Factors to consider when choosing an OB-GYN

Obstetrician-Gynecologists or OB-GYNs are medical practitioners tasked with providing women with reproductive health services and caring for women during and after their pregnancy. They are able to administer important tests and screenings for diseases like cancer, they can help women plan their family, they are able to treat pelvic problems and urinary tract conditions, and they can deliver babies too. As such, they are an important part of women’s medical health arsenal.

As a woman, it is your right to be able to choose an OB-GYN who will provide you with the best medical advice, who will listen to and address your concerns, who can assist you in making important medical decisions about your reproductive system, and who you will trust with the most intimate parts of your body. That being said, you need to choose this person carefully; as they will be a big part of your life: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that you begin seeing one between your 13 th and 15 th birthday. So how do you choose a good OB-GYN? Here are some of the things that you need to consider:

Credentials/Experience – A simple internet search will probably be able to call up the doctor’s credentials; especially if they’re registered on sites that offer reviews. You can also try to see if they have their own site where this information is listed. Important pieces of information to look for are: medical school and residency, certifications acquired (especially from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology), specialization/s, hospital affiliations, years of practice, unfavorable reviews (if any), malpractice records (if any), and lawsuits filed against them (if any). Someone who has no records or information on the internet is to be avoided at all costs.

Bedside Manner – Just as important as the doctor’s knowledge and expertise is the way they treat their patients. Look for someone who is very compassionate and understanding; someone who is a good listener and respects you. Avoid condescending, judgmental, close-minded individuals who seem to be going through the motions when they treat their patients. After all, this is the person who you will confide some very personal details to, so make sure that they are worth your trust.

Values/Beliefs – Because this person is tasked to give you advice about some sensitive and polarizing topics like contraception; you have to check their values and beliefs to make sure that you share common values with them. Nothing is more awkward than receiving advice or having a conversation with someone who has the opposite values and beliefs as you.

Affiliations – Try to find out if the doctor is affiliated with organizations or groups that seem questionable or run counter to your beliefs and values. Also, try to find out which hospital/s the doctor is affiliated with. Make sure that these are medical establishments that are of good repute and high standards: with good online reviews and high patient success rates. Oh, and make sure that their hospital/s are accessible and easy to get to, as you’ll probably be visiting regularly.

Insurance – Check to see if the doctor is included in your insurance plan’s network, and if they accept your health insurance. Medical services cost a lot, so if you can save on these expenses; then by all means try to do so.

ParkMed NYC offers quality reproductive health services, such as comprehensive gynecological services, STD testing, and high-quality abortion care. Our group of compassionate and highly-qualified board- certified-and-eligible male and female OB-GYN surgeons and physicians will make your visit as comfortable and stress-free as possible. Call us up at 212-686-6066 or contact us online for an immediate appointment, or for more information.

Terms 101: Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, and Reproductive Justice

If you have been actively following women’s issues on the ‘net lately; then you’ve probably been perusing a lot of articles that talk about Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, and Reproductive Justice. Most of these articles are very edifying, and contain substantial information about some of the concerns we have been trying to vocalize and address. However, some of them seem to be using the aforementioned terms interchangeably: it’s like all three terms are one and the same, or perhaps they mistake one of these terms for the other. In order to provide some much-needed clarity; your friends at ParkMed NYC would like to help distinguish these three terms for everyone’s convenience, and
hopefully end the confusion.

Reproductive Health refers to the state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being of a person with regard to their reproductive system. It does not merely pertain to the treatment of reproductive problems and conditions, but also applies to health practices and procedures that promote optimal reproductive functions and performance during every stage of life. It is not only about women’s pregnancy, or abortion, but spans a broad spectrum of different concerns and fields.

Reproductive Rights refer to the various choices and freedoms that people have regarding their preferences and decisions regarding their reproductive systems; as well as health procedures and services.

Reproductive Justice refers to the protection of individuals’ Reproductive Rights from curtailment and oppression by structures and entities both from inside and outside the realm of health and medical services that create and promote negative Reproductive Health conditions and outcomes; as well as promote the denial of basic Reproductive Rights to people.

