A year ago June, the United States Supreme Court published its decision in the case of United States v. Windsor, […]
Sunday Morning Medicine
By Jacqueline Antonovich
-A brief history of the toilet.
-Want to smell like a Viking?
-How to be a beauty, circa 1787.
-Heroin addiction, then and now.
-Can a cholera vaccine stop an epidemic?
Adventures in the Archives…Of Our Lives
This semester, I taught an introductory-level course on historical methods. One of our tasks was to consider an array of historical materials. We read novels and memoirs; watched documentaries and Hollywood films; read speeches and government policies; looked at architectural plans and advertisements for suburban homes. We even watched an episode of Star Trek. Throughout this exploration, a theme we kept coming back to was how people of the past documented their daily lives. This prompted us to consider how historians of the future will examine our daily lives. What sources will they use? What sources are we leaving behind?
Make Love Not War: Changing the Conversation on Abortion
By Jacqueline Antonovich
Things have been pretty hectic lately for the folks who work and study in Lane Hall, the small, historic building at the far end of University of Michigan’s central campus. Over the past two months the building that houses the Women’s Studies Department and the Institute for Research on Women and Gender (IRWG) has been the target of anti-choice protesters. Lane Hall has been peppered with anti-choice leaflets, the main entry steps have been vandalized with chalk, and protesters have picketed the sidewalks in front of the building. Staff in Lane Hall have also been fielding phone calls from angry activists, alumni, and others. As Debra M. Schwartz, senior public relations representative for IRWG told me recently, “Some of us in Lane Hall and a few other university offices have been distracted from our routine work. But, in general, the protest has scarcely been noticed on campus. It feels like a tempest in a teapot.”
Sunday Morning Medicine
By Jacqueline Antonovich
-The latest moral panic.
-The case for reparations.
-The history of stranger danger.
-On history, racism, and ice cream.
-The history of the men’s white shirt.
-Century-old time capsule mystery solved.
Announcing the First Ever Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Berkshire Conference
By Heather Munro Prescott
Last year I reported on the gender gap in Wikipedia and efforts by women’s historians and others to remedy it. To recap: Several years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, collaborated on a study of Wikipedia’s contributor base and found that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of thousands of contributors are women. These sobering statistics gained widespread publicity in a January 2011 New York Times article by Noam Cohen and an ensuing flurry of media coverage in various venues, including Mother Jones, the Atlantic, and NPR. Blogger Tenured Radical (aka Claire Potter) reported on gender bias in Wikipedia in an article titled “Prikipedia? Or, Looking for the Women on Wikipedia.”
If the IUD is an Abortifacient, Then So Is Chemotherapy and Lunch Meat
When I criticized Hobby Lobby for its attempts to evade the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, a friend of mine thoughtfully replied, […]
Punishing Pushy Women: Gender and Power in the Newsroom
Until last week, Jill Abramson, the executive editor of the New York Times, was considered the nineteenth most powerful woman in […]
Sunday Morning Medicine
By Jacqueline Antonovich
-E. coli and bacterial sex.
-Rare footage of FDR walking.
-Leprosy vaccine scientist dies.
-Poverty among Holocaust survivors.
-Can the measles vaccine cure cancer?
-The racist roots of common phrases.
-The 19th-century vegetable version of Viagra.
Is Contraception “Health Care”? The Hobby Lobby Case
by Lara Freidenfelds
As we wait for the Supreme Court to render a decision on the Hobby Lobby contraception coverage case, I have been pondering the historical relationship between contraception and health care. Is it obvious that contraception should be considered part of “health care?” And would it be possible to decide that it isn’t, but still make it affordable and available? This case seems, to me, to rest largely on whether we think contraception counts as health care. The justices are wary of an outcome that would allow employers to decline to pay for blood transfusions or routine vaccinations, even if an employer might genuinely have religious reservations about those procedures. Those are clearly health care. Contraception, though, seems different. It is prescribed for healthy people, and it does not cure or prevent disease (at least not directly).
