Encore performances of
Love Does Not Hurt...
Thursday, December 3, 6pm Reception, 7pm Showtime
Satruday, December 5, 8pm
Tickets $10 students with valid ID / $15 General Admission / Groups of 10 or more, $10 each.Love Does Not Hurt...
written & directed by
AquaMoon
choreographed by
Ni'Ja Whitson and AquaMoon
featuring
Krishauna Anderson, Rebecca Cotter, Shanara Fornett, Carmen Jones, Tierra Winston, R. Kova Hayse, Boaz McGee, Michael Johnson, Chris Jones, Mike Smith and Kenton Williams Chantal' Hill, Jessica Newman and Devon Thompson.
AquaMoon returns to Links Hall after exceptional audience attendance in a 2 night only encore performance of love does not hurt…love does not hurt…is a synergetic and multimedia performance and art exhibit that unapologetically addresses violence against womyn, by speaking healing and love into existence. Both men and womyn are given voice on the inner most details in this pattern of abuse. There is no finger pointing, but the empowered evolution of five couples journeying through intimate partner violence.
Buy your tickets for Love Does Not Hurt...http://linkshall.org/09-pp-dec.shtml
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Turkey, dressing and domestic violence...
To the families that were affected by domestic violence this holiday week, we speak your name and lift you up in prayer.
http://domesticviolencenews.blogspot.com/
http://domesticviolencenews.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Saturday/Sunday Audience Responses...
Audience responses...
Saturday’s responses to image of the womon on the cross:
- The painting depicts a womon who loved with her sexual being, however the heart on the floor in a pool of blood clearly indicates it was a slow painful experience and she feels trapped or stuck in pain.
- The image appears to be showing a womon going through sexual violence. As seen by the blood flowing down her private parts.
- The image represents faith and self-preservation.
Sunday’s responses to image of the womon on the cross:
· Never thought of a womon on the cross before.
· This image means pain, suppression, hurt, broken womb--a reflection of the world today.
· Bloodshed should only be done by Jesus--that already happened. Terrible.
· Jesus sacrificed himself so that we don’t have to. We should not crucify ourselves because of guilt or because we feel deserving, it is not our burden to bear.
· I understand the concept of the Black woman sacrificing herself for the love of her family and her need to provide for her family (physical and cultural family). However, I think you all’s analogy doesn’t remember that Jesus rejected the religion he fought against. Where is the rejection of the abuser in our society? Why are the criminals welcomed back into families?
Sunday’s response to the statement, “love does not hurt”:
· Love is a verb. And yes love hurts. There should not be physical or emotional violence in love. I don’t condone rape and dv, so when I say love hurts, it’s because I know we are all in a process of growth and empowerment of ourselves and community. The hurt I speak of is the hurt when we are critics of ourselves and when we’ve lovingly come to others to stop the cycle of violence in our communities. Encountering the violence and facing our part in the system hu4trw. Out of love we will change all of that with the love and support of one another.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
October 30: love does not hurt! Opening Night responses....
Friday, October 30
Opening Night audience comments on what "love does not hurt…" means to them
*"Love is caring about yourself, your community, your God and your family. The phrase "love does not hurt" is powerful in itself. Love doesn’t hurt, shouldn’t hurt and won’t hurt. I hate that domestic violence is only in the media when it’s someone famous. We as a community need to stop ignoring this problem."
*I think of the Bible –I Corinthians…love is patient. Love is kind. Love is not envious, boastful, arrogant or rude. It doesn’t insist on its own way.
We asked, "Would you recommend this production to someone else?
The responses were:
Yes, because this topic is always swept under the rug.
Yes, informative and a healing tool for our communities.
Yes, especially to high schools. Need more workshops for young people.
Yes, because this production can benefit every human being it’s not only for those experiencing DV, it’s also for everyone in a relationship.
Yes, Domestic Violence Awareness should be discussed more so that those who are unaware can recognize the signs and help when possible.
Monday, October 12, 2009
What does your love look like?
Domestic Violence Awareness Month...
What is domestic violence?
Domestic Violence is a pattern of physical, sexual, spiritual, emotional, psychological, and /or economic abuse, threats, intimidation, isolation, or coercion used by one person to exert power and control over another person in the context of a current or former dating, family, household, or care giving relationship. (We also include teen dating violence in this.)
Events commemorating this month...
http://spokenexistence.com/2009DomesticViolenceAwarenessMonthEvents.html
love does not hurt... campaign
http://spokenexistence.com/love_not_hurt_campaign.html
October 25, Sermons
October 28, Community Forum
October 30-November 1, love does not hurt... play
Purchase tickets for love does not hurt... play
What is domestic violence?
Domestic Violence is a pattern of physical, sexual, spiritual, emotional, psychological, and /or economic abuse, threats, intimidation, isolation, or coercion used by one person to exert power and control over another person in the context of a current or former dating, family, household, or care giving relationship. (We also include teen dating violence in this.)
Events commemorating this month...
http://spokenexistence.com/2009DomesticViolenceAwarenessMonthEvents.html
love does not hurt... campaign
http://spokenexistence.com/love_not_hurt_campaign.html
October 25, Sermons
October 28, Community Forum
October 30-November 1, love does not hurt... play
Purchase tickets for love does not hurt... play
Friday, October 2, 2009
Violence affects girls too...
Violence affects many girls, young women, report states
Study cites 'lack of security' -- but groups aim to help
By Joanna Broder Special to the Tribune September 30, 2009
Eighteen-year old Chelsea Whitis tries to forget what happened that night two summers ago. While walking near her family's home in southwest Evanston, a man grabbed her from behind and dragged her into a nearby alley. He ran off when a car turned into the alley.
Now a senior at Lane Technical High School in Chicago's North Center neighborhood, Whitis keeps memories of the attack bottled up inside. She hasn't had any professional assistance to help her cope.
"I just feel like I'm never going to be safe," she said. "I'm so close to my house and I get attacked. ... I never feel safe."
A report released earlier this month found that many girls in Chicago and Illinois "face serious violence in their lives," including physical and sexual abuse, threats and injury in school, and assault on the streets. The report, "Status of Girls in Illinois," -- notes that 10.7 percent of girls in Chicago's high schools skipped school in 2007 because of safety concerns -- nearly double the national average of 5.6 percent -- and that "many girls also report a pervasive feeling of threat and lack of security."
The report pulls together existing survey data about girls in Chicago and Illinois and makes recommendations about a variety of development, health and wellness issues such as access to health care, mental and emotional health, sexuality, safety and substance abuse. It also found that depression and other forms of mental illness pose a serious health issue for area girls.
The report, released Sept. 10, draws mostly from well-known national surveys, including the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey of more than 14,000 high school students from across the country. That survey asks about students' sexual behavior, tobacco and alcohol use and other risky behaviors. It also includes statistics from the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, which said there are more than 1.5 million girls age 17 and younger in Illinois.
Alida Bouris, an assistant professor in the school of social service administration at the University of Chicago, called the report "ambitious." Bouris, who specializes in how parents can influence their children's sexual behavior, said the report shows that overall most girls in Illinois are doing well, but some are developing key health issues in adolescence and young adulthood that have long-term effects for their health and well-being.
Melissa Spatz, the executive director of Women & Girls Collective Action Network, the lead group behind the report, said that nonprofit groups serving girls need the type of statistics outlined in the report when applying for funding, but lack the time or manpower to find them.
"We wanted to gather this information in one place and put it out there so that it could impact policy; it could impact funding," Spatz said. The network, which helps women and girls develop leadership skills, led the collaboration of at least 30 area groups in producing the report.
In response to the violence girls face, the report recommends that policymakers pay closer attention to the stories that girls can share about their experiences.
Whitis, who was assaulted but not raped that night two years ago, belongs to the Rogers Park Young Women's Action Team, a group of girls ages 11 to 21 that came together in 2003 with the goal of raising awareness about street harassment and domestic violence.
In 2007, 36.9 percent of young women in Chicago's high schools said they had been depressed in the last year. More than a third (36.1 percent) of girls across the state who said they needed mental health care did not get any type of treatment.
Lisa Machoian, who has a doctoral degree in psychology and wrote the book "The Disappearing Girl: Learning the Language of Teenage Depression," said the high rates of adolescent depression in Illinois resonate with what she sees in her clinical practice in Cambridge, Mass., where she treats girls and young women who have anxiety, depression and low self-esteem.
Beatrice, 19, who asked that only her middle name be used, was on a self-described path toward prison given the way she acted out as a youth. She once knocked out two of a boy's teeth when he refused to let her ride his scooter. Beatrice found her way to clinical services at Alternatives Inc. when she was 9. The center, on Chicago's North Side, serves the emotional health and development of young women. Since then, she and her family have received free counseling services. Her mother's meager health insurance coverage would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to get therapy elsewhere, she said.
Today, Beatrice, a college student, has learned how to express her feelings through words and not aggression. She has become a resident adviser at Northern Illinois University and a youth leader at Alternatives Inc., where she talks to other girls about issues of social justice and police brutality.
Spatz said she hopes that for all the problems highlighted in the report, it also conveys how, when girls get opportunities to overcome the challenges they face, they often thrive. The report profiles programs for adolescent girls throughout the city that are helping to make a difference in their lives. One such program, Girls in the Game, provides girls ages 7 to 18 the chance to play sports, develop leadership skills and learn to have a healthy lifestyle. "If you work on their strengths, it very much helps girls blossom," Machoian said.
The report is available online at statusofgirls.womenandgirlscan.org.
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
Study cites 'lack of security' -- but groups aim to help
By Joanna Broder Special to the Tribune September 30, 2009
Eighteen-year old Chelsea Whitis tries to forget what happened that night two summers ago. While walking near her family's home in southwest Evanston, a man grabbed her from behind and dragged her into a nearby alley. He ran off when a car turned into the alley.
Now a senior at Lane Technical High School in Chicago's North Center neighborhood, Whitis keeps memories of the attack bottled up inside. She hasn't had any professional assistance to help her cope.
"I just feel like I'm never going to be safe," she said. "I'm so close to my house and I get attacked. ... I never feel safe."
A report released earlier this month found that many girls in Chicago and Illinois "face serious violence in their lives," including physical and sexual abuse, threats and injury in school, and assault on the streets. The report, "Status of Girls in Illinois," -- notes that 10.7 percent of girls in Chicago's high schools skipped school in 2007 because of safety concerns -- nearly double the national average of 5.6 percent -- and that "many girls also report a pervasive feeling of threat and lack of security."
The report pulls together existing survey data about girls in Chicago and Illinois and makes recommendations about a variety of development, health and wellness issues such as access to health care, mental and emotional health, sexuality, safety and substance abuse. It also found that depression and other forms of mental illness pose a serious health issue for area girls.
The report, released Sept. 10, draws mostly from well-known national surveys, including the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey of more than 14,000 high school students from across the country. That survey asks about students' sexual behavior, tobacco and alcohol use and other risky behaviors. It also includes statistics from the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, which said there are more than 1.5 million girls age 17 and younger in Illinois.
Alida Bouris, an assistant professor in the school of social service administration at the University of Chicago, called the report "ambitious." Bouris, who specializes in how parents can influence their children's sexual behavior, said the report shows that overall most girls in Illinois are doing well, but some are developing key health issues in adolescence and young adulthood that have long-term effects for their health and well-being.
Melissa Spatz, the executive director of Women & Girls Collective Action Network, the lead group behind the report, said that nonprofit groups serving girls need the type of statistics outlined in the report when applying for funding, but lack the time or manpower to find them.
"We wanted to gather this information in one place and put it out there so that it could impact policy; it could impact funding," Spatz said. The network, which helps women and girls develop leadership skills, led the collaboration of at least 30 area groups in producing the report.
In response to the violence girls face, the report recommends that policymakers pay closer attention to the stories that girls can share about their experiences.
Whitis, who was assaulted but not raped that night two years ago, belongs to the Rogers Park Young Women's Action Team, a group of girls ages 11 to 21 that came together in 2003 with the goal of raising awareness about street harassment and domestic violence.
In 2007, 36.9 percent of young women in Chicago's high schools said they had been depressed in the last year. More than a third (36.1 percent) of girls across the state who said they needed mental health care did not get any type of treatment.
Lisa Machoian, who has a doctoral degree in psychology and wrote the book "The Disappearing Girl: Learning the Language of Teenage Depression," said the high rates of adolescent depression in Illinois resonate with what she sees in her clinical practice in Cambridge, Mass., where she treats girls and young women who have anxiety, depression and low self-esteem.
Beatrice, 19, who asked that only her middle name be used, was on a self-described path toward prison given the way she acted out as a youth. She once knocked out two of a boy's teeth when he refused to let her ride his scooter. Beatrice found her way to clinical services at Alternatives Inc. when she was 9. The center, on Chicago's North Side, serves the emotional health and development of young women. Since then, she and her family have received free counseling services. Her mother's meager health insurance coverage would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to get therapy elsewhere, she said.
Today, Beatrice, a college student, has learned how to express her feelings through words and not aggression. She has become a resident adviser at Northern Illinois University and a youth leader at Alternatives Inc., where she talks to other girls about issues of social justice and police brutality.
Spatz said she hopes that for all the problems highlighted in the report, it also conveys how, when girls get opportunities to overcome the challenges they face, they often thrive. The report profiles programs for adolescent girls throughout the city that are helping to make a difference in their lives. One such program, Girls in the Game, provides girls ages 7 to 18 the chance to play sports, develop leadership skills and learn to have a healthy lifestyle. "If you work on their strengths, it very much helps girls blossom," Machoian said.
The report is available online at statusofgirls.womenandgirlscan.org.
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
TAKE ACTION TODAY TO OPPOSE THE BAUCUS HEALTH REFORM BILL!...
