Brothers in Arms, Part 1: Racist Anti-Abortion Rhetoric from the Restell Years to Roe v. Wade

Newspaper illustration of Madame Restell in jail, February 23, 1878

This article is our first installment in a series that explores the historical and contemporary links between racial intolerance and opposition to abortion, from the fears of immigration that fueled abortion prohibition in the late 1800s to the gender-based hatred rooted in today’s white nationalist resurgence.

In the battle over abortion, Kentucky was this year’s ground zero. In Louisville, the EMW Women’s Surgical Center fought to keep its doors open, as a governor, a legislature, and a base of activists — all hostile to abortion — made it their mission to shut the clinic down. For reproductive justice advocates, the stakes were high, as EMW stands as the only abortion provider in Kentucky, the last one in a state that had more than a dozen such providers in the late 1970s.


In the 19th century, opposition to abortion was fueled by racist paranoia.


The situation in Louisville was emblematic of a national phenomenon. In 2011, state legislatures entered a fever pitch, passing new restrictions on abortion, including ultrasound requirements, waiting periods, state-mandated counseling, and prohibitions against telemedicine care and abortion medications. Within a few years, more than 200 restrictions were enacted, and by early 2016, The Washington Post was reporting that 162 abortion providers had closed in their wake.

Boom Years for Abortion

When Ann Lohman first opened her abortion practice, her experience could not have stood in starker contrast to the battle of attrition against regulations and harassment that shutters many of today’s providers. If there were any challenges to keeping her doors open, it was competing with the many other providers who clamored for attention, with advertisements in newspapers, popular magazines, and even religious publications. Lohman’s own advertising budget, to stand out from the crowd, eventually reached $60,000 a year.

Lohman’s experience, like the EMW Center’s, was a sign of the times — but they were very different times.  Continue reading

One Simple Kit

A community health worker teaches how to make cloth pads. Photo: Nyaya Health

A community health worker teaches how to make cloth pads. Photo: Nyaya Health

Last week, I texted a friend of mine and told her: I have a hard choice before me. When she asked what that was, I smiled as I replied: I must choose between replenishing the MAC mascara that I just ran out of and buying the new Harry Potter book. We both laughed. But really, even as a single mom who falls beneath the poverty level, this was my choice of the day.

I have known hard times. I have lived in my car with my two dogs and I have had to volunteer my time cleaning my son’s school to ensure that he gets an education because I couldn’t afford the monthly tuition. I have taken hits by the ones I love, both physical and metaphorical, and I have had my innocence stolen from me by a boy I hardly knew.


One simple kit is combating poverty, hunger, and gender inequality.


Yet somewhere across a sea, a young girl sits in her room, blood gushing from her for reasons unbeknownst to her. Fear brings tears to her eyes as she struggles to understand why God has cursed her. That is what her mother has taught her. That if such a thing occurs, it is a curse from her creator for being a filthy creature. A girl her age tells her that she has contracted a disease, something she couldn’t remember the three letters to reference, but she knew was deadly.

In a rural region in southern Malawi, a girl who has had her first period may be expected to undergo a “sexual cleansing” ritual, in which she is made to have unprotected sex with a man called a hyena — a risky proposition in a country in which nearly 1 in 10 adults has HIV. Her choice to deny such an offer could result in her entire family being stricken ill or even dead — at least that is what she is told. Continue reading

Is Douching Safe?

This vintage douche ad claims that its product is “safe to delicate tissues” and “non-poisonous.”

Douching is the practice of squirting a liquid, called a douche, into the vagina. Many people believe it helps keep the vagina clean and odor-free, and some are under the impression that it helps prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. An estimated 25 percent of American women 15 to 44 years old douche regularly. But just because douching is widespread doesn’t mean it’s safe; indeed, there are two possible mechanisms by which douching might be harmful.

