Population, Reproductive and Sexual Health
Section Newsletter
Spring 2008

Message from the Chair

Karen HardeeSection Chair Karen Hardee, Population Action International, 1300 19th Street, NW, #200, Washington, DC  20036,  Phone: (202) 557-3410  E-mail: KHardee@popact.org

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

I look forward to seeing you all in San Diego at the APHA Annual Meeting that will focus on Public Health without Borders.  Our Section exemplifies this theme – we work domestically and internationally and are increasingly finding that distinction blurring.  Politics and policies related to population, family planning and reproductive health in the United States have greatly influenced work on these issues around the world, and vice versa.   Thanks to Rebecka Lundgren and her colleague Farya Karim for preparing a great program for us in San Diego! 

 

Thanks also to others who keep our Section going – the Section and governing counselors, Task Force chairs, student liaison, newsletter editor and Web guru.   Our Section is always looking for more members to get involved, so please let me know if you are interested.   Suggestions for how the Section can better serve its members are also most welcome.  

 

In her 2004 Message from the Chair, Claire Brindis wrote that she had been approached by a number of people in the Section about reconsidering the name of the Section and “whether the word Population in our Section name continues to reflect the efforts, interests, and activities of our members.”  As a result a name change committee was formed and has been working for the past few years on the issue.  We as a Section have voted once and will soon be asked to vote again on a name for the Section. 

 

In 2006, Chair Meg Greene continued the discussion about the Section name, asking the Section to keep the following questions in mind:  How fully do the terms “population,” “family planning,” or “reproductive health” characterize the interests of our Section? What do they imply, and what associations do they have?  What effect might changing our name have on our membership? 

 

As someone who has been involved in all phases of work – population, family planning, reproductive health and sexual reproductive health and rights, I would like to continue this discussion.    I should also say that at my own organization, Population Action International, we have wrestled with the same question of terms and have decided to continue to use all of these terms to describe various aspects of our work. 

 

One complication of choosing a name for our Section is that the terms can have very different meanings to us.  There may even be different meanings for those of us working domestically and those working internationally.  The world population particularly conjures up many meanings – to mention a few:  the demographic dynamics of births, deaths, migration, size, growth, distribution; the population “bomb” that needs to be defused; population growth rates that are out of sync with national development and the natural environment;  and population control through family planning programs designed from a demographic rationale.  To many, family planning means offering individuals and couples the ability to choose the number and spacing of their children and the means to do so voluntarily.  But for some, family planning connotes programs to control women’s fertility, including through coercive means that have sometimes trampled clients’ rights. For many of us, the definitions of the terms are not either/or. 

 

Reproductive health came into vogue with the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and was intended to incorporate family planning, maternal health, HIV/AIDS and other components in one inclusive term.  “Sexual” and “rights” have been added to form the more expansive term sexual reproductive health rights.   Domestically, the reproductive justice movement has focused on the individual and has gained strength.  For those working internationally, however, not everyone has embraced using the term SRHR, including those working in HIV/AIDS and safe motherhood who refer to their initiatives as “HIV and AIDS” and “safe motherhood,” and even some who believe that family planning got lost in the shuffle and that we forget that the conference that generated SRHR was also about “population and development.”   The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation just released its global Reproductive Health Strategy, which focuses on family planning as the most pressing aspect of reproductive health requiring attention. 

 

At the same time, discussions of global climate change, environmental degradation and food shortages are putting “population” back in the spotlight.   Most notably, the link between population and climate change is being explored, with interesting arguments being made by members of our field, broadly defined, about the pros and cons of engaging in the discussion.  At the upcoming Annual Meeting, one of our members, Suzanne Petroni, will be addressing this issue in a presentation titled, “An Ethical Argument for Making the Population Growth-Climate Change Connection.”  Is it a health issue or of concern to any members of our Section that under current population growth conditions in many poor countries, governments have to run very fast just to stand still in terms of meeting people’s needs and that the Millennium Development Goals will not be reached without addressing universal access to contraception?  