Per Women Raising Voices...
http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/
The long-awaited Senate Finance Committee health reform bill has finally emerged from the anti-democratic and painfully extended negotiation process created by Committee Chair Max Baucus of Montana. The Baucus bill is bad for women and bad for our families in many ways. We urge women's health advocates to contact your Senators, especially if they are members of the Senate Finance Committee, and demand that the Baucus bill be amended in the Senate Finance Committee mark-up meetings next week and on the floor of the Senate. Deadline for submitting amendments is tomorrow, Friday September 18, so we must act quickly! If your Senator is not a member of the Senate Finance Committee, ask him or her to contact Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus to oppose this bill in its current form.
What is wrong with the Baucus bill? The Baucus bill fails to make health insurance affordable for women and our families. It sacrifices important features of the other proposals, such as the public plan option, in what appears to have been an unsuccessful attempt to woo Republicans. Not a single Republican has agreed to support it yet.Raising Women's Voices strongly opposes the bill as it stands today and is calling on Senators to amend and improve it in the Finance Committee mark-up next week and on the floor of the Senate. KEY PROBLEMS THAT NEED
TO BE ADDRESSED:
The bill imposes politics and ideology on what should be a purely medical decision - the question about what services an insurance plan will cover. It singles out abortion for special exclusions, rather than treating it like other medical care, by adopting language that was developed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as a compromise to prevent anti-choice legislators from using the health reform bill as a vehicle to impose sweeping new restrictions on abortion. Reproductive health services are basic health care for women, and we urge the Finance Committee members to follow the lead of their colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee by passing legislation that puts the decisions about which services will be covered by insurance in the hands of medical experts and consumers who will make their decisions based on medical standards of care and scientific/medical evidence, not politics or ideology.
The bill fails to make health insurance affordable for low- and moderate-income people. It would mandate that everybody buy health insurance, and impose sizeable penalties on those who don't, but it doesn't make it possible for people to actually afford the insurance. One analysis found that a family of three earning $55,000 a year would be expected to pay $7,100 a year for insurance premiums, more than either the House bill or the Senate HELP committee bill would require. That's far too much to be affordable, and it doesn't even count out-of-pocket costs for co-pays and deductibles that will be charged on top of premiums!
The bill allows and even encourages insurance companies and employers to continue practices that are particularly damaging to women. It allows insurance companies to charge older people up to five times as much as younger people. The House bill allowed only a 2 to 1 ratio. Women, who live longer on average than men, are more likely to bear the costs of this age rating.
Moreover, the bill creates a disincentive for employers to hire low-income workers and especially low-income, single parents - the vast majority of whom are women.
The bill fails to ensure that all residents receive equal access to health coverage. We believe that health reform should give legal immigrants access to affordable coverage in the same way that it does for American citizens. Legal immigrants should have access to tax credits through the exchange, should be eligible for Medicaid without a waiting period and should not be subject to excessive verification requirements. In addition, we oppose efforts to bar people, regardless of immigration status, from using their own funds to buy health insurance through the exchange.
The bill does not establish an health insurance system that will provide a full range of choices to consumers, lower costs and make insurance companies accountable. The Baucus bill does not include a public insurance option, but instead provides a government-subsidized monopoly for private insurers. A robust public health insurance option would effectively compete with private insurers, giving people meaningful choice in their insurance purchasing decisions, helping to control costs and bringing greater accountability to the insurance industry. The co-op proposal included in the Baucus bill will not meet these objectives.
TAKE ACTION Please urge the members of the Senate Finance Committee to amend this bill so that it will represent a meaningful opportunity to make quality, affordable health care available to all women. Contact them TODAY, so your thoughts may be considered during the mark-up process.
Email your comments to your own Senators. In addition, please copy us at info@raisingwomensvoices.net so we know how many of you have raised your voices for quality, affordable health care that meets women's needs!
Let them know that you want their leadership in establishing quality, affordable health care for all women.
Remember to act quickly - now is the time to raise our voices and let the Senators know what we need.
http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/
The long-awaited Senate Finance Committee health reform bill has finally emerged from the anti-democratic and painfully extended negotiation process created by Committee Chair Max Baucus of Montana. The Baucus bill is bad for women and bad for our families in many ways. We urge women's health advocates to contact your Senators, especially if they are members of the Senate Finance Committee, and demand that the Baucus bill be amended in the Senate Finance Committee mark-up meetings next week and on the floor of the Senate. Deadline for submitting amendments is tomorrow, Friday September 18, so we must act quickly! If your Senator is not a member of the Senate Finance Committee, ask him or her to contact Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus to oppose this bill in its current form.
What is wrong with the Baucus bill? The Baucus bill fails to make health insurance affordable for women and our families. It sacrifices important features of the other proposals, such as the public plan option, in what appears to have been an unsuccessful attempt to woo Republicans. Not a single Republican has agreed to support it yet.Raising Women's Voices strongly opposes the bill as it stands today and is calling on Senators to amend and improve it in the Finance Committee mark-up next week and on the floor of the Senate. KEY PROBLEMS THAT NEED
TO BE ADDRESSED:
The bill imposes politics and ideology on what should be a purely medical decision - the question about what services an insurance plan will cover. It singles out abortion for special exclusions, rather than treating it like other medical care, by adopting language that was developed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as a compromise to prevent anti-choice legislators from using the health reform bill as a vehicle to impose sweeping new restrictions on abortion. Reproductive health services are basic health care for women, and we urge the Finance Committee members to follow the lead of their colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee by passing legislation that puts the decisions about which services will be covered by insurance in the hands of medical experts and consumers who will make their decisions based on medical standards of care and scientific/medical evidence, not politics or ideology.
The bill fails to make health insurance affordable for low- and moderate-income people. It would mandate that everybody buy health insurance, and impose sizeable penalties on those who don't, but it doesn't make it possible for people to actually afford the insurance. One analysis found that a family of three earning $55,000 a year would be expected to pay $7,100 a year for insurance premiums, more than either the House bill or the Senate HELP committee bill would require. That's far too much to be affordable, and it doesn't even count out-of-pocket costs for co-pays and deductibles that will be charged on top of premiums!
The bill allows and even encourages insurance companies and employers to continue practices that are particularly damaging to women. It allows insurance companies to charge older people up to five times as much as younger people. The House bill allowed only a 2 to 1 ratio. Women, who live longer on average than men, are more likely to bear the costs of this age rating.
Moreover, the bill creates a disincentive for employers to hire low-income workers and especially low-income, single parents - the vast majority of whom are women.
The bill fails to ensure that all residents receive equal access to health coverage. We believe that health reform should give legal immigrants access to affordable coverage in the same way that it does for American citizens. Legal immigrants should have access to tax credits through the exchange, should be eligible for Medicaid without a waiting period and should not be subject to excessive verification requirements. In addition, we oppose efforts to bar people, regardless of immigration status, from using their own funds to buy health insurance through the exchange.
The bill does not establish an health insurance system that will provide a full range of choices to consumers, lower costs and make insurance companies accountable. The Baucus bill does not include a public insurance option, but instead provides a government-subsidized monopoly for private insurers. A robust public health insurance option would effectively compete with private insurers, giving people meaningful choice in their insurance purchasing decisions, helping to control costs and bringing greater accountability to the insurance industry. The co-op proposal included in the Baucus bill will not meet these objectives.
TAKE ACTION Please urge the members of the Senate Finance Committee to amend this bill so that it will represent a meaningful opportunity to make quality, affordable health care available to all women. Contact them TODAY, so your thoughts may be considered during the mark-up process.
Email your comments to your own Senators. In addition, please copy us at info@raisingwomensvoices.net so we know how many of you have raised your voices for quality, affordable health care that meets women's needs!
Let them know that you want their leadership in establishing quality, affordable health care for all women.
Remember to act quickly - now is the time to raise our voices and let the Senators know what we need.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Domestic Violence...a pre-existing condition...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html
With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.
It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.
Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.
All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for
Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.
At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for an insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has proposed ending the discrimination. "The NAIC has a model on this that we strongly supported. That model bans the use of a person's status as a victim of domestic violence in making a decision on coverage," he said.
During the last health care reform push, in 1993 and 1994, the industry similarly promised to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
Murray pushed to include the domestic violence concern in this year's comprehensive health care bill. "Senator Murray continues to believe that victims of domestic violence should not be punished for the crimes of their abusers. That is why she worked to include language in the Senate HELP Committee's health insurance reform bill that would ban this discriminatory and harmful insurance company practice," said spokesman Eli Zupnick.
In 1994, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), now a member of Senate leadership, had his staff survey 16 insurance companies. He found that eight would not write health, life or disability policies for women who have been abused. In 1995, the Boston Globe found that Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Aetna, Metropolitan Life, The Equitable Companies, First Colony Life, The Prudential and the Principal Financial Group had all either canceled or denied coverage to women who'd been beaten.
The Service Employees International Union asked members to write letters to Congress regarding the exclusion and have quickly generated hundreds, says an SEIU spokeswoman.
The relevant provision:
SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
'(a) IN GENERAL.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:
(1) Health status.
(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).
(3) Claims experience.
(4) Receipt of health care.
(5) Medical history.
(6) Genetic information.
(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
(8) Disability.
(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary.
UPDATE: The eight states that still allow it are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, according to a report by the National Women's Law Center.
UPDATE II: Scratch the Tar Heal state from that list. North Carolina insurance commissioner Wayne Goodwin had his staff research the state's law and his attorneys concluded that insurers in that state would not be allowed to use domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. Group plans were specifically forbidden from using it thanks to a 1997 law, he said. For individuals and non-group plans, it's more complicated.
"Though there is not a specific statute for individual plans or non-group plans, there is another statute that our attorneys here tell us addresses this issue. For example, North Carolina law defines what a preexisting condition is. Now, here in North Carolina, it says a preexisting condition means - quote - those conditions for which medical advice, diagnosis, care or treatment was received or recommended within a one year period immediately preceding the effective date of the person's coverage." Domestic violence, he said, doesn't met the state's definition of a medical condition and so can't be used as a pre-existing condition.
Wyoming Department of Insurance staff attorney James Mitchell said the state's insurance laws do not ban insurers from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, but his staffers were unable to find cases of insurers having done so and he said they had not received any complaints. "We are not aware of any policies that have been submitted to us that addressed domestic violence as a pre-existing condition," he said. The remaining six states have yet to respond.
UPDATE TO UPDATE II: A few readers have noted that the ambiguity of North Carolina's law regarding individual and non-group plans could still leave domestic violence victims vulnerable to discrimination. And Commissioner Goodwin himself, in a Facebook note summarizing my conversation with him, does say "that North Carolina's law on this subject vis-a-vis individual/non-group plans could be clarified and made more direct, and that we should also consider the NAIC national model law on the subject, too. The legislature doesn't return until
May 2010, so there is time to work on the best way to clarify this issue for folks while educating them in the meanwhile."
He posted his response on the FB page of journalist Christine Tatum, who had posted a link to this story and asked her friends to contact him. Goodwin noted on her wall that allowing insurance companies to discriminate against domestic violence victims is a tragedy and something he wouldn't allow in his state.
North Carolina, however, given the fuzziness of the law, still belongs on a list of states whose laws could be clarified to assure that domestic violence victims aren't denied coverage or charged higher premiums. Forty-two states have made that specific clarification and the Senate health committee bill would do so nationally.
If you're an attorney with experience in this field and want to weigh in, write me at ryan@huffingtonpost.com.
UPDATE III: Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney provided the following statement through a spokeswoman:
Mississippi does not at this time have a law which bans insurance companies from considering domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. However, the reason there is not such a law is that there has not been a problem with insurance companies denying coverage or refusing to pay the claims of domestic violence victims in this state. If it were an issue, the Legislature and the Department would have addressed it by now.The Mississippi Department of Insurance is unaware of any insurance company operating in this state that would deny coverage if the applicant had been a victim of domestic violence. Nor have we received any complaint from a consumer stating their insurance company refused to pay their medical bills incurred from domestic violence. Such action by an insurance company would not be tolerated by the Department.It is the position of the Department that if an insurance company denied payment of a claim incurred in an act of domestic violence, such action would be a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, as promulgated in Miss. Code Ann. §§ 83-5-29 through 83-5-51, and the Department would take the appropriate action.Should the Mississippi Legislature choose to
enact legislation addressing this issue, the Mississippi Insurance Department would be very supportive of the passage of such legislation.
UPDATE TO UPDATE III: Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney was much blunter in an interview with the Jackson Free Press:
"The truth is we've got eight states in the union that count domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition, and Mississippi is one of them," Chaney told the Jackson Free Press. "I've got to get some of my lawyers to do some research on this, but we have only six mandated (conditions that must be covered) in our state statues, and we have 25 or more optional coverages, but domestic abuse doesn't seem to be one of them."
Chaney said all insurance companies in the state can take advantage of the state's limited coverage mandate, and that he would prefer the state to change its law to force insurance companies to cover victims of domestic abuse.
"Would I do something about it? Hell, yeah, I'd do something about it, but I'm a regulator, not a legislator. I have to come to terms with that every week," Chaney said. "The whole situation is bad. Let's say a woman works with a company that had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and she gets beat up in her house and Blue Cross says 'we're not covering you because getting beat up is your pre-existing condition.' That's terrible."
Read the whole story here.
With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.
It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.
Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.
All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for
Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.
At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for an insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has proposed ending the discrimination. "The NAIC has a model on this that we strongly supported. That model bans the use of a person's status as a victim of domestic violence in making a decision on coverage," he said.
During the last health care reform push, in 1993 and 1994, the industry similarly promised to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
Murray pushed to include the domestic violence concern in this year's comprehensive health care bill. "Senator Murray continues to believe that victims of domestic violence should not be punished for the crimes of their abusers. That is why she worked to include language in the Senate HELP Committee's health insurance reform bill that would ban this discriminatory and harmful insurance company practice," said spokesman Eli Zupnick.
