Lynda Waddington, contributor to Iowa Independent and creator of the Essential Estrogen blog, will be the featured speaker at two seminars on “developing campaign web pages and blogs for Democratic women candidates, and those who work their campaigns.”

If you know any women who have considered running for office, or anyone who wants to work on a woman candidate’s campaign, please spread the word. Waddington promises to “show participants the good, the bad, and the (oh so very) ugly that can come with being a politically active woman in the age of the internet and high technology.”

The Des Moines seminar will take place on Saturday, November 14, from 1:30 to 3:30 pm at the AFSCME office, 4320 NW 2nd.

The Cedar Falls seminar will take place on Saturday, November 21, from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm at the Cedar Falls Public Library.

For more information, contact Jo Ann Zimmerman at 515-225-1136 or atzzzzz AT aol.com, or Marcia Nichols at 515-246-1517 (for the Des Moines event).

The seminars are free, no advance registration required.  Sponsored by DAWN (Democratic Activist Womens Network) and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees). DAWN was founded in 1992 to recruit and mentor Democratic women to run for public office.

Speaking of women running for office, jamesvw posted information to help get out the vote for Kirsten Running-Marquardt in the November 24 special election in Iowa House district 33.

Plant Spring Change: Two Ways Women Can Stimulate National Ag Policy Reform Written By: Lisa Kivirist Posted by Sarah Long Spring inspires an annual dose of hopeful change. From tilling the fields to celebrating that first pea tendril, this time of year ushers in a fresh breeze of energy and optimism for us women in agriculture. Remember to take some of that vernal enthusiasm and voice your opinion to your elected officials in Washington, D.C., to keep sustainable farming a top funding priority. “Individual phone calls and letters to your representatives take just minutes of your time, but they collectively add up to a very strong influence on Congressional priorities,” explains Aimee Witteman, Executive Director of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC). “The voice of women in agriculture needs to be heard in Washington, D.C., particularly this spring when key funding issues will be decided.” Two things we can each do this spring to plant seeds for national change: 1. Tell your representatives and senators to fund sustainable ag priorities in FY10 appropriations Over the next two months, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee will be finalizing the list of programs they will champion for FY2010. “Congress needs to hear why sustainable agriculture programs that support innovation and economic prosperity are so important and must be adequately funded, especially during our current tough economic situation,” adds Witteman. Call or fax a letter to your senators and Congressional representative (enter your zip code at www.house.gov to find your representative) and express your support for two important yet potentially vulnerable sustainable agriculture programs: SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) and the Value-Added Producer Grant Program. Specifically, we want to ensure: * $30 million for SARE ($25 million for research and education and $5 million for extension and outreach) * $30 million for the Value-Added Producer Grants Program SARE is a competitive grants program funding farmer-driven research, education, and extension initiatives on profitable, environmentally and socially sound practices. Its research and education grants help first-time farmers get started and succeed, help farmers find ways to be more profitable, and help new businesses get started. The Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG) offers competitive grants to farmers and ranchers developing new farm and food-related businesses that boost farm income, create jobs, and increase rural eco- nomic opportunity. Despite growing demands for these grants, VAPG funding has been cut seven years in a row! When calling your senators’ and representative’s office, be specific and personal when leaving a message, as you will probably be talking to a staff member: “I am Lisa Kivirist, a farmer outside of Monroe, Wisconsin, in Green County. I am calling to express to Senator Kohl my strong support of funding sustainable agriculture during the appropriations process. Specifically, I want to see . .. “ Be polite yet personable. Sharing your farming story and experiences adds deeper meaning and authenticity to your message. Another way of expressing your opinion directly is to attend in-district or in-state “town hall” or other open public meetings sponsored by your representative or senator. As Congress will be on spring recess the first two weeks of April, many representatives will be in their home states and hosting such gatherings; keep an eye open for announcements in your local newspaper. 2. Promote and use new Farm Bill programs Some of these new Farm Bill programs will be starting the granting process in the next couple of months by issuing RFPs (requests for proposals) – that detail exactly what types of applications may qualify for funding and application deadlines. The NSAC website (www.sustainableagriculture.net) will have updated information as these RFPs go public. “Tell the organizations you are connected with about these new funding opportunities, particularly new Farm Bill programs such as the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and the Rural Microentreprise Assistance Program (RMAP),” sums up Witteman. “Now that these programs are part of the Farm Bill, we need to take advantage of these resources to support sustainable agriculture projects.” Lisa Kivirist is a Wisconsin farmer, author, and director of the Rural Women’s Project for Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES).

