This policy will prevent doctors from providing or denying health care, “on the on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.” (In further it’s-about-time-news, gender identity and gender expression are newly protected grounds of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.)

In addition to having to refer patients elsewhere (in other words, to doctors who don’t decide who is and isn’t morally worthy of care), doctors will have to explain to their patients, directly and with sensitivity, why they are not willing to recognize things like women’s reproductive rights.

The policy reads: “While the Charter entitles physicians to limit the health services they provide on moral or religious grounds, this cannot impede, either directly or indirectly, access to care for existing patients, or those seeking to become patients.”

Um, how has this not happened yet? How is this even a thing?

I was naive enough to think the primary concern of health care professionals was the health of their patients. But this is clearly not the case—and some medical professionals appear upset their personal beliefs can no longer trump proper care.

Take, for instance, the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada. The organization, whose members take pride in what they believe to be moral integrity, held a press conference on the March 25 to announce it has filed an application asking the court to realize this new policy breaches sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As reported by the Toronto Star, Health Minister Eric Hoskins recently told reporters: “They’ve been given an alternative. None of this is forcing anything . . . all that’s required of them is providing timely access to another health care professional.”

But to provide such access would be to value reproductive rights—and that’s always been a scary thing for some people, and too often it’s those same people who are in power.

A former This intern, Hillary Di Menna is in her first year of the gender and women’s studies program at York University. She also maintains an online feminist resource directory, FIRE- Feminist Internet Resource Exchange.

It’s a wee bit more complicated than our single-payer health care, but let me put it this way: by January, if you are female bodied, American, and have insurance through your employer, you will have access to contraception with no co-pay. Neat, right? Pop the champagne? Pull out an encore of the celebratory Bollywood videos?

Well, not for everyone. A couple right-wing extremists, in fact, were downright incensed.

Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, described the mandate as “unjust”. And Republican House representative Mike Kelly called August 1 a date that will “live in infamy” alongside Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center attacks. Why? Kelly thinks that forcing companies to provide contraception coverage for their employees goes against employers’ religious liberties and is an attack on America.

That’s right. Kelly is comparing birth control provision to the attacks that killed his country’s civilians and provoked large-scale military actions.

Mike Kelly called the mandate an “attack on our religious freedom.” But, as I noted yesterday, Reverend Harry Knox of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice alleges that those who challenge the mandate are the real attackers of individual liberty.

You know, when people say unbelievable things in the Internet age, you pretty much have two choices:

You can get mad.

Or you can post animal videos.

Canadian women have fewer options than their counterparts abroad when it comes to birth control choices. Creative Commons photo by Flickr user vociferous.

Sitting up on the examination table, I can hear my sterile paper gown crinkling with every movement. The gynecologist sits a few feet away, looking up at me, and I feel like a stage performer as I explain the reason for my visit. “I’ve tried and hated almost every type of hormonal birth control,” I tell her. “I want to know about non-hormonal options.” She nods when I reveal I’m in a long-term, monogamous relationship; she tenses up when I say I’m interested in an IUD or a diaphragm.

My request was uncommon. Hormonal contraception is the unequivocal norm for most young Canadian women, and research for other options is virtually non-existent in this country. Birth control is low on the health agenda, and this oversight is putting Canadian women at risk.

In the last decade, I’ve sampled nearly ten kinds of hormonal contraception. By the age of 19, I had tried five different types of oral contraceptive. Puberty came with a prescription for the pill to help control heavy periods. In university, hormonal contraception threw me into an emotional frenzy. Going from the pill to the Depo-Provera injection to the Nuva Ring, I experienced symptoms that included an obsession with my weight, loss of my sex drive and intense mood swings. As a responsible young adult in long-term relationship, I was a good candidate for a vaginal barrier method or an intrauterine device (IUD), but I was unaware of those options and they were never mentioned. Campus physicians continued to advocate hormonal methods, convinced they could find “the right match.” Still, my body was completely uncooperative. I assumed I was the problem.

My latest attempt, a consultation with a gyno, earned me a prescription for a diaphragm. After trying more than a dozen pharmacies, I discovered that diaphragms are nearly non-existent in Canada. A call to the manufacturer revealed that in 2010, less than 100 devices were distributed across the country.