 

I mention all of this to say that since our Section started contemplating a name change four years ago, a lot has changed – and the “long list of words” that makes up our Section name, as Meg Greene said in her note to the Section last year, is back in play in ways the words were not in 2004.  Many of our members are actively involved in intellectual inquiry, scholarly study and designing and implementing programs addressing issues related to all the words in our Section name.   If we drop the words “population” and even “family planning,” would we loose any useful focus for the Section?  Would we be well served by developing a Population Forum that might become a cross sectional group with members from our Section and from the International Health and Environmental Sections?   Would anyone in our Section be willing to volunteer to spearhead such a forum?  That the word sex, in some form, is not in our name is an issue to a lot of Section members.   Can we add that to the existing words somehow?   As we contemplate changing our Section’s name, I hope we can keep the evolving nature of our work in mind. 

 

Again, I look forward to seeing you all in San Diego.

 

Regards,

Karen

 

Action Board Report

Section Representative Lois Uttley, The MergerWatch Project, An affiliate of Community Catalyst, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1604, NY, NY 10115 Phone: (212) 870-2010, ext. 1 Fax: (510) 740-3610 E -mail: Lois@mergerwatch.org

 

Join the APHA summer Public Health Action (PHACT) Campaign!

 

This summer, APHA is mobilizing members to educate legislators and candidates running for office about the need to include public health in the health reform debate and to support public health prevention measures. Our Section has a keen interest in making sure health reform includes a full range of reproductive health services. We also want to increase Congressional support for pregnancy and STD prevention measures. So, it’s time to get active!

 

During the months of July and August, APHA is asking us to schedule meetings with our legislators in their district offices, participate in town hall meetings hosted by these legislators, and seek opportunities to ask questions of candidates running for office. If you are willing to meet with your Congressional representative during the summer, you should call right away to schedule an appointment, because their schedules fill up fast. Don’t know how to do this? Don’t know when your representative will be having town hall meetings? Check in regularly at the APHA Action Campaign Web site for news and updates: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/tips/advocacyACtionCampaign.htm

 

As the Section’s representative to the Action Board, Lois Uttley will be helping to link Section members with state public health associations that are arranging office visits to members of Congress over the summer. If you would like to be part of this effort in your state, please contact her at lois@mergerwatch.org.

 

APHA Testifies for Comprehensive Sex Ed, Against Abstinence-Only

APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP, presented testimony on April 23, 2008, before the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform on “Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs: Assessing the Evidence.”  APHA has strong policy in favor of comprehensive sexuality education, thanks to Section member John Santelli of the Columbia School of Public Health.

 

Dr. Benjamin presented eight recommendations, including this one: “Efforts to promote abstinence should be provided within public health programs that present adolescents with complete and accurate information about sexual health. Such programs must be scientifically and medically accurate and based on theories and strategies with demonstrated evidence of effectiveness; be consistent with community standards, yet be implemented in a nonjudgmental manner that does not impose religious viewpoints on students; support positive parent-child communications and guidance; be age, developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate; and be taught by well-prepared teachers who have received specialized training in the subject matter.”

 

To read Dr. Benjamin’s complete testimony, go to: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/priorities/comments/

Abortion Task Force Report

Co-Chairs Lisa Maldonado, Reproductive Health Access Project, P.O. Box 21191, New York, NY  10025  Phone: (917) 586-3260  E-mail:  lmm9@earthlink.net and Diana Romero, Urban Public Health Program, Hunter College, City University of New York, 425 E. 25th St, Box 807, Rm. 714 New York, NY 10010 Phone: (212) 481-5073 Email: diana.romero@hunter.cuny.edu

 

In 2007 a subcommittee of the Abortion Task Force (ATF) began a project to review all of the abortion-related policies in the APHA policy database. This resulted in development of a comprehensive access database with each policy number, year, name, brief description, etc. This spring, the policy review process continued as part of an Independent Study Project of an MPH student (Jessica Silk) at Hunter College (City University of New York), in conjunction with Diana Romero and Lisa Maldonado. This analysis has resulted in a report summarizing an in-depth review of the policies, including whether active policies are still relevant, outdated or in need of updating, and a set of specific recommendations for the ATF to consider in that regard. The ATF will now begin developing policies addressing the gaps identified.