Reproductive justice is a concept that was brought about and turned into a movement by an activist group named SisterSong. They define reproductive justice as ” the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.” Wikipedia

ParkMed NYC is a physician-owned clinic which offers professional women’s healthcare services such as comprehensive gynecological services, STD testing, and abortion services. Our highly-trained and qualified staff is always ready to help you with your reproductive health concerns. Call us up at 212-686-6066 or contact us online for an immediate appointment, or for more information.

Time Reports New Study

battle ground

 

LIVING HEALTH

Hardly Any Women Regret Having an Abortion, a New Study Finds

The conclusion comes after a three-year research period involving nearly 670 women of all social backgrounds

Ninety-five percent of women who have had abortions do not regret the decision to terminate their pregnancies, according to a study published last week in the multidisciplinary academic journal PLOS ONE.

The study was carried out by researchers from the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at UC San Francisco’s School of Medicine, and from the university’s division of biostatistics.

Its conclusions come after a three-year research period in which nearly 670 women were regularly surveyed on the subject of their abortions. The sample group was diverse with regard to standard social metrics (race, education, and employment) and on the matter of what the study calls pregnancy and abortion circumstances. Financial considerations were given as the reasons for an abortion by 40 percent of women; 36 percent had decided it was “not the right time;” 26 percent of women found the decision very or somewhat easy; 53 percent found it very or somewhat difficult.

Read More at Time http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-regret-reproductive-health/

Amnesty International Report on Irish and the Abortion Issue

Pro-Life campaigners demonstrate outside the Irish Parliament ahead of a vote to allow limited abortion in Ireland, Dublin July 10, 2013.Cathal McNaughton/Reuters
Pro-Life campaigners demonstrate outside the Irish Parliament ahead of a vote to allow limited abortion in Ireland, Dublin July 10, 2013.Cathal McNaughton/Reuters

 

 

Majority of Irish want abortion decriminalised

By  7/9/15 at 6:25 PM

The majority of people in Ireland want abortion decriminalised, according to the findings of a new poll, which also revealed that the majority of those questioned were unaware that the procedure is a criminal offence.

The poll, carried out for Amnesty International by RED C Research and Marketing, shows that 81% of people in Ireland are in favour of significantly widening the grounds for access to legal abortions in Ireland, with 45% favouring unrestricted access to abortion. 64% of people questioned did not know it is a crime to get an abortion in Ireland when a woman’s life is not at risk, and less than one in 10 knew the penalty for having an unlawful abortion in Ireland is up to 14 years imprisonment.

The findings of the poll, based on 1,000 telephone interviews carried out in May, found that just 7% agreed that women should be imprisoned for up to 14 years for having an unlawful abortion and only 13% of people agreed that doctors who carry out the procedure should be imprisoned for the same length of time.

Read the Full Article at http://europe.newsweek.com/majority-irish-want-abortion-decriminalised-330058

An Excellent Salon Articles about Pro-Choice Vs Pro Life

MONDAY, JUL 6, 2015 03:32 PM EDT

Face it, anti-abortion advocates: Pro-choice is pro-life

When will the side of “life” acknowledge the lifesaving side of abortion?

  Follow

(Credit: pflorendo via iStock)
(Credit: pflorendo via iStock)

 

I know that arguing with the vehemently anti-choice faction is like arguing a can of soup — pointless and unsatisfying and possibly crazy. Yet for those who may not see the world in strictly black and white, for those who may yet be persuadable by the magic of medical facts, let me urge you to consider this irrefutable truth: That the so-called side of “life” so often comes down firmly on the side of obstructing it.

As Buzzfeed contributor Paola Dragnic’s recent tale of the terminated pregnancy she had a few years ago that paved the way for her motherhood, plenty of women embroiled in the fight for safe reproductive options are women who desire children. Chilean journalist Dragnic says that after years of focusing on her career, “When I was 36, all I really wanted was to have a baby.” Conceiving was easy, and she and her partner quickly shared the good news with their jubilant friends. Their joy was short-lived, however. By her third week of pregnancy, she was vomiting “30 times a day” and had swollen up “grotesquely.” Her doctor dismissively chalked up her symptoms to her age and to psychological stress. She now calls his reaction “the first biased judgment in a long chain of obstetric violence that would continue throughout my pregnancy.”

