it Wrong' on EC Decisions, Washington Post Columnist Says

The Obama "administration got it wrong both times" when it continued restrictions on Plan B One-Step access and decided to appeal Korman's ruling in the court case, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus writes. She argues that the "age-15 limit sounds more sensible than it is." Any concern about Plan B use by 11-year-olds "is a red herring," as most girls "aren't menstruating" or sexually active at that age, Marcus notes.

"The price of stopping the imaginary 11-year-old from taking Plan B is preventing the actual 14- or 15-year-old from obtaining it," since most teens that age do not have IDs, she writes.

Marcus also contends that the administration should have accepted Korman's initial ruling. "Generally, we don't want judges telling agencies what drugs to approve," but judicial intervention is warranted when an agency behaves "arbitrarily and capriciously, as FDA has done," she argues.

"[T]his debate isn't about the government coming between parents and children, or society condoning teen sex," she writes, concluding, "It's about preventing teen pregnancy" (Marcus, Washington Post, 5/7).