 

Last fall the ATF submitted a late-breaking policy entitled “The Need for State Legislation Protecting and Enhancing Women’s Ability to Obtain Safe, Legal Abortion Services without Delay or Government Interference.”  This policy was provisionally approved in 2007 and is now under full review and will be considered for approval at the 2008 Annual Meeting. 

 

The ATF also has subcommittees focusing on communications and scientific sessions. Join us to ensure that abortion issues are well represented within APHA.  To get involved in the Task Force, please email lmm9@earthlink.net or diana.romero@hunter.cuny.edu

Section Name Change Task Force Report

Chair Lisa Maldonado, Reproductive Health Access Project, P.O. Box 21191, New York, NY  10025  Phone: (917) 586-3260,  E-mail:   lmm9@earthlink.net

 

It seems like we have been discussing our Section name forever. Some complain its too long, others feel it does not reflect current developments in our field, others like it just fine. In 2006 our Section established a working group to identify a possible alternate name and to implement a process to possibly change our Section name.  The working group (currently comprised of Lisa Maldonado, Meg Greene, Sarah Kelly, Stan Becker and Jenny Higgins) is picking up on the work that other colleagues started years ago.  The working group surveyed Section members last year, but due to survey design flaws the results were inconclusive.  Be on the lookout for another survey, design flaws eliminated, in your e-mail this June.  Help us select a possible alternate name.  And, in the late summer or early fall the working group will send out a final survey to decide whether to change our Section name to the alternate name.  For some perspectives on our name change, be sure to read the letter from the Section Chair.

 

For more information or to join the working group, e-mail Lisa Maldonado at lmm9@earthlink.net

Sexuality Task Force Report

Chair Jenny Higgins, Office of Population Research & The Center for Health & Wellbeing Princeton University, 218 Wallace Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544 Phone: (609) 258-6961     

 

 

With continued high rates of HIV/STI transmission and unintended pregnancy, sexuality has never mattered more to public health.  The Sexuality Task Force continues to sponsor, galvanize and highlight sexual health research, advocacy and programming.  We had an energizing meeting at the 2007 APHA Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., and we’re excited to convene again in San Diego. 

 

Sadly, PFPRH Chair-Elect Rebecka Lundgren indicated that surprisingly few papers related to sexuality were submitted to the 2008 conference via our Section.  But we still anticipate some exciting presentations in San Diego.  The Sexuality Task Force will formally sponsor a panel on “Incorporating positive approaches to sexuality into sexual health research and programming.”  Co-sponsored by the HIV/AIDS Section, panelists in this session will help attendees generate ideas about how to better integrate sexual pleasure and sex-positive approaches into their own sexual health research, programs and services.

 

The Sexuality Task Force is always looking for new members, especially those who can help us make connections with other AHPA Sections.  If interested, please contact Jenny Higgins (jennyh@princeton.edu).

 

Before closing, we wanted to share two important sexual health updates from spring 2008.  Both studies remind us of the vital importance of sexual health research and services. 

 

 

ONE IN FOUR U.S. GIRLS AGES 14-18 HAS AN STI

http://www.cdc.gov/STDConference/2008/media/release-11march2008.htm

 

A study released by the CDC in March found that one in four young women (26 percent) between the ages of 14 and 18 in the United States is infected with at least one of the most common STIs (HPV, Chlamydia, herpes, and trichomoniasis).  Data came from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.  The two most common STIs were HPV (18 percent) and Chlamydia (4 percent).  African American girls were disproportionately affected; nearly one in two African American young women (48 percent) were infected with an STI, compared to one in five white girls (20 percent). 

 

John M. Douglas, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, said “High STD infection rates among young women, particularly young African-American women, are clear signs that we must continue developing ways to reach those most at risk.  STD screening and early treatment can prevent some of the most devastating effects of untreated STDs.”

 

STUDY DEBUNKS THE MYTH THAT TEENAGERS FREQUENTLY SUBSTITUTE ORAL SEX FOR INTERCOURSE

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/05/20/index.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/JAH_Lindberg.pdf 

 

A widespread belief exists in our field that teens engage in non-vaginal forms of sex, especially oral sex, as a way to be sexually active while still claiming that technically, they are virgins.  However, a new study by researchers at the Kinsey Institute demonstrates that this supposed substitution of oral sex for vaginal sex is largely a myth.