On Wednesday morning, I piled into the back of a white passenger van alongside seven other women.  Four more vehicles carrying ten more women lined up to form a caravan behind us.  “I apologize in advance, ladies,” explained our guide for the day, Laura Krouse, with a smile. “You're never going to look at this farmland the same way again!”  With that disclaimer, we rolled north out of the church parking lot in Mount Vernon to tour almost 100 miles of farmland in Johnson, Jones, and Linn Counties.

Our field trip on Wednesday, March 25th was the second gathering of Women Caring for the Land, a free McKnight Foundation conservation program coordinated by the Women, Food & Agriculture Network.  Project coordinator Laura Krouse (of Abbe Hills Farm) held a series of introductory meetings in mid-February, gathering women landowners throughout the three counties to learn more about conservation practices in agriculture.  This field trip was our chance to reunite and take what we learned in the introductory meetings out into the field.  With Laura Krouse as our instructor, we toured the countryside, keeping an eye out for the upsides (wide waterways, impressive terraces, conservation reserve program prairies, and beautiful wetlands) and downsides (deep gullies, hog confinements, and non-existent waterways) of eastern Iowa agriculture.

Women Caring for the Land is designed to give women landowners information and confidence, helping women make informed decisions about their land.  The sessions, thus far, have certainly been both informative and confidence-building.  We learned more about farming and each other as we delighted in the warmth of Susan Jutz's hoop house at ZJ Farm in Solon and bonded over a delicious lunch at Gwen's in Lisbon.  By the end of our field trip, several of the women in our van were pointing out the windows and shouting, “Deep gully!”  or “Great waterway!”  Even more important, they (and I) were peppering Laura with all kinds of questions about waterways, drain tiles, and contouring, among other things.  

When we parted for the day, we did so with the promise that we would see each other again at the concluding meeting on April 15th.  While I'm not a landowner or a native-born Iowan, I've been tagging along as a woman interested in farming and conservation, and I'm far from disappointed.  I'm grateful to the women of Women Caring for the Land for teaching me a great deal about farming, women, conservation, and Iowa.  And I look forward to seeing them again on April 15th!

Happy Spring, Bleeding Heartland readers! There’s a lot happening this week, and I’ve posted the events after the jump.

Post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of something good happening that I’ve left out.

If you live within striking distance of Iowa City, there’s a benefit for the Iowa Renewable Energy Association tonight at the Mill (details below).

Greetings from the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women!

As we begin the fifth week of the Legislative session, we wanted you to be aware of some developments in legislation affecting women and girls. While by no means an exhaustive list, we hope updates on the following ICSW priorities may be of interest to you. Both of the bills prefiled by ICSW are assigned to State Government Committees in the Senate and House and may likely see movement this week.

Please consider contacting your Senator and Representative, or either of the aforementioned Committees with your thoughts on the following three issues:

*SSB1089/HSB73: Enhanced Protections for Equal Pay

Similar to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act recently signed into law by President Obama, this bill would clarify existing protections from wage discrimination, clarify when a person has a cause of action, and would stipulate penalties for employers found to have discriminated. To learn more about the bill, please review our policy brief. Iowa is ranked 37th in the nation for wage equity, and recent studies show that 82% of the recent national job losses are borne by men—wage equity is more important than ever! (NY Times: As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force). This bill has been sent to the State Government Committee in the Senate, and is expected to go the same route this week in the House.

