Wednesday, June 29, 2011

New Jerseyans: Where Were You?

On June 20th as I walked up to the statehouse in Trenton, I could hear the crowd before I even saw it. As I got closer a sea of women in pink shirts filled my field of vision. The more I looked around though, I realized the chanting was not coming from this group of women. Instead, further down the street a much larger, more rambunctious crowd had gathered to protest proposed cuts to health care benefits and pensions for the state’s public employees. As I looked around at the crowd gathered in support of women’s health, I wondered, “Is this it? Where are all the signs? Where is all the chanting?” Cuts to the state’s family planning budget have the potential to affect half of states adult population, not counting their families. So where was everyone?
Maybe my expectations were too high. Never having been to a political rally before the only visuals I had to go on were of what I had seen on TV or had read about in history books: The March on Washington, the Million Mom March or the National Equality March. Knowing that this was a state versus federal rally meant that my expectations were lowered, but not by much. I expected to see hundreds of women wearing various organizations’ t-shirts, carrying signs emblazoned with slogans such as “Stop the War on Women” and “Women’s Health=Family Health,” chanting for women’s rights and listening to leaders of the movement expounding on its progress and what we must do to continue the fight.
In reality, the rally was much smaller and tamer than I anticipated. Yes there were t-shirts: bright pink with “I stand with Planned Parenthood” written on the front. Yes, many of the movement’s leaders gave excellent speeches and promised to continue the fight to restore the family planning budget. And yes there were a few signs and some chanting. However, I think what disappointed me the most was the somewhat small turnout. Don’t get me wrong, everyone who turned up was amazing for doing so and I applaud the organizers of the rally for all of the support garnered for the cause. But seriously, New Jerseyans, where were you? These cuts will directly affect your health and the health of those that you care about. I am especially disappointed in college age women, my peers, many of whom rely on Planned Parenthood and other family planning centers for the most basic healthcare. If we do not care enough about our own health to fight these budget cuts why should we expect anyone else to care?
However, maybe I am being too hard on this rally in particular and instead am making a comment on women’s rallies in general. In this society, when women gather they are expected to be calm and collected. As evidenced by only the two State Police officers stationed outside the statehouse, no one expected a group of women to get out of hand. Along with this assumption another can be deduced: no one expected men to even attend. Why is it that men are not expected to rally for a “women’s” cause? Men do not exist in a women-less bubble; they are surrounded by their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, friends, etc whom they care about and whose well-being is at stake. A woman would be expected to support her husband in a rally against pension cuts, so why shouldn’t he be expected to support his wife in a rally against threats to her health? Because of the relatively “calm” nature of women’s rallies and the lack of male presence these rallies are often missing another crucial component: press coverage. Without press coverage how will the legislators know that anyone cares? How will other women and men know that they can join in the cause? Women’s rallies need to continue to be taken seriously if they are ever to affect the change necessary ensure our rights.
Nevertheless, my first political rally was a positive experience. It was exciting to see other people gathered for a cause that I feel so strongly about. Hearing all of the speeches made me realize that other people truly care about my health and will continue to fight for my well-being. My only wish is that in the future more young women like myself will be able to experience what I did yesterday and will join in the fight for women’s health and in essence, women’s rights.

Monday, June 6, 2011

NJ War on Women

The “War on Women” Has Reached our Shores

As New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) puts it, the “war on women” has begun. What started out as an attack on women’s rights at the national level has managed to land on New Jersey’s shores and permeate into the heart of the state government. Last year, Governor Chris Christie slashed $7.5 million in family planning funds from the state budget. As a result, six of the state’s 58 family planning centers have been forced to close while even more centers have been forced to lay-off staff and limit operating hours.
These changes will have detrimental effects on women’s health throughout the state of NJ. Not only do these centers provide birth control and other family planning services, for many low income women such centers are their only source of primary healthcare. Without access to primary care, many women will go unchecked for HIV and other STDs, as well as for important signs of pre-cancer. In 2010, clinics in NJ provided family planning and preventative care for 126,903 women and 9,461 men, overall serving 97,129 uninsured women and men throughout the state. However, it must be noted that these centers are open to serving all of NJ’s women, no matter their socio-economic status, insurance status, race, age or other differentiating factors. Therefore these funding cuts do not discriminate in the types of women they have the ability to harm.
The problem here is not one of fiscal responsibility but of political ideology. In the long run, funding the state’s 58 healthcare centers will be much cheaper than paying for increased emergency room visits as well as treatment for more advanced cancers and other diseases. Currently by providing contraceptives, these centers save New Jersey around $156 million Medicaid dollars that would go to pre- and postnatal care, delivery, and infant care. By providing the $7.5 million for family planning, the state saves $4 for every $1 spent. However, the idea that these centers are hotspots for abortion has clouded Governor Christie’s good judgment. Of the remaining 52 clinics, 29 are run by Planned Parenthood and only three of these clinics provide abortions, using no state money to fund the procedure. Instead of sending a message against abortion, Christie is in effect saying that he does not care about the health and reproductive rights of women, particularly women of color or low income women.
In truth these centers are much less about providing women with safe abortions than they are about providing healthcare for uninsured and poor women. In a state with the highest proportion of women living with AIDS in the country, these closures are a serious threat to women’s health. Without access to affordable HIV testing, many women will remain unaware of their serostatus and will not begin receiving life saving anti-retroviral therapy at the earliest possible time. Not only do ARTs extend a woman’s healthy life years between contracting HIV and developing AIDS, they also, according to recent studies, help decrease the transmission rate between partners when taken at the earliest possible time after contracting the virus. The only way that women will be able to protect themselves against HIV is by having the necessary information about the virus as well as the tools to prevent transmission of the disease. By barring women’s access to affordable family planning services we are going back to a time when women were not deemed “intelligent” enough to make decisions about their own health and we are instead allowing a patriarchal state government to make all of the important health decisions for her.