 

Using data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, the researchers found that slightly more than half (55 percent) of 15-19-year-olds have engaged in heterosexual oral sex, 50 percent have engaged in vaginal sex and 11 percent have had anal sex.  However, both oral and anal sex were much more common among teens who have already had vaginal intercourse than among those who have not, suggesting that teens initiate a range of sexual activities around the same time, rather than substitute one for another. 

 

Said the paper’s first author, Laura Lindberg:  “There is no good evidence that teens who have not had intercourse engage in oral sex with a series of partners.”

Other Committee and Task Force Information

COMMITTEES

 

Membership Committee

Chair Erica Fishman, Minnesota Department of Health, P.O. Box 64882, St. Paul, MN 55164-0882 Phone: (651) 201-5899 E-mail: erica.fishman@health.state.mn.us

 

Nomination Committee

Chair Margaret Greene, Population and Social Transitions, International Center for Research on Women, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 302 Washington, D.C.  20036   Phone:  (202)797-0007  E-mail: mgreene@icrw.org

 

Resolutions Committee

No contact information available.

 

 

TASK FORCES

Adolescent Reproductive Health Task Force

Co-Chairs John Santelli , Heilbrunn Department of Population & Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 60 Haven Avenue, B-2, New York, New York 10032   (212) 304-5634   Fax: (212) 305-7024  E-mail: js2637@columbia.edu, Iris Meltzer, Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Akron, One Perkins Square, Akron, OH 44308  Phone: (330) 543-8914   E-mail: imeltzer@chmca.org and Susan Newcomer, DBSB/CPR/NICHD, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Building 61E, Room 8B13, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510 Phone: (301) 496-1174 E-mail:  newcomes@mail.nih.gov .

 

Emerging Reproductive Technologies Task Force

Chair Emily Galpern, Center for Genetics and Society Phone: (510) 625-0819 x311 E-mail: egalpern@genetics-and-society.org

 

Management/Sustainability Task Force

Co-Chairs  Lisa A. Hare , DELIVER - JSI, 1616 North Fort Myer Drive, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209  Phone: (703) 528-7474   E-mail: lhare@jsi.com and Erica Fishman, Minnesota Department of Health, P.O. Box 64882, St. Paul, MN 55164-0882 Phone: (651) 201-5899 E-Mail:  erica.fishman@health.state.mn.us

 

Men and Reproductive Health Task Force

Co-Chairs Michele Burger, International Consultant, New York, N.Y., E-mail: mburger11@aol.com and Fabio Castaño,   International Consultant, Phone: (917) 671-6413 E-mail: fcastano99@yahoo.com, Alternate E-mail: fabiocastano@socialempowerment.net

From the Hill

Craig Lasher, Population Action International, 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 659-1833 E-mail: clasher@popact.org

With the presidential and Congressional elections looming in the fall, this year’s Congressional schedule will be compressed, and partisan politics are likely to reign. The implications of election year politics on foreign assistance legislation, including those bills with relevance to Population, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health Section members, remain unclear. Nevertheless, important legislation like the annual Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 State-foreign operations appropriations bill and a reauthorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) will wend their way through the legislative process in the coming months with uncertain prospects. On the policy front, there has been a move by the Bush administration to tighten enforcement of the anti-prostitution pledge requirement for recipients of U.S. government HIV/AIDS assistance since the last Section newsletter.

FY 2009 Appropriations Process

Despite the assertion that family planning remains a Bush administration priority in a State Department budget document, the president’s budget request for FY 2009 released in early February proposed that funding for the U.S. government's international family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) program be dramatically slashed for the third year in a row. The Bush administration is recommending $327 million for bilateral FP/RH funding from all accounts, a $134 million reduction to the amount that Congress appropriated for FY 2008 in the omnibus spending bill (H.R. 2764) — a 29 percent cut.

