Categories
Health

Giving Birth During Coronavirus Is Every Woman's Nightmare


“The thought of my husband dropping me off at the hospital, me getting checked in alone, getting the epidural shot alone, and not having his hand to hold terrifies me,” says Morgan Pederson, a 32-year-old woman from Queens, New York, who is planning to deliver her second child in June.

Last week two New York hospitals, New York Presbyterian and Mount Sinai, announced that in the face of the coronavirus pandemic they would not allow partners or spouses in the labor and delivery ward or on the postpartum floors. It sparked a flood of concern from around the country. Was this the new norm?

Days later, on March 28, New York governor Andrew Cuomo stepped in, issuing an executive order overruling the decision of private hospital systems and mandating that one support person—without a fever—must be allowed to be present while women are in labor.

Giving birth is a beautiful experience—it’s also one of the most vulnerable times in a woman’s life. Exposed, incapacitated, and in excruciating pain, laboring moms rely on other people—doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, and especially their partners—for help and support. It’s a marathon that can take hours (or days) and expecting moms aren’t monitored continuously by staff during the entire journey. Throughout the process, nurses only rotate through and check in every few hours unless they are requested. Doctors are typically not present until the patient is already pushing. Often, the delivery floor gets busy, and the time it takes to access medical staff becomes further delayed. And that’s during the best of times.

Giving birth during the coronavirus is an entirely different ballgame. With the realities of the pandemic intensifying every day, maternity wards have a serious challenge: keep pregnant women, their babies, their families, and healthcare workers safe in the face of COVID-19. “It is time to put all of our faith in our health care professionals,” says Xana Miguelez, M.D., an ob-gyn and attending physician at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami. “Have the certainty that we are all taking care of our patients, your loved ones, with all the care and dedication that you would.”

Still, that can mean hard-to-swallow changes to pregnant women’s birthing plans—and a new reality of social distancing during labor.

Rebecca Garay, 35, who will be giving birth in Miami, is hoping for a vaginal birth after two C-sections. She’s relying on the help of a doula for a challenging delivery so she can stay out of the operating room. Garay was initially hoping to have both her husband and her doula in the delivery room with her. But coronavirus concerns complicated childcare plans for her two older girls, ages 4 and 6. Her husband’s family in Miami are elderly and at high-risk for coronavirus, while her family in New England is unable to travel because of the pandemic. That means her husband will not be present at the birth—he will stay at home with her two girls, while she labors with her doula.

“It feels numbing. Not real. I do not have a choice so I am staying strong, chugging onwards,” says Garay. “I’m just going to do what I can do within my control so I can have the best success of having a vaginal birth and staying out of the OR and getting back to my family ASAP.”

Birthing partners are a crucial part of medical care during labor and delivery, says Jesse Pournaras, a doula serving New York. “Partners are imperative—not only for love, physical, and emotional support—but they bear witness. They can alert medical teams when something is amiss, when there is a medical emergency, or when the patient cannot reach staff themselves,” she says.

The uncertainty over how hospital policies may change in the coming days is prompting some women to consider alternatives. “For my husband and I, laboring alone is not an option,” says Sierra Lawe, a 36 year old who was planning to have her first child at a birthing center in Berkeley, California. Midwives have warned her and her husband that if a medical situation arises—if the providers or the couple are sick or if there is an emergency—Lawe and her husband need to prepare for a possible solo birth at a hospital. “It seems like any sense of autonomy that expectant parents may have had at one time has vanished,” Lawe says. “I can’t even begin to imagine how I would get through labor without my husband there.”



Source link

Categories
Health

Elizabeth Warren Leaves No Doubts About A Woman's Electability in 2020


Last night marked the last Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses next month, and the six leading candidates—including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Joe Biden—took the stage in Des Moines hoping for a final boost in the polls. The night included several discussions about foreign affairs and health care, but one of the focal points of the conversation surrounded the electability of the people onstage—and, in particular, the electability of women in general.

Tensions rose after the debate turned to a recent CNN report that claims Sanders told Warren during a private 2018 meeting that a woman could not win the White House, a claim he vehemently denied both in that report and again last night. (A 1988 video of him maintaining a woman could be president has also surfaced). CNN moderator Abby Phillip didn’t ask Warren directly if Sanders had made the comment, but instead asked how it made her feel.

“I disagreed,” Warren replied, but she moved on fast from the particulars of their conversation, pivoting to a larger point about the fact that some still do think women can’t win the Oval Office. She noted that of the candidates in attendance, she and Senator Amy Klobuchar are the two whose records prove there’s no question that a woman can beat Donald Trump. “Look at the men on this stage,” Warren said. “Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy [Klobuchar] and me.”

Warren continued, “And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me.”

Klobuchar later used the moment to highlight her own record. “When you look at what I have done, I have won every race, every place, every time,” she said.

Both of their comments reflect the sexism that’s surrounded the political conversation since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016. There have been constant questions about the electability of women, but people should look to actual studies, as well as performances of politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Particularly in 2018, when women campaigned in droves, the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University found that non-incumbent women did better than non-incumbent men in primary and general elections. Apart from that, as the New York Times has observed, studies have shown that when women do run for office, they win at the same rates as men. Warren’s answer makes it clear that it’s time to put the entire question of the electability of women to bed.

“The real danger we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can’t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency,” Warren said. “We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give every Democrat a place to believe in. That’s my plan, and that is why I’m going to win.”



Source link

Categories
Health

A Walgreens Pharmacist Refused to Fill a Woman's Prescription to Induce Miscarriage. And It Was Legal.


An Arizona woman left a Peoria, Arizona, Walgreens pharmacy in tears last Wednesday after she was denied medication to induce miscarriage prescribed by her doctor following news of her unviable pregnancy. Now the incident, which hit on the most sensitive and controversial issues surrounding women’s reproductive rights, is also bringing up another issue—is it legal to deny someone a prescription based on moral objection?

