By Tamar Abrams. Ninety-nine years ago, International Women’s Day was founded to honor the accomplishments of women and to press for equality between men and women. All these years later, there is still so much to do. Rather than tackling the overwhelming global needs of women, one organization – Women Deliver – is focusing on maternal health. The statistics are startling: Every minute of every day, a woman dies needlessly of pregnancy-related causes. That means that more than 560,000 women and girls die every year. Almost all of these deaths occur in the developing world, and ten million women are lost in every generation!

What a tragic loss for our planet when at the same time we in the developed world have turned our attention to new ways of obtaining and sharing information, the latest methods to prolong our lives and even how to conceive and deliver babies well into middle-age. I’m guessing that the founders of International Women’s Day probably hoped that 99 years later, the chances of women dying of pregnancy-related causes would be slim to none.

A new study out of California shows that maternal mortality is hardly something we have conquered in our own country; in fact women die after childbirth at a greater rate in our country than in 33 others! Over the past decade, those statistics have grown increasingly grim in California — rising from 5.6 deaths per 100,000 to nearly 17 deaths per 100,000. The reasons for maternal mortality in the U.S. and around the world are complex and varied, but the fact remains that most of the deaths are preventable. Women simply don’t have to die during pregnancy, childbirth or soon after.

(more…)

The call came around 7 p.m. on a languid July evening as I was settling in with a good book and a big glass of iced tea. My teenage daughter was at a sleepover and the Friday evening stretched ahead quiet and uneventful. And then an Arlington County, Virginia social worker was on the other end of the line, gently pressuring me to provide emergency foster care for a seven-year-old boy who had abruptly been removed from his family because of signs of abuse. It was Friday evening, after all, getting late, and the child needed a place to sleep. It was only for the weekend as a more permanent placement was sought, one that could provide the specialized therapeutic care he needed. He was currently at a hospital being evaluated, no one knew if he’d been fed dinner, it was getting late…

When he arrived two hours later, J was excited to meet our cat and explore our house. Of his bedroom, he asked, “Who else sleeps in there?” No one, I replied. It’s just for you. “I’ve never slept alone before,” he said with wonder. He didn’t appear to be tired or scared, even when the social worker beat a hasty retreat after explaining he needed medication but I would have to pick it up myself the next day. The social worker had given him a radio controlled car and he was clearly more interested in assembling and playing with it than with sleeping or talking. A friend of mine came over to get the car working. J was wound up but didn’t talk about the weirdness of the circumstances. He played, he ran around, he picked up the reluctant cat, he marveled at the plethora of cable stations on our TV and the fact that I had a brand new toothbrush for him. I couldn’t get him to sleep until sometime around 1 a.m. and then only by sitting by his bed and repeating soothing words.

We filled Saturday with activities — a visit to the nearby playground, a quick run to Target to pick up clothes for him to wear, a viewing of the loud and hideous Transformers movie, a walk around the neighborhood. It wasn’t until we were finally alone and quiet for dinner at a local restaurant that he looked at me and said, “I want to go home.” We both knew which home he meant. And this is where foster parenting becomes the hardest job I know. I gently explained that he would go home when everyone agreed he would be safe there. His eyes teared up as he stroked the large bruise on the side of his face. “This was an accident,” he said.

By Sunday, he was determined to stay with us if he couldn’t return to his own home. I tried to tell him about the contractor who was arriving to tear up the only guest room in our house — the one he currently occupied — and about the student from Nairobi who arrives in early August to occupy the room until Thanksgiving. “I can sleep on the couch,” he said. We went to a minor league baseball game where he didn’t know a pitch from a run and kept saying he couldn’t read the numbers on the scoreboard. He didn’t understand why everyone stood for the national anthem and why I insisted he join us. And he begged me to let him stay with us. We joined friends at a neighborhood swimming pool and then for a backyard barbecue. Keeping him busy seemed like the best strategy.

But by bedtime Sunday, he was again begging to remain with us. “I’ll be good,” he promised. “I’ll keep my room clean and I’ll feed the cat.” It was heartbreaking. Eventually he began asking where he would go when he left us, something I couldn’t answer. I promised he would go to nice people, but really what kind of promises could I make to a boy who just wanted to go home? He wanted to be with the people he loved, even if they hurt him. He wanted to wake up in a bedroom shared with others, with a TV that doesn’t always work, in a home where he says a machete is kept for “protection.” The bruises on his face will fade. He’ll forget about his long weekend in our home. For this little boy, despite the lousy hand dealt him, there is and will always be no place like home.

This piece is cross-posted at The Huffington Post.

Women should not die giving life. I’m pretty sure most of us in the U.S. and around the world are in agreement on that. And yet, tragically, more than half a million of the world’s women lose their lives during childbirth – a statistic that has held steady for over seven years. Here’s the shocker: We have the technology and the knowledge to save most of those women. So why aren’t we?

This week Pathfinder International and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation will discuss a new initiative that could reduce maternal mortality rates by more than 25%. They will be highlighting an innovative, low-cost, reusable technology to address postpartum hemorrhage – the leading cause of maternal deaths. The non-pneumatic anti-shock garment or “Life Wrap” can easily be used by health workers in the developing world (see the new technology in use here.) Pathfinder is focusing their initial efforts in India and Nigeria – two countries that account for more than one-third of all maternal deaths worldwide.

But technology – innovative or not – is only one part of the puzzle. Without adequate family planning programs in the developing world – and here in the U.S. – women will always be at unacceptably high risk of death, illness and disability. For elected officials to say that they are pro-life but to also say that women should not receive the very best reproductive health care information and services is hypocritical and deadly. Pregnancy, childbirth and children are among the very best experiences a woman can have…anywhere in the world. But she must have the knowledge and ability to choose when and how many children to have. Investing in family planning programs and in new technologies such as the anti-shock garment will finally begin to reduce the rate of maternal mortality in the developing world.