Finally turning online, research led me to the FemCap, a highly recommended new version of the cervical cap. An American product, it’s said to be comfortable, reusable, purchasable online and most importantly, hormone-free. I included the recommended organic spermicide with my order, because it’s not available in Canadian pharmacies.

When my gadget came in the mail, my boyfriend and I watched the unintentionally hilarious instructional video, which features a real vagina and animated sperm whose mission to fertilize is thwarted by the FemCap. To be sure, I ran the device by my family doctor. She’d never even heard of it, but she was enthusiastic. After giving it her seal of approval, she asked to keep the instructional pamphlets I brought in.

Advancement in non-hormonal birth control is not a popular field of research and statistics show Canadians are particularly unaware. The United Nations’ 2009 report on contraceptive use says the world’s most popular form of reversible birth control is the IUD. This is the method of choice for 14 per cent of the world’s women. While the report shows the pill is the most popular option for most developed countries, on the global scale only nine per cent of women rely on it. In Canada, one in every five women uses oral contraceptives. The condom is second in popularity with 15 per cent, followed by traditional techniques like the rhythm method at nine per cent. The IUD and vaginal barrier methods (including the diaphragm and the FemCap) are each used by only one per cent of women. In contrast, a whopping 13.5 per cent of European women report using an IUD and 14 per cent rely on natural family planning.

So why are Canadian women so dependent on hormones?

Cindy Weeds, the coordinator of women’s programming at Planned Parenthood Toronto, explains that North American women have normalized the consumption of hormonal birth control. “Often we see women who come in and all they know about is the pill,” she says. Whether this is the cause or the effect of the current contraceptive landscape is difficult to say. Proliferation of hormonal methods is cyclical: as these contraceptives become more accepted, the industry becomes more profitable and advertising increases. This ensures the products stay on the radar and gain approval, re-launching the cycle. “Certain kinds of pills are really heavily marketed, particularly to young women,” says Weeds.

One of the consequences of this consumption cycle is a decrease in demand for non-hormonal products, reducing their supply and leading to a dearth of available information.

Fear of pregnancy is also a consideration. The pill boasts a 99.9 per cent rate of effectiveness, while the diaphragm has a failure rate between four and eight per cent, a margin of error too risky for many.

In Canada, advancements in the study of contraception are not a priority: little research is done to develop any new methods of birth control, let alone non-hormonal alternatives. Since 2008, the Canadian Institute of Health Research has spent $916,226 on birth control-related research, none devoted to new developments. In contrast, research devoted to pregnancy and conception received more than $20 million in funding, 22 times the amount allocated to birth control. And for example, while $14,000 was given to a British Columbia conference focused on sexual health education, $20,000 was allocated to finance events honouring the oral contraceptive’s 50th anniversary.

Women will often accept the side-effects of hormonal birth control because their fear of conceiving is so great. But, as Amy Sedgwick, owner of Toronto sex and health store the Red Tent Sisters, says, “there’s really no other comparable situation where millions of healthy people are taking a daily drug.” Numerous studies warn of the effects of hormonal contraception. The pill is said to impair muscle gain and increase women’s risk of heart attack, stroke and cervical cancer. Studies have also shown that women who use hormonal contraception are more susceptible to mood disorders and sexual dysfunction, and prolonged use of Depo-Provera, the hormonal injection, has been linked to bone-density loss.

Birth control has been lauded as a bastion of feminist liberation and empowerment, but our dependence on hormonal methods is worrisome. As women wait longer than ever to have children, they are relying on these drugs and devices for increasing periods of time, sometimes decades. Considering the volume of research revealing frightening long-term effects, hormonal birth control should be dispensed with a plan and a well-thought-out exit strategy. Most importantly, non-hormonal alternatives should be discussed, and used, in Canada.

Hormonal birth control disconnected me from my body and made me feel uncertain about my wellbeing. Using the FemCap has kept my health and sanity intact, and disturbing instructional video aside, my partner is a big fan. Just don’t make him watch it again.

Creative commons photo by Flickr user strangedejim.

That Catholic schools do not always look positively upon homosexuality may not come as a great surprise, given their collective track record. But in the past week, two news stories have brought new and unique anti-gay measures taken at Catholic schools to light.