In 1994, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), now a member of Senate leadership, had his staff survey 16 insurance companies. He found that eight would not write health, life or disability policies for women who have been abused. In 1995, the Boston Globe found that Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Aetna, Metropolitan Life, The Equitable Companies, First Colony Life, The Prudential and the Principal Financial Group had all either canceled or denied coverage to women who'd been beaten.
The Service Employees International Union asked members to write letters to Congress regarding the exclusion and have quickly generated hundreds, says an SEIU spokeswoman.
The relevant provision:
SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
'(a) IN GENERAL.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:
(1) Health status.
(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).
(3) Claims experience.
(4) Receipt of health care.
(5) Medical history.
(6) Genetic information.
(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
(8) Disability.
(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary.
UPDATE: The eight states that still allow it are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, according to a report by the National Women's Law Center.
UPDATE II: Scratch the Tar Heal state from that list. North Carolina insurance commissioner Wayne Goodwin had his staff research the state's law and his attorneys concluded that insurers in that state would not be allowed to use domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. Group plans were specifically forbidden from using it thanks to a 1997 law, he said. For individuals and non-group plans, it's more complicated.
"Though there is not a specific statute for individual plans or non-group plans, there is another statute that our attorneys here tell us addresses this issue. For example, North Carolina law defines what a preexisting condition is. Now, here in North Carolina, it says a preexisting condition means - quote - those conditions for which medical advice, diagnosis, care or treatment was received or recommended within a one year period immediately preceding the effective date of the person's coverage." Domestic violence, he said, doesn't met the state's definition of a medical condition and so can't be used as a pre-existing condition.
Wyoming Department of Insurance staff attorney James Mitchell said the state's insurance laws do not ban insurers from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, but his staffers were unable to find cases of insurers having done so and he said they had not received any complaints. "We are not aware of any policies that have been submitted to us that addressed domestic violence as a pre-existing condition," he said. The remaining six states have yet to respond.
UPDATE TO UPDATE II: A few readers have noted that the ambiguity of North Carolina's law regarding individual and non-group plans could still leave domestic violence victims vulnerable to discrimination. And Commissioner Goodwin himself, in a Facebook note summarizing my conversation with him, does say "that North Carolina's law on this subject vis-a-vis individual/non-group plans could be clarified and made more direct, and that we should also consider the NAIC national model law on the subject, too. The legislature doesn't return until
May 2010, so there is time to work on the best way to clarify this issue for folks while educating them in the meanwhile."
He posted his response on the FB page of journalist Christine Tatum, who had posted a link to this story and asked her friends to contact him. Goodwin noted on her wall that allowing insurance companies to discriminate against domestic violence victims is a tragedy and something he wouldn't allow in his state.
North Carolina, however, given the fuzziness of the law, still belongs on a list of states whose laws could be clarified to assure that domestic violence victims aren't denied coverage or charged higher premiums. Forty-two states have made that specific clarification and the Senate health committee bill would do so nationally.
If you're an attorney with experience in this field and want to weigh in, write me at ryan@huffingtonpost.com.
UPDATE III: Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney provided the following statement through a spokeswoman:
Mississippi does not at this time have a law which bans insurance companies from considering domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. However, the reason there is not such a law is that there has not been a problem with insurance companies denying coverage or refusing to pay the claims of domestic violence victims in this state. If it were an issue, the Legislature and the Department would have addressed it by now.The Mississippi Department of Insurance is unaware of any insurance company operating in this state that would deny coverage if the applicant had been a victim of domestic violence. Nor have we received any complaint from a consumer stating their insurance company refused to pay their medical bills incurred from domestic violence. Such action by an insurance company would not be tolerated by the Department.It is the position of the Department that if an insurance company denied payment of a claim incurred in an act of domestic violence, such action would be a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, as promulgated in Miss. Code Ann. §§ 83-5-29 through 83-5-51, and the Department would take the appropriate action.Should the Mississippi Legislature choose to
enact legislation addressing this issue, the Mississippi Insurance Department would be very supportive of the passage of such legislation.
UPDATE TO UPDATE III: Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney was much blunter in an interview with the Jackson Free Press:
"The truth is we've got eight states in the union that count domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition, and Mississippi is one of them," Chaney told the Jackson Free Press. "I've got to get some of my lawyers to do some research on this, but we have only six mandated (conditions that must be covered) in our state statues, and we have 25 or more optional coverages, but domestic abuse doesn't seem to be one of them."
Chaney said all insurance companies in the state can take advantage of the state's limited coverage mandate, and that he would prefer the state to change its law to force insurance companies to cover victims of domestic abuse.
"Would I do something about it? Hell, yeah, I'd do something about it, but I'm a regulator, not a legislator. I have to come to terms with that every week," Chaney said. "The whole situation is bad. Let's say a woman works with a company that had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and she gets beat up in her house and Blue Cross says 'we're not covering you because getting beat up is your pre-existing condition.' That's terrible."
Read the whole story here.
Domestic violence victim: 'Silence only empowers the abuser'
chicagotribune.com
Domestic violence victim: 'Silence only empowers the abuser'
Carolyn Mahoney uses the story of her near-fatal beating at the hands of her ex-husband to show that domestic violence can affect anyone
By Amanda Marrazzo
Special to the Tribune
September 4, 2009
On a bright, crisp morning nearly five years ago, Carolyn Cox should have been merrily preparing for her first trip to Europe, but instead she was fighting for her life after being brutally beaten and locked inside a carbon monoxide-filled garage in her Bull Valley mansion.The attacker was her husband of more than 40 years, millionaire businessman Billy J. Cox, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in the Dixon Correctional Center for attempted
murder.Meanwhile, the now remarried Carolyn Mahoney shares her story with audiences across the country about living decades in silence as an abused wife. "Sometimes I just want to put it in a box and I don't want to get it out," said Mahoney, sitting in the airy sunroom at the 15,000-square-foot, $2 million home she and Cox built on an 11-acre wooded lot in 2001.Since Cox's conviction in April 2007, Mahoney has told her story about 30 times to college sororities and family and women's groups around the country. In October, she will speak at Purdue University in Indiana and Auburn University in Alabama.Mahoney, 67, prepares mentally and emotionally for each speech and is exhausted after each one, she said. She details the morning of Sept. 13, 2004, and how Cox bludgeoned her with a blunt object -- which has never been found or identified -- in the head and face while she slept, then dragged her bloodied body down a hallway and locked her in the garage where two cars were idling.Recounting her story is painful, but "I was told once by a young girl, 'I am living your story,' " Mahoney said. That chance to help women in similar circumstances is what keeps her talking, she said.Mahoney tells of frightening moments throughout her marriage and how her husband's aggression increased over the years. It began early in their years together with insults, belittling and oppressive control such as not allowing her to attend her family's church, she said. The abuse increased to shoving, slapping, then punching and kicking, and she would respond by making excuses for him, she said."I had this illusion we were doing all the right things," she said. "There were no domestic shelters 40 years ago. It was a secret. You do not tell neighbors, family. You make things work."But Mahoney said she learned firsthand that "silence only empowers the abuser."No one suspected what was going on behind closed doors, Mahoney said. She has a master's degree, and Cox has a doctorate. Cox invented the agricultural chemical that helped to build his successful company, Exacto Inc. in Richmond. They were worth millions of dollars. They were country club members who supported local theater and arts. Mahoney emphasizes during her speaking engagements that domestic abuse knows no prejudice and involves people from all socioeconomic backgrounds."I am the face of domestic abuse," she said to an audience in a half-hour documentary about her. DVDs of the show sold for $20, with proceeds benefiting Turning Point, a McHenry County domestic violence agency and shelter."She has been instrumental in moving the issue of domestic violence out of the shadows and into the light because she is willing to be public about her story," said Jane Farmer, the agency's executive director. "It tells people it truly can happen to anyone."During his trial, Cox's attorneys insisted that he had no idea what happened to his wife that morning. Cox testified that he had been on the back end of their property for about six hours clearing brush and bird-watching. He claimed that the first time he saw his wife was when he opened the garage door to see the police officer outside the garage and his wife limp and bloody on the ground between two vehicles. Defense attorney Mark Gummerson argued that she had hurt herself when she fell off a ladder in the garage.The Coxes were scheduled to travel with friends to Europe that day. Police were called to the property for a well-being check after family and friends had been unable to reach the couple that morning.Jurors found Cox guilty of attempted murder and because he was considered a flight risk, he was immediately handcuffed and taken to jail. Officers who searched him in the jail found he had $10,000 in cash. Cox has appealed his conviction.Mahoney still bears faint scars of the near-fatal beating. She has had three major surgeries and has a metal plate in the left side of her face to help rebuild her cheekbone and eye socket. She lives with double-vision, some hearing loss, dental problems and balance issues."It is a miracle that she survived her brutal attack that day," said Nichole Owens, chief of criminal prosecutions for the McHenry County state's attorney's office. "Carolyn triumphantly overcame her tremendous physical and emotional obstacles and has become a passionate advocate for domestic violence victims."She tried to divorce Cox, but the proceeding was put on hold during the criminal trial. The divorce, ending a 47-year marriage, was made final in 2008, with Mahoney awarded Exacto stock, her home and other properties. Cox got 25 percent of the assets.About 18 months after the attack, Carolyn Cox, with encouragement from her daughter, tried online dating and met Dennis Mahoney, an attorney from Wisconsin. Mahoney, 67, supported her during the criminal and divorce trials and continues to back her mission to help women in abusive relationships.On July 5, in front of about 50 guests, the couple were married in the living room of the home where Carolyn Cox was almost killed. She wore a pale pink dress and he a modest suit. Her great-grandson was the ring bearer and great-granddaughter the flower girl. "This home, everything you see is a part of me," she said. "The house was not at fault. I wanted to have the wedding here to make new memories, new life, happy memories."
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
var s_account = "tribglobal";
Domestic violence victim: 'Silence only empowers the abuser'
Carolyn Mahoney uses the story of her near-fatal beating at the hands of her ex-husband to show that domestic violence can affect anyone
By Amanda Marrazzo
Special to the Tribune
September 4, 2009
On a bright, crisp morning nearly five years ago, Carolyn Cox should have been merrily preparing for her first trip to Europe, but instead she was fighting for her life after being brutally beaten and locked inside a carbon monoxide-filled garage in her Bull Valley mansion.The attacker was her husband of more than 40 years, millionaire businessman Billy J. Cox, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in the Dixon Correctional Center for attempted
murder.Meanwhile, the now remarried Carolyn Mahoney shares her story with audiences across the country about living decades in silence as an abused wife. "Sometimes I just want to put it in a box and I don't want to get it out," said Mahoney, sitting in the airy sunroom at the 15,000-square-foot, $2 million home she and Cox built on an 11-acre wooded lot in 2001.Since Cox's conviction in April 2007, Mahoney has told her story about 30 times to college sororities and family and women's groups around the country. In October, she will speak at Purdue University in Indiana and Auburn University in Alabama.Mahoney, 67, prepares mentally and emotionally for each speech and is exhausted after each one, she said. She details the morning of Sept. 13, 2004, and how Cox bludgeoned her with a blunt object -- which has never been found or identified -- in the head and face while she slept, then dragged her bloodied body down a hallway and locked her in the garage where two cars were idling.Recounting her story is painful, but "I was told once by a young girl, 'I am living your story,' " Mahoney said. That chance to help women in similar circumstances is what keeps her talking, she said.Mahoney tells of frightening moments throughout her marriage and how her husband's aggression increased over the years. It began early in their years together with insults, belittling and oppressive control such as not allowing her to attend her family's church, she said. The abuse increased to shoving, slapping, then punching and kicking, and she would respond by making excuses for him, she said."I had this illusion we were doing all the right things," she said. "There were no domestic shelters 40 years ago. It was a secret. You do not tell neighbors, family. You make things work."But Mahoney said she learned firsthand that "silence only empowers the abuser."No one suspected what was going on behind closed doors, Mahoney said. She has a master's degree, and Cox has a doctorate. Cox invented the agricultural chemical that helped to build his successful company, Exacto Inc. in Richmond. They were worth millions of dollars. They were country club members who supported local theater and arts. Mahoney emphasizes during her speaking engagements that domestic abuse knows no prejudice and involves people from all socioeconomic backgrounds."I am the face of domestic abuse," she said to an audience in a half-hour documentary about her. DVDs of the show sold for $20, with proceeds benefiting Turning Point, a McHenry County domestic violence agency and shelter."She has been instrumental in moving the issue of domestic violence out of the shadows and into the light because she is willing to be public about her story," said Jane Farmer, the agency's executive director. "It tells people it truly can happen to anyone."During his trial, Cox's attorneys insisted that he had no idea what happened to his wife that morning. Cox testified that he had been on the back end of their property for about six hours clearing brush and bird-watching. He claimed that the first time he saw his wife was when he opened the garage door to see the police officer outside the garage and his wife limp and bloody on the ground between two vehicles. Defense attorney Mark Gummerson argued that she had hurt herself when she fell off a ladder in the garage.The Coxes were scheduled to travel with friends to Europe that day. Police were called to the property for a well-being check after family and friends had been unable to reach the couple that morning.Jurors found Cox guilty of attempted murder and because he was considered a flight risk, he was immediately handcuffed and taken to jail. Officers who searched him in the jail found he had $10,000 in cash. Cox has appealed his conviction.Mahoney still bears faint scars of the near-fatal beating. She has had three major surgeries and has a metal plate in the left side of her face to help rebuild her cheekbone and eye socket. She lives with double-vision, some hearing loss, dental problems and balance issues."It is a miracle that she survived her brutal attack that day," said Nichole Owens, chief of criminal prosecutions for the McHenry County state's attorney's office. "Carolyn triumphantly overcame her tremendous physical and emotional obstacles and has become a passionate advocate for domestic violence victims."She tried to divorce Cox, but the proceeding was put on hold during the criminal trial. The divorce, ending a 47-year marriage, was made final in 2008, with Mahoney awarded Exacto stock, her home and other properties. Cox got 25 percent of the assets.About 18 months after the attack, Carolyn Cox, with encouragement from her daughter, tried online dating and met Dennis Mahoney, an attorney from Wisconsin. Mahoney, 67, supported her during the criminal and divorce trials and continues to back her mission to help women in abusive relationships.On July 5, in front of about 50 guests, the couple were married in the living room of the home where Carolyn Cox was almost killed. She wore a pale pink dress and he a modest suit. Her great-grandson was the ring bearer and great-granddaughter the flower girl. "This home, everything you see is a part of me," she said. "The house was not at fault. I wanted to have the wedding here to make new memories, new life, happy memories."
