Connect with us
  • Advertisement
  • Health

    Dear SCOTUS, Abortion Access Now!




    “This is a man’s world, but it wouldn’t be nothing without a woman or a girl” are lyrics by James Dean that keep ruminating in my head as I write this article. This is a man’s world, but women, we are forced to live in this world defined by men.

    For a brief time in American history, women were nationally extended the right to choose a legal abortion after the pivotal ruling of Roe v. Wade (1973), giving them a say about their reproductive health in a man’s world. The implications of this ruling were manifold: 1) women were granted reproductive rights, 2) women no longer underwent dangerous procedures to procure an abortion, 3) women were no longer forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies, 4) pregnancy no longer prevented a woman from fulfilling her dreams or aspirations, 6) societal progress was made, and 7) women defined their lives through the right to choose.

    Recently, women’s rights have been under attack in varying locales throughout the U.S. States, such as Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have implemented laws that now make abortion almost inaccessible to women living in those parts of the United States. Just like before the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling, women are resorting to dangerous methods, such as ordering poisonous abortion medicine online, to prevent birth. Women and their choices are yet again being ridiculed. Women and their rights are being vehemently assaulted by conservatives and their politicians to the detriment of our society.

    On March 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard one of the most significant abortion access cases this generation, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt; a case that challenges the implementation of Texas’ Omnibus Abortion Bill (HB2). Currently Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor clearly oppose the upholding of HB2, however a majority rule is required to overturn this law. If SCOTUS fails to obtain a majority, then the lower court ruling of HB2 will remain implemented until a new Supreme Court Justice is appointed. Meaning, a variety of roadblocks to abortion will be sustained in Texas.

    HB2 makes it illegal in Texas for a woman to have an abortion after 20 weeks unless to “avert the woman’s death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function”, excluding any psychological impairments caused by the pregnancy. Under this bill, women in Texas must carry fetuses with severe abnormalities to full term. Women impregnated through rape must also give birth, as psychological damage is not considered justifiable for an abortion.

    A rally took place outside of SCOTUS on March 2, 2016 as the Supreme Justices heard Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Pro-choice and anti-abortion activists fervently competed and protested their beliefs. Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, claimed “this is common sense regulation. I want to see abortion ended today” and made claims that doctors who perform abortions are low-level medical providers.

    Troy Newman forgot to mention that many woman have reverted back to illegal and dangerous abortion procedures due to the stringent abortion access laws. Is it common sense to force women to undergo dangerous procedures to prevent unwanted childbirth? Another anti-abortionist, stated “We don’t discriminate against anyone, we love all babies”. I wonder, what about love for all women and their right to choose. Is not removing the right to choose a form of discrimination against women and their rights?

    Pro-choice activists swayed signs stating “The burden is undue”, “HB2 is bad”, “Sister strong” and “Keep clinics opens”. Dr. Willie Parker, a gynecologist who performs abortions in Alabama, shared that the problem with women’s health is invasive political conservatism making legal medical decisions they know nothing about. Dr. Valerie Peterson shared her abortion story- because she lives in Austin, Texas she was forced to get an abortion in Florida after finding out her unborn fetus was 100% not viable due to an undeveloped brain. She shared that her wealth made her lucky and able to obtain an abortion outside of Texas, but that this option is unavailable for the majority of women residing in that state.

    Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women’s Health stated, “We stand to affirm that women are good. We stand to affirm that women are moral and kind. To affirm that when a woman has decided to end a pregnancy we can witness her dreams and her aspirations and affirm that she is put on this earth to see them out and act on her own gifts. That is the world we stand for and that is the world we will create together.” Unfortunately, women are yet again forced to affirm our status as beings in a man’s world.

    Since the rally on March 2, 2016, SCOTUS has yet to rule on this monumental case. Thus uncertainty pervades this nationally charged issue.  We cannot say whether previously achieved rights for females will be overturned and replaced with the antiquated precedent- that women do not have a voice or say socially or personally; or if we women will maintain our right to choose.   Although the Supreme Justices are still debilitating on Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, this case continues to receive national attention.  Not simply because of its impact, but also due to the upcoming presidential election.

    What is truly shocking, in this way that is almost demobilizing because of disbelief and fear, is the reality that the majority of presidential candidates are in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade (1973).  Of course, the majority of the candidates are white men, but not all.  What unnerves me most is the message we are sending, not just in the United States, but throughout the world.  The message that women are undeserving of the right to choose.  The message that men still have control and power over women.  This message is unrealistic, wrong, and degrades us strong females.