The budget request also proposes that "up to" $25 million be made available to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) "if not otherwise prohibited." For the last six years, President Bush has withheld the U.S. contribution to UNFPA by employing an overly broad interpretation of the so-called Kemp-Kasten amendment, which prohibits funding to any organization that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization,” and by pointing to the presence of UNFPA country program in China, where human rights abuses have occurred, as grounds for denying funding.

In 2007 both the House and Senate adopted a contraceptive exemption to the Mexico City Policy/Global Gag Rule, the first time both houses had repudiated this harmful policy in the same year since its imposition in 1984. The provision would have allowed foreign NGOs otherwise ineligible for U.S. FP/RH assistance under the Global Gag Rule restrictions to receive U.S.-donated contraceptives. Despite the fact both the House and Senate-passed bills contained an identical amendment, the provision was dropped during the House-Senate conference on the omnibus spending bill in the face of a veto threat by the president.

As a result of the enormous difficulty in making progress on any of the policy issues like the GGR in an atmosphere of election-year partisan gridlock, advocacy groups in Washington have focused on securing a significant funding increase for FP/RH programs in the FY 2009 appropriations bills to be produced by the House and Senate State-Foreign Operations Subcommittees. Advocates are proposing roughly a doubling of bilateral and multilateral funding to $1 billion, including $63.5 million for a U.S. contribution to the UNFPA.

Despite a modest increase in bilateral funding of 5 percent in the FY 2008 bill — the first of any significance during the Bush administration — funding for family planning has remained largely stagnant for the past several years, even without accounting for the effects of inflation. Total U.S. financial assistance for these critical health programs peaked in 1995 when Congress appropriated $542 million. Today, that amount would equal more than $750 million in constant dollars. When adjusted for inflation, the current funding level is almost 40 percent less. This reduced purchasing power has occurred despite a growing need and demand for reproductive health care in the developing world.

According to a 2003 study by the United Nations Population Fund and the Guttmacher Institute, 201 million women of reproductive age in developing countries have an unmet need for contraception because they wish to either space births or end childbearing but are not using a modern method of contraception. The appropriate U.S. share of the total annual funding necessary to meet the family planning needs of these 201 million women is calculated at $1 billion. This provides the justification for the $1 billion “ask.”

For a more detailed discussion of the future of U.S. government involvement and funding for FP/RH programs in the evolving U.S. aid architecture, see http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/
Research_Commentaries/March_2008/RC0308_FPRHfunding.pdf

The proposed doubling of funding has gained some traction on Capitol Hill among FP/RH supporters. For example, ninety-one House members have written to Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for State-Foreign Operations, in support of the FP/RH funding increase. However, given the desire of members of Congress running for reelection to go home to campaign shortly after the start of the new fiscal year in October and the expected increases in the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate as a result of the election, the conventional wisdom holds that the Democratic leadership is likely to opt for approval of a “continuing resolution” to fund most, if not all, of the federal government until after the election. Regardless of which party wins the White House, congressional Democrats appear to be calculating that deferring final action on FY 2009 appropriations bill will provide them with a greater opportunity to gain approval of bills more reflective of their federal spending priorities in 2009. Therefore, obtaining funding increases for FP/RH in draft funding bills will be important in laying down a marker for the arrival of a new President and the 111th Congress next January.

PEPFAR Reauthorization

In April, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed its version of the PEPFAR reauthorization bill. The bill authorizes $50 billion in U.S. international HIV/AIDS assistance for prevention, treatment and care programs, as well as funds for fighting TB and malaria, over the next five years — $20 billion more than proposed by the Bush administration and $35 billion more than the current authorization level.

In exchange for supporting the higher $50 billion funding level, the White House and congressional Republicans insisted on dropping, just prior to mark up in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, pro-family planning provisions that had been include in the draft bill. For example, language endorsed by advocates of evidence-based prevention interventions that would have given the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator new authority to purchase contraceptives — currently PEPFAR monies can only be used for condoms — and encourage the role of FP/RH services within HIV/AIDS programs, such as prevention of mother-to-child transmission activities, was removed.