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
var s_account = "tribglobal";
Friday, September 11, 2009
Abuse UnChecked...
Abuse Unchecked: A Husband Shoots Wifeas a Community Watches (corrected version)By Byron Hurt
On Tuesday, September 1, I spoke to more than 2,000 incoming freshman students at Montclair State University in New Jersey. As part of their New Student orientation, the Department of Student Development and Campus Life invited me to campus to show clips from my documentary film Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, and to address the issue of men's physical and sexual violence against women. In my speech, I spoke about the urgent need for men to act as proactive bystanders in the face of such violence.
As I spoke to the students about gender-based violence in north Jersey, Lenox Ramsey, 25, taunted, chased, and then finally shot his wife, Kaidan Ramsey, 22, in broad daylight in Brooklyn, NY near Medgar Evers College. Surveillance tapes show a terrified Kaidan running for her life as
people on the street watched, doing nothing.
As a man, I know how easy it is look the other way and ignore male abusive behavior when it happens, especially when it happens publicly. I've been in situations like this and I know how paralyzed one can feel - not knowing exactly what to do. I have been in situations where I have failed to act and remember feeling horrible for lacking the courage to raise my voice. I have also been in situations when I have acted, and fellas, it's not as difficult or scary as you might imagine.
I understand the fear people feel when faced with intervening when a man is abusing a woman on a busy street. We are afraid the abuser will turn his rage onto us. This fear is real and has to be acknowledged. But as a community, we cannot remain silent and tolerate this kind of violence. We must speak up loudly and boldly when men physically or sexually assault women. Honk your car horn, yell and shout, call 911, or try to somehow distract the abuser from attacking his victim - even if it is for an instant. But please, do not remain silent. Help the woman out. Please understand that I am not suggesting that you jump in front of a bullet to save someone's life. You must be street smart and use wise judgment at all times. I am, however, suggesting that you do something as opposed to doing nothing at all. At the end of the day, we all have to look ourselves in the mirror knowing that we did the right thing when it mattered most to someone else.
As a nation, it is vital that we ramp up efforts to educate boys and men about patriarchy, sexism, male privilege, and how men's violence against women is ultimately about men maintaining power and control over female bodies. Men and women working in the gender violence prevention field have long called for men and women in positions of leadership to make gender violence prevention a priority in schools, churches, corporations, and in the military. Educating boys and men in prevention programs is one of the keys to drastically reducing all forms of gender violence.
Men, this has to stop. Men's violence against women is pervasive worldwide, and we can no longer deflect this issue onto women as if they are the cause of the problem and should fix it by themselves. Each day, new stories emerge about men who abduct, rape, beat, harass, and kill women. We do not need any more statistics to prove that men's violence against women is a real problem. It is real and it happens each and every day, all over the world.
We cannot be silent anymore. Non-abusive men who respect women and who are against men who abuse women have to speak up when incidents like this occur. You do not have to be an expert or know the latest statistics. All you have to do is care, have courage, and speak up in defense of the women you love. (Read Jackson Katz' Ten Things Men Can Do to Prevent Gender Violence at www.jacksonkatz.com)
Through my filmmaking, writing, and community outreach, I will continue to do all that I can to ally with women and educate as many non-abusive men as humanly possible. By raising our voices, men and women can use our influence to collectively send the message to other men that the abuse of women is not cool and should not go unchecked within our communities.
If you have a mother, sister, daughter, grandmother, aunt, or female friend that you love and care about, then you should be an advocate for them and tune in to the issues that affect them daily. Men's violence against women is one such issue that affects the women you love.
# # #
Byron Hurt is an award-winning documentary filmmaker, a published writer, and an anti-sexist activist. Learn more at www.bhurt.com.
NOTE TO READERS: Feel free to cut and paste my statement and forward widely along with the link to the article and disturbing video footage of the shooting: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/02/2009-09-02_brooklyn_gun_horror.html
I also recommend that you Google, buy, and read these five books to learn more about what we as men can do to help end violence against women:
• The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help - Jackson Katz• Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power - Edited by Shira Tarrant• The Black Male Handbook: A Blueprint for Life - Edited by Kevin Powell• NewBlackMan - Mark Anthony Neal• The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love - bell hooks
On Tuesday, September 1, I spoke to more than 2,000 incoming freshman students at Montclair State University in New Jersey. As part of their New Student orientation, the Department of Student Development and Campus Life invited me to campus to show clips from my documentary film Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, and to address the issue of men's physical and sexual violence against women. In my speech, I spoke about the urgent need for men to act as proactive bystanders in the face of such violence.
As I spoke to the students about gender-based violence in north Jersey, Lenox Ramsey, 25, taunted, chased, and then finally shot his wife, Kaidan Ramsey, 22, in broad daylight in Brooklyn, NY near Medgar Evers College. Surveillance tapes show a terrified Kaidan running for her life as
people on the street watched, doing nothing.
As a man, I know how easy it is look the other way and ignore male abusive behavior when it happens, especially when it happens publicly. I've been in situations like this and I know how paralyzed one can feel - not knowing exactly what to do. I have been in situations where I have failed to act and remember feeling horrible for lacking the courage to raise my voice. I have also been in situations when I have acted, and fellas, it's not as difficult or scary as you might imagine.
I understand the fear people feel when faced with intervening when a man is abusing a woman on a busy street. We are afraid the abuser will turn his rage onto us. This fear is real and has to be acknowledged. But as a community, we cannot remain silent and tolerate this kind of violence. We must speak up loudly and boldly when men physically or sexually assault women. Honk your car horn, yell and shout, call 911, or try to somehow distract the abuser from attacking his victim - even if it is for an instant. But please, do not remain silent. Help the woman out. Please understand that I am not suggesting that you jump in front of a bullet to save someone's life. You must be street smart and use wise judgment at all times. I am, however, suggesting that you do something as opposed to doing nothing at all. At the end of the day, we all have to look ourselves in the mirror knowing that we did the right thing when it mattered most to someone else.
As a nation, it is vital that we ramp up efforts to educate boys and men about patriarchy, sexism, male privilege, and how men's violence against women is ultimately about men maintaining power and control over female bodies. Men and women working in the gender violence prevention field have long called for men and women in positions of leadership to make gender violence prevention a priority in schools, churches, corporations, and in the military. Educating boys and men in prevention programs is one of the keys to drastically reducing all forms of gender violence.
Men, this has to stop. Men's violence against women is pervasive worldwide, and we can no longer deflect this issue onto women as if they are the cause of the problem and should fix it by themselves. Each day, new stories emerge about men who abduct, rape, beat, harass, and kill women. We do not need any more statistics to prove that men's violence against women is a real problem. It is real and it happens each and every day, all over the world.
We cannot be silent anymore. Non-abusive men who respect women and who are against men who abuse women have to speak up when incidents like this occur. You do not have to be an expert or know the latest statistics. All you have to do is care, have courage, and speak up in defense of the women you love. (Read Jackson Katz' Ten Things Men Can Do to Prevent Gender Violence at www.jacksonkatz.com)
Through my filmmaking, writing, and community outreach, I will continue to do all that I can to ally with women and educate as many non-abusive men as humanly possible. By raising our voices, men and women can use our influence to collectively send the message to other men that the abuse of women is not cool and should not go unchecked within our communities.
If you have a mother, sister, daughter, grandmother, aunt, or female friend that you love and care about, then you should be an advocate for them and tune in to the issues that affect them daily. Men's violence against women is one such issue that affects the women you love.
# # #
Byron Hurt is an award-winning documentary filmmaker, a published writer, and an anti-sexist activist. Learn more at www.bhurt.com.
NOTE TO READERS: Feel free to cut and paste my statement and forward widely along with the link to the article and disturbing video footage of the shooting: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/02/2009-09-02_brooklyn_gun_horror.html
I also recommend that you Google, buy, and read these five books to learn more about what we as men can do to help end violence against women:
• The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help - Jackson Katz• Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power - Edited by Shira Tarrant• The Black Male Handbook: A Blueprint for Life - Edited by Kevin Powell• NewBlackMan - Mark Anthony Neal• The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love - bell hooks
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tell them what health care looks like for you...
Have you reached out to Senators and Reps to let them know what you want included in the Health Care Reform bill?
If not, here's their contact info.
Senators:
Rolland Burris http://burris.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Dick Durbin http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Representatives:
Bean, Melissa L., Illinois, 8th
Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th
Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th
Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th
Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th
Foster, Bill, Illinois, 14th
Hare, Phil, Illinois, 17th
Halvorson, Deborah "Debbie", Illinois, 11th
Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd
Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th
Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th
Lipinski, Daniel, Illinois, 3rd
Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th
Quigley, Mike, Illinois, 5th
Roskam, Peter J., Illinois, 6th
Rush, Bobby L., Illinois, 1st
Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th
Schock, Aaron, Illinois, 18th
Shimkus, John, Illinois, 19th
Also, here's a link to a Side by side comparison of healthcare reform proposals
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_sbs_full.pdf
If not, here's their contact info.
Senators:
Rolland Burris http://burris.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Dick Durbin http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Representatives:
Bean, Melissa L., Illinois, 8th
Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th
Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th
Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th
Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th
Foster, Bill, Illinois, 14th
Hare, Phil, Illinois, 17th
Halvorson, Deborah "Debbie", Illinois, 11th
Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd
Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th
Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th
Lipinski, Daniel, Illinois, 3rd
Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th
Quigley, Mike, Illinois, 5th
Roskam, Peter J., Illinois, 6th
Rush, Bobby L., Illinois, 1st
Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th
Schock, Aaron, Illinois, 18th
Shimkus, John, Illinois, 19th
Also, here's a link to a Side by side comparison of healthcare reform proposals
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_sbs_full.pdf
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
They've started working on the health care reform bill...
Per Raising Women's Voices for the health care we need!
http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/
The Senate HELP Committee has started work on its health care reform bill - and they need to hear from you. The bill represents a giant step forward in our efforts to get quality, affordable health care for all women, but some Senators have introduced amendments that would be very damaging to women's health and that would advance political agendas over accurate science and medicine. A few examples of what these damaging amendments propose:
Require doctors to disseminate information that is not supported by science to women seeking pregnancy-related care, including abortion.
Require parental consent for students who get services at school-based clinics.
Violate patients' rights and erode clinicians' duties to their patients by encroaching on the right to receive health services and information, including contraception, fertility services and other health care necessary to meet established medical standards of care.
Impose barriers to health care for immigrants by requiring that they be citizens for five years before participating in certain programs.
Establish a program to promote crisis pregnancy centers that withhold full, accurate information about options from women facing an unintended pregnancy, and in some cases use deceptive, inaccurate and even intimindating tactics to influence their decisions.
Scale back substantially the effort to strengthen and restore authority to the Office of Women's Health that we depend on to provide leadership, expertise and guidance on women's health concerns within the Department of Health & Human Services.
TAKE ACTION Please urge the members of the Senate HELP Committee to vote against all amendments that threaten women's health. Contact them as soon as possible, so your thoughts may be considered during the mark-up process.
Email your comments to help_comments@help.senate.gov and we encourage copying your own congressional delegation on the message as well. In addition, please copy
info@raisingwomensvoices.net so we know how many of you have raised your voices for quality, affordable health care that meets women's needs!
Let them know that you want their leadership in establishing quality, affordable health care for all women and that you want to see the bill go forward without damaging amendments like the ones being offered by Senators Coburn, Enzi and Hatch.
If you have questions or comments, please email info@raisingwomensvoices.net. Remember to act quickly - now is the time to raise our voices and let the Senators know what we need.
Description of Policy Options
Expanding Health Care Coverage:
Proposals to Provide Affordable Coverage to All Americans
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/051109%20Health%20Care%20Description%20of%20Policy%20Options.pdf
http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/
The Senate HELP Committee has started work on its health care reform bill - and they need to hear from you. The bill represents a giant step forward in our efforts to get quality, affordable health care for all women, but some Senators have introduced amendments that would be very damaging to women's health and that would advance political agendas over accurate science and medicine. A few examples of what these damaging amendments propose:
Require doctors to disseminate information that is not supported by science to women seeking pregnancy-related care, including abortion.
Require parental consent for students who get services at school-based clinics.
Violate patients' rights and erode clinicians' duties to their patients by encroaching on the right to receive health services and information, including contraception, fertility services and other health care necessary to meet established medical standards of care.
Impose barriers to health care for immigrants by requiring that they be citizens for five years before participating in certain programs.
Establish a program to promote crisis pregnancy centers that withhold full, accurate information about options from women facing an unintended pregnancy, and in some cases use deceptive, inaccurate and even intimindating tactics to influence their decisions.
Scale back substantially the effort to strengthen and restore authority to the Office of Women's Health that we depend on to provide leadership, expertise and guidance on women's health concerns within the Department of Health & Human Services.
TAKE ACTION Please urge the members of the Senate HELP Committee to vote against all amendments that threaten women's health. Contact them as soon as possible, so your thoughts may be considered during the mark-up process.