    Deep within me, lies this strong desire to become a mother, but I am afraid to bring children into a man’s world that persistently imposes gendered notions on mainstream society. A society that frequently minimizes women’s right to choose, not simply in regard to an abortion, but in all other matters as well. A society that teaches this is a man’s world and men can dictate the terms in how we women choose to live. One in three women have had an abortion before the age of 45 since the ruling of Roe v. Wade (1973).

    Through this ruling, women were elevated socially, politically, and professionally. Now we have states attempting to roll back previously achieved civil rights for women, which in turn will devalue our status. When will our country stop pretending that this is a man’s world and recognize that we women have the right to choose?  We women have the right to choose an abortion.  We have the right to choose a profession over marriage.

    We have the right to choose who we are and who we are not attracted to.  We have the right to choose what we eat and where we shop. We have the right to choose to wear fitted clothes without being accosted.  We have the right to choose our friends. We have the right to choose what makes us happy.  We women have the right to choose period.  This is a not a man’s world.


    Jessica Nobile is a PhD candidate in the School of Social at the University of Georgia. She obtained her MSW from the University of Pittsburgh in 2009 and has been a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) in Pennsylvania since 2012; she conjointly has her LCSW in the state of Georgia. Nobile has six years of post MSW experience as a therapist and psychiatric in-patient social worker. She is currently employed as a therapist working with at-risk youth in conjunction with her doctoral studies. She is also a social work instructor at the University of Georgia. Jessica is a fierce advocate for social justice, equal rights, and social equality. Her research interests include human rights, racism, discrimination, social integration, race relations, and social work education. She hopes to institute much-needed social change through writing and advocacy efforts.


    Study Shows Immune Cells Against Covid-19 Stay High in Number Six Months After Vaccination



    A recent study by Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers provides evidence that CD4+ T lymphocytes — immune system cells also known as helper T cells — produced by people who received either of the two available messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines for COVID-19 persist six months after vaccination at only slightly reduced levels from two weeks after vaccination and are at significantly higher levels than for those who are unvaccinated.

    The researchers also found that the T cells they studied recognize and help protect against the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the delta variant — currently the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States — causes more infections and spreads faster than earlier forms of the virus.

    The study findings were first reported online Oct. 25, 2021, in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

    “Previous research has suggested that humoral immune response — where the immune system circulates virus-neutralizing antibodies — can drop off at six months after vaccination, whereas our study indicates that cellular immunity — where the immune system directly attacks infected cells — remains strong,” says study senior author Joel Blankson, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “The persistence of these vaccine-elicited T cells, along with the fact that they’re active against the delta variant, has important implications for guiding COVID vaccine development and determining the need for COVID boosters in the future.”

    To reach these findings, Blankson and his colleagues obtained blood from 15 study participants (10 men and five women) at three times: prior to vaccination, between seven and14 days after their second Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine dose, and six months after vaccination. The median age of the participants was 41 and none had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    CD4+ T lymphocytes get their nickname of helper T cells because they assist another type of immune system cell, the B lymphocyte (B cell), to respond to surface proteins — antigens — on viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Activated by the CD4+ T cells, immature B cells become either plasma cells that produce antibodies to mark infected cells for disposal from the body or memory cells that “remember” the antigen’s biochemical structure for a faster response to future infections. Therefore, a CD4+ T cell response can serve as a measure of how well the immune system responds to a vaccine and yields humoral immunity.

    In their study, Blankson and colleagues found that the number of helper T cells recognizing SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins was extremely low prior to vaccination — with a median of 2.7 spot-forming units (SFUs, the level of which is a measure of T cell frequency) per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs, identified as any blood cell with a round nucleus, including lymphocytes). Between 7 and 14 days after vaccination, the T cell frequency rose to a median of 237 SFUs per million PBMCs. At six months after vaccination, the level dropped slightly to a median of 122 SFUs per million PBMCs — a T cell frequency still significantly higher than before vaccination.

    The researchers also looked six months after vaccination at the ability of CD4+ T cells to recognize spike proteins atop the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant. They discovered the number of T cells recognizing the delta variant spike protein was not significantly different from that of T cells attuned to the original virus strain’s protein.

    Although the study was limited because of the small number of participants, Blankson feels it pinpoints areas that merit further research.

    “The robust expansion of T cells in response to stimulation with spike proteins is certainly indicated, supporting the need for more study to show booster shots do successfully increase the frequency of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells circulating in the blood,” says Blankson. “The added bonus is finding that this response also is likely strong for the delta variant.”

    Along with Blankson, the members of the study team from Johns Hopkins Medicine are study lead author Bezawit Woldemeskel and Caroline Garliss.

