Sunday News Round-Up, Monday Style
The Now@NEJM blog posted a new item in its Clinical Practice series, Streptococcal Pharyngitis. This seemed particularly relevant after a worker fixing a light on Friday – after about 20 minutes in my office – told me all about how his current case of strep throat. The NEJM piece doesn’t seem to address people like me, though – I have a penicillin allergy!
Acquaintance Ilissa has a diary up at Daily Kos on her first morning as an abortion clinic escort. I particularly liked one of the comments: “There is not room in one skin for two people with full rights.”
At the New York Times, Study of Breast Biopsies Finds Surgery Used Too Extensively. This would be the kind of harm people were talking about when they talked about what happens when we do too many mammograms on low-risk women.
Ema at the Well-Timed Period says it clearly with regards to the South Dakota bill that could have made it legal to murder abortion providers, and how any changes they make to the bill now don’t make up for it:
Bottom line: Just because Rep. Phil Jensen and his cohorts were caught in the act of trying to legalize domestic terrorism and, when called on it, made some changes to the bill doesn’t mean they are absolved of responsibility.
Relatedly, over at Our Bodies Our Blog today I have The State-Level War on Choice: Updates from South Dakota. Note: I’m no longer even considering the possibility that Republicans “didn’t mean it that way” when they propose egregious legislation.
Over at The Unnecesarean, emajaybee writes about a 1940s experiment at the larger workplace in which pregnant women were given radioactive iron as part of an experiment. As I mentioned there, I first learned of this a few years ago when helping some students look for materials for a project on these studies. Over the weekend, I went to use the Nashville Banner (local newspaper) archives at the Nashville Public Library and pulled a news item on the experiments, if anyone would like to see it.
In the midst of the House vote to defund Title X (which funds family planning health services, including those non-abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood), I’ve picked up on some comments on Twitter stating that Planned Parenthood is anti-trans. While I support Planned Parenthood’s provision of low cost health services and tireless support of choice, those are serious allegations that deserve attention. I’m in the process of trying to learn more, but haven’t found much online – I’ve run into comments like this one and this one, but would like to find out more about how much this involves individual screw-ups vs. organizational policy, and if PP staff are held accountable by their employers for anti-trans statements and practices. If anyone has insights into how/whether PP folks are trained to provide services to trans women and men, or how PP is failing trans women individually or systemically, I would like to hear about that. There need to be clear consequences for PP staff members who discriminate against *any* women.
That said, I do believe PP provides crucial access to abortion services and other family planning and health services for so many women, and defunding Title X further disadvantages poor women who rely on their services.
Relatedly, in my searching, I found this post: Promoting and Protecting the Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Health of Transgender People: What We Can Do, which outlines actions to be taken by the public, donor agencies, and states.
Not really health related, but some bills have been introduced in Tennessee that are similar to the union-busting bills in Wisconsin. The Tennessee Education Association is having a rally in Nashville on March 5th.