First, officials at Missisauga’s St. Joseph’s Catholic  Secondary School allegedly restricted students’ use of rainbow banners at an anti-homophobia fundraiser, and then forbade them from donating the event’s proceeds to a gay rights charity.

In a second, separate, and more bizarre incident, comedian Dawn Whitwell was booked to speak at an anti-bullying assembly at Bishop Marrocco-Thomas Merton Catholic Secondary School in Toronto, but her performance was quickly cancelled when, she says, it was discovered she is married to a woman. Both schools say their actions were not motivated by an anti-gay bent and it is doubtful anything more will come of these allegations. But the Catholic school boards of Canada should recognize, in these stories, the need for them to reform, and return to theology as opposed to policing sexuality, lest their students abandon Catholic schools altogether.

Church attendance in Canada, and indeed around the world, went into a tailspin in the latter half of the twentieth century and seems unlikely to recover in our lifetimes. But the Catholic Canadians who now stay home from church in droves are not, according to a 2000 University of Lethbridge study, abandoning their religion. Rather, they are finding their own ways in which to worship.

The study attributed this new trend to people’s disillusionment with the church — as opposed to opposition to faith itself. Their problems were with the institution, not the teachings of the religion. It was the Church, not Catholicism, that was speaking out against gay marriage, contraception, and abortion — topics that divided many congregations. While people were looking to the religion itself for the values and morality they wanted, the Church was imposing hard and fast rules that a significant number of Catholics didn’t want or agree with.

Parents send their children to faith-based schools so that they can learn about their culture and religion, and grow up in an environment that recognizes that religion and the lessons it imparts. The Toronto Catholic District School Board’s website provides a great insight into the appeal of Catholic school. It has a page detailing the Board’s Equitable and Inclusive Educations strategy. It quotes St. Paul and discusses the open and accepting tenets of Catholicism, which is supposed to be applied to Catholic school  education. The intended message is that Catholic School will teach your children about their religion, instilling in them positive values of faith and tolerance.

And looking at that explanation, it is easily understandable why parents would want to send their kids to a Catholic school. But wanting your child to learn about the ancient teachings of Christ and the Apostles is very different from wanting your child to be subject to the institutional rules and judgments of school administrators, just as practising Catholicism can be very different from following the dogma of the Vatican.

There are plenty of examples of Catholic reformers working within the Church to change its doctrines on birth control, ordaining women, and embracing sexual minorities. There is no rule in Catholicism that Catholics can’t support LGBT rights or listen to a gay person present their feelings on bullying. The schools may say that Catholic teachings were the criteria that caused the rainbow-ban and Whitwell decisions to be made, but the fact is that they were not “Catholic” rules. They were rules imposed by the institution, lead by some individual or group of individuals who acted under the guise of channeling Catholicism. And, as such, they are rules that are apt to alienate students and parents alike.

Followers of a religion can be expected to adhere to, or at least respect, the guidelines of their religion. But rules made by a bureaucratic official based loosely on his or her interpretation of that religion’s teachings cannot be expected to inspire adherence. In fact, they are probably more likely to offend, especially when those interpretations result in the exclusion and intolerance that the religion ostensibly condemns. So, in the same way that people pushed back against the rules imposed by the Catholic Church, people may well begin pushing back against the rules imposed by Catholic schools, unless some action is taken to return to the positive values the TCDSB extols.

There is, and may always be, a debate over whether faith-based schools should be abolished in Canada. And in that debate there are many reasons to support abolishment, schools’ opposition to sexual diversity being among them. But the greatest argument in favour of keeping faith-based schools may be the large number of students who continue to enroll in these programs. Those numbers are essentially a straw poll of people’s support for religious education. Because of this, Catholic schools need their students, perhaps even more than students need their schools. If their flock abandons them to the same degree that the Church’s did, the Catholic school system will lose its greatest remaining reasons for survival and isn’t likely to be around for much longer. Whether that’s for the best or not is up to the parents and children to decide. But in the coming years, if institutional intolerance continues on, faithful Catholics may begin questioning just how well the Catholic school system represents their Christian values.

