Feminist royalty toasts the late Barbara Seaman -- sometimes shocking activist, controversial author and staunch women's health advocate.

From left, Barbara Seaman, author Phyllis Chesler and Shere Hite in 2006.
My late friend Babz, aka Barbara Seaman, who died of lung cancer on Feb. 27, 2008, would have loved the glamorous setting: The National Women’s Health Network, which Barbara co-founded in 1976, had chosen lawyer Sybil Shainwald’s Fifth Avenue apartment in which to give out the first awards in Barbara’s name. I was also a co-founder, but the network was really Barbara’s baby. She grew it, her issues became the network’s issues, and she personally encouraged and mentored the next generation of feminist healthcare activists.
Barbara always said that the “women’s health movement was the healthiest — maybe the only healthy — branch of feminism.” What she meant was that the trashing, betrayals and bitter battles galore that ground down so many other second- and even third-wave feminist activists (not to mention their embattled issues) did not quite happen among the health activists.
When Barbara first came on the scene, women were still being tranquilized by their physicians for the smallest complaint or for no reason at all, and women were taking birth control pills that would give them cancer, heart disease, diabetes, blood clots and strokes. Barbara changed all that, first by publishing her 1969 book “The Doctors Case Against the Pill” and then by insisting upon congressional hearings in 1970. The U.S. Senate did not allow women to testify about the Pill. In protest, women disrupted the hearings. Thereafter, birth control pills carried warning labels.
However, the drug companies found an easy way to punish Barbara. They refused to advertise in womens’ magazines (Ladies Home Journal, Family Circle) that carried Barbara’s work. This censorship hit her hard, and she almost always mentioned it when we were together. However, it did not stop her.
Barbara would go on to write many more books in the area of women’s health: “Women and the Crisis in Sex Hormones” (1977); “For Women Only! Your Guide to Health Empowerment” (2000); and “The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed on Women: Exploding the Estrogen Myth” (2003). Her last book, published posthumously, with coauthor Laura Eldridge, is “Body Politic: Dispatches From the Women’s Health Revolution” (2008).
But Barbara also envisioned a network that would function as a permanent “watchdog” on behalf of women’s reproductive health. And so she created one, and it has lasted for 33 years. Now, only eight months after Barbara’s death, this network was honoring her.
I came into the gathering with my dear friend Shere Hite (author of the influential “Hite Report” and many other books.) Shere, who lives in Europe, and I have now vowed, in Barbara’s name, to spend more time together. In a sense, Barbara has bequeathed us to each other. Shere was here to accompany a friend who was working on the Obama campaign.
Shere’s 1976 work about female sexuality was revolutionary and sensational. She documented that “most women generally do not reach orgasm via intercourse (‘the act’), but that most do reach orgasm regularly via clitoral masturbation.” Shere has gone on to write about male sexuality and about human relationships. She has always wanted to “stop women’s silent suffering and to create joy for women in sex and in private life.”
So, there we all were, veteran feminist health activists of all ages, in that 15th-floor Fifth Avenue apartment with views of Central Park. We were partying above the verdant green tree tops in a tastefully decorated adult treehouse decorated in muted colors and with Picassos on the walls. As I said: Barbara would have loved it. She was so at home in well-appointed, do-gooder settings — perhaps a necessary consolation for a life devoted to the kind of muckraking that leads to particular punishments.
Sybil, by the way, has been chairwoman of the board of the National Women’s Health Network and was the nation’s go-to lawyer for diethylstilbestrol (DES) litigation. Sybil was co-counsel in the first DES daughter case, Bichler v. Lilly, and has written, testified and lectured about obstetrical malpractice, unnecessary hysterectomies and product liability litigation.
When I asked Sybil to remember Barbara for this article, she said, “It was Barbara who prevented so many injuries to women through her writings and speeches. I always called Barbara the ‘Grover Whalen‘ of the women’s health movement. She was the official greeter and supporter for all of her many, many feminist friends.”
The assembled physicians, lawyers, authors, activists, professors, politicians and foundation heads assembled were nothing short of feminist royalty: Ninia Baehr, author of “Abortion Without Apology”; Rebecca Chalker, author of “A Woman’s Book of Choices: Abortion, Menstrual Extraction, RU-486″; Laura Eldridge, who coauthored a book with Barbara, the recently published “The No-Nonsense Guide to Menopause”; Susan Love, the breast cancer surgeon and author of “Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book”; Susan Wood, the former head of the FDA’s Office on Women’s Health; and many other wonderful women (and some men!) of all ages.
Cindy Pearson, the director of the network, gave out the two awards. One went to lawyer Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, for her important work on behalf of the civil rights of pregnant women; the other went to AIDS activist Gina Arias of Housing Works. Arias is working to defeat the twin plagues of homelessness and AIDS, a disease that now afflicts many minority women.
