Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Women's Health

IWF Podcast: Women in the Workplace

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:00:00 EDT

Allison Kasic and Carrie Lukas discuss several issues pertaining to women in the workplace, including the wage gap and mandated paid leave.

Killing Time in the Battle against Breast Cancer

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:32:00 EDT

Originally published on Townhall.com

Breast cancer is a weapon of mass destruction.

Anyone involved in the battle to find a cure recognizes the importance of increasing awareness and of early detection. However, what is missing from this formula is the effect of early detection and survival rates when there is a delay in detection and diagnosis of breast cancer through no fault of a patient.

As we continue to wage a battle against breast cancer, the following changes need to become a national priority: Minimizing the time it takes to get an appointment with a specialist after one finds a lump in their breast; minimizing the time it takes for a patient to get an appointment for a mammogram; minimizing the time it takes a patient who has been told they have a "suspicious" mammogram to get an appointment to see a breast specialist; and vastly improving the quality of care received by patients while they await diagnosis. Too often, the healthcare provided to patients during these periods of tremendous anxiety is unacceptable.

Today marks the first day of National Breast Cancer awareness month. We at the Independent Women's Forum, recognize this month by remembering the two women in our IWF family who lost their lives to breast cancer this year, by holding the hand of another who is just beginning her battle today, and by praying for yet another who will undergo a breast biopsy later this week --- several weeks after being told she had a suspicious mammogram.

Our own anecdotal evidence demonstrates that too often, when one complains of breast pain, they are told they have a cyst and are advised to "just watch it for a few months"-and valuable time is lost before the cancer is diagnosed. We know that after finding a lump in one's breast, it can take anywhere from 2 to 6 weeks to get a screening test. We know it can take several more weeks just to get an appointment for a consultation with a breast surgeon. And weeks more for a breast biopsy, and even another to get the biopsy results.

The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2007 alone, 178,480 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women and approximately 2,030 cases will be found in men. An estimated 40,460 women and 450 men will die from breast cancer. Until a cure for cancer is found, the most effective way to save lives is through early detection and diagnosis. Imagine how many lives are lost by a 2-6 week delay in getting an appointment for a screening test or a breast biopsy?

On October 9, the Independent Women's Forum will honor two extraordinary women by bestowing our fourth annual Woman of Valor Award to Nancy Brinker, founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Komen Race for the Cure and R. Gaull Silberman, a founder of IWF who lost her life to breast cancer this year. We honor these women because of their commitment to the human spirit and their courageous battle against breast cancer.

In 1978, Nancy Brinker promised her sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever. Suzy, her only sister, had been diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer when she was only 33 years old. Brinker remembers how her sister was told by one surgeon that she had been cured after undergoing a subcutaneous mastectomy. Six months later she found out that the cancer had metastasized. Ultimately, her sister lost her life to breast cancer. The lesson to be learned is that a delay of any sort, can kill you.

The IWF family is grateful to Nancy Brinker for the promise she made to her sister. Under her leadership, Komen for the Cure has invested nearly $1 billion in the fight against breast cancer. Also, we are particularly indebted to Drs. LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., and Wayne Frederick at Howard University Hospital, Dr. Robynne Chutkan at Georgetown University Hospital, and many others for their caring nature and prompt screening, diagnosis, and treatment of those we love and have loved.

Recently, Nancy Brinker said that "As the American public and both political parties did when launching the war on cancer more than three decades ago, we need to summon the will to make cancer a national priority again." We couldn't agree more.

Michelle D. Bernard, a lawyer by training, is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of the soon to be released Women's Progress, How Women are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before.

PBS' To the Contrary: Daycare wars, battling cancer, and benefits of working in smaller companies

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:09:00 EDT

IWF President and CEO, Michelle D. Bernard, a guest this weekend on the PBS program, To the Contrary. Michelle joins Bonnie Erbe along with Democratic commentator Irene Natividad, The Feminist Majority's Crystal Lander and The Heritage Foundation's Genevieve Wood.

In this episode the discussion will cover the daycare wars, battling cancer, and why more women choose to work in smaller companies.

PBS' To the Contrary: HPV Vaccine, Office romance, and African American Women in Congress

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:41:00 EST

Michelle discusses questions of individual liberty and the State of Texas mandating the HPV vaccine for schoolgirls; policies related to office romance; and, African American women in the US Congress.