Email your comments to help_comments@help.senate.gov and we encourage copying your own congressional delegation on the message as well. In addition, please copy
info@raisingwomensvoices.net so we know how many of you have raised your voices for quality, affordable health care that meets women's needs!
Let them know that you want their leadership in establishing quality, affordable health care for all women and that you want to see the bill go forward without damaging amendments like the ones being offered by Senators Coburn, Enzi and Hatch.
If you have questions or comments, please email info@raisingwomensvoices.net. Remember to act quickly - now is the time to raise our voices and let the Senators know what we need.
Description of Policy Options
Expanding Health Care Coverage:
Proposals to Provide Affordable Coverage to All Americans
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/051109%20Health%20Care%20Description%20of%20Policy%20Options.pdf
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Girls/Women....Speak Out for HEALTH CARE!
Peace,
We invite you to this very important and pressing Speak Out/Town Hall Meeting next Thursday, June 18 (refer below for details). We will be discussing health care for women and our families. This is time-sensitive b/c we need to act while legislators are on recess and are in-district (in their Chicago offices, not in Springfield).
There are women and teenage girls that can not afford even the most basic care of getting their annual pap smears. We have clinics closing ie. Pilsen Women and Family Clinic and the U of Chicago Women's Clinic. We have to make sure that the new health care bill includes our whole bodies, especially our reproductive health.
For many of us our primary care doctor is our Ob/Gyn so we have to make sure that we use the power of telling our stories as a means of getting our health care needs included in the health care reform bill. And let's not forget that we are speaking out for those that may be voiceless--for instance children, the disabled, the differently minded, incarcerated women, sistas surviving on the streets etc.
Please, forward this email to all of your friends, family, neighbors, students and/or co-workers.
We deserve quality, afforadable and accessible health care,
AquaMoon
camil and veronica
Speak Out!
for the health care we need
Thursday
June 18, 2009
United Church of Hyde Park
1448 E. 53rd Street
7-9pm
RSVP at SpeakOut@spokenexistence.com
To share your story at the speak out call 773-955-2709
Come share your stories about how you’ve struggled
with the current health care system
and what needs to change.
For example—your experiences with doctors, clinics, hospitals, insurance providers, and age, size, race, class,
gender or disability insensitivities.
Health care is a human right...
We deserve affordable, accessible and quality health care.
Fed up with our broken health care system? Angry about expensive health insurance that doesn’t pay for the care that you and your family need? Outraged that insurance companies, in some states, can deny coverage of ‘pre-existing’ conditions such as, breast cancer, and other life-threatening illnesses? Can't afford your annual Paps or HPV screening? HIV/AIDS resources not accessible? Can't afford counseling or disability services? Then join the Illinois Raising Women’s Voices and the national Raising Women’s Voices Inititiative in sending a strong message to Congress that the current system is unacceptable and real health care reform is fair and just!
We will be joined by Byllye Avery...
Byllye Avery is co-founder of Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need. A dreamer, a visionary and a grassroots realist, she has combined activism with social responsibility to explore women’s health issues. Founder of the National Black Women’s Health Project and the Avery Institute for Social Change, Byllye Avery has dedicated the last 30 years to inspiring women with her experiences, wisdom and spirit.
There’s just a real special magic that happenswhen women come together to work togetherin an effective way for a common cause.– BYLLYE AVERY
Why should women raise our voices for health care reform?
Byllye: The reason why women should raise our voices is because we have a unique perspective about health care and what our health care needs are, and our perspectives need to be in the mix.
Our bodies, our lives, our health and our priorities are different from men’s. Ifyou don’t get the voices of everyone you run the risk of developing services that are ineffective and that don’t meet the people’s needs. Also, we’re the caretakers. We take care of everybody -- lot of the time before we take care of ourselves -- and we make spaces for our lovers, our sisters, our aunts, our children and our families, so it’s very important.
There’s power in our collective voices. It’s really easy to not do something... But it’s much easier go along when see other people are doing something. You become motivated, you want to join. Our whole notion is to do good in the world, to unite with other people. There’s just a real special magic that happens when women come together to work together in an effective way for a common cause.
Sponsored by: Raising Women’s Voices, Black Women for Reproductive Justice, AquaMoon, American Civil Liberties Union, Chicago Foundation for Women, Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health and more...
We invite you to this very important and pressing Speak Out/Town Hall Meeting next Thursday, June 18 (refer below for details). We will be discussing health care for women and our families. This is time-sensitive b/c we need to act while legislators are on recess and are in-district (in their Chicago offices, not in Springfield).
There are women and teenage girls that can not afford even the most basic care of getting their annual pap smears. We have clinics closing ie. Pilsen Women and Family Clinic and the U of Chicago Women's Clinic. We have to make sure that the new health care bill includes our whole bodies, especially our reproductive health.
For many of us our primary care doctor is our Ob/Gyn so we have to make sure that we use the power of telling our stories as a means of getting our health care needs included in the health care reform bill. And let's not forget that we are speaking out for those that may be voiceless--for instance children, the disabled, the differently minded, incarcerated women, sistas surviving on the streets etc.
Please, forward this email to all of your friends, family, neighbors, students and/or co-workers.
We deserve quality, afforadable and accessible health care,
AquaMoon
camil and veronica
Speak Out!
for the health care we need
Thursday
June 18, 2009
United Church of Hyde Park
1448 E. 53rd Street
7-9pm
RSVP at SpeakOut@spokenexistence.com
To share your story at the speak out call 773-955-2709
Come share your stories about how you’ve struggled
with the current health care system
and what needs to change.
For example—your experiences with doctors, clinics, hospitals, insurance providers, and age, size, race, class,
gender or disability insensitivities.
Health care is a human right...
We deserve affordable, accessible and quality health care.
Fed up with our broken health care system? Angry about expensive health insurance that doesn’t pay for the care that you and your family need? Outraged that insurance companies, in some states, can deny coverage of ‘pre-existing’ conditions such as, breast cancer, and other life-threatening illnesses? Can't afford your annual Paps or HPV screening? HIV/AIDS resources not accessible? Can't afford counseling or disability services? Then join the Illinois Raising Women’s Voices and the national Raising Women’s Voices Inititiative in sending a strong message to Congress that the current system is unacceptable and real health care reform is fair and just!
We will be joined by Byllye Avery...
Byllye Avery is co-founder of Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need. A dreamer, a visionary and a grassroots realist, she has combined activism with social responsibility to explore women’s health issues. Founder of the National Black Women’s Health Project and the Avery Institute for Social Change, Byllye Avery has dedicated the last 30 years to inspiring women with her experiences, wisdom and spirit.
There’s just a real special magic that happenswhen women come together to work togetherin an effective way for a common cause.– BYLLYE AVERY
Why should women raise our voices for health care reform?
Byllye: The reason why women should raise our voices is because we have a unique perspective about health care and what our health care needs are, and our perspectives need to be in the mix.
Our bodies, our lives, our health and our priorities are different from men’s. Ifyou don’t get the voices of everyone you run the risk of developing services that are ineffective and that don’t meet the people’s needs. Also, we’re the caretakers. We take care of everybody -- lot of the time before we take care of ourselves -- and we make spaces for our lovers, our sisters, our aunts, our children and our families, so it’s very important.
There’s power in our collective voices. It’s really easy to not do something... But it’s much easier go along when see other people are doing something. You become motivated, you want to join. Our whole notion is to do good in the world, to unite with other people. There’s just a real special magic that happens when women come together to work together in an effective way for a common cause.
Sponsored by: Raising Women’s Voices, Black Women for Reproductive Justice, AquaMoon, American Civil Liberties Union, Chicago Foundation for Women, Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health and more...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Dating Bill of Rights...
I have a right to:
- Ask for a date
- Refuse a date
- Suggest activities
- Refuse any activities, even if my date is excited about them
- Have my own feelings and be able to express them
- Say, "I think my friend is wrong and his actions are inappropriate"
- Tell someone not to interrupt me
- Have my limits and values respected
- Tell my partner when I need affection
- Refuse affection
- Be heard
- Refuse to lend money
- Refuse sex any time, for any reason
- Have friends and space aside from my partner
I have the responsibility to:
- Determine my limits and values
- Respect the limits of others
- Communicate clearly and honestly
- Not violate the limits of others
- Ask for help when I need it
- Be considerate
- Check my actions and decisions to determine whether they are good or bad for me
- Set high goals for myself
From the Domestic Violence Advocacy Program of Family Resources, Inc.
Harm Reduction NOT Judgment...
To successfully use a harm reduction approach it takes the removal of ego or the notion that you know what's best for someone else. This approach can be applied to everyday life. You dont have to be a service provider, social worker or label yourself an advocate to apply these things to how you deal with family, friends and community. What is harm reduction...Harm reduction, or harm minimisation, refers to a range of pragmatic and compassionate public health policies designed to reduce the harmful consequences associated with drug use and other high risk activities [1]. Many advocates argue that prohibitionist laws cause harm, because, for example, they oblige prostitutes to work in dangerous conditions and oblige drug users to obtain their drugs from unreliable criminal sources. This usually involves softening punishments on risky behaviour, assisting people to stop the behaviour and addressing the reasons people engage in such behaviour.
http://eminism.org/readings/harmreduction.html#principles
Toward a Harm Reduction Approach in Survivor Advocacy
by Emi Koyama
Reprinted from the Spring 2001 newsletter of Survivor Project. Jump to principles of harm reduction in survivor advocacy.
There is no question that everyone who takes part in the movement against domestic and sexual violence is working to reduce and eliminate harms of violence in our society, but not all of us come from the specific perspective known as the harm reduction approach. How, then, is the harm reduction approach different from other approaches, and why is it important?
Harm reduction is a philosophy first developed by people organizing against HIV/AIDS crisis and other health issues among injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition states: "Harm reduction is a set of practical strategies that reduce negative consequences of drug use, incorporating a spectrum of strategies from safer use, to managed use to abstinence. Harm reduction strategies meet drug users where they are at, addressing conditions of use along with the use itself." HRC further states the following principles: Harm reduction:
· Accepts, for better and for worse, that licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them.
· Understands drug use as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors from severe abuse to total abstinence, and acknowledges that some ways of using drugs are clearly safer than others.
· Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being--not necessarily cessation of all drug use--as the criteria for successful interventions and policies.
· Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who use drugs and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm.
· Ensures that drug users and those with a history of drug use routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them.
· Affirms drugs users themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use, and seeks to empower users to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use.
· Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination and other social inequalities affect both people's vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with drug-related harm.
· Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger associated with licit and illicit drug use. Harm reduction approach stands in stark contrast to the law enforcement efforts to criminalize and prosecute drug use as well as to the medical community's efforts to pathologize it. Although there are different sets of implications arising from these competing frameworks, they both threaten to take away drug users' self-definition and to reduce the impact of serious social problems such as poverty and racism to individuals' moral or biological flaws.
Simply put, harm reduction is the opposite of these paternalistic approaches exemplified by law enforcement and medical communities. By "meeting drug users where they are at," providing clean needles, gears, and accurate information about safe usage, harm reduction approach aims to save lives without relying on coercion.
Sadly, paternalism also exists in the movement against domestic violence, often in the form of official shelter (hotline, etc.) policies as well as unofficial pressures compelling survivors to act in certain ways.
An example--an old one in fact--would be how advocates frequently pressure victims of domestic violence to leave their abusers through scare tactics and guilt trips. Of course, this tendency has began to shift as we learned the fact that leaving the abuser is the single most dangerous act a victim could take and therefore we should be weary of pressuring someone to leave when s/he is not ready to do so. However, as long as we pretend to know better than the survivor does what is in her or his best interest, we are bound to make the same mistake over and over. Instead of waiting for new researches to tell us which direction we need to push survivors to, we should adopt as a fundamental principle that survivors can decide for themselves what should be done in order to be safe, and stop pressuring them in any direction--that is the harm reduction approach to survivor advocacy.
Redefined in terms of domestic violence, harm reduction is a set of practical strategies that reduce negative consequences of certain survival and coping mechanisms survivors use. It believes in creating a larger pool of options survivors can choose from, rather than narrowing them down through paternalistic guidance. In simpler terms, I am referring to many coping mechanisms that others call "maladaptive" or "unhealthy": alcohol and drug use, self-hurting, survival sex, irregular eating and sleeping patterns, as well as being in contact with the abuser.
Of course, harm reduction would not deserve its name if it merely stepped back and sat by idly as survivors engage in these behaviors; on the contrary, harm reduction, if executed correctly, requires us as advocates to do much more work than if we were working from the paternalistic approach. Under the paternalistic approach, we simply ban those behaviors we deem harmful, label survivors who use such coping mechanisms pathological or uncooperative, sending them to "treatments" or kicking them out of our programs. In a shelter working from the harm reduction approach, we need to get over our presumptions and judgments, realistically assess actual dangers, provide accurate rather than exaggerated information, and assist survivors develop strategies to do whatever it takes for them to cope while staying relatively safe from extreme dangers. No coping mechanism is "maladaptive" or "unhealthy" in itself unless and until the survivor herself or himself decides it is--at which point we offer resources that can help them develop alternative coping mechanisms. The guiding principle here is to create more options rather than less.
Harm reduction does not mean that "anything goes" either: when one survivor's coping method directly threatens the safety of others, including that of her or his children, an intervention is warranted. This includes situations where the survivor is high from using drugs and acting reckless, for example. But even then, we can address negative impacts of the particular coping mechanism and how to keep it from harming other people without labeling and banning such coping mechanisms as maladaptive or pathological. In such a situation, the role of the advocate is to assist the survivor and everyone else affected come up with a way to remove the harm rather than instructing her or him what coping method can be deployed. Survivors' their own voices must play a prominent role in determining the parameters of any interventions that affect them.