Paltrow, a longtime civil and reproductive rights lawyer, pointed out that when women become pregnant they increasingly lose their civil rights. For example, “Relying on fetal rights arguments, authorities in Utah arrested a woman for murder because she delayed a C-section causing, the state alleged, the stillbirth of one of her twins.”
According to Paltrow, other women have also been charged with homicide because they took illegal drugs that the state alleged caused stillbirths.
“Recently, a unanimous South Carolina Supreme Court had to overturn Regina McKnight’s conviction for homicide by [cocaine] child abuse. After Ms. McKnight had served more than eight years in prison, the court finally recognized that her conviction had been based on ‘outdated’ research and that her trial counsel had failed to call experts who would have testified about ‘recent studies showing that cocaine is no more harmful to a fetus than nicotine use, poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, or other conditions commonly associated with the urban poor.’”
When I asked Cindy Pearson at the reception what she thinks the network has accomplished, she said, “I was struck by how far the movement has come. Barbara clamored for women’s questions about their health to be taken seriously — by clinicians and by researchers. She and her allies have accomplished that and much more. There are no more quotas on women in medical school, no more bans on loved ones in the delivery room, contraceptives are much safer, patients have the right to written information about the drugs they’ve been prescribed, and there are literally hundreds of studies under way researching important women’s health issues.
“And yet, as I looked around the apartment and recognized so many leaders and she-ros of the women’s health movement, I was also struck by how far we still have to go. When Barbara, Belita [Cowan], Alice [Wolfson], Mary [Howell] and you founded the network, you described the goal ‘to work for a health care system more appropriate for women as consumers and providers.’ How I wish that healthcare system existed! We all know how far we are from a system that includes everyone, treats patients with respect and caring and is supportive of the humanity of clinicians.”
What is Cindy talking about? For starters: Women still pay higher premiums for healthcare coverage than men do. Combine that with lower earnings and you have women at greater healthcare risk simply because they are women. And estrogen is not the only drug that bears close watching.
For example, the network is currently involved in a campaign about the drug Lupron, which is used to kill prostate cancer. Lupron has also been prescribed to treat women with endometriosis and fibroids and to aid assisted reproduction procedures. But it apparently also has devastating and disabling effects on women, such as headache, migraine, dizziness and severe joint, muscular and bone pain. It can also cause an early onset of menopause and a rapid and significant loss of bone density. A number of women so affected began contacting the network to describe these fairly alarming symptoms. And now the network has launched a public education and policy campaign to inform women about the dangers and misuse of Lupron.
Cindy told me that the network’s “lofty” goals are “to ensure that women have self-determination in all aspects of their reproductive and sexual health, to create a cultural and medical shift in how menopause is currently perceived and addressed and to help establish universal healthcare that meets the needs of diverse women.”
Barbara Seaman shocked me several times. First, when she took me to my first facial at Georgette Klinger’s. I had not realized that a feminist leader was “allowed” to do this. (Please understand, this was in 1970-71, and I was very naive.) She shocked me again, and even more so, when, years later, she asked me to testify on her behalf about being battered by her third husband. I agreed to do so, but that meant I had to sit with her and hear all the details. They were agonizing. What shocked me was that one of our own, a leader, armed with feminist savvy, was still so vulnerable. Her death shocked me the most because I had not realized how much she meant to me, and how good a friend she really was.
So there we were, a lifetime away from when we first started out, toasting Barbara’s work in Sybil’s apartment, congratulating the awardees. Then someone said: “What a shame that Barbara cannot be here.” I said, “But I think she is here,” and everyone laughed and loved the idea that Barbara is, indeed, living on through her work and through us, her friends and her family.
What happened to Broadsheet?
Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 12:20 AM UTCDid the recession prevent teen motherhood?
Some thank the economy for a decline in teenagers giving birth, but contraception is the likelier savior
Teen births hit a record low last year, according to a CDC report released Tuesday, and the narrative quickly taking hold in the media is that we have the recession to thank. It’s a surprising idea, that teenagers are keeping it in their pants because a baby isn’t a prudent choice in the current economic environment. Foresight isn’t what we expect from those creatures of impulse — and, indeed, when is a baby a practical economic choice for a teen? It also struck me that the teen birth rate isn’t the same as the teen pregnancy rate, if you catch my drift (my drift being … abortion). I took my questions to a couple of experts in hopes of some clarity.
