Two studies crossed my desk recently – okay, actually about a million studies crossed my desk – but these two had to do with pregnancy and HIV.  What do you want first, good news or bad?  The first study (which you can read about here), found that 57% of HIV positive women in Ontario not only wish, but intend to become pregnant.  This is good news, because it means that these women are getting the message that they can become mothers and deliver healthy babies, despite living with HIV.  The “bad news” study is one from Thailand.  Of 148 HIV positive women surveyed, 59% had been told by healthcare workers that they could not have a baby.  Twenty percent were denied antiretroviral therapy until they began taking birth control, and nine women were forced to end their pregnancies.

For women diagnosed with HIV during their child-bearing years, the question of whether they can have kids is bound to come up (even if it’s something they don’t want to do).  It is ever-present on web forums and discussion boards, and I think it’s completely understandable that women feel anxiety about it.  There is so much information to collect and absorb and anybody who is newly diagnosed will feel some anxiety about how HIV might affect their plans and dreams.  The good news for women living with HIV is that taking antiretroviral treatment and avoiding breastfeeding can reduce the likelihood of mother-to-child transmission to less than 2%. 

Of course, avoiding mother-to-child transmission is only half the battle.  Many women have questions about whether they will be well enough to raise a child.  The truth is, all women ask this question before becoming mothers.  None of us know what tomorrow holds – whether we will be there to watch our children grow into adulthood and beyond.  We can only work hard to live a safe and healthy life, and hope for the best.  Again, thanks to antiretroviral treatment, women are living long, full lives with HIV.  So, even this completely understandable (and maybe unavoidable) worry doesn’t need to be an additional barrier because of HIV.

Deciding to become a mother is a huge step for any woman, regardless of her HIV status, and there will be many things to consider – work situation, support network, life plans, lifestyle change … and the list goes on!  For women living with HIV, the virus will be one of these things to consider, and it might even be at the top of the list.  The only advice we can give is to make sure you are dealing with somebody who knows what they’re talking about, has current information, and respects your right (and ability) to make choices about your body and future.

At Positive Women’s Network, we support HIV positive women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant.  Check out our pamphlet: HIV and Pregnancy – Yes you can, which has recently been translated into Spanish and is being distributed in Mexico and South America.  In British Columbia, we recommend that women living with HIV contact Oaktree Clinic to talk about having a baby safely.  To those women who decide to go ahead and do it, Happy Fertility!

-Miriam

It’s week two, and I still have Olympic fever. I’ll admit I still have some mixed feelings about the Olympics, but I’m not alone in that. Politics aside, I love to watch the actual sporting events, see the nuances of expression on the athletes’ faces as they anticipate, compete, and then react to their own performances. There’s elation, disappointment, glory, rage. Amazing.

Aside from the competitions, I’ve also got my eye on Pride House, a public space for queer athletes and their supporters to gather. There has never been an official space for queer athletes at any other Olympics, and organizers of Pride House at the 2010 Winter Olympics are hoping it will be a statement about the outlook of British Columbia and of Canada in general. It’s an amazing thing to have a space that defies homophobia in sport.

Pride House acknowledges that there are queer athletes at the games, even if they don’t want to come out. It’s understandable- these athletes, have spent their lives dedicated to their sport, and the Olympics are one of the goals they’ve set for themselves. To talk about their sexuality in a largely homophobic arena could spell doom. Coaches could desert them. Teammates could turn on them. Future deals in endorsements could go sour. Everything they’ve known about their lives so far could be compromised by coming out and being honest about their sexuality.

I’d like to think things can be changed. Hockey, one of the most macho (and Canadian) sports of all has seemed to have softening moments. When Brendan Burke, son of Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke came out (and people certainly reacted to it), his father was supportive. While acknowledging his son would not have an easy road, particularly in the field of sports, Burke vowed to support him. Since Brendan’s sudden death earlier this month in a car crash, his father has said he’ll continue to fight homophobia in sport and carry on his son’s work.

Some folks may argue that sports isn’t about sexuality, it’s about competition. But it is about sexuality if you have to hide who you are to play. It is about sexuality if the outcome of your event is influenced by how people perceive your sexuality. And homophobic commentators during these Olympics Games (for all our liberality, Canadians did it too) have certainly proven that sexuality is an issue in sport. Coming out in such an outwardly heterosexual world is an act of courage. It carves a space for others to do so too.

