visit to dominican republic

Last week I spent five days in the Dominican Republic visiting the Fos Feminista partner Profamilia, which has 7 clinics and 2 mobile health units. 

The DR is poor. Baseball is the national sport. Each major league team has a baseball academy in the DR. Sugar cane employment is declining. Teen pregnancy is very high – about half of teens give birth. Girls do not see much of a future. 

The clinics were spotless, full of clients and well run. You could tell the dedication of the staff and their professionalism. Clients were treated with respect. 

Abortion is totally illegal in the DR, so it is not provided. The clinics do offer harm reduction, where they explain what to do in the event the client has an illegal abortion and has complications. The Profamilia clinics can and do manage any complications or tell the patients go to a hospital. They are working with the legislature to allow three exceptions to the ban on abortion – to save the life of the mother, fetal abnormality and rape. 

The clinics offer a full range of contraception and sterilization, male and female. The pill and injection are the most common methods. Some women have to disguise their pills as vitamins from their husbands. Many men in DR want many more children than the women want. Emergency contraception is becoming used as a method of contraception. It becomes less effective if used frequently.

Pills and other methods are sold without prescription in pharmacies. Profamilia does extensive community distribution of pills.

There is universal screening for domestic violence, which is common. The clinics offer legal services for victims. There is a shortage of safe houses – there are 12- and few relocation services. There is a national DV hotline.

Men constitute 20% of patients, mostly for urology. One clinic did 20 vasectomies a day.

The clinics do HIV counseling and treatment.

The clinics offer general health care and pediatrics but no deliveries.

The services are free if the client cannot pay. There is national health insurance.

Maternal mortality is high but declining. It is about 107 per 100,000 in 2020 and increased during Covid. Illegal abortion now constitutes 8% of maternal deaths – it was 20% during Covid.

We visited three mobile health unit sites in remote villages and batayas- these are Haitian immigrant villages where sugar cane workers and farmers live. Sugar cane has become largely mechanized and many Haitians are scratching out a living farming or manual labor. $6 a day is the average wage in the batayas. If a person needs to get to the nearest hospital it costs $12 for transport. The Hailtian migrants fear hospitals due to deportation threats.

The community promoters , or promotores as they are called, are villagers trained by Profamilia, who live and travel around the batayas bringing contraceptives and general health care. The mobile health units are on a circuit and come every 30 days or so. One promoter just got her law degree and another is running for the local legislature. 

Visit to Cúcuta, Colombia Refugee Center

Cucuta, Colombia

In May I made a trip with Fos Feminista to Cúcuta, Colombia recently to inspect the health services our partner organizations are providing to refugees from Venezuela. Fos partners with a variety of reproductive health and rights organizations and advocacy groups in Colombia (and worldwide) to bring the best in health care to vulnerable women and girls. These groups in turn partner with social service organizations to bring whatever services this population needs.

Cúcuta is the main border crossing from Venezuela – over 7 million refugees have left Venezuela and about a third have settled in Colombia, a country that has problems of its own before the refugee crisis. A river separates the two countries. The refugees often wade across it to avoid border guards. Armed conflict in Colombia continues despite the truce. Organized crime flourishes.

View of Cúcuta – the mountains in the distance are in Venezuela.

We visited the Funvecuc refugee center run by Aid for Aids. 

The kitchen prepared a lunch of spaghetti and beans. We saw about 100 migrants crowding in to get fed. The center does 250 meals a day. The food is donated by the government and NGOs. 

Several NGOs partner at this center and offer social and health services, including retrovirals for HIV, family planning and general medical care. The FF partner in Venezuela, PlaFam, does the family planning work and abortion referrals, even though the center is in Colombia – they use the name Mujeres por Mujeres (Women for Woman). The Colombia government does not provide health care for refugees.

The women often are the victims of sex trafficking on their arduous journey out of Venezuela, sometimes by border guards, army and police. Gender based violence is an omnipresent issue. 

One woman I spoke to was 17 with a 1 ½ year old baby. She had walked with her mother out of Venezuela and had no idea what the family would do next.