“The recession is everyone’s favorite causal explanation for things happening right now,” said Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute. “Other than people conjecturing, there is no evidence that the recession has had a direct impact on teen sexual behaviors.” What we do know, however, is that contraceptive use increased among teens between 2007 and 2009. “We don’t know the reason for that increase,” she explains, and, in fact, it could be the recession — but, again, the truth is we just don’t know. Her no-nonsense take: “It seems if we want to look for reasons for patterns in teen birth rates, [birth control use] is the one indicator that offers us practical insights.”
Bill Albert of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy shared my initial skepticism about the economic explanation: “I just simply do not know many 16-year-olds who are thinking about bank statements when they hop in the sack.” But he pointed out that while roughly eight out of 10 teen pregnancies are unplanned, “there is a mushy middle ground [of teens who] say, ‘Well, yeah, I wouldn’t want to get pregnant, but it wouldn’t be the worst thing that happened.’” Call it the “mush” factor: Perhaps those ambivalent teens were swayed by firsthand experience of the economic meltdown: “Their parents might be struggling to make house payments,” he said. “They might know neighbors who have lost jobs and can’t find jobs.”
As for the question of whether a decrease in teen births might be linked to an increase in teen abortions, there is a bummer of a data lag: Guttmacher isn’t releasing 2008 stats on pregnancy terminations until early next year. However, says Albert, “if the past is prologue, the answer is probably no. What we have seen over the past two decades is that teen birth rates have gone down because the underlying pregnancy rate has gone down. Put another way, all three — pregnancy, abortion, birth — all tended to be going down at the same time.” Jones agrees: “Teen births and abortions seem to follow the same trajectory,” she said. “We haven’t seen any indicators that abortions have gone a different direction than births.”
You might recall that there was a troubling and unexplained rise in the teen birth rate in 2006 and 2007. Albert says the 2009 finding — which followed a 2008 decrease — suggests the uptick was “an abnormal blip” and that we’re now “resuming a nearly two decade trend toward fewer teen pregnancies and fewer births.” Inexplicably, some abstinence advocates think this report has “exonerated their approach,” reports the Washington Post. Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association told the paper, “This latest evidence shows that teen behaviors increasingly mirror the skills they are taught in a successful abstinence education program.” Except that … it doesn’t. Says Guttmacher’s Rachel Jones, “The levels of teen sexual activity haven’t changed, which would suggest that there isn’t more abstinence out there — but there was a change in contraceptive use.”
Olbermann still doesn’t get it
The MSNBC host is back on Twitter with a response to his critics -- but he ignores their key complaint
Update: Olbermann has responded on Twitter by blocking me and tweeting, “Your article embarrasses you and your site.”
Back from his self-imposed Twitter timeout, Keith Olbermann is lashing out at his feminist critics. As Sady Doyle explained last week in Salon, the online protest was started in response to Michael Moore’s mischaracterization of the allegations against Julian Assange. Olbermann became a target after retweeting a link from Bianca Jagger that incorrectly claimed “the term ‘rape’ in Sweden includes consensual sex without a condom,” and that named Assange’s accuser (which is generally a journalistic no-no). Overwhelmed by the Twitter campaign, which was waged with the hashtag “mooreandme,” Olbermann quit the microblogging site in a huff. This afternoon, after a few days of calm reflection, he tweeted a link to his thoughts on the matter:
I endorse, sympathize with, and empathize with, the rape consciousness goals of #mooreandme, and have already apologized accordingly. But I cannot defend and will not accept their tactics which mirror so many of the attitudes and threats they fight. I do not know of what Julian Assange is guilty, if anything, and neither does anybody else. But given the extraordinary efforts by Sweden to extradite him, to say he is benefiting from some form of rape apologism is not fact-based. It is also unfair to condemn as anti-feminist those who merely address the juxtaposition of this prosecution to the fact that Assange threatens the secret and nefarious activities of dozens of governments.
But, of course, his antagonists are not condemning him for “merely address[ing] the juxtaposition” (a point Kate Harding made clear in her Salon piece about “the rush to smear Assange’s accuser”). They allege that he spread misinformation about the accusations against Assange. As Doyle wrote, “People trust journalists: If a journalist says something, like ‘the term “rape” in Sweden includes consensual sex without a condom’ (Olbermann’s own, demonstrably false, as-yet-unredacted words), most people will believe that what he has said is true, and act as if it is true, without doing further research.” The protest has consisted of frequent calls for Olbermann to issue a simple correction, to set the record straight for his many followers.
Instead of doing that, though, Olbermann continues: “And I will not engage those who suggest that those who do not prioritize one issue to the exclusion of all others should succumb to forced financial contributions, or should ‘kill themselves.’” He followed up by retweeting one of the messages in question, which read in part, “Seriously, kill yourself.” Then he retweeted a call for him to donate $20,000 to the anti-rape organization RAINN as atonement. His antagonists have been quick to point out that he cherry-picked the “kill yourself” tweet, which is an exception in the thread, and that the call for “financial contributions” is simply in the interest of rape victims. One user wrote, “we WILL NOT be satisfied UNTIL you retract the false information you publicized re: Assange allegations.” Olbermann responded, “you’ll have to accept a block instead.”