As she neared the 14 week mark, she requested a nuchal translucency screening to look for possible fetal anomalies and was told, “You’re not planning to abort if there’s something wrong, are you?” Then her brother referred her to another doctor to do the test, and the results were, unfortunately, “abysmal.” Further testing confirmed the baby had the rare and usually fatal chromosomal disorder known as triploidy — a condition that also can carry serious and sometimes lethal consequences for the mother. Her placenta was already growing tumors “as big as grapes.” And her doctor told her, “It’s serious, we have to take it out, but we can’t do it in Chile. Do you have enough money to travel.” Because abortion is illegal in her country, her doctor had to refer her to a physician in Florida, but as the approval process dragged on she wound up having to go to the ER in a life-or-death crisis. And at four and a half months pregnant, she underwent a brutal induced labor.

Dragnic is now a mother of two, and she says she doesn’t want her own daughter “or any other woman, to be tortured by a deaf government that makes us suffer in the name of a false morality.” And as a mother myself — a person who was fortunate to be able to choose motherhood when I was physically and emotionally ready — I wish the same for my daughters and all our daughters. It enrages me that in Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a woman with a planned and wanted pregnancy, died in agony of septicemia after the hospital reportedly told her family, “As long as there is a fetal heartbeat we can’t do anything.” I am livid that earlier this year in Paraguay a 10 year-old child who’d been raped was turned down for an abortion. It infuriates me that here in the U.S., a nonviable fetus is given precedent over the final wishes of a brain dead woman’s family. And I am heartbroken for the women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies, who grieve for the fatally abnormal fetuses they carry, who have alarmingly limited options for safely ending their pregnancies.

Naturally, a leading “life” based site has seized upon Dragnic’s Buzzfeed story to praise women who made “the opposite choice, to risk and sacrifice their own lives that their sons and daughters might live,” noting that “any discussion of abortion, particularly one rooted in firsthand experience, is incomplete if it ignores the party it most deeply affects.” This is the almost laughable classic stance. Even if there’s a slight nod to the possibility that sometimes a woman might actually die bringing a nonviable fetus into the world, it comes with the caveat that a really noble and good woman would take the chance anyway. But don’t worry, across the world, approximately 800 women a day die from pregnancy and childbirth complications, so you get your wish, team “life”!

I firmly believe that a woman should never have to justify or fight for choices regarding her own bodily autonomy. A woman seeking an abortion should not have to explain or apologize to anybody, period. But relatedly, I am really, really, really, sick of the despicable lie that abortion is just a straight up act of selfishness, committed by baby hating she-monsters and the devil doctors who provide them services.

All over the planet, women are being told every single day that they are disposable. They are being sacrificed at the altar of short-sightedness, being forced to carry out pregnancies that were never ever meant to go full term. And the tragic irony is that many of them are women just like Dragnic, who could, if given the chance, go on to have healthy children later. Dragnic’s two kids are in the world now because of the end of her first pregnancy. But the fiercely delusional side of “life” doesn’t see things that way. They don’t want to consider the hard choices that make up reality. And they don’t want to consider that if you say that a human life has value and you steadfastly refuse to value women, you’re not just ridiculously hypocritical, you’re being downright dangerous.

Mary Elizabeth Williams

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of “Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream.” Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.

 Follow

MORE MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS.

Media Matters: What Mass Media in Texas Missed

rural-texas-pro-choice

 

What Media Miss In Coverage Of Texas’ Restrictive Anti-Abortion Legislation

Blog ››› ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN

Media coverage of Texas’ restrictive anti-abortion legislation often presents a false equivalence between arguments from proponents of the legislation and women’s health advocates, despite medical experts agreement that such measures are dangerous to women.

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked implementation of two provisions of Texas’ extreme efforts to restrict abortion through a targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) law. The provisions in question required all clinics providing abortions “in the state to meet the standards for ‘ambulatory surgical centers,’ including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing,” The New York Times explained, and required doctors who performed the procedure “to have admitting privileges at nearby hospital[s].”