* SSB1050/HSB12: Gender Balance on Local Boards and Commissions

According to a phone survey of all 99 counties, statewide, women make up less than one out of every six county-appointed decision makers on important economically-focused boards and commissions like Planning/Zoning, Adjustment, Compensation, and Condemnation. In fact, even though every county does not have a Board of Adjustment (reviews local property tax appeals), 44 counties have zero women on that particular Board. Statewide boards and commissions have been required to be gender-balanced since 1987. Voted out of the House State Government Committee (20-1) on Thursday, this bill could see floor debate in both chambers this week. See our policy brief for more information. Read last week’s news coverage on the bill here.

*Last but not least, the Governor’s budget included significant cuts for almost all state spending, but made sure to include the full funding amount needed to support the state’s sexual assault and domestic violence centers: $4.1 million. Please contact members of the Justice System Appropriations Subcommittee and let them know how crucial these services are. For talking points or more information, go to http://www.victimstosurvivors.org/. You may also wish to thank Governor Culver and Lt. Governor Judge for making this a priority!

A few days ago, I wrote a post on why women should not vote for John McCain in the next election. Aside from the depressing fact that very few women probably read my blog, absolutely no one commented on the post. That tells me that either everyone already knows what a putz John McCain is and can't bring themselves to defend him, or that people don't know how dangerous it will be for women's rights to have him in office.

My mission in life for the next five months is simple. Friends don't let friends vote republican. Especially women.

Every time I meet a female republican, i'm always struck by a common theme. They're either republican because they grew up in a republican household and just never bothered to question it, are republican because their husbands are, or they are just plain old right-wing nutjobs. These are the three categories I think the last one is a loss, but the first two are definitely persuadeable. 

Engage your republican women friends in conversation. Ask them sincerely about their beliefs on important women's issues like the right to choose, and they will secretly confide: “Well, I believe in that right.” Ditto for equal pay. “Of course women should be paid the same as men when working in the same job.” Ask them about domestic violence and the fact that it's pretty much the same jail time for kicking a dog as beating up a spouse or girlfriend. They'll tell you that it should be more serious to injure a person.

Ask them if they think that contraception should be made available at a discount to adult women on college campuses. They will all say yes. They themselves will recall what it was like to be in college and how thankful they were for student health services on campus.

On health care, ask them if they think that basic health care coverage should be provided to all. I'm guessing that probably 95% of them would say yes.

Ask them if they think that providing daycare to women who are clawing their way out of poverty is key to gaining self sufficiency.

Once you are done thoroughly listening to their answers, then ask them why they would even considering voting republican. Republicans want to talk about taxes and tax breaks. They want to take away a woman's right to choose and her access to safe and affordable birth control. They focus on social ills, but not what causes the problems. They throw people in jail for many years, and then refuse to consider new prisons until someone escapes. They are also known for not funding drug treatment programs that keep people out of jail in the first place.

Maybe they just THINK they are republicans, when all along they've been democrats. Give them a chance to realize that their vote counts. Then close the deal. Ask them to vote for a democrat this fall. It could make a very big difference. 

I invite you all to come over the The Demo Memo and read to your heart's content. Thanks, Claire Celsi, author of TheDemoMemo.com

Over at Daily Kos, nyceve put up another shocking diary about the practices of for-profit insurance companies in the U.S.

Today she links to this article from the New York Times about women facing higher insurance premiums, or even being denied insurance coverage, after giving birth by cesarean:

Insurers’ rules on prior Caesareans vary by company and also by state, since the states regulate insurers, said Susan Pisano of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some companies ignore the surgery, she said, but others treat it like a pre-existing condition.

“Sometimes the coverage will come with a rider saying that coverage for a Caesarean delivery is excluded for a period of time,” Ms. Pisano said. Sometimes, she said, applicants with prior Caesareans are charged higher premiums or deductibles.