We then visited the Fundación Halü health center. This organization, another FF partner, offers holistic care as well as contraception for Venezuelan migrants. There were about 25 girls, age 14-18, waiting for counseling so that they could get a contraceptive implant. Many had traveled up to 4 hours from Venezuela and have a return trip of another 4 hours. It was a powerful statement of what girls with the determination not to get pregnant will endure.

weathering

Professor Arline Geronimus developed her theory of “weathering” in 1990. It described the deleterious effects of a racist environment on the health of marginalized peoples, specifically, the effect on infant mortality of blacks versus whites. Previous to her research, it was thought that teen pregnancy was the cause, i.e., giving birth as a teen led to low weight or underdeveloped babies that did not survive. Her research showed the opposite: babies born to Black teens were surviving better than those born to Black women in their 20s. Teen pregnancy was a solution to a racist environment. Opponents of teen pregnancy were aghast.

I wrote about weathering in my book, Beyond Choice, in 2004. 

A few excerpts:

“As Professor Arline T. Geronimus of the University of Michigan has stated: “Fertility-timing varies among populations because of the contingencies members of different populations face in their efforts to provide for the survival and well-being of families.”

“…because of unhealthy living conditions, a sub-standard health system and violence, poor men and women, both minority and white, suffer from higher morbidity and mortality than those with higher incomes who are disproportionately white. Professor Geronimus calls this the “weathering hypothesis”. The weathering hypothesis says that certain groups statistically will “weather”, growing sicker as they age and dying faster than other groups.

“One study by Professor Geronimus in 1999 revealed that poor blacks, who had reached the age of 15, had a relatively low probability of survival until age 65. In Harlem only 37% of black men and 65% of black women who reach age 15 survive until age 65. For black men this represents half the probability of survival to age 65 for whites nationwide. Black girls in Harlem who reach age 15 have the same chance of surviving until age 45 as the average white girl of 15 has of surviving until age 65. Poor blacks get sicker faster and die younger.

“The leading causes of early death in poor communities include diseases of the circulatory system, AIDS, accidents, homicide and cancer. Poverty and race alone do not explain the entire difference in mortality rates. Other factors include crowded living conditions, poor health care, being a victim of crime, living amidst environmental hazards and, as a result of all these factors, experiencing enormous stress. The evidence is clear that many black people in America cannot reasonably expect to live through middle age. Living with this prospect may affect their behavior in a variety of ways, including in risk taking behavior and in reproductive patterns. 

“Studies aiming to confirm the weathering hypothesis have found evidence of a correlation between the average life expectancy in a community and the age at first birth in that community. Generally the lower the life expectancy, the lower the average age of first birth. In one study done in Chicago in 1997 Professors Margo Wilson and Martin Daly of McMaster University found that the median age of women giving birth was 22.6 years in neighborhoods with low life expectancy compared to 27.3 years old in neighborhoods with a longer life expectancy. This finding is in line with of young people, faced with the prospect of a compressed life span, trying to achieve their reproductive goals by accelerating their childbearing. The timing of a young poor woman’s childbearing is, I believe, a decision actively motivated in part by knowledge that her life and the lives of her parents will be shorter and less robust than those of other people. With parenting by not only parents but also grandparents being necessary in poor communities, it is natural for a young woman to have children while her extended family is alive and healthy enough to help care for them and help them grow. 

“Professor Geronimus found that the risk of neonatal death for a black infant increases as a poor, black woman gives birth at older ages, while the risk of neonatal death for a white infant decreases as the white mother gives birth at older ages. The weathering hypothesis says that the effects of social inequality, poverty, poor health and nutrition, stress and other negative environmental circumstances compound with age and have increasingly deleterious effects on fetal and newborn health as a poor, black woman ages and gives birth. 

