The gray area of ​​women's health is a path to progress

Gray is one of my favorite colors. Even though it is formed from a mixture of black and white, it is considered “achromatic” or “without color.” It is traditionally considered neither masculine nor feminine, leading to an element of ambiguity.

We use the term “gray area” to describe ambiguity. In medicine, it gives clinicians the opportunity to think outside the norm while treating patients. Patients may exhibit signs and symptoms that do not fit neatly into established disease. In this case, traditional approaches may not work.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the world of women's health. For years, one political party has been seen as a champion for protecting and promoting women's health over the other. State and federal laws and court decisions impact the delivery of care and the funding of research and technological advances, making it easier to identify adversaries. But it may not be that simple.

Reproductive health care, in particular, has been politicized by this approach. Rather than building on decades of work, women's health has become a target for one side to destroy or enhance. It's ironic that there's a common saying in the United States about loving “baseball, mom, and apple pie,” but apparently mom's health care isn't.

Over the years I have seen rays of light.

In April 1977, Rep. Elizabeth Holzman (D.N.Y.) and Rep. Margaret Heckler (R-Mass.) convened a bipartisan group of women legislators that later formed the Women's Issues Caucus. Over the decades, they have passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978), the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act (1990), and the Mammography Quality Standards Act (1992), among many other landmark laws. , has defended the Violence Against Women Act (1994). . They also codified the Office of Women's Health across government.

In 1990, during the administration of President George H.W. A turning point in health occurred.

This was followed by the establishment of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office on Women's Health in 1991 to coordinate through policy, education, and innovative programs. That same year, under the leadership of Dr. Bernadine Healy, the NIH launched the Women's Health Initiative, a $625 million study to address health problems that cause morbidity and mortality in postmenopausal women. launched.

An even more groundbreaking program in women's health came in 1996, when Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced legislation to create an avant-garde National Women's Health Center modeled after the Veterans Administration Center. was established through bipartisan support. Healthcare, research, education, and leadership opportunities in women's health.

The early 21st century brought exciting developments in women's health across agencies, including NASA. In 2002, NASA supported the first of a 20-year study on the effects of gender and sexuality on adaptation to space, adopting NIH inclusion language for clinical trials, allowing both male and female astronauts to A new “assisted reproductive technology'' application policy was introduced.

After the George W. Bush administration, private sector support for women's health increased with the establishment of the Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health and other women's health centers and service lines. However, government designation and support remains a catalyst for innovation.

President Biden recently issued an executive order to advance women's health research and innovation at the NIH and across federal agencies. The President asked Congress for $12 billion in funding for new interdisciplinary research agendas and the creation of national research centers. This is in addition to ARPA-H's new $100 million Sprint for Women's Health program, designed to accelerate research and improve health outcomes from a sex and gender perspective. This will lead to commercialization of the product.

A skeptic might ask, what is the motivation behind this behavior? Is it politically driven to co-opt disenfranchised women voters angered by the abolition of reproductive health freedoms? While this may be true, this is not the first time a president has made a bold decision for reasons beyond scientific or humanitarian objectives.

Furthermore, it will take years to establish the legacy of these measures, which will occur during the next administration. Consider the space program. It was enacted by President Kennedy, but the United States landed on the moon during the Nixon administration under the new Congress.

We can live in a gray state where all parties can once again work together to improve the health and well-being of all Americans. We may not agree on everything, but everyone will benefit in the long run. It's that simple.

Saralyn Mark is the author of Stellar Medicine: A Journey Through the Universe of Women's Health and founder and president of iGIANT (Gender/Sex Influences on Innovation and New Technologies) and SolaMed Solutions, LLC. She is a former senior health policy advisor for the White House, Department of Health and Human Services, and NASA.