This problem could affect millions of American women:

In 2006, more than 1.2 million Caesareans were performed in the United States, and researchers estimate that each year, half a million women giving birth have had previous Caesareans.

“Obstetricians are rendering large numbers of women uninsurable by overusing this surgery,” said Pamela Udy, president of the International Caesarean Awareness Network, a group whose mission is to prevent unnecessary Caesareans.

Although many women who have had a Caesarean can safely have a normal birth later, something that Ms. Udy’s group advocates, in recent years many doctors and hospitals have refused to allow such births, because they carry a small risk of a potentially fatal complication, uterine rupture. Now, Ms. Udy says, insurers are adding insult to injury. Not only are women feeling pressure to have Caesareans that they do not want and may not need, but they may also be denied coverage for the surgery.

The New York Times piece also mentions one woman who was rejected for coverage by the Golden Rule Insurance Company:

She was turned down because she had given birth by Caesarean section. Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, Golden Rule did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified.

Great news–all she has to do to get health insurance coverage is be sterilized!

Seriously, we need a national health care policy that prohibits insurance companies from refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Until that happens, women would be advised to do whatever they can to reduce their risk of having a c-section.

Some surgical births are unavoidable, and in those cases it is a lifesaving procedure. However, there are ways to reduce the risk of having an unnecessary cesarean.

I advise women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant to strongly consider using a midwife for your prenatal care, labor and delivery. Most midwives have a far lower cesarean rate in their practices than obstetricians.

One New Jersey hospital that has a thriving midwifery program has the second-lowest rate of c-sections in that state, “despite serving a low-income urban patient population that is more likely to have high-risk pregnancies.”

Hiring a certified doula to help the mother during labor and delivery has been shown to reduce the rate of cesarean births as well. You can have a doula assist you whether you are under the care of a midwife, an obstetrician or a family doctor, whether you give birth in a hospital, a birth center or at home.

You should also seek information about the c-section rates of the hospitals and birth centers in your area, if you have a choice. As I mentioned  in this post on cesarean births in Iowa, the percentage of babies born by c-section can vary widely from hospital to hospital.

For more information on cesarean births and the benefits of having a doula, click here.

Not long ago I posted about a poorly-researched and poorly-written article by the Associated Press on the rising rate of cesarean births in Iowa.

Lisa Houchins, a mom in Des Moines who is also education director for the International Cesarean Awareness Network, responded to the same article with this letter to the editor that the Register published earlier this week:

Regarding, “More U.S. Women Delivering Babies by Caesarean Section” (March 29): According to the World Health Organization, more than half of all Caesareans in the United States could be avoided. When used properly, a Caesarean can be a life-saving procedure. When used indiscriminately, C-sections introduce unnecessary risks to mothers and infants.

Women who deliver by Caesarean are more likely to have complications, including increased pain and recovery time, infection or death. Babies delivered by Caesarean are also more likely to suffer complications.

Women with Caesareans are at increased risk for miscarriage, infertility and complications in later pregnancies. Also, their future birthing choices can be severely limited. Some hospitals (including many in Iowa) and doctors are attempting to ban vaginal births after Caesareans.

Caesareans may be safer than they were 20 years ago, but that does not make them safer than a vaginal birth. C-sections are major surgery, and they should be reserved for times when there is a true medical indication. I encourage all pregnant women to educate themselves on how to avoid a Caesarean and how to have the safest and most satisfying birth possible.

April is Cesarean Awareness Month, and the ICAN website notes:

What is Cesarean Awareness Month? An internationally recognized month of awareness about the impact of cesarean sections on mothers, babies, and families worldwide. It’s about educating yourself to the pros and cons of major abdominal surgery and the possibilities for healthy birth afterwards as well as educating yourself for prevention of cesarean section.