“Professor Geronimus found that black mothers between the ages of 15-19 were found to have the lowestincidence of low birth weight babies as compared to older black women. For example, the infant mortality rate in Harlem for teens giving birth is 11 deaths per 1000 births. The rate for black women in their 20’s is twice that—22 per 1000. Among whites, mothers in their teens and 30’s experience slightly higher rates of poor birth outcomes than white women in their 20’s. In other words, whites in their 20’s have the best birth outcomes, while the best birth outcomes for blacks is while they are in their late teens. Black women as they age were found to smoke more during pregnancy and have higher rates of hypertension than whites. Black women as they age continue to live more in poverty than white women. Through their young adult years, black women’s health deteriorates more rapidly than white women’s health does, thereby leading to a greater risk of low birth weight babies as black women age. Poor women also generally get less prenatal care than wealthier women. The Geronimus study concluded: “the populations in which early births are most common are those where early births are the lowest risk, raising questions about the social construction of teen childbearing as a universally deleterious behavior.”

“This and other studies suggest that women may consciously or unconsciously time childbirth strategically by taking into account factors that include the status of their own health and their infant’s potential health, as well as the health of those in their kin network who will be helping raise the child. It is arguably a better reproductive strategy for a woman to give birth earlier rather than later in these circumstances. Women know that their premature death will have serious negative consequences for their children. In an environment where life is short it makes evolutionary sense for women to have their children as early as possible.

“Rather than viewing early childbearing as a pathology to be cured, I would argue that it is an adaptive reproductive strategy that is succeeding. In fact, the child of the teen parents is doing reproductively what she should: having children at a time where by her own experience there is a good chance they will survive to have children of their own. The child of teen parents will be a reproductive success if she repeats the pattern and if her children do too. As Geronimus said, “to postpone such goals as childbearing is to risk foregoing them.” 

“There is no one fixed path to reproductive success. Reproductive strategies depend on one’s environment. The environment can encourage a woman to give birth at a certain time and under certain conditions or it may discourage her. Teenagers in poor communities may see a variety of reasons not to postpone childbirth until they are older. They may have fewer choices of men, their health may worsen, and the health of their kin may also. It is also likely that they will give birth to healthier infants if they do so sooner rather than later. The role of her kin network cannot be underestimated. Parents want to be grandparents. They know their time is running short and they want to be around to help raise the child. While there are risks for the teen mother and her child, the families often think these are worth running.”        

I am glad that the scientific and health communities have finally caught up to Dr. Geronimus. See The New York Times, April 18, 2023, p. D7. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/well/live/weathering-health-racism-discrimination.html

I most definitely remember that certain of my colleagues were aghast at the sections of my book quoted above. It was as if I were a traitor to the Cause. I rather think I was taking a fresh look at sexual and reproductive behavior in the context of human health, the environment, biology, genes and evolution. We like to use the word “intersectionality” now. There are many elements to intersectionality (i.e. life) that contribute to and affect human behavior, reproductive decisions and strategies, and sexual behavior and health. Putting aside preconceptions and taking a clear look at the facts can help devise strategies to promote human wellbeing.

Speech at fundraiser for Governor janet mills and congresswoman chellie pingree – august 4, 2022

With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the United States has joined such undistinguished company as Poland and Honduras as the only countries in recent decades that have enacted criminal abortion laws or made their already strict criminal abortion laws more Draconian. 

About half these united states are busy right now criminalizing abortion. 

Half our country, Kansas excepted, is now a foreign land. 

Since 2000, 37 countries have liberalized their abortion laws: Argentina, Thailand, Ireland, Mexico and most recently Colombia. Chile proposes to put reproductive rights in its new constitution. Save that thought.

We know what happens when reproductive health care, including access to safe abortion, are curtailed: More unintended and unwanted pregnancies, and for women who decide or are forced to keep the pregnancy: less prenatal care, riskier pregnancies and deliveries, especially with young women, and increased maternal and infant mortality.

And for women who decide not to keep the pregnancy:  Abortion when criminalized does not go away it just goes underground, and is later, riskier, costlier with attendant increases in maternal mortality and morbidity. The burden is disproportionate on young, poor, rural women.

Abortions by pill, already on the increase, will increase more. The risk is no medical supervision or care if it is needed for fear of prosecution.