    This study was supported by the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Vaccine-related Research Fund.

    The authors do not have financial or conflict of interest disclosures. 

    Continue Reading


    Poverty, Racism and the Public Health Crisis in America



    Although extreme poverty in the United States is low by global standards, the U.S. has the worst index of health and social problems as a function of income inequality. In a newly published article, Bettina Beech, clinical professor of population health in the Department of Health Systems and Population Health Sciences at the University of Houston College of Medicine and chief population health officer at UH, examines poverty and racism as factors influencing health.

    “A common narrative for the relatively high prevalence of poverty among marginalized minority communities is predicated on racist notions of racial inferiority and frequent denial of the structural forms of racism and classism that have contributed to public health crises in the United States and across the globe,” Beech reports in Frontiers in Public Health. “Racism contributes to and perpetuates the economic and financial inequality that diminishes prospects for population health improvement among marginalized racial and ethnic groups. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of poverty in the developed world, but despite its collective wealth, the burden falls disproportionately on communities of color.” The goal of population health is to achieve health equity, so that every person can reach their full potential.

    Though overall wealth has risen in recent years, growth in economic and financial resources has not been equally distributed. Black families in the U.S. have about one-twentieth the wealth of their white peers on average. For every dollar of wealth in white families, the corresponding wealth in Black households is five cents.

    “Wealth inequality is not a function of work ethic or work hour difference between groups. Rather, the widening gap between the affluent and the poor can be linked to unjust policies and practices that favor the wealthy,” said Beech. “The impact of this form of inequality on health has come into sharp focus during the COVID-19 pandemic as the economically disadvantaged were more likely to get infected with SARS CoV-2 and die.”

    A Very Old Problem 

    In the mid-1800’s, Dr. James McCune Smith wrote one of the earliest descriptions of racism as the cause of health inequities and ultimately health disparities in America. He explained the health of a person “was not primarily a consequence of their innate constitution, but instead reflected their intrinsic membership in groups created by a race structured society.”

    Over 100 years later, the Heckler Report, the first government-sanctioned assessment of racial health disparities, was published. It noted mortality inequity was linked to six leading causes of preventable excess deaths for the Black compared to the white population (cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, infant mortality, chemical dependency and homicide/unintentional injury).

    It and other reports led to a more robust focus on population health over the last few decades that has included a renewed interest in the impact of racism and social factors, such as poverty, on clinical outcomes.

    The Myth of Meritocracy

    Beech contends that structural racism harms marginalized populations at the expense of affording greater resources, opportunities and other privileges to the dominant white society.

    “Public discourse has been largely shaped by a narrative of meritocracy which is laced with ideals of opportunity without any consideration of the realities of racism and race-based inequities in structures and systems that have locked individuals, families and communities into poverty-stricken lives for generations,” she said. “Coupled with a lack of a national health program this condemns oppressed populations such as Black and Hispanic Americans, American Indians, and disproportionately non-English speaking immigrants and refugees to remain in poverty and suffer from suboptimal health.”

    Keys to Improvement

    The World Health Organization identified three keys to improving health at a global level that each reinforces the impact of socioeconomic factors: (1) improve the conditions of daily life; (2) tackle the inequitable distribution of power, money and resources; and (3) develop a workforce trained in and public awareness of the social determinants of health.

    The report’s findings highlight the need to implement health policies to increase access to care for lower-income individuals and highlight the need to ensure such policies and associated programs are reaching those in need.

    “Health care providers can directly address many of the factors crucial for closing the health disparities gap by recognizing and trying to mitigate the race-based implicit biases many physicians carry, as well as leveraging their privilege to address the elements of institutionalized racism entrenched within the fabric of our society, starting with social injustice and human indifference,” said Beech.

    Continue Reading


    What Do You Know About Disability Cultural Competence?



    Recently, I had the opportunity to give a webinar on disability cultural competence to social service workers, but was met with many blank stares. As a disabled social worker myself, I often notice that the disability community is not recognized as a cultural group. Disability is also not considered as a social identity in diversity considerations, despite the ways the community feels about it. Frankly, our field has a long way to go when it comes to developing disability cultural competence. Let’s see if we can change that.

    Why the We Need to Prioritize the Disability Community

    You may be asking yourself, why all the focus on disability? Well, the disability community comprises 26 percent of the adult U.S. population – that’s one in four Americans according to the Centers for Disease Control. Among children under the age of 18, estimates suggest that 4.3 percent of the population is disabled according to the U.S. Census from 2019. This means that social services workers are interacting with the disability community all over! It’s also important to note that disability transcends race, ethnicity, gender and other social identities, as seen in the graphic below (courtesy of Courtney-Long, Romano, Carroll, et al., 2017). So we need to remember to be intersectional in our  practice – these are not siloed communities.