Media coverage of Texas’ anti-abortion laws often provides equal coverage to both sides of the debate, at the expense of fact-checking anti-abortion proponents who claim, against the advice of medical experts, that the legislation helps women, as Amanda Marcotte noted in a July 2 post for RH Reality Check. Pointing to a recent article from NPR on the Supreme Court’s move to temporarily block the state’s restrictions, Marcotte explained that although the piece’s efforts to quote both sides “is not, in itself, an issue,” a statement from a representative from Texas Right to Life, which claimed the law was simply meant to protect women’s health, went unquestioned. “What is frustrating is that there is not a whiff of an effort to provide actual real-world facts to give the audience context,” wrote Marcotte. She went on:

NPR framed the story like it was two parties making value claims, with no way to measure their statements against evidence. The problem here is that the debate is not about values. Both sides claim to have the same goal–protecting women’s health–and the fight is over who has a better strategy to get there.

Similarly, in their reporting on the Supreme Court’s block, The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal each included statements from both sides of the debate arguing that they were protecting women’s health while failing to note that medical experts don’t support the legislation.

Health experts have roundly backed abortion access advocates in their assertion that laws of this nature are both medically unnecessary and dangerous to women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Health Association condemned such measures in a joint amicus brief, writing that the measure to be implemented in Texas “jeopardize[s] the health of women” and “denies them access” to safe abortions. Yet despite the health community’s denouncement of the provisions, the media often fails to interrogate anti-abortion proponents’ false claims on the law.

 

Excellent Article on The Anti Abortion Movement Strategy

Banner
Is Abortion In America About To Get Restricted?
By News Staff | July 2nd 2015 08:30 AM | 1 comment | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

The Supreme Court seems poised to take on the abortion issue again, and with reason.

On June 29, by a five-to-four vote, the Court temporarily blocked a Texas law that would force many clinics to close, guaranteeing that the state’s new law would not take effect until the justices decide whether to rule on its constitutionality. And just today, June 30, the Court did not take action on a case involving a similar abortion restriction passed in Mississippi.

Sooner or later, it is inevitable that the Court will have to address what seems to be a new generation of anti-abortion laws.

With over 330 abortion restrictions introduced in the first four months of 2015 alone, it is easy to believe that we have started a new chapter in the abortion wars.

And it’s not just the volume of new laws that seems noteworthy.

These restrictions seem different in kind.

Texas and Mississippi have passed admitting-privileges laws that threaten to shutter a majority of clinics. If its law went to effect, Mississippi women would almost certainly have to leave the state to have an abortion.

So how different are the latest generation of abortion restrictions, and what do they signal about the future of conflict about reproductive reproductive rights?
Constitutional mandate ignored

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, a 1992 case, set out the test that the courts still apply in evaluating abortion regulations.

Under Casey, the courts strike down abortion regulations pre-viability only if they have the intent or effect of creating a substantial burden on a woman’s abortion decision. While the test is notoriously vague, Casey clearly recognizes some abortion rights for women prior to fetal viability.

In spite of Casey’s clear mandate, however, at least 11 states have banned the termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks, well before the earliest point of viability (recent studies have found that only a small number of infants born at 22 weeks can survive.

Calling for an end to “abortion dismemberment,“ Kansas and Oklahoma have also introduced laws that would likely ban dilation and evacuation, the most common second-trimester procedure.

Understood in historical context, however, the latest abortion restrictions are familiar.

These laws belong to a decades-old approach many call incrementalism.
The incrementalist strategy

As I show in my book, After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate, activists developed incrementalism in the mid- to late 1970s.

The approach took shape because antiabortion activists had failed to achieve their original goal, a constitutional amendment banning all abortions.

Even with Ronald Reagan in the White House and a sympathetic Congress, antiabortion activists did not get what they wanted.

Incrementalists, many of them lawyers, argued that the movement would die out unless it had concrete victories to show its supporters. Activists would champion the most aggressive laws that the Supreme Court would likely uphold at any particular moment. Incrementalism attracted pioneering antiabortion lawyers like Dennis Horan and James Bopp, Jr, the lawyer later responsible for Citizens United v FEC, the case that gutted campaign finance laws.

These advocates came to believe, in the words of antiabortion activist James Gorby, that their movement would get somewhere only it was willing to gradually “chip away [at] and erode the Roe decision.”

Over time, as rights narrowed, Roe would lose meaning, standing for an ever-changing and incoherent series of protections. Eventually, abortion rights would crumble.

In a worst-case scenario, incrementalists believed that the courts would refuse to overrule Roe but still uphold so many restrictions that few women could access abortion.