Homophobia and AIDS phobia are linked. Both inhibit people from being honest about who they are and the complexities of their lives. In a world fascinated with celebrities of all kinds, sports heroes don’t escape scrutiny. We want to know what they wear and how they like their lattes. But if they share who they love, and it’s not the heterosexual norm, that’s a different story. I want that ending to change and I think Pride House is an indication that slowly, we’re moving in that direction. Let the enlightenment begin.

- Janet

This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.

A recent headline about humanpapillomavirus (HPV) made me glad, because it underlines the importance of talking about all kinds of safer sex. Researchers are finding HPV DNA in various tumours where the cancer is found in mucosal tissue, such as the nasal cavities or the throat. The connection between oral sex and HPV that leads to these cancers can be used as another argument in favour of the HPV vaccine, which has been controversial. I support parents’ rights to make decisions about what vaccines their kids receive, but am also for illuminating the prevalence of HPV.   

HPV is one of the most common and easily spread sexually transmitted infections. Even using barriers like condoms and dental dams might not prevent it, as skin-to-skin contact is all that’s needed for transmission. A recent study from McGill University found over half of sexually active young adult couples were infected with HPV. Forty-four percent had the types that can lead to cancer. For people who are becoming sexually active at a younger age and racking up more sexual partners, these trends are likely to continue. Enter the HPV vaccine.

The HPV vaccine currently available (another has just been approved by Health Canada) was developed to protect against four strains of HPV, two of which can lead to cervical cancer and two of which can lead to genital warts. At present, it’s being offered to girls and young women aged 9-26, ideally before they become sexually active. Once women have become sexually active and been exposed to HPV, the benefits won’t be as dramatic as they are for unexposed women. (Manufacturers are trying to market the angle  that women won’t have been exposed to all four strains the vaccine protects against, so vaccination in the 27-40 age range could be helpful and cost-effective. They haven’t convinced the powers that be just yet). Studies are ongoing- Oak Tree Clinic is one of the sites exploring how the vaccine affects HIV+ girls and women.

There has been discussion about vaccinating boys too. They aren’t currently offered the vaccine, but you can see where they could benefit. Less HPV circulating in the population means less likelihood of exposure, infection and need for eventual treatment, etc. Research on that is also in the works.

Some parents have held off vaccinating their girls, citing that vaccination might seem to be a “go to it” directive for sex at a young age. As a parent and sex educator, I disagree. I think one can instead look at it as an opportunity to talk to our kids about different tools to keep them healthy when they decide to have sex. Depending on what we want to teach our kids about when those sexual relationships might begin is an indivdual choice, but approach is important. Studies have found that religion- based abstinence programs often fail, but abstinence programs that provide kids with negotiation and problem solving skills have greater success at delaying sex.

Whether parents choose to vaccinate or not, the debate about the HPV vaccine is a great opportunity to talk about the variations of sexual behaviour and about personal safety. It’s a chance to talk about safe practices and the responsibilities and risks that can accompany the pleasures of sex. There are age appropriate ways to do so. (If you’re not sure where to start,  see Meg Hickling’s fantastic selection of books.) using the HPV vaccine to talk about healthy sexuality and self-esteem sex with girls (and their brothers) isn’t a directive to have sex- it’s a responsible thing to do. 

- Janet

This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.

Right around the time this post goes online, the Olympic torch will be running by my house.  I’ll be standing on the corner with my camera and pretending that’s not my dog barking in the window, driven insane by all the “trespassers”.    I don’t know what these two weeks will hold for me and my family, but for many people – especially athletes and visitors – the Olympics will be one big party.  If you’re not somebody who regularly participates in international sporting events, you might not know that there’s an awful lot of hanky-panky and partying that goes on.

Unfortunately, when people are visiting another place, feeling excited and euphoric, with easy access to alcohol, drugs and parties, they don’t always set themselves the same boundaries as they would at home.  The numbers show that the incidence of sexual assault and violence against women increases at international sporting events like this one.  With more people engaging in risk activities (like heavy drinking and having unprotected vaginal or anal sex), many end up bringing home a not-so-nice souvenir in the form of a sexually transmitted infection (STI).  That’s why the Vancouver health promotion and harm reduction community has banded together to present Safe Games 2010 – a visitor’s one-stop on-line shop for information on staying safe and partying responsibly during the Games.