Cesarean awareness is for mothers who are expecting or who might choose to be in the future. It’s for daughters who don’t realize what choices are being taken away from them. It’s for scientists studying the effects of cesareans and how birth impacts our lives. It’s for grandmothers who won’t be having more children but are questioning the abdominal pains and adhesions causing damage 30 years after their cesareans.

CESAREANS are serious. There is no need for a ‘catchy phrase’ to tell us that this is a mainstream problem. It affects everyone. One in three American women every year have surgery to bring their babies into the world. These women have lifelong health effects, impacting the families that are helping them in their healing, impacting other families through healthcare costs and policies, and bringing back those same lifelong health effects to the children they bring into this world.

Be aware. Read. Learn. Ask questions. Get informed consent. Be your own advocate for the information you need to know.

There is lots of information on the ICAN website, so if you or your partner or your friend is pregnant, I encourage you to check it out. C-sections can be lifesaving procedures, but it makes sense to take reasonable steps to avoid having unnecessary surgery.

The ICAN of Central Iowa website has statistics comparing c-section rates in the largest Iowa counties and hospitals.

If you want to avoid a cesarean birth unless it is medically necessary, ask about c-section rates when you are choosing a provider.

Don’t induce labor without medical need (for instance, because you hit your due date, or because you don’t want to go into labor over a weekend), because trying to induce a cervix that isn’t ripe is more likely to lead to “failure to progress” and a resulting c-section.

Consider getting a certified doula to help with childbirth education during pregnancy and to support the mother during labor. The website of Doulas of North America explains the benefits of having a doula:

Women have complex needs during childbirth and the weeks that follow. In addition to medical care and the love and companionship provided by their partners, women need consistent, continuous reassurance, comfort, encouragement and respect. They need individualized care based on their circumstances and preferences.

DONA International doulas are educated and experienced in childbirth and the postpartum period. We are prepared to provide physical (non-medical), emotional and informational support to women and their partners during labor and birth, as well as to families in the weeks following childbirth. We offer a loving touch, positioning and comfort measures that make childbearing women and families feel nurtured and cared for.

Numerous clinical studies have found that a doula’s presence at birth

   * tends to result in shorter labors with fewer complications

   * reduces negative feelings about one’s childbirth experience

   * reduces the need for pitocin (a labor-inducing drug), forceps or vacuum extraction and cesareans

   * reduces the mother’s request for pain medication and/or epidurals

Research shows parents who receive support can:

   * Feel more secure and cared for

   * Are more successful in adapting to new family dynamics

   * Have greater success with breastfeeding

   * Have greater self-confidence

   * Have less postpartum depression

   * Have lower incidence of abuse

Click through to find links to some research. Dads, don’t worry about the doula trying to take your place during labor. My husband is a huge advocate for doulas. She doesn’t do your job–she just helps the mother with practical advice based on training and the experience of attending many births. She will not freak out to see the mother in pain, and she will be able to reassure both parents if panic sets in while labor is progressing normally.

I know women who would have ended up with c-sections if not for their doulas. In one case, the baby was presenting with the cheek rather than with the crown of the head. The medical staff were convinced a c-section was the only way to get that baby out, but the doula encouraged the mother to try leaning and squatting in some different positions during and between contractions. After a few tries, the baby shifted, and the rest of the labor was over in less than 20 minutes.

When I was in college nearly 20 years ago, I remember reading an article in the Des Moines Register about the rising rate of births by cesarian-sections in Iowa. At some rural hospitals, the rate was approaching 25 percent, and that was alarming to some doctors.

Now almost a third of all births in Iowa are by c-section, and in some counties that figure is above 40 percent.

During the past week, the Des Moines Register, Cedar Rapids Gazette and several other newspapers  published this piece from the Associated Press about the rising rate of cesarean births, which quotes several women in Linn County and Johnson County.

Unfortunately, the article does a poor job of assessing the causes of the this trend and ignores the most significant problems associated with unnecessary c-sections. I explain why after the jump.

What else is new?