Women with wanted pregnancies who have life-threatening medical issues are put at risk with the denial of life saving health care. 

Women who miscarry are put in prison – just look at El Salvador. Where 30-year sentences for aggravated homicide after a miscarriage are common and for women who give birth to children that they do not want, a network of Homes for Abandoned Children.

I know this from my work around the world with International Planned Parenthood. We also know that women will take extraordinary steps not to have a child they do not want. 

But Women shouldn’t have to.

Worldwide, abortions occur with the same frequency in countries that have legalized it as in countries that have criminalized it. – about 35 per 1000 women of childbearing age. 

What next? An underground railroad to Canada. The Bar Harbor to Yarmouth ferry opened just in time. To quote Richard Dreyfus in Jaws, “we may need a bigger boat.”

Will we get to a situation where lobster boats anchor outside the 3-mile limit to offer abortion medication? Will there be no law east of the breakwater?

We are one election away from losing reproductive rights nationally and in Maine. Sexual rights, LGBTQ rights. Birth control. As well as what we read.

Look at attacks on public libraries. I’ll remind you that when the Nazis burned books, one of the first into the fire were my grandmother’s, who dared to say that no women could call herself free unless she had the right to decide whether or not to become a mother.

This will take all of us – men too, and not just by lining up for vasectomies. Especially young people, who if they don’t vote now then I don’t know when. It will take good Republican men and women, as in Kansas, who have daughters and who see them as more than incubators. In Latin America there is a Green Waves of women and men demanding decriminalization of abortion. We need a Green Wave here.

Stalwart elected officials are key. We have two stalwart women here so show that this overturn of Roe, this defeat of women, will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory: Chellie Pingree and Janet Mills.

IPPF/WHR Statement on Separation from the Global IPPF – August 5, 2020

For more than 60 years, IPPF/WHR has worked as an independent organization alongside the International Planned Parenthood Federation to secure sexual and reproductive health and rights for women and girls in the Americas and the Caribbean.

We are proud of what we have accomplished together over the decades, but we believe that our movement has reached a crossroads – and that separating from the global Federation is the best way to fulfill our organization’s mission.

More than a year ago, we initiated a process of reflection, rejecting the patriarchal and colonial legacies of the past, and reimagining the WHR through the lens of intersectional feminism. We reinvented our business and funding models to address shortfalls from IPPF’s funding structure, and we reformed our organizational structure to ensure that women and girls are at the center of our new horizontal partner model of cooperation. These reforms positioned us to meet the serious challenges of the COVID-19 global pandemic.

This is a unique historical moment in Latin America and the Caribbean, one in which civil society is openly rejecting patriarchal systems of oppression. IPPF/WHR is excited to embrace and work alongside a new generation of community leaders fighting for equity and social justice.

We are confident that our decision to separate from the global Federation will enable us to better deliver on the kind of change that is needed to support women, girls, and the underserved communities across our region. And we will do so with good governance, transparency and accountability to our donors and to the women and girls we serve.

Today, as an independent organization, we are more committed than ever to securing sexual and reproductive health and rights for all women and girls in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are excited to embark on this new chapter and look forward to working with you as a partner in this journey.

Statement of Solidarity from IPPFWHR

IPPFWHR NEWS, STATEMENTS – June 2, 2020

OUR STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY


The International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region stands in solidarity with activists for racial justice in the United States and throughout the world.

The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and so many more victims of police brutality in the United States, are the result of state-sanctioned violence and systematized racial inequality that permeates every aspect of our society, including reproductive health. You can see in the eyes of a pregnant woman in Austin who was shot in the stomach while protesting at police headquarters.  You can see it in the eyes of the woman fearing for her child’s life every time he walks out the front door.

These oppressive forces have generated pain, outrage, and frustration throughout our nation’s history, yet we have found hope in the images of countless activists marching in cities both big and small; in the voices crying out for an end to the senseless murders of and violence against Black bodies.