The birth control pill has been a major game changer in the arena of women’s reproductive rights, opening up new doors in society and the workplace. But, in the wake of the birth control pill’s 50th anniversary on the market in the United States and its 40th in Canada, a major question remains: will there ever be a version for men?

The development of a male pill has been a longstanding joke in the pharmaceutical industry, where someone is always willing to predict that the pill is “five to 10 years away” from becoming a marketplace reality. While this ongoing delay is due in part, to the technical challenges of developing a reliable contraceptive formula for men, backward assumptions that men would refuse to take a male birth control pill have arguably proven to be a much greater obstacle.

Researchers, however, have actually proven the opposite. A 2005 international survey conducted by Berlin’s Center of Epidemiology and Health Research found that a majority of men reported interest in using some form of oral contraception, a finding that is supported by two other studies. “I think modern men would like to take part in this decision,” says Ken Rosendal, the CEO of Spermatech, a Norwegian company currently in the early stages of developing a non-hormonal male birth control pill. “A pill for men would have less side effects than a hormonal pill for women.” Rosendal says, however, that funding is a key barrier in the development of such a pill; while biomedical research companies like Spermatech may have the scientific know-how to make the male pill a reality, finding investors to cover the costs necessary to bring the drug to market (an estimated US$2 billion, according to Rosendal) remains a constant challenge.

This means that, until society decides to catch up to science, the male pill will continue—year after year—to remain five to 10 years away.

Dear Progressive Detective: I’ve heard of a new birth control pill, Seasonale, that reduces your period to four times a year instead of 12. I see the appeal, but messing with my cycle just seems like a bad idea. How safe are these kinds of contraceptives?

Extended-use hormonal contraceptives like Seasonale boost estrogen to levels that some experts link to increased risk of cancers, blood clots, and bone density loss. Yet published studies on such long-haul pills are generally not placebo-controlled, says Dr. Jerilynn C. Prior, professor of Endocrinology at the UBC Department of Medicine’s Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research. Prior argues such studies either use women on the standard pill as a control measure, or simply don’t bother with a control at all. Either way, those study results imply a woman on the standard pill is hormonally the same as an untreated woman—something Prior sees as grossly unscientific.

These studies have been published in respected medical journals, while concerns from experts such as Prior aren’t being taken seriously by reviewers, editors or governing bodies. “They scoffed at me when I suggested that placebo-controlled trials were necessary,” says Prior. “They got away with getting Seasonale accepted in Canada without doing placebo-controlled trials.”

What’s worse, Prior says many doctors and gynecologists rely on out-of-date trials. “The placebo-controlled trials of the birth control pill go back to when it was really a different drug. It had about five times higher estrogen doses,” she explains. “And the placebo-controlled trials were not done well by today’s standards.”

It’s not easy for the average citizen or researcher to look into the drug approval process, either. You’d have to submit an Access to Information Request form, which is limited and slow, says Anne Rochon Ford, coordinator of Women and Health Protection at York University. “We had an unbelievably long wait,” she says, “and when we did get it back it was significantly blacked out, like a prisoner’s letter.”

Ford adds post-marketing studies to monitor adverse side-effects for Seasonale aren’t being done effectively. “There’s a conflict of interest now because [Health Canada] requires pharmaceutical companies to pay for their evaluation,” says Prior. “It isn’t funded by parliament as much as it’s funded by the people it’s supposed to be regulating.” With such deeply vested interests— and such complex data—Progressive Detective asks for better research before opting for this kind of pill.

Finally, we suggest subscribing to our RSS feed to ensure you never miss a new article going online, and following us on Twitter or becoming a fan on Facebook for updates, new articles and tasty links.

On the cover of July-August 2010 is Katie Addleman‘s feature on the decade-long push for electoral reform by Fair Vote Canada. Though proportional representation seems to have slipped off the radar for the media and many voters, Addleman argues that voting reform—far from being an arcane concept that’s only batted around by parliamentary-procedure–wonks—is a universal issue of civil rights and equality that could put more female legislators in office and restore our badly skewed political landscape.