In addition to providing online information and links to local agencies (including PWN), Safe Games will be visible at events and in the media, distributing Safe Games kits, including condoms, lube and information about how and where visitors can get help if they find themselves in a pinch.  Condoms have been distributed at every Olympic Games since Barcelona 1992.  70,000 condoms were quickly used up at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney and another 20,000 had to be brought in.  100,000 were distributed at Salt Lake City 2002, 130,000 at Athens 2004 and Beijing authorities distributed a whopping 400,000 (100,000 of them for athletes).  I am sure not everybody guages the worth of a city by how many condoms they can distribute when they host the Olympics … but I do.  The visibility of a safer sex message and availability of condoms at large, high-profile sporting events has the power to reduce HIV transmission and save lives.

Another initiative I’ve been following is Safe Vibe.  A campaign by WAVAW (Women Against Violence Against Women), Safe Vibe aims to build a movement to keep predators out of bars.  Check it out.  For more on HIV and Sport, see the last issue of our newsletter The Positive Side.  And to all you visitors to this beautiful city – happy (responsible) hanky-panky, and sorry about the barking dog!

-Miriam

This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.

“Our gender (as transgender and transsexual people) is … invalidated, insulted, and hated. We are denied personhood because our gender is not heteronormative enough: Proper men do not want to become women, and proper women do not become men….”  writes Lisa, of Questioning Transphobia.  

Lisa’s words well describe the discrimination that many trans women face: the message that they’re not "right" in a fundamental way, or so says mainstream society. When it comes to women-specific services, the discrimination against trans women can be particularly pronounced, and many trans women are left without services because they aren’t "women enough."

There’s a history of struggle when it comes to including all women in women-focussed services, and the feminist movement overall. It’s not just trans issues- race, class, sexual identity and ability have also been conflicts in determining what the issues are for "all" women. (There are many debates on this, but for a piece on the intersection of race, class, sexuality and trans issues, check out this one on conflict at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival). The issue that’s brought up in relation to including trans women is the idea that trans women were brought up as males, and theoretically carry a world view of male privilege. The ringing question is, how can trans women understand what it’s like to deal with the oppression of being a girl/ woman when they were brought up as males? It’s an argument that has been used to bar trans women from events and services.

Vancouverite Kimberly Nixon famously took on the issue when she challenged the Rape Relief Collective’s refusal to allow her to become a counsellor because they felt she didn’t have the necessary life experience. She took her Human Rights complaint  all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. She eventually lost, but did contribute to the awareness of trans issues among women’s groups and services across the country, creating a lot of discussion about discrimination and inclusion.

Ongoing and ever present discrimination can contribute to risk behaviours when it comes to HIV and other STIs.  Not only do people eschew safer sex, making themselves vulnerable to infection, they also turn to alcohol and drugs as a coping strategy. HIV+ Janice Rodriguez writes candidly about discrimination, violence, and fleeing to the streets after too much brutality at home.

While trans women face daily discrimination, there is cause for some triumph in the form of two new resources in the Lower Mainland. The first is particularly sweet: Lu’s Pharmacy for Women has now opened its doors a little wider to include trans women. When Lu’s opened last summer, they wouldn’t serve trans women. There was reaction to this locally, and in web communities all over the world. The Vancouver Women’s Health Collective recently confirmed that Lu’s has changed this policy. We’re very happy to hear it. 

Additional good news in the community is that Vision Quest Recovery Society will be operating Hart House, a recovery centre for trans women. Amidst the growing chaos resulting from budget cuts to many organizations, it’s great to hear of something going in the right direction. 

Positive Women’s Network is trans-inclusive- all positive women are welcome here. We’re glad to have additional resources in the community and hope this is another step in breaking down barriers that exist for trans women. 

- Janet

This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.

When I was a little girl, I dreamed of becoming rich and famous so that I could single-handedly save the world.  At the top of my “world that needs saving” list was a little Caribbean country called Haiti—“the poorest country in the world”, as I had been told.  I am no longer a little girl, and instead of being rich and famous, I work in the humble HIV prevention field.  While I no longer believe it’s a one-woman gig, Haiti is still near the top of my “world that needs saving” list.  Haiti has the highest HIV infection rates in the Caribbean and is second only to the worst affected sub-Saharan African countries on a world scale.  The January 12th earthquake is being called one of the most devastating natural disasters in human history, and we are all bombarded with news and images.  In hopes of blogging something original, I have tried to focus my attention on how the HIV/AIDS community is responding to the quake.