Make no mistake about it: this is a global fight for racial justice that requires each and every one of us to take action.  This weekend, we also saw an uprising in the favelas in Rio de Janeiro, where hundreds of demonstrators converged to protest crimes committed by police against Black Brazilians.  A week ago a Black youth was killed by police at his home in a favela in Rio de Janeiro, while respecting the social distancing measures with his family. We see the effects of structural racism in the United States and our region day-in and day-out and know we all have a role to play in demanding racial justice, having difficult conversations, and putting pressure on our leaders to act.

Everyone has the right to live in peace and free of violence. Everyone has the right to be treated with humanity and equal dignity. This is the time for change.

Our heart goes out to the family of George Floyd and the countless others in our nation whose loved ones have died at the hands of the forces that claimed to protect them.

The End of Babies?

The End of Babies?

By Alexander Sanger

 

In its November 17, 2019 edition, The New York Times published a two-page Opinion Essay by Anna Louie Sussman entitled, “The End of Babies”. The gist is that Modern Capitalism is inimical to reproduction: economic, social and environmental factors, and moral ones too, are hostile to having babies. The article compares capitalism and its effects in low-fertility Denmark and China. Late Capitalism, she argues, “has become hostile to reproduction”. The system in such countries, where basic needs are met and there is seemingly limitless freedom, may make children an afterthought or an unwelcome intrusion in a life that offers rewards of a different kind – career, hobbies, holidays. Women often defer childbearing or finally realize they actually want children at an age where they are forced to turn to assisted reproduction.

 

The story did not look at fertility rates in non-capitalist countries, like Russia or North Korea, where fertility is equally low, or lower.

 

Nor did the word “biology” appear. There are two paragraphs on men and male attitudes and behaviors, including that one in five men in Denmark and the U.S. will not become a parent. The rest deals with the female experience, including her own, and female advocates for reproductive justice.

 

I went back to Ms. Sussman’s article when Dr. Sarah E. Hill’s book, How the Pill Changes Everything, arrived on my desk last week. The book examines declining birthrates but from a biological angle. The word, “biology” appears throughout. As do the words “men” and “males”.

 

The default position, indeed, the primary focus of our work at International Planned Parenthood, is rightly on women and girls, and providing them sexual and reproductive health services and advocacy for reproductive justice. We are a proudly feminist organization. Yet, as my grandmother said 75 years ago when IPPF was founded in Bombay, India, “We won’t get anywhere without the men.” Women, who want children by means other than assisted reproduction, won’t get anywhere without the men either. As Ms. Sussman noted, “Reproduction is the ultimate nod to interdependence. We depend on at least two people to make us possible.”

 

So, with all the focus in her article on the social, economic, educational, urbanization etc. factors and their effects on female fertility, might human biology and men have something to do with the declining birthrate? Might our Darwinian mating system, which has evolved since the time any life appeared on the planet, not be working? If not, why not? The answer might lie in changes to our biology, not just in the changes in the socio-economic system, or systems. Dr. Hill focuses on this and raises the issue of whether the Pill’s mere existence affects fertility in ways beyond its obvious contraceptive effects.

 

I wrote in Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21st Century of hormonal contraception’s effect on the Major Histocompatibility Complex. There is evidence, I wrote, about the interference of the Pill with the normal mechanism of sexual selection as reflected in MHC preference. This preference leads males and females to choose mates with differing MHCs, thus leading to a better chance of a successful pregnancy and of their offspring having a better genetic quality and chance of survival. Hormonal contraception, I wrote, appears to interfere with a female’s mating preferences by leading them to choose males with a similar, not dissimilar, MHCs.  This can lead to difficulties in getting and keeping pregnant and in healthy progeny. Furthermore, hormonal contraception also interferes with a male’s mating preferences. Males avoid mating with females who are on hormonal contraception, whether they consciously know it or not. Thus, the Pill interferes with natural mate choice and hence successful reproduction by both males and females. I wrote that more study was needed, but that women and men needed to be aware of these possible unintended consequences of hormonal contraception.