Also in this issue, Jessica Johnston reports from Abu Dhabi on the Masdar project, a city-sized experiment in sustainable development happening in the desert of the United Arab Emirates. Like Canada, the emirate’s economy is currently dependent on oil; but unlike Canada, she finds, the sheikhs are looking to clean technology to power their economy of the future, while we’ve doubled down on the tar sands. With an estimated 20 million jobs hinging on renewable energy in the next decade, is Canada going to be left behind? and Ashley Walters profiles Joel Theriault, a forestry activist who for years has waged a lonely battle against pesticide spraying in Ontario’s northern forests. His tactics have made him enemies in the logging business, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and even among some fellow environmentalists.

Plenty more where that came from: Bruce Hicks writes about the Harper government’s plans to increase the number of seats in parliament, and why that move may fix some problems, and cause new ones; Raina Delisle exposes the cozy relationship between Shell Oil and Canada’s largest newspaper chain; Andrea Warner suggests that human rights tribunals need to draw the line before dragging in bad comedians; Jennifer Osborne writes us a postcard from the Bangu prison complex in Rio De Janeiro; Navneet Alang says that Google’s spat with the Chinese government is just the latest chapter in a centuries long story of the West’s colonial paternalism towards China; and Paul McLaughlin interviews Judy Rebick about the fight for democratic reform.

Plus: Wendy Glauser on Canada’s very own “Black Panther”; Andrew Livingstone on the Petitcodiac River; Michelle Ervin on natural health products; Lindsay Kneteman on how to improve global maternal health; Sarah Snowdon on next-generation birth control pills; Julia Prinselaar on Canada’s own genetically modified pig; Graham F. Scott on copyright reform; Emily Landau profiles playwright and television producer George F. Walker; Shaun Pett on Canada’s interconnected web of musicians; and Jenn Hardy on food-activist/musician Vanessa Rodrigues.

This issue we’ve overhauled our books section to add more reviews of the best of Canada’s independent and small-press publishers. Eve Tobolka reviews Andrew Potter’s The Authenticity Hoax; Kim Hart Macneill on Clem and Olivier Martini’s Bitter Medicine; Sarah Barmak on Shaughnessy Bishop-Stall’s Ghosted; and Chantal Braganza (our new reviews editor!) on Shane Nelson’s new book of poems, Complete Physical. And we bring you three new poems by Andrew Faulkner, plus a new short story by Eva Moran.

People sporting the G(irls) 20 "Pangaea" T-shirt.

We’ve talked a lot about what’s going wrong so far with the G20 and G8 meetings taking place in Ontario this year. And lord knows there are plenty of problems: aside from the lack of discussion surrounding women’s health we’re now chopping down trees in an urban jungle and searching around for supposedly stolen police uniforms.

But for just a few minutes, let’s take a look at what has come out of these meetings. This week Toronto’s welcoming another delegation—a group of 21 young women who are setting out to discuss women’s rights. The G(irls) 20 Summit is going on from June 16- 25, and it’s sponsored by the Belinda Stronach Foundation. Yes, that Belinda Stronach.

According to a press release, the girls represent each of the G20 nations, as well as one member from the African Union. They’ll be discussing a number of issues that affect women around the world, but if you ask me, this is the perfect chance for these girls to tell their leaders what’s what.

Apparently it has become necessary for the world’s youngest citizens to educate their own governments on what’s important. These girls have the opportunity to speak out about adequate women’s health services and maternal rights. They have the power to talk about what they need and what they deserve. And I hope to God they’ve got megaphones.

Of course, women’s health isn’t the only important issue, but it’s one almost everyone can stand behind. It’s hard not to support a woman’s right to birth control, or abortion, or prenatal care, or even just regular pap smears. And hey, if you can’t, you’re probably invited to the big meetings anyway.

So sing it loud, girls. Now’s your chance.

Update, Friday, March 19: It seems to me that it’s impossible to truly know where the government stands. One moment the foreign minister says birth control isn’t included in their G8 maternal health push. The next the prime minister’s backing up on that, saying discussion around birth control’s not out of the cards.

***

There were mumblings during the Olympics about our government’s plans to focus on maternal and children’s health during the upcoming G8 meeting in Muskoka. At the time, it was announced that abortion would not be discussed during the talks—an unfortunate revelation, but really not terribly surprising.