Another situation where an advocate need to intervene is when the survivor's behavior is causing an imminent life-threatening danger to herself or himself, such as when she or he is unconscious from overdosing on drugs, bleeding heavily from cutting up the vein, or refusing to eat for an extended period of time. Because the purpose of harm reduction is to reduce harm as survivors engage in whatever behavior they need to in order to feel safe and in control, overlooking any behaviors that lead up to death defeats the purpose.
Harm reduction approach in survivor advocacy is fundamentally feminist, and is true to the roots of our movement of survivors creating resources for other survivors. It demands that advocates accept survivors as the source of authority and expertise in issues that concern them, rather than relying on so-called experts to determine what they need. It seeks to empower survivors to reduce the harms of their coping mechanisms rather than to modify their behaviors.
It is an alternative to the paternalistic ways survivors are treated within abusive relationships and then by legal and medical establishments. It is a natural progression of our movement whose purpose is to empower survivors in their own unique ways rather than merely secluding them from the rest of the mean world.
And it is possible, if we as the advocates stand up to our funders, boards, and legal and medical experts and state clearly that we will not be part of a system that routinely deny survivors' right to self-determination. A true advocacy is about creating more options rather than less, and we owe it to the survivors who come to our programs.
Harm Reduction Principles in Survivor Advocacy
based on the model by Harm Reduction Coalition; adaptation by Emi Koyama
· Accepts, for better and for worse, that survivors learn to cope in whatever ways that reduce their pain and increase their sense of control, including those traditionally viewed as "unhealthy" (e.g. staying or maintaining contacts with the abuser, alcohol and drug use, wrist cutting and other self-harm, survival sex and sex work, irregular eating and sleeping patterns), and chooses to work to minimize their harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them.
· Understands each method of coping as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors from recklessly extreme to no action, and acknowledges that some ways of doing it are clearly safer than others.
· Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being--not necessarily cessation of all activities deemed unhealthy or unsafe--as the criteria for successful interventions and policies.
· Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who are coping with the effects and aftermath of abuse and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm.
· Ensures that survivors themselves--both those receiving services currently and those who have in the past--routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them.
· Affirms survivors themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their various coping methods as well as the authorities on their own experiences, and seeks to empower them to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of survival and coping.
· Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, discrimination and other social inequalities affect both survivors' vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with the effects and aftermath of the abuse.
· Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger associated with certain coping methods survivors may employ.
http://eminism.org/readings/harmreduction.html#principles
Toward a Harm Reduction Approach in Survivor Advocacy
by Emi Koyama
Reprinted from the Spring 2001 newsletter of Survivor Project. Jump to principles of harm reduction in survivor advocacy.
There is no question that everyone who takes part in the movement against domestic and sexual violence is working to reduce and eliminate harms of violence in our society, but not all of us come from the specific perspective known as the harm reduction approach. How, then, is the harm reduction approach different from other approaches, and why is it important?
Harm reduction is a philosophy first developed by people organizing against HIV/AIDS crisis and other health issues among injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition states: "Harm reduction is a set of practical strategies that reduce negative consequences of drug use, incorporating a spectrum of strategies from safer use, to managed use to abstinence. Harm reduction strategies meet drug users where they are at, addressing conditions of use along with the use itself." HRC further states the following principles: Harm reduction:
· Accepts, for better and for worse, that licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them.
· Understands drug use as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors from severe abuse to total abstinence, and acknowledges that some ways of using drugs are clearly safer than others.
· Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being--not necessarily cessation of all drug use--as the criteria for successful interventions and policies.
· Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who use drugs and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm.
· Ensures that drug users and those with a history of drug use routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them.
· Affirms drugs users themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use, and seeks to empower users to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use.
· Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination and other social inequalities affect both people's vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with drug-related harm.
· Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger associated with licit and illicit drug use. Harm reduction approach stands in stark contrast to the law enforcement efforts to criminalize and prosecute drug use as well as to the medical community's efforts to pathologize it. Although there are different sets of implications arising from these competing frameworks, they both threaten to take away drug users' self-definition and to reduce the impact of serious social problems such as poverty and racism to individuals' moral or biological flaws.
Simply put, harm reduction is the opposite of these paternalistic approaches exemplified by law enforcement and medical communities. By "meeting drug users where they are at," providing clean needles, gears, and accurate information about safe usage, harm reduction approach aims to save lives without relying on coercion.
Sadly, paternalism also exists in the movement against domestic violence, often in the form of official shelter (hotline, etc.) policies as well as unofficial pressures compelling survivors to act in certain ways.
An example--an old one in fact--would be how advocates frequently pressure victims of domestic violence to leave their abusers through scare tactics and guilt trips. Of course, this tendency has began to shift as we learned the fact that leaving the abuser is the single most dangerous act a victim could take and therefore we should be weary of pressuring someone to leave when s/he is not ready to do so. However, as long as we pretend to know better than the survivor does what is in her or his best interest, we are bound to make the same mistake over and over. Instead of waiting for new researches to tell us which direction we need to push survivors to, we should adopt as a fundamental principle that survivors can decide for themselves what should be done in order to be safe, and stop pressuring them in any direction--that is the harm reduction approach to survivor advocacy.
Redefined in terms of domestic violence, harm reduction is a set of practical strategies that reduce negative consequences of certain survival and coping mechanisms survivors use. It believes in creating a larger pool of options survivors can choose from, rather than narrowing them down through paternalistic guidance. In simpler terms, I am referring to many coping mechanisms that others call "maladaptive" or "unhealthy": alcohol and drug use, self-hurting, survival sex, irregular eating and sleeping patterns, as well as being in contact with the abuser.
Of course, harm reduction would not deserve its name if it merely stepped back and sat by idly as survivors engage in these behaviors; on the contrary, harm reduction, if executed correctly, requires us as advocates to do much more work than if we were working from the paternalistic approach. Under the paternalistic approach, we simply ban those behaviors we deem harmful, label survivors who use such coping mechanisms pathological or uncooperative, sending them to "treatments" or kicking them out of our programs. In a shelter working from the harm reduction approach, we need to get over our presumptions and judgments, realistically assess actual dangers, provide accurate rather than exaggerated information, and assist survivors develop strategies to do whatever it takes for them to cope while staying relatively safe from extreme dangers. No coping mechanism is "maladaptive" or "unhealthy" in itself unless and until the survivor herself or himself decides it is--at which point we offer resources that can help them develop alternative coping mechanisms. The guiding principle here is to create more options rather than less.
Harm reduction does not mean that "anything goes" either: when one survivor's coping method directly threatens the safety of others, including that of her or his children, an intervention is warranted. This includes situations where the survivor is high from using drugs and acting reckless, for example. But even then, we can address negative impacts of the particular coping mechanism and how to keep it from harming other people without labeling and banning such coping mechanisms as maladaptive or pathological. In such a situation, the role of the advocate is to assist the survivor and everyone else affected come up with a way to remove the harm rather than instructing her or him what coping method can be deployed. Survivors' their own voices must play a prominent role in determining the parameters of any interventions that affect them.
Another situation where an advocate need to intervene is when the survivor's behavior is causing an imminent life-threatening danger to herself or himself, such as when she or he is unconscious from overdosing on drugs, bleeding heavily from cutting up the vein, or refusing to eat for an extended period of time. Because the purpose of harm reduction is to reduce harm as survivors engage in whatever behavior they need to in order to feel safe and in control, overlooking any behaviors that lead up to death defeats the purpose.
Harm reduction approach in survivor advocacy is fundamentally feminist, and is true to the roots of our movement of survivors creating resources for other survivors. It demands that advocates accept survivors as the source of authority and expertise in issues that concern them, rather than relying on so-called experts to determine what they need. It seeks to empower survivors to reduce the harms of their coping mechanisms rather than to modify their behaviors.
It is an alternative to the paternalistic ways survivors are treated within abusive relationships and then by legal and medical establishments. It is a natural progression of our movement whose purpose is to empower survivors in their own unique ways rather than merely secluding them from the rest of the mean world.
And it is possible, if we as the advocates stand up to our funders, boards, and legal and medical experts and state clearly that we will not be part of a system that routinely deny survivors' right to self-determination. A true advocacy is about creating more options rather than less, and we owe it to the survivors who come to our programs.
Harm Reduction Principles in Survivor Advocacy
based on the model by Harm Reduction Coalition; adaptation by Emi Koyama
· Accepts, for better and for worse, that survivors learn to cope in whatever ways that reduce their pain and increase their sense of control, including those traditionally viewed as "unhealthy" (e.g. staying or maintaining contacts with the abuser, alcohol and drug use, wrist cutting and other self-harm, survival sex and sex work, irregular eating and sleeping patterns), and chooses to work to minimize their harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them.
· Understands each method of coping as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors from recklessly extreme to no action, and acknowledges that some ways of doing it are clearly safer than others.
· Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being--not necessarily cessation of all activities deemed unhealthy or unsafe--as the criteria for successful interventions and policies.
· Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who are coping with the effects and aftermath of abuse and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm.
· Ensures that survivors themselves--both those receiving services currently and those who have in the past--routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them.
· Affirms survivors themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their various coping methods as well as the authorities on their own experiences, and seeks to empower them to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of survival and coping.
· Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, discrimination and other social inequalities affect both survivors' vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with the effects and aftermath of the abuse.
· Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger associated with certain coping methods survivors may employ.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Walk Test Can Predict Course of Heart Failure for Black Patients
interesting read...
The six-minute walk test, a simple, inexpensive diagnostic test, can reliably predict risk of death or re-hospitalization in African-American patients with heart failure, according to a study by a cardiologist now at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine. "The six-minute walk test is basically just what it sounds like," said Dr. Thomas Stamos, assistant professor of cardiology at UIC and principal investigator of the study.
In the study, which was conducted at was conducted at the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, 200 African-American patients, 125 men and 75 women, who were admitted to the hospital with decompensated heart failure (patients whose heart failure has caused their lungs to fill with fluid and who may have fluid in their legs) were asked to walk for six minutes, usually just up and down a hospital corridor. The distance that they are able to walk was then measured. The six-minute walk test has been successful in previous studies in predicting the course of heart failure. But the usual cause of heart failure in African-Americans patients is hypertension rather than the cardiovascular disease seen in the white patient population, says Stamos, and African-Americans often respond differently to medications used to treat heart failure. "There was a possibility that African Americans would have a different response to the six-minute walk test," said Stamos. "It was important to prove that this test could reliably predict outcomes in this patient population."
The researchers found "a clear difference" between patients who could walk at least 200 meters in six minutes and those who couldn't, Stamos said. Patients who walked 200 or more meters -- about twice the length of a football field -- had substantially lower risk of either returning to the hospital or dying during the course of the study. "We hope this study can help us decide which patients we should concentrate our efforts on," said Stamos. "If we know that a patient is at very high risk, we may be more aggressive with their medical therapy, we may have them follow-up in the clinic more frequently and keep a closer eye on them in order to prevent these negative outcomes." The patients were followed for 40 months to see how frequently they were forced to return to the hospital with heart failure as well as what percentage died during the course of the study.
The researchers found that 40 percent of patients who were only able to walk less than 200 meters died in the 40 months following their original hospitalization versus only 19 percent of the patients who were able to walk more than 200 meters. Patients were also re-hospitalized more often if they were unable to walk more than 200 meters. About 70 percent of the patients who were unable to walk more than 200 meters were re-hospitalized during that 40 month time period versus 52 percent of the patients who were able to walk farther. "With this very simple test, we were have a very powerful tool for predicting both who is at highest risk of dying in this period of time, as well as who would be re-hospitalized with heart failure, giving us a chance to plan appropriate treatment," Stamos said. Other contributors on the study are Dr. M. Tarek Alahdab of UIC, Dr. Ibrahim N. Mansour of Stroger Hospital, and Dr. Sirskarn Napan of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine at Springfield.
The study was published in the March issue of the Journal of Cardiac Failure.
http://tigger.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/newsbureau/cgi-bin/index.cgi?from=Releases&to=PrintRelease&id=2475&fromhome=1
The six-minute walk test, a simple, inexpensive diagnostic test, can reliably predict risk of death or re-hospitalization in African-American patients with heart failure, according to a study by a cardiologist now at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine. "The six-minute walk test is basically just what it sounds like," said Dr. Thomas Stamos, assistant professor of cardiology at UIC and principal investigator of the study.
In the study, which was conducted at was conducted at the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, 200 African-American patients, 125 men and 75 women, who were admitted to the hospital with decompensated heart failure (patients whose heart failure has caused their lungs to fill with fluid and who may have fluid in their legs) were asked to walk for six minutes, usually just up and down a hospital corridor. The distance that they are able to walk was then measured. The six-minute walk test has been successful in previous studies in predicting the course of heart failure. But the usual cause of heart failure in African-Americans patients is hypertension rather than the cardiovascular disease seen in the white patient population, says Stamos, and African-Americans often respond differently to medications used to treat heart failure. "There was a possibility that African Americans would have a different response to the six-minute walk test," said Stamos. "It was important to prove that this test could reliably predict outcomes in this patient population."
The researchers found "a clear difference" between patients who could walk at least 200 meters in six minutes and those who couldn't, Stamos said. Patients who walked 200 or more meters -- about twice the length of a football field -- had substantially lower risk of either returning to the hospital or dying during the course of the study. "We hope this study can help us decide which patients we should concentrate our efforts on," said Stamos. "If we know that a patient is at very high risk, we may be more aggressive with their medical therapy, we may have them follow-up in the clinic more frequently and keep a closer eye on them in order to prevent these negative outcomes." The patients were followed for 40 months to see how frequently they were forced to return to the hospital with heart failure as well as what percentage died during the course of the study.