Is the Bush administration preparing a report on women's mental health based on flawed information?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:10:00 EST

One of the smartest tactics feminists ever developed was hiding ideologically-charged programs behind innocuous-sounding terms. One of their great triumphs: "violence against women," which led to the Violence Against Women Act.

Who, pray tell, doesn't want to stop "violence against women"? But the Violence Against Women Act was a feminist boondoggle that presented a warped notion of domestic relations.

Well, golly, what did you expect from the Clinton administration? But is the Bush administration set to do more of the same in its penultimate year in office?

A group called RADAR charges that it is. In an on-line alert, RADAR claims that a forthcoming "Surgeon General's Call to Action on Women's Mental Health" is based on flawed information and, reading between the lines, will toe the feminist line on violence against women.

I can't find anything official on the report beyond this, but the RADAR statement is compelling, and I'm going give the anonymous author of the alert the benefit of the doubt and assume he has seen a draft (as claimed) and urge you to go to RADAR's website and click on Alert to read about what is apparently the latest example of your tax dollar supporting the feminist agenda.

Women and Brains

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:00:00 EDT

The Washington Times

Feminists should celebrate: Finally someone is taking women's health seriously and has done a thorough study of the female brain.

In "The Female Brain," Louann Brizendine, a San Francisco-based neuropsychiatrist who founded the Women's and Teen Girls' Mood and Hormone Clinic, details the powerful influence that a woman's brain structure and chemistry have on her behavior and outlook from birth to old age.

Dr. Brizendine begins by describing the historical failure of scientists to consider women's unique make up, instead assuming that "women were essentially small men, neurologically and in every other sense except for their reproductive functions." The truth is quite different: 99 percent of male and female genetic coding is the same, but the differences that exist have profound effects:

"What we've found is that the female brain is so deeply affected by hormones that their influence can be said to create a woman's reality. They can shape a woman's values and desires, and tell her, day to day, what's important. Their presence is felt at every stage of life, right from birth."

The book examines each stage of a woman's life, from infancy and childhood to pregnancy and menopause, and explores how the hormones present in her body and her brain affect her life. While Dr. Brizendine provides rich scientific details about brain structure and neuro-hormones, the book unfolds like a drama. A lay reader is invited to consider phenomenon she has witnessed in her own life and those around her and consider potential root causes.

There is power in this knowledge. As Dr. Brizendine writes: "if we can understand how our lives are shaped by our brain chemistry, then maybe we can better see the road ahead." It's easy to see how this information can help women better approach the relationships or personal trials they face.

Women experiencing menopause should have a thorough understanding of the massive changes taking place physiologically. Understanding that men simply do not process and store emotions with the same efficiency as women can help frustrated wives adjust their expectations for their husbands. Women who are aware of how birthing and nurturing a child transforms the brain can more fully appreciate motherhood's wonder and prepare for the inevitable stresses and fears.

Dr. Brizendine's book is a major contribution to women's health and to building an appreciation among women of their unique strengths. Yet undoubtedly this book will make feminists vested in denying sex differences uncomfortable. While Dr. Brizendine emphasizes women's particular strengths, she also identifies potential weaknesses.

Hormone changes that accompany the menstrual cycle can make women more emotional and less rational. The powerful changes that accompany motherhood make women more adapt at some tasks, but less adapt at others.

Dr. Brizendine acknowledges the political sensitivity of these issues:

"There are still those who believe that for women to become equal, unisex must be the norm. The biological reality, however, is that there is no unisex brain. The fear of discrimination based on difference runs deep, and for many years assumptions about sex differences went scientifically unexamined for fear that women wouldn't be able to claim equality with men. But pretending that women and men are the same, while doing a disservice to both men and women, ultimately hurts women."

There are clear implications of her findings to the world of public policy, although they are not discussed in the book. Admitting that men and women have different outlooks and preferences is a first step toward recognizing the futility of policies designed to make women act more like men.

It's important, of course, to give women the opportunities to participate in all facets of life, but policies like Title IX -- which have been taken to mean that colleges and universities must have the same number of female athletes as male athletes -- ignore differences between men and women. Social engineers across Europe who seek to make child-rearing a responsibility equally shared by men and women are fighting human nature.