First, douching might alter the pH of the vagina, changing its ecosystem. You might not think of a vagina as an “ecosystem,” but the bacteria and other microscopic organisms that live there sure do — and altering their habitat can harm the beneficial microbes that live there, opening the door for disease-causing microbes to take over the territory. Frequent douching can result in the vagina’s normal microbial population having difficulty reestablishing its population.


Douching increases risk for infections and fertility problems, and has no proven medical benefits.


Second, a douche’s upward flow might give pathogens a “free ride” into the depths of the reproductive tract, granting them access to areas that might have been difficult for them to reach otherwise. In this manner, an infection might spread from the lower reproductive tract to the upper reproductive tract. Douching might be an even bigger risk for female adolescents, whose reproductive anatomy is not fully formed, leaving them more vulnerable to pathogens.

While douching is not guaranteed to harm you, there is no evidence that it is beneficial in any way. Establishing causation between douching and the problems that are associated with it is trickier — does douching cause these problems, or do people who douche also tend to engage in other behaviors that increase risk? So far, the best evidence indicates that douching is correlated with a number of diseases and other problems, including sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), bacterial vaginosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, fertility and pregnancy complications, and more. Continue reading

Does Douching Work?

illustration of a douching apparatus from an 1882 medical handbook

As a newly minted teenager, I was helping my mother go through some of my recently deceased great-grandmother’s things. I held a mysterious object in my hands and studied it curiously, puzzling over its unfamiliar form, pastel color scheme, and floral pattern. Finally, I gave up: “What is this?” I exclaimed. My mom, instantly uncomfortable, muttered her answer through clenched teeth: “It’s a douche bag,” she replied.

I remember being rather scandalized, but also a bit amused to be holding a piece of ancient misogynist history in my hands. Even as a junior high student, I knew that douching was marketed toward women with the message that their vaginas were “dirty” and in need of “cleansing” — scientifically invalidated ideas to which we surely no longer adhered. It seemed fitting that we were sorting through the belongings of a person born in the 19th century, dividing them into the useful and useless. Surely the douche bag belonged in the latter category.


Just because douching products are available in drugstores doesn’t mean they’re safe or effective.


Little did I know, more than 20 years ago, that douching hasn’t exactly been relegated to a historical footnote. Overall, nearly 25 percent of American women 15 to 44 years old douche regularly — which is down from nearly a third in 2002. Douching rates may vary by ethnic group: CDC data from 2005 found that 59 percent of non-Hispanic black women, 36 percent of Latinas, and 27 percent of white women douche. Socioeconomic status and education level can also be a factor.

For those of you who don’t know, vaginal douching is the practice of flushing the vagina with a liquid, which is administered through a nozzle that is inserted into the vagina. Some people believe that douching cleanses or deodorizes the vagina, or can prevent pregnancy or infections. Some might think their partners expect them to douche, or that douching will “tighten” or “rejuvenate” their vaginas.  Continue reading

National Infant Immunization Week: A Timely Reminder to Protect Your Child

babyVaccinations, or immunizations, are important for the health of your baby. National Infant Immunization Week, in its 20th year, continues to educate and inform parents of this important information. In the first two years of your infant’s life, vaccines can protect against 14 diseases.


How wonderful that science enables us to protect our little ones from serious diseases like polio, tetanus, and diphtheria!


Under five years of age, a child’s immune system is not developed enough to defend against some infections that can cause disability and even death. Vaccination schedules for infants are designed to protect them at times when they are most vulnerable to potentially serious diseases — diseases that are easily transmitted and quickly overwhelm an immature defense system. Vaccines contain “germs,” such as inactivated or weakened bacteria or viruses, that can stimulate an immune response. The amount and type of “germs” in vaccines are designed to help infants’ immune systems develop protection from the serious consequences of getting that disease.