Unfortunately, not only were these family planning provisions dropped in final negotiations with the White House, but new language was added that potentially makes only those family planning organizations that are currently compliant with the Global Gag Rule eligible for PEPFAR funding. This is a troubling change from current policy in which PEPFAR is exempt from the gag rule’s restrictions.

Lastly, rather than completely striking PEPFAR’s abstinence mandates, requiring that one-third of all HIV/AIDS prevention funding be spent on “abstinence-until-marriage” programs, the House bill imposes a burdensome reporting requirement on countries that spend less than 50 percent of their funds for the prevention of sexual transmission on these unproven abstinence programs. So as to avoid the need to file a report, country program managers are likely to make sure that they spend more than the specified percentage, transforming what has been portrayed as an enhanced reporting requirement into a de-facto spending earmark for abstinence programs again.

Developments on the Senate side of Capitol Hill are even more disturbing. After witnessing the controversy surrounding family planning in the House, Senate Democrats have chosen to eliminate references to family planning altogether. At press time, the draft Senate bill has yet to reach the floor for final approval. Possible attempts by Democratic supporters to correct the bill's deficiencies on family planning may be withheld so as not to risk what they perceive to be a delicate political deal struck in the bill. A handful of conservative Republican Senators, lead by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., have blocked action, largely as a result of their view that the price tag on the bill is excessive, and would be expected to vigorously oppose any efforts to more appropriately recognize the important potential contribution of FP/RH programs in the fight against AIDS.

The bill’s fate remains uncertain even though pressure has been building to enact the reauthorization into law before President Bush travels to the G-8 summit in Japan in early July.

Anti-Prostitution Pledge Lawsuits

As you will recall, in June 2005, the Bush administration expanded to U.S. organizations the requirement that recipients of U.S. government HIV/AIDS assistance have an official policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in order to be eligible to receive funds. Based on a 2003 provision in the original PEPFAR authorizing legislation, the requirement for an official policy had previously been applied only to foreign NGOs.

In April, the Department of Health and Human Services issued proposed regulations to enforce the anti-prostitution pledge requirement. The issuance of the proposed regulation stems from the government's appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York of the District Court decision in the AOSI-Pathfinder case, which found the pledge requirement an unconstitutional infringement on the free speech rights of the plaintiffs. These proposed HHS regulations require organizations to set up an "affiliate" organization in order to engage in certain HIV/AIDS activities with commercial sex workers. These affiliate organizations must be physically, legally, and financially separate. Evidence and legal arguments have been presented in comments submitted to HHS from a wide variety of pledge opponents that demonstrate that setting up separate organizations in developing countries is not a viable option and that the government has failed to provide an adequate alternative that would enable recipients of U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance to engage in prohibited speech with their private, non-U.S. government funding.

The precedent set by the extreme formulation of affiliate separation contained in the proposed HHS regulation has potentially serious implications for the First Amendment rights of federal grantees, including the possibility of the future application of the Global Gag Rule to U.S. organizations. More ominous are recent public moves by conservative religious groups to pressure the Bush White House to impose a similar set of regulations on recipients of domestic Title X family planning monies that also provide abortion services with non-federal funds.

For more information on the legal challenges to the anti-prostitution pledge and copies of the comments on the draft HHS regulations, see the Web site of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/aosi_v_usaid/

What You Can Do

As a constituent, voter and public health professional, your well-informed opinion on these vital programs has tremendous credibility and carries great weight with your Senators and Representative. Educate yourself and your friends, families and colleagues on the positions of your members of Congress. Please let them know what you think.

2008 Annual Meeting Program Plans

Section Chair-Elect Rebecka Lundgren, Institute for Reproductive Health, Georgetown University, 4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310, Washington, DC 20008 Phone: (202) 687-1392 E-mail: lundgrer@georgetown.edu

 

San Diego, Oct. 25-29, 2008

 

The Population, Family Planning and Reproductive Health Section has a diverse program planned featuring all of our core topics from adolescent reproductive health to quality of care. In keeping with this year’s theme, “Public Health without Borders,” you will find sessions focusing on the intersections between reproductive and sexual health here in the United States and around the world. Also look for sessions that challenge conceptual and political borders to promote health for all. To whet your appetite, here are the titles of a few of our oral sessions:

 

·         Addressing Reproductive Health Needs in California

·         Moving Oral Contraceptives Over the Counter

·         Sexual Behavior: A Life Course Perspective

·         Abstinence in Teen Sexuality Education

·         Reproductive Health along the U.S.-Mexico Border

·         Bridging Linguistic and Cultural Gaps

·         Promoting Abortion Rights across Borders

·         Innovative Strategies for Reaching Youth

·         Public or Private: Options for Improving Sustainability

·         Family Planning and HIV Integration

·         Advancing Reproductive Rights

·         Causes and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence

·         Thinking Outside the Clinic: Expanding Access to Emergency Contraception

 

Our poster sessions include:

·         Influence of Gender, Culture and Age on Sexual and Reproductive Health

·         Reproductive Health and Family Planning in Diverse Populations

·         Reproductive Health and HIV/STI Issues

·         Adolescent Health: International Perspectives

·         Contraceptive Use Worldwide

 

For the first time this year, we look forward to recognizing the accomplishments of our student members through a student poster session.

 

We would like to invite everyone to the Section Business and Task Force Meetings and to join us for our awards ceremony and reception. 

Call For Highlights from the 2008 Annual Meeting

PFPRH members who attend the 2008 Annual Meeting in San Diego are invited to send a brief write-up to Danielle Jackson on interesting research findings or new approaches that you encounter.  Also, if you take any photos of memorable moments that would be of interest to fellow PFPRH colleagues, we'd love to see them!  We will share the best of these Annual Meeting highlights in a future newsletter.

2007 Section Award Winners

During the 2007 Annual Meeting, PFPRH awarded the Felicia Stewart Advocacy Award for the first time.  This award is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Felicia Stewart and her vision, commitment, leadership, and advocacy in our field. Dr. Stewart’s career included serving as HHS’s deputy assistant secretary of population affairs and as co-director of the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at the University of California, San Francisco.  The award recognizes individuals who have demonstrated a strong commitment to advocacy on behalf of reproductive health and rights. 

 

Congratulations to ALL of our esteemed colleagues who were recognized by PFPRH during the previous Annual Meeting.

 

The Carl S. Shultz Award for Lifetime Achievement:

James D. Shelton and Beverly Winikoff

 

The Felicia Stewart Advocacy Award:

Wendy Chavkin and Lois Uttley

 

The Outstanding Young Professional Award

Tara Shochet

New Resources

FREE  Daily Women’s Health Policy Report  

 

The Daily Women's Health Policy Report offers a synopsis of local, state, national and international reproductive health developments delivered via e-mail and available online each morning. It is a news summary that keeps you informed and saves time – and is a trusted resource for advocates, analysts and academics alike. The National Partnership for Women & Families is the new publisher of the Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, formerly produced by the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

 

We know that many loyal readers got lost in the transition last November because it was necessary to re-subscribe in order to continue receiving the publication.  But whether the Daily Report is an old friend or a new one, you can sign up by visiting www.nationalpartnership.org/daily.

 

Section Web Site

PFPRH logoWe encourage you to visit the Population, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health Section Web site at www.pfprh.org .  This site contains general information about the Section and its leadership; information on our standing committees, Task Forces, Section awards, and listserv; current and past newsletters; links to other sites of interest; Section contact information; and more.

 

A list of PFPRH sessions for the 2008 Annual Meeting (as well as from the last several meetings) is accessible from the home page of the Web site.

 

If you have suggestions for further improvements or can help to maintain the Web site, please contact pfprh@pfprh.org.

Submissions to the Newsletter

Share your news!  Let us know about books or papers you have recently published, upcoming conferences you are involved in, or policy or program news that might be of interest to fellow Section members.  Perhaps we can abstract an article or include a description of an innovative program.  Please send all submissions by Friday, Sept. 5, 2008 to:

Danielle B. Jackson, MPH

Division of Reproductive Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

4770 Buford Highway NE, MS K-23

Atlanta, GA 30341

Phone: (770) 488-6504 

E-mail: DBJackson@cdc.gov