Men and women don't have to be the same to be equal. Women's unique attributes and strengths deserve to be celebrated, which is exactly what Dr. Brizendine's book does.

Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism."

Bad Policy

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:58:00 EDT

Phyllis Schlafly had an interesting article last week over at Towhall.com about domestic violence laws. Turns out, it's very easy to abuse these laws in most states. Here's a recent example:

"It brought to mind the title of the George Gershwin song ‘They All Laughed' when a Santa Fe, N.M., family court judge granted a temporary restraining order against ‘Late Show' host David Letterman to protect a woman he had never met, never heard of, and lived 2,000 miles away from.

"Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her ‘mental cruelty' and ‘sleep deprivation' for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network television broadcasts.

"That ridiculous temporary restraining orders was dismissed in December, but according to a report released this week by Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, the case was not a judicial anomaly but ‘the logical culmination of years of ever-expanding definitions of domestic violence.' RADAR is a Maryland-based think tank that specializes in exposing the excesses of the domestic violence bureaucracy.

"The New Mexico statute defines domestic violence as causing ‘severe emotional distress.' That definition was met when Nestler claimed she suffered from exhaustion and had gone bankrupt because of Letterman's actions."

That's more than ridiculous, folks. It's redonkulous. The core of the problem is the broad language these laws use, which invites abuse. Schlafly explains:

"RADAR reports that only five states define domestic violence in terms of overt actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law. The rest of the states have broadened their definition to include fear, emotional distress, and psychological feelings.

"The use of the word ‘harassment' in domestic violence definitions is borrowed from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's definition, which is based on the ‘effect' of an action rather than the action itself. In Oklahoma, a man can be charged with harassment if he seriously ‘annoys' a woman."

Read the full article here.

Reading the article reminded me on a similar problem on college campuses: overly broad sexual harassment policies. I wrote about the ridiculous sexual harassment at Gettysburg College (a school where you could be accused of harassment for giving your girlfriend or boyfriend a hug if you don't ask permission first) a few months ago. At many schools, the policies are written so poorly from a legal perspective that they get used to restrict speech that has nothing to do with actual harassment. It's an issue that will be at the core of the IWF campus program this fall - do stay tuned for some cool stuff.

In both cases, women deserve better. We deserve policies that protect us from harassment, that protect us from domestic violence. Overly broad policies distract us from the core issue: protecting women.

IWF Says UN Attack on Infant Formula is Anti-Woman

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Louise Filkins
Phone: (202) 419-1820

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum today is disturbed by recent reports that the United Nations is embracing policies that are clearly anti-woman and could ultimately lead to a ban of infant formula throughout much of the world, setting women in the workplace back decades.

"Infant formula is an excellent form of nutrition for infants, and an important alternative given the reality that many women simply cannot breastfeed due to physical conditions or workplace obligations. Infant formula has been critical to enabling woman to achieve more in the workplace, by creating choice and greater flexibility," said Nancy M. Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum. "We are alarmed by reports that the UN and its agencies are actively working to remove bottle-feeding as a viable option for women around the world. Women deserve the right to decide how to care for their infants, and the UN certainly is not in the position to impose baseless restrictions upon new mothers."

Last month, the World Health Organization-- the UN's Geneva-based health agency --decided to allow a vote on a resolution that would place black warning labels on infant formula products. The resolution, sponsored by Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nepal and Palau, claims that formula contains pathogens that can result in death.

"We intend to monitor developments over the next 2-3 weeks and to alert women about this attack on their liberties," Nancy M. Pfotenhauer said. "We all recognize the benefits of breast feeding, but not all women can breast feed. This is an attack on adoptive mothers, mothers with physical conditions that make breastfeeding hazardous, including women infected with HIV, and of course women who are working to keep a roof over their family's heads."

The UN will be voting on the resolution at the 58th World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva on May 16, 2005.

"We all want infants to receive the best possible nutrition, but the UN resolution could be counterproductive both to infants and their mothers," said Pfotenhauer.