That woman, Nicole Arteaga, posted a now viral Facebook status that has shined a light on a Walgreens policy that many were unaware of before this weekend.

Arteaga, a pregnant teacher in Peoria, took to Facebook on Friday to describe the disbelief she felt when she was denied her prescription at a local Walgreens pharmacy. (The post has now been shared over 34,000 times.) “This post isn’t something I generally do, but last night I experienced something no women should ever have to go thru especially under these circumstances or any other circumstances,” she wrote.

Arteaga then went on to describe how she found herself at the pharmacy, explaining that her doctor discovered her fetus was no longer developing and a miscarriage would ultimately occur. Her physician gave her the option of a D&C (the dilation and curettage surgical procedure) or a prescription medication. Arteaga opted for the prescription.

“Last night I went to pick up my medication at my local Walgreens only to be denied the prescription I need. I stood at the mercy of this pharmacist explaining my situation in front of my 7 year old, and five customers standing behind only to be denied because of his ethical beliefs,” she wrote on Facebook. “I get it we all have our beliefs. But what he failed to understand is this isn’t the situation I had hoped for, this isn’t something I wanted…If you have gone thru a miscarriage you know the pain and emotional roller it can be. I left Walgreens in tears, ashamed and feeling humiliated by a man who knows nothing of my struggles but feels it is his right to deny medication prescribed to me by my doctor. I am unsure where Walgreens draws the lines with their pharmacist but does this mean he denies women the right to birth control and morning after pill, and what’s the stance with fertility drugs.”

Arteaga was eventually able to pick up her prescription at another Walgreens location without incident.

Walgreens told Glamour in a statement: “After learning what happened, we reached out to the patient and apologized for how the situation was handled. To respect the sincerely held beliefs of our pharmacists while at the same time meeting the needs of our patients, our policy allows pharmacists to step away from filling a prescription for which they have a moral objection. At the same time, they are also required to refer the prescription to another pharmacist or manager on duty to meet the patient’s needs in a timely manner. We are looking into the matter to ensure that our patients’ needs are handled properly.”

According to the National Women’s Law Center, this right of refusal is actually legal under Arizona state law, as it is one of six states that has “laws or regulations that specifically allow pharmacies or pharmacists to refuse for religious or moral reasons without critical protections for patients, such as requirements to refer or transfer prescriptions.”

The others are Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and South Dakota.

Only eight states have laws that explicitly require pharmacists or pharmacies to provide medication to patients: California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The online conversation surrounding the incident—and Walgreens’ policy—led many to point out that this is an issue that almost only affects women.

The debate around Arteaga’s ordeal comes at a time when refusal of service is all over the news—from the Supreme Court ruling on the Colorado baker case to press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ tweet this weekend about a restaurant’s asking her to leave because of her position in the Trump administration.

Of course, these three things are not equivalent, but the responses to each are certainly indicative of the divided state of the union.

Glamour has reached out to CVS and Rite-Aid pharmacies to inquire about corporate policies surrounding a pharmacist’s right to refuse customer prescriptions. We have yet to receive a response.





Source link

Categories
Health

Donald Trump Has Been Subpoenaed Following a Woman's Sexual Assault Allegations


In the wake of a barrage of sexual assault and harassment allegations made against disgraced Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinstein—ones that show no sign of slowing—there’s more news on the allegations front, now pertaining to President Donald Trump and his upsetting history with women. Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump’s reality show The Apprentice, alleged last October—shortly after the “grab them by the pussy” tape was leaked—that she met Trump in a Beverly Hills hotel 10 years ago to talk about a job at the Trump Organization. There, she says, he kissed her and grabbed her. Trump called her a liar, and she promptly sued him for defamation, calling in famous women’s rights lawyer Gloria Allred to help. Now, according to Buzzfeed’s report, her lawyers have subpoenaed his campaign—and the scope of documents that they’re requesting could shed light on a lot.

The subpoena was first filed in March—though it just showed up in court files last month—and Zervos’ lawyers are asking for all of the campaign’s documents that not only relate to her, but “all documents concerning any accusations that were made during Donald J. Trump’s election campaign for president, that he subjected any woman to unwanted sexual touching and/or sexually inappropriate behavior.” Basically, Trump’s campaign is requested to turn over any documents that have anything to do at all with any of the women who alleged during the election season that Trump groped them. The subpoena names at least 10 women, but the actual total could be more than a dozen. It also asks for any documents from the campaign that have to do with the Access Hollywood tape, as well as any documents that pertain to Trump denying any of the allegations.

Trump’s team has disputed all of this and even tried to shut down Zervos’ lawsuit in July—his lawyers claimed that presidents can’t have civil suits brought against them while in office and that the suit’s goal is to find ammunition to impeach him. Whether the suit will be dismissed as a result, however, hasn’t been decided yet.

Until it is, the subpoena can’t go into action. Trump’s team has said that it’s too broad to be justified and that it’s just intended to harass the president.

Whether the suit—and subpoena–will be allowed to proceed won’t be decided until well after Halloween. Trump’s team has to file a reply by October 31 to Allred’s filed opposition of Trump’s team’s motion to dismiss the civil suit (did you get all of that?). And until Trump files that last reply, the date for the actual hearing (about whether to toss the suit or not) doesn’t get set. And it’s not until after the hearing that we’ll get an answer about the subpoena.

Whew. All of this amounts to a lot of legal drama and a lot of paperwork, but what we do know is that some very interesting disclosures could be ahead—so stay tuned.

Related Stories:
A Timeline of Donald Trump’s Inappropriate History With Women
Donald Trump Bragged About Groping Women in a Disturbing New Video



Source link