 

Dr. Hill brings this research up to date, which confirms what I wrote 15 years ago. Dr. Hill states that hormonal contraception affects … ta da…a woman’s hormones and that, in turn, affects everything, including their mate choices, the chances of a successful long-term relationship and the chances of becoming pregnant and having healthy offspring. Women seem to prefer different types of men when on and off the Pill. A woman’s natural hormones, unaffected by the Pill, may guide women to men who have healthy compatible genes. Hormonal contraception, however, may guide women to men who have less compatible genes, thereby making it more difficult to get pregnant and have healthy children. Dr. Hill warns, correctly, that the science has not proved this conclusively and that any conclusions are speculative.

 

Ms. Sussman does state in her article that, “Chemicals and pollutants seep into our bodies, disrupting our endocrine systems,” but she is not referring to hormonal contraception and its effects on mate choice. She also does not mention the multiple studies surrounding declining sperm count in males and reduced sperm quality.

 

Dr. Hill points out that the Pill has also been seen to reduce the sex drive of some women. Certainly, celibacy was not one of the intended consequences of this method of contraception. But also, the Pill may make men less interested in having sex with women on the Pill and thus less likely to be chosen as a mate. The Pill appears to reduce the boost in attractiveness that comes with a pre-ovulatory estrogen surge. Hence, the mating system is at risk of being thrown out of whack.

 

Dr. Hill argues that the pill, by changing women’s biology, has the ability to have cascading effects on everyone and everything a woman encounters, including potential male mates. And when you multiply this type of an effect by the many millions  of women around the world on hormonal contraception, the pill changes the world. (At IPPF, hormonal contraception constitutes about 45% of the methods we distribute: Injectables at 11%, Oral Contraceptives at 11% and Implants at 23%. In addition, some IUDs we distribute contain hormones.)

 

There is no doubt that the mating system is more than biological. With women achieving more, thanks to contraception, men are achieving relatively less. Men, as an economic matter, are thus less attractive as mates. The mating market is thus bifurcated into two markets – the dating-sex market and the marriage market. The Pill enables the former and has a depressing effect on the latter. In the U.S., for the first time in history, single women out number married women. Hence more single motherhood (and sometimes fatherhood), delayed motherhood and assisted reproduction. The fertility rate of single women is about half that of married women, hence the low overall fertility rate, and, in some countries, a declining population. How much do biology and the hormonal effects of the Pill on women and men contribute to this quandary and this outcome? As Dr. Hill says, this is still undetermined but not outside the realm of biological possibility.

 

Reproduction is too often seen by commentators as a rational lifestyle choice affected only by socio-economic factors. It is far, far more that. The Unknown Unknowns, to borrow a phrase, are staggering.

 

 

Letters to the Editor: The lie that Planned Parenthood’s founder was a virulent racist

Clyde W. Ford wrongly lumps my grandmother, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, with far-right immigration opponents.

Her version of eugenics was far different from that described by Ford. It sought to address the manner in which heredity and other biological factors, as well as environmental and cultural ones, affect human health, intelligence and opportunity. My grandmother hoped to locate birth control in a larger program of preventive social medicine to improve the condition of all people.

She spoke out against immigration acts and other measures that promoted racial or ethnic stereotypes. She worked for more than 50 years to provide reproductive autonomy to poor women, including women of color, because she saw it as an essential tool of individual liberation and social justice, not of social control.

Alexander Sanger

New York

The writer chairs the International Planned Parenthood Council.

With thanks to Ellen Chesler — she and I spend too much time rebutting these falsehoods.

Chile Expands Abortion Access

For the last two years, our partner, APROFA, has been working hard to officially register the abortion pill. The pill is actually two medications called Mifepristone and Misoprostol that safely end pregnancy when taken together. Access to it reduces barriers for many women and healthcare professionals, especially because it is non-invasive and can be done at home. The Chilean Government has finally approved APROFA’s application to register the abortion pill.

While abortion is only currently legal in certain circumstances in Chile, this win brings us a step closer in the fight for global reproductive rights.

APROFA will begin distributing the combination pill in early 2020.