The latest abortion restrictions, in other words, should be familiar to any veteran observer of the abortion wars.

The leaders of the groups that masterminded incrementalism – Americans United for Life (AUL) and the National Right to Life Committee – are still drafting the laws.

And for the most part, the new antiabortion laws do not challenge the idea that women have abortion rights. Instead, the movement is working to reduce (or eliminate) access to the procedure.

Just the same, something fundamental about incrementalism is changing.
The incrementalists get bold

For decades, antiabortion pragmatists went for the easy victories – asking legislators to introduce laws that were close to the ones the Supreme Court had already upheld.

The 2015 restrictions depart from that script. They don’t just make abortions harder to obtain or more emotionally painful – they close down clinics. And some of the new restrictions obviously violate the principles set out in Casey.

What explains this new boldness?

One answer involves antiabortion infighting that reaches back to the very start of incrementalism. The fact is that the incremental strategy was controversial in the 1970s.

Movement absolutists saw incrementalism as a betrayal of the idea that the unborn child was a person with constitutional rights. Incrementalists, in turn, saw absolutists as impractical idealogues who could undermine the movement’s momentum.

The tension between absolutists and incrementalists is still there.

Recently, for example, voters in Mississippi and several other states considered personhood amendments to their state constitutions that would ban abortion outright. None of them passed, but they did expose the fault line in the antiabortion movement that incrementalism created.
Absolutists v incrementalists

Movement absolutists like Judie Brown of the American Life League see incrementalists as sellouts. After all, no incremental restriction actually bans abortion or recognizes fetal rights.

For example, when the United States Catholic Conference joined incrementalists in refusing to back personhood amendments in 2008, Brown again went on the attack, denouncing incrementalism as a “political, gutless position.”

Incrementalists compromise, and for some in the antiabortion movement, compromise is poison. So it may be that the absolutist community has pushed major organizations like the AUL to adopt more ambitious goals.

For Americans who support abortion rights, however, there is a darker explanation for the new boldness of incrementalists.
What is the Supreme Court thinking?

Incrementalism operates by identifying restrictions that the courts will likely uphold. Movement leaders seem to have wagered that the Supreme Court is ready to narrow abortion rights even more.

So, is incrementalism working? Given the Supreme Court’s recent reluctance to hear an abortion case, it is hard to say for certain.

What is clear is that the court’s most recent decision, in Gonzales v Carhart in 2007, described what pro-lifers called “partial birth” abortion in terms that would resonate with any movement member.

Going beyond a state interest in protecting fetal life, Carhart recognized a governmental interest in safeguarding “fetal dignity.”

What is the difference between the two?

Fetal dignity involves the supposed harm that late-term abortion does to everyone besides the fetus – the doctors performing the procedure, the women regretting it and the community coarsened by it. Carhart certainly sounds like something written by a court that incrementalists would love.

Since the future of legal abortion hangs in the balance, the stakes are substantial.

It is too early to say whether the new incrementalist bet will pay off. Nevertheless, the movement’s ambitions show that abortion opponents have transformed a tested tactic.

There is something new in the old incrementalism after all.The Conversation

Mary Ziegler is Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, College of Law at Florida State University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Read more: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/is_abortion_in_america_about_to_get_restricted-156385#ixzz3eqEfsHON

Read more: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/is_abortion_in_america_about_to_get_restricted-156385#ixzz3eqDxZgFV

Supreme Court Protects Texas Abortion Clinics

The U.S. Supreme Court gave a reprieve to Texas clinics that provide abortion services. Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court gave a reprieve to Texas clinics that provide abortion services.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

policy-ish

fromKUHF

 

Reuters: Kenya – Rape Survivor Sues Government Over Access to Abortion

Kenya

World | Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:10pm EDT

Related: WORLD, AFRICA

Kenya in court after botched abortion injures raped 15-year-old

NAIROBI (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – The mother of a 15-year-old rape survivor, who needs a kidney transplant following a botched backstreet abortion, filed a case against Kenya’s government on Monday for denying women and girls safe access to terminations.

The girl, who said she became pregnant when she was raped by an older man, started vomiting and bleeding heavily after an unsafe abortion.

Rape survivors have difficulty accessing safe abortions in Kenya, despite being allowed to under the ministry of health’s guidelines on managing sexual violence, the petition said.