The researchers found that 40 percent of patients who were only able to walk less than 200 meters died in the 40 months following their original hospitalization versus only 19 percent of the patients who were able to walk more than 200 meters. Patients were also re-hospitalized more often if they were unable to walk more than 200 meters. About 70 percent of the patients who were unable to walk more than 200 meters were re-hospitalized during that 40 month time period versus 52 percent of the patients who were able to walk farther. "With this very simple test, we were have a very powerful tool for predicting both who is at highest risk of dying in this period of time, as well as who would be re-hospitalized with heart failure, giving us a chance to plan appropriate treatment," Stamos said. Other contributors on the study are Dr. M. Tarek Alahdab of UIC, Dr. Ibrahim N. Mansour of Stroger Hospital, and Dr. Sirskarn Napan of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine at Springfield.
The study was published in the March issue of the Journal of Cardiac Failure.
http://tigger.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/newsbureau/cgi-bin/index.cgi?from=Releases&to=PrintRelease&id=2475&fromhome=1
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sounds real 'cute' on paper...
But how will it play out? That's the question...Will we be used as guinea pigs and continue to be pathologized and receive subpar care?
We Can Make the South Side a Model for Health-Care Reform
Eric Whitaker, MD, MPH, vice president for strategic affiliations and associate dean for community-based research, wrote the following op-ed for the April 23, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune.
I was born in a legendary Chicago hospital that has nearly disappeared.
Michael Reese Hospital was once a showcase of the South Side, a first-class research center that served as a beacon for people from many walks of life. Scientists there helped develop electrocardiography, found new links between cholesterol and heart disease, and did groundbreaking work on insulin. When my mother studied to be a nurse, Reese and Cook County Hospital were the only teaching hospitals in town that welcomed black trainees.
Once I dreamed of practicing medicine at Reese. Now the hospital is bankrupt and will close soon. The last time I drove past, all the lights were out.
Reese's fate gives a sense of the vast health-care challenges in underserved areas like the South Side. Tight financial resources here can make it difficult to sustain advanced-care centers such as Reese and the University of Chicago Medical Center, where I work.
Yet my home community desperately needs the best care available. We contend with widespread poverty and some of the nation's highest rates of chronic disease -- diabetes, hypertension, asthma.
We don't have to accept a future of declining community health and struggling hospitals. If we take the right steps now, the South Side could become a national model for how to build an innovative and sustainable health network. We'll need to put aside institutional turf and accept that no single medical center can meet all of our patients' needs.
The best strategy would combine the strengths of many South Side centers and treat them as one "virtual hospital," which patients can access in different locations depending on their medical needs.
Such an approach makes economic as well as medical sense. It would sustain the area's network of community hospitals and clinics, and connect low-income patients with the primary care they need to prevent serious complications of chronic conditions. My hospital has worked on this through the Urban Health Initiative, which strives to match patients with local clinics and physicians.
But we will not reach any of our goals without restoring trust within the community. Our patients don't always trust that if we refer them to a different institution, they will still get care of the highest quality. And hospitals often distrust each other, fearful that the patients they refer elsewhere will never come back.
The hospital where I work has not always been a good partner for this kind of collaboration. The U. of C. has been seen as detached from its medical neighbors and at times arrogant and overly competitive.
I think we can change those views and build a true partnership on the South Side. More faculty and residents from my hospital are fanning out to smaller centers where they are sharing knowledge and helping new groups of patients. Many of our patients who voluntarily transfer to those centers report greater satisfaction than they had at our hospital. That's humbling, and a sign that we can learn a lot from our neighbors.
Together we can learn more about our patients' unique health problems. The health disparities that exist between rich and poor are a huge problem for Chicago, yet we still don't know enough about why they persist. For example, why are diabetic adults on the South Side nearly three times more likely to be hospitalized than diabetes patients in the rest of the state? We suspect that diet, genetics and a lack of preventive care all play a role, but we don't know the specifics -- or how to correct the problem.
That's why a coalition of groups from around the city will soon embark on the South Side Health and Vitality Study, an ambitious effort to understand and begin remedying these glaring gaps in health outcomes. We want to create a resource that patients and researchers will draw on for decades, much as the Framingham Heart Study in Massachusetts has shaped ideas about cardiovascular disease.
No single hospital will solve the South Side's health disparities by working within its own four walls. And no center here can thrive without strong affiliations -- that's one lesson of Reese's demise. But if we learn to trust one another and work together, we can help our patients and prevent more hospital lights from flickering out.
We Can Make the South Side a Model for Health-Care Reform
Eric Whitaker, MD, MPH, vice president for strategic affiliations and associate dean for community-based research, wrote the following op-ed for the April 23, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune.
I was born in a legendary Chicago hospital that has nearly disappeared.
Michael Reese Hospital was once a showcase of the South Side, a first-class research center that served as a beacon for people from many walks of life. Scientists there helped develop electrocardiography, found new links between cholesterol and heart disease, and did groundbreaking work on insulin. When my mother studied to be a nurse, Reese and Cook County Hospital were the only teaching hospitals in town that welcomed black trainees.
Once I dreamed of practicing medicine at Reese. Now the hospital is bankrupt and will close soon. The last time I drove past, all the lights were out.
Reese's fate gives a sense of the vast health-care challenges in underserved areas like the South Side. Tight financial resources here can make it difficult to sustain advanced-care centers such as Reese and the University of Chicago Medical Center, where I work.
Yet my home community desperately needs the best care available. We contend with widespread poverty and some of the nation's highest rates of chronic disease -- diabetes, hypertension, asthma.
We don't have to accept a future of declining community health and struggling hospitals. If we take the right steps now, the South Side could become a national model for how to build an innovative and sustainable health network. We'll need to put aside institutional turf and accept that no single medical center can meet all of our patients' needs.
The best strategy would combine the strengths of many South Side centers and treat them as one "virtual hospital," which patients can access in different locations depending on their medical needs.
Such an approach makes economic as well as medical sense. It would sustain the area's network of community hospitals and clinics, and connect low-income patients with the primary care they need to prevent serious complications of chronic conditions. My hospital has worked on this through the Urban Health Initiative, which strives to match patients with local clinics and physicians.
But we will not reach any of our goals without restoring trust within the community. Our patients don't always trust that if we refer them to a different institution, they will still get care of the highest quality. And hospitals often distrust each other, fearful that the patients they refer elsewhere will never come back.
The hospital where I work has not always been a good partner for this kind of collaboration. The U. of C. has been seen as detached from its medical neighbors and at times arrogant and overly competitive.
I think we can change those views and build a true partnership on the South Side. More faculty and residents from my hospital are fanning out to smaller centers where they are sharing knowledge and helping new groups of patients. Many of our patients who voluntarily transfer to those centers report greater satisfaction than they had at our hospital. That's humbling, and a sign that we can learn a lot from our neighbors.
Together we can learn more about our patients' unique health problems. The health disparities that exist between rich and poor are a huge problem for Chicago, yet we still don't know enough about why they persist. For example, why are diabetic adults on the South Side nearly three times more likely to be hospitalized than diabetes patients in the rest of the state? We suspect that diet, genetics and a lack of preventive care all play a role, but we don't know the specifics -- or how to correct the problem.
That's why a coalition of groups from around the city will soon embark on the South Side Health and Vitality Study, an ambitious effort to understand and begin remedying these glaring gaps in health outcomes. We want to create a resource that patients and researchers will draw on for decades, much as the Framingham Heart Study in Massachusetts has shaped ideas about cardiovascular disease.
No single hospital will solve the South Side's health disparities by working within its own four walls. And no center here can thrive without strong affiliations -- that's one lesson of Reese's demise. But if we learn to trust one another and work together, we can help our patients and prevent more hospital lights from flickering out.
"University of Chicago shutting Community clinic"
Event: Save University of Chicago Womens Health Center at 47th and Woodlawn
RallyHost: Southside Together Organizing for Power (STOP)
Date/Time: Friday, May 29 at 10:30am
Outraged community to march on U of C to save women's clinic
Patients, community, workers, students launch
Patients, community, workers, students launch
campaign against patient dumping
Following the recent announcement that the University of Chicago intends to close the 47th st. Women's Health Center, outraged patients, community members, workers and U of C students are announcing a campaign to fight the plan starting Friday May 29th with a press conference at the clinc (near Woodlawn and 47th st.) at 10:30am after which they will march to the U of C administration building for a 12pm rally.
"The University of Chicago has treated our community like a guinea pig since its inception. Now that they are at the Forefront of Medicine, they want to treat us like we are toxic waste. We as patients need this clinic and other local clinics cannot handle the dumping the University is planning,” says Deborah Tayler, a patient at the clinic and spokeswoman for Southside Together Organizing for Power (STOP).
The action is being called by an ad hoc coalition of groups that sees the clinic closures as part of the University's broader effort to push poor people - especially people of color - out of the Medical Center and out of the community. The Coalition for Healthcare Access Responsibility and Transparency (CHART) is composed of Southside Together Organizing for Power (STOP), the Illinois Single Payer Coalition, U of C Students for a Democratic Society, Students Organized and United with Labor and the Southside Solidarity Network as well as several members of Teamsters Local 743. CHART is following up the protest with a forum moderated by Cliff Kelly called “Whose Hospital: A Community Forum on the U of C Medical Center” on Wednesday June 3rd at 6:30pm on the U of C campus in the Harper Building at 1116 E. 59th st room 140.
May 29 Actions to Save Clinic
10:30am- Press Conference at clinic 1301 E. 47th St.
11:15am- March from clinic to campus
12noon- Rally at U of C Admin Building – 5801 S. Ellis
"The University of Chicago has treated our community like a guinea pig since its inception. Now that they are at the Forefront of Medicine, they want to treat us like we are toxic waste. We as patients need this clinic and other local clinics cannot handle the dumping the University is planning,” says Deborah Tayler, a patient at the clinic and spokeswoman for Southside Together Organizing for Power (STOP).
The action is being called by an ad hoc coalition of groups that sees the clinic closures as part of the University's broader effort to push poor people - especially people of color - out of the Medical Center and out of the community. The Coalition for Healthcare Access Responsibility and Transparency (CHART) is composed of Southside Together Organizing for Power (STOP), the Illinois Single Payer Coalition, U of C Students for a Democratic Society, Students Organized and United with Labor and the Southside Solidarity Network as well as several members of Teamsters Local 743. CHART is following up the protest with a forum moderated by Cliff Kelly called “Whose Hospital: A Community Forum on the U of C Medical Center” on Wednesday June 3rd at 6:30pm on the U of C campus in the Harper Building at 1116 E. 59th st room 140.
May 29 Actions to Save Clinic
10:30am- Press Conference at clinic 1301 E. 47th St.
11:15am- March from clinic to campus
12noon- Rally at U of C Admin Building – 5801 S. Ellis
Chicago Tribune Article about the closing...
Go meet your Congress(wo)man
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-Harlem, spoke at a community forum in Manhattan this morning, organized by the National Coalition on Health Care.
RWV co-founder Lois Uttley, a Rangel constituent, was there and filed this report:
Fate of public plan in Senate's hands
The House of Representatives will include a public plan option in its health reform bill, but the fate of a public plan ultimately will be decided in the Senate, Rep. Charles Rangel said today. That plan "would be subsidized based on one's ability to pay," he said. Rangel said his fellow New York Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer, is trying to come up with a public plan proposal that will attract bipartisan support, because Republican votes would be needed to approve a plan with 60 votes. Schumer is proposing a public plan "that does not knock out private plans," Rangel said. "We don't know where that is going." He expressed hope the Senate "will have some sort of public plan that we can build on" when House and Senate conferees get together to negotiate one health reform bill later this year. One questioner told Rangel that "many of us hope that eventually it (a public plan) will beat out private insurers." Rangel, laughing, cautioned: "Don't say that!""Well," the questioner continued, "how do we make sure the public plan doesn't get beaten down?" Rangel replied: "I think you need both of them (private and public insurance plans). If the private sector believes they are being pushed out of business, then they need to look at cutting their profits." Rangel was critical of Republicans for opposing a public plan, calling that stance "unacceptable." The GOP in House, he said, is showing "no leadership." He admonished them: "They can't walk away from health reform."
Why not single payer?
The Director of Physicians for a National Health Program's NY Metro Chapter asked Rangel why single-payer advocates are not being included in the health reform debate in Congress. Rangel replied: "Because we want to get a bill passed. We would be asked, Do we want a government takeover of our health system? I would say yes. A lot or people would say no. Then we would have a debate, but not a bill."
How will benefits be determined?
RWV's Uttley asked Rangel how benefits packages will be determined under national health reform, noting that many groups are concerned about whether breast cancer treatment, care for chronic conditions, comprehensive reproductive health care and other services will be included. We have all been told these decisions will be determined by an independent commission later on, she said. Rangel said simply that "benefits will be determined by medical standards of care."
Get out there and meet your members of Congress!
"I've been in the Congress for close to 40 years, and this is the most revolutionary time I've every read about, let alone participated in," Rangel said. "Finally, we have a President with vision." But, he said, members of the public cannot be silent about health reform. "
You have to know the name of your Congressman and let them know we need health reform."
RWV co-founder Lois Uttley, a Rangel constituent, was there and filed this report:
Fate of public plan in Senate's hands
The House of Representatives will include a public plan option in its health reform bill, but the fate of a public plan ultimately will be decided in the Senate, Rep. Charles Rangel said today. That plan "would be subsidized based on one's ability to pay," he said. Rangel said his fellow New York Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer, is trying to come up with a public plan proposal that will attract bipartisan support, because Republican votes would be needed to approve a plan with 60 votes. Schumer is proposing a public plan "that does not knock out private plans," Rangel said. "We don't know where that is going." He expressed hope the Senate "will have some sort of public plan that we can build on" when House and Senate conferees get together to negotiate one health reform bill later this year. One questioner told Rangel that "many of us hope that eventually it (a public plan) will beat out private insurers." Rangel, laughing, cautioned: "Don't say that!""Well," the questioner continued, "how do we make sure the public plan doesn't get beaten down?" Rangel replied: "I think you need both of them (private and public insurance plans). If the private sector believes they are being pushed out of business, then they need to look at cutting their profits." Rangel was critical of Republicans for opposing a public plan, calling that stance "unacceptable." The GOP in House, he said, is showing "no leadership." He admonished them: "They can't walk away from health reform."