    Courtesy of Courtney-Long, Romano, Carroll, et al., 2017

    Importance of Disability Identity

    I’d like to transition now to talking about the importance of having a disability identity. Some people identify as disabled from a cultural perspective. Some people are not even aware that this is an option and you can open their eyes to the world of disability as a resource for them. In other words, for some, this is a missed opportunity to connect to a supportive network. For others, it’s a choice not to identify as disabled either due to stigma, internalized ableism or other beliefs. The idea is that developing a strong disability identity is super helpful with your long-term well-being. And in order to do this, you have to both connect with the disability community and with disability culture. So what is that?

    What is Disability Culture?


    In short, disability culture is the “sum total of behaviors, beliefs, ways of living, & material artifacts that are unique to persons affected by disability.” It’s essential for social service workers to be tuned in to disability culture so they can leverage it to connect with their clients. And let’s be clear, disability culture does NOT consist of disability service programs. Where we really see disability culture come alive is on social media sites, such as Twitter and Instagram. You can follow some of the major disability culture hashtags to see the dialogues and debates that are hot in our community right now, such as: #DisabilityTwitter; #DisabilityVisability; #DisabilityAwareness; #IdentityFirst; #DisabilityLife; #Spoonie,#SpoonieLife, and more.

    You may notice that the last two hashtags included the word “spoonie.” This derives from “spoon theory,” which is an actual theory based on a metaphor about how much mental and physical energy a person has to accomplish their activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). The disability community talks about how many “spoons” they have as a unit of measurement of energy – and sometimes refers to themselves as spoonies. Please note that in teaching you this, I am helping you to develop your disability cultural competence.

    How Build Disability Cultural Competence

    Other ways to build up your disability cultural competence are to check out the Disability Visibility Project, which tells the stories of diverse members of the community in wonderful ways. And there are a range of organizations, such as Sins Invalid, which founded the disability justice movement. You can also read the 10 principles of that movement in this short document. This will help you to tune in to the disability pride movement. We have a pride month and a pride flag too, it happens in July.

    When it comes to engaging in disability competent practice, we need to develop knowledge about disability culture and disability history. We can also consider taking the following steps to round out this competence:

    First, we need to examine our own attitudes about disability and engage in reflective practice around that. You can consider your own implicit bias about the disability community through Harvard University’s Project Implicit test about ableism, or through social worker Vilissa Thompson’s guide to checking your own ableism.

    Second, developing disability cultural competence over time also includes a careful look at the terminology we are using and respecting disabled people’s choice of identity-first language in many cases. You can read more about that here and throughout that site. The Harvard Business Review also has a thoughtful essay on why you need to stop using particular words and phrases. It’s a great resource and helpful read for many.

    Third, we also need to think respectfully about disability etiquette and how ideas play out in different parts of the disability community. One should presume competence about us – all of us! We ask that you respect our bodily autonomy, speak to the person and not their companion/interpreter, ask before you help, be sensitive about physical contact/equipment contact, don’t make assumptions about capacity, listen to us, don’t assume you know better and if you are in doubt about what to do, ask! Writer Andrew Purlang sums up his disability etiquette request as follows:

    • Don’t be afraid to notice, mention, or ask about a person’s disability when it’s relevant — but don’t go out of your way!
    • Offer to help, but make sure to listen to their response, respect their answer, & follow their directions
    • Don’t tell a disabled person about how they should think about or talk about their own disability
    • Don’t give unsolicited medical, emotional, or practical advice
    • Don’t make a disabled person responsible for managing your feelings about their disability, or for your education on disability issues
    • If you make a mistake, just say you’re sorry and move on. Don’t try to argue that you were right all along.

    Now What?

    Taken together, these steps, learning disability culture, and examining our own attitudes about disability, go a long way towards the development of disability cultural competence. But none of it will do any good if we are not fighting for disability access and disability inclusion, which are central issues for the disability community. Many people think that issues of access were solved by the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. But the implementation of that law is fraught and embattled, and there is lots of work to be done on the access front. Take a look at these simple guides below. They will go a long way in helping to engage the disability community and making us feel welcome! Above all, remember our movement’s rallying cry, “nothing about us, without us!”

    Website Accessibility

    Accessible Social Media Guide

    Meeting Accessibility

    Webinar Accessibility

    Public Event Accessibility

    Continue Reading