Once and for all, let’s eliminate the ideological labels we’ve each donned as armor and that create barriers to effective action. Let’s all just agree: Women should not have to die giving life.

This piece is cross-posted at The Huffington Post.

As a relatively frequent contributor to Huffington Post, I was unprepared for the avalanche of comments that followed a blog I wrote about YouTube sensation Susan Boyle. As one of the first bloggers to write about her, I caught an earful from HuffPo readers across the globe. My characterization of her as “homely” raised the ire of dozens of people who declared her “beautiful, inside and out.” Several wanted to know why I found it necessary to point out that she was 47, and several others excoriated me for being both ageist and sexist and possibly even beautyist. This is all so very ironic given that I am older than Ms. Boyle and have never been able to get by on my looks.

A week later, having been interviewed by a London-based radio station that asked me, “What does America think of Susan Boyle?” I am appalled by the hypocrisy displayed by people here and in Europe. When I mentioned to a male friend that I had written about her, he asked, “Is she the one who looks like a man?” Believe me, I would have loved for his response to have been, “Oh yes, the adorable one who signs like an angel!” But what are the chances?

I would love for all people to be judged on the basis of their strength of character or kindness or talent. But even for Susan Boyle, that is a short-lived dream. Already stylists are lining up to pluck, curl, straighten, camouflage, colorize, and glamorize Ms. Boyle. Given the opportunity, producers would sign her up for Britain’s Biggest Loser followed by a stint on Style Her Famous. In a few weeks, our frumpy eccentric singing phenom would undoubtedly have her face lifted, her breasts reduced, her brows tattooed, her hair colored and her wardrobe replaced if TV execs had their way. Would she sing any better? No. But she would look more like the singing idols we are used to.

Yes, there’s been a global outcry to leave her how she is. So many “average” people have delighted in the possibility of someone who looks like them achieving fame and glory. But is there a sea change coming in how we perceive and treat those who fail to achieve the ideals of youth and beauty espoused by our media? Will we now see Susan Boyle clones on the covers of women’s magazines and starring in the latest TV sitcoms and cop shows? I am willing to bet not. Susan Boyle may emerge from all of this hoopla unchanged, but I’m afraid so will our views on women and beauty and age. Plastic surgeons can rest easy knowing that she’s an aberration – a sweet moment of relief for those of us who fail to meet unattainable standards – in the landscape of nipping, tucking, lifting and Botoxing that will endure long after Ms. Boyle’s day in the sun fades.

I am not usually one to take on the Vatican. In fact, I toured its lovely treasure-filled buildings only three months ago and marveled at the wealth and power it denoted. However, the Pope’s recent pronouncements during his travels in Africa that condoms and abortions are morally wrong have filled me with righteous indignation. I too have spent time in Africa. But I wasn’t there to make pronouncements from on high. I was there to make a documentary about the increasing number of married women with AIDS in Kenya. I walked through Kibera slum and watched large families crammed into corrugated metal sheds without plumbing or heat.

Even so, I probably wouldn’t take on the Pope…except for an article in today’s Washington Post. Apparently, the Vatican’s top bioethics official said the two Brazilian doctors who performed an abortion on a nine-year-old rape victim “did not merit excommunication, because they acted to save her life.” HELLO! In my book, that’s called a pro-choice stand. Bravo for Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Perhaps he should have a chat with his boss.

Abortion is not a black and white issue for me, despite having worked for the better part of a decade for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and NARAL on reproductive health issues. That’s why the pro-choice position has also seemed to me to be the reasoned one. It allows individuals to make decisions and encourages each of us to define for ourselves what is reasonable and acceptable. There is a trust factor in being pro-choice. For example, if there is the possibility that a nine-year-old may be raped by her stepfather, you want to believe that the pregnancy will be ended as swiftly and humanely as possible.

Good for Archbishop Fisichella for being able to see that issues related to reproductive health have gray areas! And that it is often possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice while having to accept difficult decisions. Is it too much to hope that Pope Benedict XVI might also see the light? If he truly listens to the people of Africa and other continents, and opens his eyes to their hopes for their own lives – I have faith that he may begin to understand the healing power of condoms and the life-affirming necessity for legal, safe abortions.

The following is a guest post from Tamar Abrams, a communications strategist working with nonprofits, individuals and foundations. Until August 2008, Ms. Abrams was Vice President of Communications at Population Action International and has also been on staff at NARAL and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Below, Ms. Abrams shares her thoughts on children affected by homelessness.

One in 50 children in the U.S. is homeless each year, according to America’s Youngest Outcasts, a new report from the National Center on Family Homelessness released on March 10. An astonishing 1.5 million homeless children! Chances are you’ve met a child who has spent time in the uncertain and violent world of people without homes. You may not have known – often they look very much like our own children. But the things our kids worry about – grades, video games, iphone or blackberry? – are very different from children who worry about their peers discovering their living situations.

According to the report, children experiencing homelessness have twice the rate of moderate to severe health conditions compared to middle class children, and twice the emotional problems. They struggle in school, with an average 16% lower proficiency in math and reading, and an estimated graduation rate below 25%. Many are cared for by single moms, and a large number are under the age of five.

The report ranks each of the 50 states according to how many children are homeless, their well-being, how many others are at risk of homelessness, and what policies are in place to support them. The states that ranked as the best were Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. At the bottom of the rankings were: Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina and Florida.

(more…)