But now the Tories are saying they won’t even be discussing birth control during the meetings—yet another backwards decision from the powers that be in Ottawa.

The decision, they say, is based on the fact that they plan to focus discussion on “saving lives”—implying that birth control isn’t part of that. An article in the Globe and Mail quotes Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon as saying:

“It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives,” Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

Maternal and children’s health will be forever tied to access to birth control, not least access to abortion. As comedian Rick Mercer wrote on Twitter when the news came out, “…caucus, read a book.” The idea that contraception use doesn’t have anything to do with saving lives is so out-dated I’m astounded the government would be actually say it out loud. Condom use decreases the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, and it can be argued that hormonal birth control saves the lives of countless children who would have been born into dangerous, unhealthy situations.

Aside from this is the idea that women use birth control only because of the desire to not have children. Birth control is about more than just reproduction. There are a variety of health reasons as to why birth control is important. Many women risk their lives when pregnant due to underlying health issues. Many women are only able to stabilize and handle their monthly periods thanks to the hormones that birth control provides. And men avoid not only fatherhood, but sexually transmitted infections also through the use of condoms. Having, or not having, children is part of a more complex equation.

All of this to say that contraception will continue to play a role in saving lives around the world, and can have a strong impact in helping countries develop. The fear, of course, is that the Harper government is taking up right where the Bush administration left off—promising global health funding on terms that birth control not be included in the plan.

In a level-headed statement, the assistant medical dean at the University of British Columbia, Dorothy Shaw, told the Globe we need to focus on common ground to save lives. But in politics, common ground is uncommon—and I fear this is only one more step in eroding our government’s commitment not only to public health, but to women’s rights as well.

My doctor and I sat there, blankly staring at one another, wondering where we both went wrong. I was perched beside his desk, asking for a prescription refill for my birth control.

“You don’t need to ask me,” he kept saying. “Just call ahead, ask for what you’d like and come pick it up at the clinic.”

Just like that—like calling ahead to pick up pizza or Chinese take-out.

“But then who do I pay for it?” I asked. I was a Canadian living in Edinburgh on a working holiday, and my contract position didn’t offer health insurance.

“Oh my, “ he said. “Do you have to pay for your birth control in Canada?”

“Yeah…”

“[Birth control’s] a human right, love. We don’t pay for that here.”

While a percentage of the most common forms of hormonal birth control are covered by health insurance in Canada, no one I know has been able to stay pregnancy-free for, well, free.

It’s true that spending $4 per month for a pack of pills—about the average out-of-pocket price for birth control with insurance coverage—is manageable for most women.  But insurance coverage is not a given, especially in the supposedly-post-recession employment market.

When covering the debate surrounding American health care reform, Sharon Lerner, a writer with lady-blog DoubleX wrote:

“Women’s health advocates reported that some Democrats cited a fear of igniting controversy when asked to insert birth control and other preventive services for women into the minimum benefits package. What’s the controversy, exactly? It seems birth control has become a suddenly loaded political issue, a toxic sister to abortion, somehow resonant of irresponsible sex and women’s bodies.”

Can the same be said of Canada? Are we too afraid of controversy to fully-fund birth control options of all stripes?

Over the years I’ve been covered under Sun Life Financial and Blue Cross—Sun Life only covers 80 per cent of the price of pill-form contraceptives, meaning those of us who go another route are left footing the bill themselves.

The term “freedom to choose” is most often associated with abortion, but what about those of us that are just looking to find the right contraception for our bodies? I’ve often felt that young women are thrown “The Pill” as a hook-line-and-sinker form of birth control. Yep, the pill’s for you. Not so sure? Well your doctor can talk to you about other options, but good luck paying for it.

That is, if your doctor is even open to other options in the first place. Across various provinces I’ve heard accounts from friends who say their current form of contraception is simply what their doctor recommended, rather than the product of actual research or trial and error.

This is especially troubling, as recent reports have shown that Yaz, one of North America’s most prescribed forms of birth control—not to mention one of the most heavily marketed—has side effects that are much worse than previously thought.

Yaz is the perfect example of problems in the current birth control industry. Who can patients trust with their health when doctors prescribe away and undertake partnerships with pharmaceutical companies, and household budgets strangle our choices?