It seems Olbermann’s Twitter vacation didn’t help him to raise the level of discourse or realize that, as Doyle put it, his “style of old-media authority doesn’t hold up” online.
Save the children from Hooters?
NOW calls on the breast-obsessed chain to stop serving kids
The National Organization for Women is protesting Hooters. I know: Yawn. Next I’ll be interrupting major sporting events with breaking news that Gloria Steinem isn’t a fan of the “Girls Gone Wild” franchise. But, seriously, the argument at play here is more interesting than it at first seems. It isn’t the breast-obsessed chain’s existence that is being challenged, but rather the fact that Hooters serves children. Clearly, there is abundant evidence that Hooters is guilty of poor taste (see: restaurant name) — but should the chain be forced to card customers at the door and turn away anyone younger than 18? Several California chapters of NOW have filed official complaints alleging just that.
Hooters is described in official business filings as a provider of “vicarious sexual entertainment.” NOW points out that the chain has “used this designation as a way to avoid compliance with regulations against sexual discrimination in the workplace.” The official employment manual warns that a waitress is, as NOW paraphrases, “employed as a sexual entertainer and as part of her employment can expect to be subjected to various sexual jokes by customers and such potential contacts as buttocks slaps.” At the same time, however, Hooters is marketed as a family-friendly restaurant. It offers a kid’s menu, high chairs, booster seats and all sorts of merchandise for little tykes — like a “Life begins at Hooters” T-shirt, an “I’m a boob man” onesie and a “Your crib or mine?” bib.
We could argue over whether Hooters has a healthy impact on a kid’s developing view of women and sex, but I tend to think entertainment and dining decisions should be left up to individual parents. More important, that isn’t the issue at hand. In this case, NOW (which hasn’t always been a model of moderate thinking) has taken the exceedingly reasonable position that Hooters shouldn’t be allowed to have the best of both worlds: Either it functions exclusively as an adult venue, and continues to protect itself (somewhat) from sexual discrimination claims, or it’s held to the same standards as any ol’ family restaurant and gets to keep on serving the kiddies tater tots and creepy onesies.
Why do serial killers target sex workers?
The question is raised after four female bodies are found on a Long Island beach
Authorities search in the brush by the side of the road at Cedar Beach, near Babylon, N.Y., Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010. Police looking for a missing prostitute on Long Island's Fire Island have discovered three bodies and a set of skeletal remains near Oak Beach since Saturday. Investigators are considering the possibility that a serial killer may have dumped four bodies along the same quarter-mile stretch of beachside road, a police chief said Tuesday. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig) (Credit: AP)
As New York confronts the possibility that there’s a serial killer on the loose, many have taken note that this case looks a lot like what we see in the movies: The victims are all women, and at least one is suspected to be a sex worker. When it comes to serial murder, it turns out fiction really does reflect reality. A report was released last month finding that 70 percent of known victims of serial killers are women (consider that only 22 percent of homicide victims in general are female); and it turns out sex workers are 18 times more likely than “normal” women to be murdered. Why might this be? Well, in the words of the Green River Killer, who targeted prostitutes:
I picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught.
Since they’re doing illegal work, sex workers have to be secretive and discreet. They often work in isolated and industrial areas. They get in cars with strangers. There are rarely detailed records of transactions. Many are drug addicts and estranged from their families, so they are less likely to be reported missing. Anyone who knows anything about a girl’s whereabouts is likely involved in the trade themselves, so they aren’t super eager to speak with police. What’s more, as we saw with the Robert Pickton case in Vancouver, police sometimes discount tips from working girls (all the more reason to not risk talking to them in the first place).
It just so happens that Friday is International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, which was created in memory of the victims of Gary Ridgeway, a.k.a the Green River Killer. Similar to the Pickton case, local sex workers knew Ridgeway’s identity, but, as prostitute-turned-performance artist Annie Sprinkle puts it, they “were afraid to come forward for fear of getting arrested, or the police didn’t believe those that did come forward, or the police didn’t seem to care.”
Page 1 of 1031 in Broadsheet

An offensive advocate for LGBT rights
Why Ron Paul is still relevant
The deep roots of the war on contraception
Our stubborn faith in aphrodisiacs
Why everyone is still writing off Santorum
The hysterical American decline
Occupy Valentine’s Day
Literature for your love woes
Pakistan’s crippling turf war
Occupy fights the law: Will the law win? 