Watching your baby undergo painful injections that may give them some uncomfortable reactions like fever and aches can make any parent worry, but these short-term effects are much less serious than getting the disease. For example, mothers — who may not even know they have hepatitis B because they do not show symptoms — can transmit the disease to their baby during childbirth. Years later, that child may develop serious liver disease. By routinely receiving a hepatitis B vaccine at birth, babies are protected from this life-threatening disease. Continue reading

Book Club: Woman Rebel – The Margaret Sanger Story

Now that comic books have become the source material for blockbuster movies, the oft-told story of the maligned and misunderstood superhero should be a familiar one, even to many who have never read a comic. Think Professor Xavier’s cohort in the X-Men movies or Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman. They’re extraordinary. They’re also flawed, often unable to shake the ghosts of an uneasy past. But their powers, not their shortcomings, are the reason they’re so maligned. No matter their good intentions, they challenge what is known and established, earning them fear and distrust.


Bagge’s graphic novel is a refreshing contribution to a medium that is often a guilty pleasure at best.


Given that trope, maybe it wasn’t such an odd idea to give the comic book treatment to the life of Margaret Sanger, the reproductive rights pioneer and founder of Planned Parenthood. Writer and illustrator Peter Bagge, a veteran of alternative comics, does just that in Woman Rebel: The Margaret Sanger Story (Drawn & Quarterly, 2013). The outcome is a graphic novel that doesn’t let exaggerated expressions, vivid colors, and terse speech bubbles derail an intelligent and sensitive retelling of Sanger’s life.

Comparing Sanger to a superhero might be hyperbole, but Sanger’s trailblazing work not only created the movement to advocate for birth control but also spurred the development of the oral contraceptive, or “the Pill.” She had the drive and the know-how to contribute to the movement as an author, editor, lecturer, and founder of a reproductive health clinic. Along the way, Sanger helped change the laws that stood in the way of reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy, while rubbing shoulders (and sometimes developing romances) with many luminaries of her time, from novelists to political agitators to wealthy industrialists. March is Women’s History Month, and this year’s theme is Celebrating Women of Character, Courage, and Commitment — a theme perfect for someone of Sanger’s stature. Sanger’s visionary efforts earned her many accolades — as well as a campaign of character assassination that has called her everything from a fascist to a proponent of genocide. Continue reading

STD Awareness: Is There an STD That Causes Maggots?

Update: In November 2014, another video of a maggot infestation in a woman’s genitals went viral. Many astute readers clued us in to some of the locations of this viral video, but after reviewing the websites, I declined to include an updated link because I found them to be pretty misogynistic and exploitative. The message remains the same, though — yes, it’s possible to get maggots in a vagina; no, it’s not directly caused by an STD; and no, it’s definitely not caused by a “superbug” strain of any STD. Continue reading to get the scoop on how maggots actually can infest genitals, and what we know about their connection to STDs.

Maggots grow up to be flies.

Maggots grow up to be flies.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been confronted by two mysteries. The first was a collection of search terms that led curious Web surfers to our blog. Take a gander at them and see if you can tell why they raised my eyebrows:

  • new std that causes maggots
  • what is the new std superbug that causes maggots
  • stds that cause worms

There were dozens of similar searches leading to this blog, enough to make me take notice — and dig around.


Maggots infesting your genitals isn’t something you need to worry about.


First, the obvious: I Googled “STD maggots” and looked at what came up. While there was absolutely nothing to be found in the legitimate news media, there was a proliferation of recently published stories on websites that I’d never heard of, all containing the same unsourced viral video of someone removing maggots from someone else’s vagina. (Actually, I could only find stills — none of the websites I looked at had functioning video. Not that I was hugely motivated to find one that did.)

The accompanying articles described a female patient with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) said to be called “sex superbug,” an antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which caused maggots to grow in her vagina. While there is no STD formally called “sex superbug,” the original author was probably referring to antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, which is caused by a strain of bacteria called Neisseria gonorrhoeae that has evolved resistance to the drugs we use to kill it. Someone would have to track down the video’s source, however, to confirm that the subject actually suffered from gonorrhea in addition to the infestation of maggots. Continue reading