The Mother of All Bad Stats?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 EST

National Review Online

Any claim, when oft repeated, may acquire the ring of truth. From tales of the deadly gut-busting power of mixing cola and candy pop rocks to the ghoulish origin of "Ring around the Rosie," people often accept myths as fact. These popular tall tales generally are harmless. Yet on some issues, such as violence against women, it's important that the public knows the facts.

The high-profile murders of pregnant women such as Laci Peterson in late 2002 and Bobbie Jo Stinnett -- the 23-year-old whose baby was stolen from her womb in December -- has prompted a widespread belief that pregnant women are more likely to die from homicide than from any other cause. An Associated Press story in April 2003, for example, was headlined "Murder: The Leading Cause of Death for Pregnant Women." In that article, Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, summed up the relationship between violence and pregnancy: "She's vulnerable. It's an easier time to threaten her."

But how do we know that homicide actually is the leading cause of death among pregnant women? The Washington Post recently ran a three-part series exploring the problem of the murder of pregnant women and cited a study conducted in Maryland that was published by The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2001 that appears to be the source of the information. Isabelle Horon and Diana Cheng, authors of the Maryland study, concluded that "a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be the victim of homicide than to die of any other cause." Among 247 women in Maryland between 1993 and 1998 who died while pregnant or within a year of having been pregnant, 50 died of homicide. The next greatest killers were cardiovascular disorders (48), embolisms (21), accidents (18), and hemorrhage (17).

The data for the JAMA study deserves additional scrutiny. First, the authors defined a "pregnant woman" not as a woman carrying a fetus at the time of her death, but as all women pregnant or who had been pregnant within a year before their deaths. The expansive definition of "pregnancy-associated" deaths conveys a false sense that all of these deaths were directly related to the women having been pregnant. Almost three quarters of the deaths examined in the study occurred during the yearlong period after the woman was no longer pregnant. A year after a woman stops being pregnant (whether by giving birth, abortion, or miscarriage) seems a long time to assume that her death is related to pregnancy.

In addition, homicide wouldn't be the leading cause of death if the categories were defined differently. If different (but related) health disorders were combined, they would by far be the leading cause.

Dr. Harold Weiss, of the Center for Injury Research and Control, identified another way in which the study may be misleading. In a letter to JAMA following the publication of Horon and Cheng's study, Weiss highlighted how Maryland's policy regarding autopsies may contribute to an under-counting of death due to motor-vehicle accidents. The Maryland medical examiner's office requires an autopsy for all murder victims, but does not for all auto accidents. This means that while medical-examiner reports identified all murdered pregnant women -- and, in fact, these reports were the source of 100 percent of Horon and Cheng's identification of pregnant homicide victims -- the lack of data on women who die in motor-vehicle accidents means that Horon and Cheng likely missed some pregnant women who died in auto accidents.

Weiss also highlighted the pitfalls of assuming that the findings from a study conducted in Maryland are nationally representative. It turns out that Maryland has many more homicides per capita than the rest of the country. Between 1993 and 1998, among Maryland women of childbearing age (15 to 44 years), there were 499 homicides and 605 motor vehicle deaths -- a ratio of .82 homicides for each motor vehicle death. Nationally, however, there were 19,306 homicides and 41,474 motor-vehicle deaths, or .47 homicides per motor-vehicle death. Thus even if homicides are the leading cause of death among pregnant women in Maryland, the same trend doesn't necessarily follow nationally.

The General Accounting Office and Center for Disease Control have also researched the relationship between pregnancy and violence and cast additional doubt on the alleged link between pregnancy and homicide. One report concluded that "current study findings suggest that for most abused women, physical violence does not seem to be initiated or to increase during pregnancy.... In one study we reviewed, only 2 percent of women who reported not being abused before pregnancy reported abuse during pregnancy. The same study also found that, for some women, the period of pregnancy may be less risky, with violence abating during pregnancy; 41 percent of the women who reported abuse in the year before pregnancy did not experience abuse during pregnancy."

Violence against women, including against pregnant women, is a serious problem. Each such death is a special tragedy -- the loss of the woman compounded by the extinguished hope and promise of a new life. But overstating the frequency of these brutal acts minimizes the horror of each episode, confuses the public, and may lead to misallocated resources. We need a national discussion about how best to prevent violence against women -- and an important element of that conversation must be separating fact from fiction.