Month: May 2022

Eugene Reproductive Health Resources Page

Non-UO Resources Available in Eugene:

  • HIV Alliance-
    • HIV Alliance offers free, confidential OraQuick Rapid Tests (results in 20 minutes). They are currently able to test people in populations with a high prevalence of HIV.
    • Call 866-470-3419  email prevention@allianceor.org to schedule an appointment 
    • 1195 City View Street, Eugene, OR 97402
  • Planned Parenthood Eugene
    • Planned Parenthood offers abortion, birth control, morning-after-pill(emergency contraception), STD testing and treatment, pregnancy testing and services, and other health services. Cost information, including resources for people without insurance, is available on their website or by phone.
    • Call 541-344-9411 or book their appointment online on their Planned Parenthood Eugene-Springfield Health Center page
    • 3579 Franklin Blvd Eugene, OR 97403
  • Northwest Abortion Access Fund
    • The Northwest Abortion Access Fund offers funding directly to clinics for abortion care in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. They also offer travel support getting to and from clinics, and a hotline fun by their advocates.
    • Visit https://nwaafund.org/ or call 1-866-692-2310

 

UO Resources: 

  • Pregnancy tests available in vending machines in the EMU and Knight Library, and students may call a triage nurse to speak about pregnancy testing at 541-346-2770
  • Protection Connection through UHS, with Hot Spots located at:
    • University Health Services lobby
    • EMU (near the restrooms by both Falling Sky and the Fishbowl)
    • Rec Center – near cycling studio 
  • STI Screening and Sexual Well-being Clinic located at University Health Services to get tested for four STIs
  • Free sexual wellness supplies available at the Duck Nest 
  • Emergency contraception(Plan B) available at UO pharmacies

Visit  health.uoregon.edu/sexualhealth for more information

Review: Reducing Inequities Through Participatory Research and Community Development by Kim D. Travers

“by facilitating healthy practice among only the advantaged, inequities are perpetuated”Article linked here

This research article by Kim D. Travers highlights problems with current health education practices, the use of health education for social change as an alternative, and a case study demonstrating the impact of socially oriented education practices. The author describes how traditional health education methods don’t work on communities that aren’t able to put health recommendations into action due to low resources. When only people with enough resources are able to institute health recommendation changes, existing inequalities are perpetuated. An alternative method for health education includes increasing under-resourced communities’ control over their health, which can look like legislative change and community involvement in health issues that impact them. Travers outlines a case study done in a low-income community in Nova Scotia which shows what collective action and community involvement in health issues looks like. The researcher organized a series of conversations within this community which led to identification of problems which most directly impact them, enacting change on the issue, and recognition of collective power within the group. Implications of this study for health education include the need for health education which is more sensitive to and understanding of disadvantaged individuals, and socially oriented educational practices. 

My central takeaway from this article is the power of collective action and community involvement when making public health changes. One quote from the article which sums the purpose of education for social change is to “support people in making their own decisions so that they themselves can decide what is good for them”(pp.345). Using methods such as these which empower people disadvantaged by current health systems and involve them in making change is integral when working in public health.

Written by Lauren King Watt

Biden’s Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities

In January 2021, Biden issued the Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/. However, the executive order is more focused on the question of whether systemic racism exists.
Sec 2 defines equity as “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals,” which is different from what Smalley et al. defined as “equal outcomes” (2020). Smalley et al. also defined equality as equal distribution of resources, which is less effective than the implementation of Smalley et al.’s definition of equity. The executive order seems to define equity as closer to equality, which is less threatening to those in power.
K.B. Smalley, J.C. Warren, & M.I. Fernandez (Eds.). (2020). Health equity: A solutions-focused approach. Springer. doi: 10.1891/9780826177247.
Sec 3 is very vague. It claims to “remove barriers” but does not specify the barriers or how they will be removed.
Sec 4  is focused on the studies that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will perform in order to determine “whether agency policies and actions create or exacerbate barriers to full and equal participation by all eligible individuals.” Rather than implementing solutions to dismantle those barriers, the executive order seems more concerned with the question of whether systemic racism exists.
After 6 months, the OMB will report the “best practices” and “approaches” found in the study. It does not specify if those best practices will be implemented.
Sec 5 focuses on identification of the systemic barriers to resources that underserved populations experience. It does not discuss how those barriers will be dismantled. Sec 5 claims that the studies will determine “whether new policies, regulations, or guidance documents may be necessary to advance equity.” It is obvious that new policies are necessary to advance equity. It should even be questioned. There is already a field of research exploring how marginalized communities are suffering because of policies that exploit them. It is not efficient to conduct another study.
Sec. 8 promises to engage and “consult” with members of underserved communities but does not promise to implement any suggested policies.
The executive order does not seem as productive as it could be and has many potential loopholes. It feels like a way to pacify activists without implementing real change.
Written by Angelica Gondoputro