Why not single payer?
The Director of Physicians for a National Health Program's NY Metro Chapter asked Rangel why single-payer advocates are not being included in the health reform debate in Congress. Rangel replied: "Because we want to get a bill passed. We would be asked, Do we want a government takeover of our health system? I would say yes. A lot or people would say no. Then we would have a debate, but not a bill."
How will benefits be determined?
RWV's Uttley asked Rangel how benefits packages will be determined under national health reform, noting that many groups are concerned about whether breast cancer treatment, care for chronic conditions, comprehensive reproductive health care and other services will be included. We have all been told these decisions will be determined by an independent commission later on, she said. Rangel said simply that "benefits will be determined by medical standards of care."
Get out there and meet your members of Congress!
"I've been in the Congress for close to 40 years, and this is the most revolutionary time I've every read about, let alone participated in," Rangel said. "Finally, we have a President with vision." But, he said, members of the public cannot be silent about health reform. "
You have to know the name of your Congressman and let them know we need health reform."
Friday, May 15, 2009
Comprehensive Sex Health Education...
The Reproductive Health and Access Act (HB 2354) would require all Illinois public schools to teach medically-accurate, age-appropriate, comprehensive sexual health education. Parents would be allowed to remove their child from the class if they do not want them to participate.In addition, the bill also prohibits government interference with an individual's decision to use birth control, continue with a pregnancy, or terminate a pregnancy and ensures that government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, cover basic reproductive health services, including family planning, pre-natal care, and pap smears.
Currently, Illinois schools are not obliged to teach comprehensive sexual health education, or any sex education at all. If sex education is taught, the Illinois School Code does not require course materials and instruction to include information about contraception.Individuals have the right to education that promotes lifelong responsibility. We know that informed youth make healthy decisions. Students must be taught medically-accurate, age-appropriate, science-based sexual health education that is inclusive of all individuals.
The Reproductive Health and Access Act currently has 37 co-sponsors. On March 11, the bill passed out of the Illinois House Human Services Committee. On April 2, the entire House of Representatives is expected to vote on the bill.We need you to take action! Please contact your state representative by email, letter, phone, or fax and tell her or him to vote in favor of the Reproductive Health and Access Act (HB 2354)!
For more information, visit the Illinois Campaign for Reproductive Health and Access website http://www.illinoisreproductivehealth.org/.
Currently, Illinois schools are not obliged to teach comprehensive sexual health education, or any sex education at all. If sex education is taught, the Illinois School Code does not require course materials and instruction to include information about contraception.Individuals have the right to education that promotes lifelong responsibility. We know that informed youth make healthy decisions. Students must be taught medically-accurate, age-appropriate, science-based sexual health education that is inclusive of all individuals.
The Reproductive Health and Access Act currently has 37 co-sponsors. On March 11, the bill passed out of the Illinois House Human Services Committee. On April 2, the entire House of Representatives is expected to vote on the bill.We need you to take action! Please contact your state representative by email, letter, phone, or fax and tell her or him to vote in favor of the Reproductive Health and Access Act (HB 2354)!
For more information, visit the Illinois Campaign for Reproductive Health and Access website http://www.illinoisreproductivehealth.org/.
Home Birth Safety Act...
HB0226
Synopsis As IntroducedCreates the Home Birth Safety Act. Provides for the licensure of midwives by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. Creates the Illinois Midwifery Board. Sets forth provisions concerning qualifications, grounds for disciplinary action, and administrative procedures. Imposes conditions on any rulemaking authority. Amends the Regulatory Sunset Act to set a repeal date for the new Act of January 1, 2020. Amends the Medical Practice Act of 1987 and the Nurse Practice Act to make related changes.House Committee Amendment No. 1Provides that a licensed midwife is prohibited from performing an abortion.
Why license certified professional midwives?
The vast majority of Illinois has no licensed home birth care at all. In the three counties with some licensed home birth providers, there are still not enough. This leaves Illinois women with poor choices for home birth care: hiring an underground network without good access to collaborative care, importing a midwife from another state or giving birth "unassisted" (without any professional help at all).
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=226&GAID=10&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=40333&SessionID=76
Synopsis As IntroducedCreates the Home Birth Safety Act. Provides for the licensure of midwives by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. Creates the Illinois Midwifery Board. Sets forth provisions concerning qualifications, grounds for disciplinary action, and administrative procedures. Imposes conditions on any rulemaking authority. Amends the Regulatory Sunset Act to set a repeal date for the new Act of January 1, 2020. Amends the Medical Practice Act of 1987 and the Nurse Practice Act to make related changes.House Committee Amendment No. 1Provides that a licensed midwife is prohibited from performing an abortion.
Why license certified professional midwives?
The vast majority of Illinois has no licensed home birth care at all. In the three counties with some licensed home birth providers, there are still not enough. This leaves Illinois women with poor choices for home birth care: hiring an underground network without good access to collaborative care, importing a midwife from another state or giving birth "unassisted" (without any professional help at all).
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=226&GAID=10&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=40333&SessionID=76
Chicago Moratorium on School Closings...
House Bill 0363...Provides that there shall be a moratorium on school closings, consolidations, and phaseouts in the school district in the 2009-2010 school year, and provides that any of these actions that are subsequently appropriate shall be carried out no sooner than the end of the 2010-2011 school year.
Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the Chicago School District Article of the School Code. Requires the Chairpersons of the House of Representatives' Committee on Elementary & Secondary Education and the Senate's Committee on Education to each appoint 5 members to a Special Joint Chicago Education Facilities Subcommittee. Requires the Joint Subcommittee, with the help of independent experts, to analyze past school district experience with respect to the closing or opening of schools, school repairs, school additions, school phase-outs, school consolidations, and school boundary changes; to consult widely with stakeholders about these facility issues; and to examine relevant best practices from other school systems for dealing with these issues systematically and equitably. Provides for a draft policy and a final proposed policy. Provides that there shall be a moratorium on school closings, consolidations, and phaseouts in the school district in the 2009-2010 school year, and provides that any of these actions that are subsequently appropriate shall be carried out no sooner than the end of the 2010-2011 school year.
Effective immediately.House Floor Amendment No. 2
Deletes everything after the enacting clause. Reinserts the contents of the bill as introduced with the following changes. Makes changes concerning the General Assembly's findings. Provides for a Special Joint Chicago Education Facilities Committee instead of a Special Joint Chicago Education Facilities Subcommittee, with members appointed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate as well as additional members. Makes changes concerning expert assistance, the gathering of evidence, the committee's duties, a draft policy, hearings, and proposed law. Removes the moratorium provision. Effective immediately.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
August 1: The next in the round...
We meet on different days, times and locations to better fit in the full and busy lives of sistas.
in the round...
Saturday, August 1
1pm
Brainerd Branch Library
1350 W. 89th Street
(89th and Loomis)
Also, we will start planning for a 2010 in the round... conference in the fall. Contact us if you'd like to be on the planning committee intheround@spokenexistence.com.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
End Involuntary Sterilization in Illinois...
Sign petition here: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/hb2290/.
What would you do if you were a person with a disability, and your legal guardian decided to have a doctor operate on you so you couldn’t have babies? What would you do if your guardian didn’t even tell you about this, or tricked you into doing it? This is called involuntary sterilization, and in Illinois it happens more often than you think. Involuntary sterilization is when your guardian and your doctor agree to tie your tubes or do a hysterectomy/vasectomy without your permission or knowledge. We are one of 16 states nationwide with no laws to protect people with disabilities who have guardians from sterilization.
Now we have a chance to change that. Today, there is a bill in the Illinois House of Representatives called H.B. 2290. This bill would update a law called the Probate Act of 1975. H.B. 2290 would add to the Probate Act by saying that a guardian would need to get a court order to have a doctor do a sterilization on a ward with a disability. The exception would be if you might die or be seriously harmed without it. Otherwise, a court would have to say that sterilization is ok, and the court would have to do their best to figure out whether the person with a disability is ok with it or not. Right now, we do not have that kind of protection at all.
H.B. 2290 is an important bill that protects the bodies of people with disabilities who have guardians.
Remember, not every person with a disability has a guardian. Most people with disabilities make decisions about their own lives. A guardian makes decisions for a person with a disability who needs help with decisions. A person with a disability who has a guardian still can often make their opinions known, and it is important to respect that opinion.
So what can you do to help? We need this bill to pass the Illinois House of Representatives NOW! If you live in Illinois, contact your state representative and ask them to sponsor H.B. 2290 TODAY! You can find out who your representative is at the Board of Elections webpage. If you are with an organization, have your organization join our list to support H.B. 2290! Let’s make this happen today! Check back at this page for updates.
Organizations Supporting H.B. 2290:
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois Chicago Foundation for WomenEquip for EqualityFRIDAIllinois Network of Centers for Independent Living (INCIL)Katie Watson JD, Assistant Professor, Medical Humanities & Bioethics Program, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
For more information, or to sign onto our list of organizations supporting H.B. 2290, contact FRIDA member Michelle Robbins at (915) 496-5468 or free_our_people@yahoo.com. To read the bill, go to the bill online.
What would you do if you were a person with a disability, and your legal guardian decided to have a doctor operate on you so you couldn’t have babies? What would you do if your guardian didn’t even tell you about this, or tricked you into doing it? This is called involuntary sterilization, and in Illinois it happens more often than you think. Involuntary sterilization is when your guardian and your doctor agree to tie your tubes or do a hysterectomy/vasectomy without your permission or knowledge. We are one of 16 states nationwide with no laws to protect people with disabilities who have guardians from sterilization.
Now we have a chance to change that. Today, there is a bill in the Illinois House of Representatives called H.B. 2290. This bill would update a law called the Probate Act of 1975. H.B. 2290 would add to the Probate Act by saying that a guardian would need to get a court order to have a doctor do a sterilization on a ward with a disability. The exception would be if you might die or be seriously harmed without it. Otherwise, a court would have to say that sterilization is ok, and the court would have to do their best to figure out whether the person with a disability is ok with it or not. Right now, we do not have that kind of protection at all.
H.B. 2290 is an important bill that protects the bodies of people with disabilities who have guardians.
Remember, not every person with a disability has a guardian. Most people with disabilities make decisions about their own lives. A guardian makes decisions for a person with a disability who needs help with decisions. A person with a disability who has a guardian still can often make their opinions known, and it is important to respect that opinion.
So what can you do to help? We need this bill to pass the Illinois House of Representatives NOW! If you live in Illinois, contact your state representative and ask them to sponsor H.B. 2290 TODAY! You can find out who your representative is at the Board of Elections webpage. If you are with an organization, have your organization join our list to support H.B. 2290! Let’s make this happen today! Check back at this page for updates.
Organizations Supporting H.B. 2290:
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois Chicago Foundation for WomenEquip for EqualityFRIDAIllinois Network of Centers for Independent Living (INCIL)Katie Watson JD, Assistant Professor, Medical Humanities & Bioethics Program, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
For more information, or to sign onto our list of organizations supporting H.B. 2290, contact FRIDA member Michelle Robbins at (915) 496-5468 or free_our_people@yahoo.com. To read the bill, go to the bill online.
JUNE 18: Speak Out for health care...
Join us...June 18
Come share your stories about the health care system.
For example—your experiences with doctors, clinics, hospitals, insurance providers, and age, size, race, class, gender or disability insensitivities.
For example—your experiences with doctors, clinics, hospitals, insurance providers, and age, size, race, class, gender or disability insensitivities.
Health care is a human right...
We deserve affordable, accessible and quality health care.
RSVP at SpeakOut@spokenexistence.com
We will be joined by Byllye Avery...
Byllye Avery is co-founder of Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need. A dreamer,
a visionary and a grassroots realist, she has combined activism with social responsibility to explore
women’s health issues. Founder of the National Black Women’s Health Project and the Avery Institute for
Social Change, Byllye Avery has dedicated the last 30 years to inspiring women with her experiences, wisdom and spirit.
There’s just a real special magic that happens
when women come together to work together
in an effective way for a common cause.
– BYLLYE AVERY
when women come together to work together
in an effective way for a common cause.
– BYLLYE AVERY
Why should women raise our voices for health care reform?
Byllye: The reason why women should raise our voices is because we have a
unique perspective about health care and what our health care needs are, and our
perspectives need to be in the mix.
unique perspective about health care and what our health care needs are, and our
perspectives need to be in the mix.
Our bodies, our lives, our health and our priorities are different from men’s. If
you don’t get the voices of everyone you run the risk of developing services that
are ineffective and that don’t meet the people’s needs. Also, we’re the caretakers.
We take care of everybody -- lot of the time before we take care of ourselves --
and we make spaces for our lovers, our sisters, our aunts, our children and our
families, so it’s very important.
and we make spaces for our lovers, our sisters, our aunts, our children and our
families, so it’s very important.
There’s power in our collective voices. It’s really easy to not do something... But
it’s much easier go along when see other people are doing something. You
become motivated, you want to join. Our whole notion is to do good in the world,
to unite with other people. There’s just a real special magic that happens when
women come together to work together in an effective way for a common cause.
it’s much easier go along when see other people are doing something. You
become motivated, you want to join. Our whole notion is to do good in the world,
to unite with other people. There’s just a real special magic that happens when
women come together to work together in an effective way for a common cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