It’s not just that women hold different, lower-paying jobs. There is still a lot of gender inequality in some fields:

The report showed little pay inequality in fields such at architectural and engineering, business and finance, and computer and mathematical science careers.

However, in other professions such as education, healthcare, management and sales careers, the gap is between gender pay is wider.

As some Clinton supporters at MyDD never tire of reminding me, Iowa and Mississippi are the only two states that have never elected a woman governor, senator or Congressional representative.

Over at Iowa Independent, Douglas Burns wrote a feature on Ann Selzer, pollster for the Des Moines Register. She commented:

“I’m rather stymied by Iowa’s failure to elect a woman,” Selzer said. She chalks it up to lack of strong candidates of that gender so far rather than any deep-seeded sexism among Iowa natives.

Democrats are clearly not to blame for this problem. We have nominated two women for governor and many women for Congress. We’ve also nominated women to many statewide offices, and some of those, like Bonnie Campbell and Patty Judge, have been elected.

I think one issue is that we’ve got a lot of long-serving incumbents here, and rarely have we had open seats. Sheila McGuire ran for an open Congressional seat in 1994, but that was in the most Republican district in Iowa. Every other woman I can think of who has run for Congress in Iowa has had to face off against an incumbent. As we know, more than 90 percent of incumbents are reelected to Congress.

Almost every ten years, Iowa loses a Congressional district, which means that even if an incumbent retires, there may not be an open seat available.

Roxanne Conlin ran for governor when the seat was open in 1982, but perhaps there was some backlash against the Equal Rights Amendment at that time. She also was not able to beat back the “Taxanne” message coming from the right-wing.

I believe that many women elected from other states benefit from belonging to a political dynasty. Some states have elected exactly one woman to Congress, and that woman happens to be the widow, daughter or grand-daughter of a long-serving incumbent. For instance, I think we can all agree that Stephanie Herseth would not have won an election in South Dakota without the Herseth family name. We haven’t had any women in that situation in Iowa.

About five years ago I attended a political science conference and heard Stephen Ansolabahere speak. He has published great work on Americans’ voting behavior.

I asked him about Iowa’s reluctance to elect women to high office. One point he made, which surprised me, is that of the 50 states, Iowa has the largest percentage of the population living in small towns and rural areas.

Nebraska, by contrast, is one of the most “urban” states, with a very large percentage of the population living in the Omaha or Lincoln metro areas and a much smaller percentage living in the smaller towns.

Perhaps the “political culture” of Iowa’s smaller towns creates a less friendly environment for women candidates. Most of the women in the Iowa legislature come from urban or suburban districts.

I think that the lack of opportunity for women to run for open seats is a bigger issue, though.

What do you think?

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that women candidates may have an even tougher time defeating incumbents, but that isn’t the case just in Iowa. Someone, and I’m sorry I can’t remember who, studied 20 “serious Democratic challenges” to Republican-held seats in the U.S. House in 2006. A serious challenger was defined as someone who had raised at least $1 million by the end of June 2006. Of those 20 challengers, 13 were men and 7 were women.

On election day 2006, 12 of the 13 men on that list defeated the Republican incumbent, while 6 of the 7 women lost (the exception was Kirsten Gillibrand in New York).

In each case, you can construct a narrative for why the woman lost that has nothing to do with gender. However, looking at the totality of the outcomes in 2006, I think we can posit that the U.S. electorate is slightly more resistant to women challengers to Congressional incumbents.

SECOND UPDATE: I found this piece by Chris Bowers. He also wondered why Democratic women did so poorly in the 2006 elections. He noted that in the 30 Republican-held districts that were top targets for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and EMILY’s list, 21 of the Democratic candidates were men, and 9 were women. (Some of those were open seats, not challenges to incumbents.)

In those races, 20 of the 21 men won, while 8 of the 9 women lost. Again, it appears that American voters are more resistant to electing women to Congress, which could make the difference in a close race.