A bit of history … The first Latin American country to gain independence and the first black-led republic following its 1804 slave rebellion, Haiti is a nation with a proud and rebellious past.  But a string of oppressive dictators have left the country without infrastructure and plagued by poverty and corruption from which it has not been able to recover.  And now this …

Haiti was the first developing country to document cases of AIDS, in 1983, when an organization called GHESKIO (a French acronym for Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections) published their experiences in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Since then, the Gheskio clinic has been named a “Public Utility” by the Haitian government and is recognized internationally as a centre of excellence, leading the way as a research and training centre.  According to a fabulous piece by Ianthe Jeanne Dugan, published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, Gheskio is one of Haiti’s few world-class institutions.  The clinic, headed by Haitian-born infectious disease specialist Dr. Jean Pape, played a role in securing a safe blood supply, and has developed several prevention campaigns, that seem to be having some effect.  According to the UNAIDS 2008 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic, HIV prevalence among pregnant women dropped from 5.9% in 1996 to 3.1% in 2004 and has remained stable since then.  The Gheskio pharmacy tracks whether clients have picked up their antiretroviral treatment, and if they have not, an outreach worker is sent to their home.

“The earthquake has set us back about five years,” says Dr. Pape, yet Gheskio’s disaster contingency plan has been remarkably effective.  Radio ads announced to the population that the clinic is still open for business and told people where they could go to pick up their HIV meds.  Many of the staff found their way to work, some walking miles through rubble and chaos to get there.  The clinic has been able to see 85% of their usual caseload since the quake.  What struck me the most in reading Dugan’s article is the fact that the clinic, which has suffered an estimated $10 million worth of damage, is also treating more than 2,000 earthquake victims.  While making sure Haiti’s HIV positive population get their meds is the number one priority, the clinic has put all research initiatives on hold so that they can focus on treating and providing for the injured.

To read more about Gheskio and their amazing earthquake response, visit their website.  They need $300,000 immediately for food and medicine, and will except donations of $1 to $2000 using PayPal.

-Miriam

This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.

I’ve been reminded recently that grief is a huge thing. That might sound strange, working in the field I do, where grief can be an ongoing presence and often is. HIV diagnosis can prompt grief for any number of reasons- an abrupt change in expectations and hopes, recognition of multiple losses in relationships and health. Of course death brings with it many emotions, and often grief is at the forefront. Grief is an inevitable part of life, and a particularly inevitable part of being in the HIV community. Before the dramatic changes in life expectancy that HIV treatments brought to the industrialized world, deaths were far more common and frequent. Grieving was woven into the HIV community by necessity.

We recently set up a memorial space where PWN members can mark their grief. It’s a small corner in the PWN drop-in, a space where women can record thoughts or pictures, light a candle. Making this kind of space, however small, has been an issue for years. We’ve recognized the passing of members in different ways, and talked about a permanent space for it. Some members have felt strongly about recognizing those who’ve died, but others feel it’s a depressing thing to face every time they come in. It hasn’t been easy to settle. Both perspectives are understandable.

But HIV is a life threatening condition that causes people great distress and having a place to recognize that is important. Granted, HIV can be treated, making it less of a life-threatening condition than it used to be, but I must add, for some. Access to treatment is an issue, even here in industrialized Canada. (See page 194 of the Pathways to Healing Report, released in 2009). But the fact that it needs lifelong treatment and vigilance makes it a life challenge that can have grief associated with it.

And women don’t just die of HIV related conditions, either. There are other factors that can lead to a woman’s death- violence against women, the agony of addictions, inaccessible medical care. HIV can be tightly woven into these conditions. Having a place to open up about losing someone can create a safe place to talk. Without a place to open up, or safe people to do it with, the emotions of grief can haunt us all, and break us into pieces.

Pos blogger "fogcityjohn" recently wrote on meeting someone for the first time and spontaneously recognizing a moment of connection through shared grief. It was just a moment, and he regretted that he moved on quickly and didn’t do more to honour it. He wrote, “In grieving, we… honor those who have touched us deeply.” The memorial corner is part of the drop in, just as other parts are: shared meals, shared health challenges and solutions, births of babies, new chapters in life. It’s part of our community.

- Janet

This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.

I want to like Obama as much as the next progressive-minded person, but it seems to me he’s dropped the ball big time on some pretty key campaign promises—troops out of Afghanistan and healthcare reform including reduced cost, improved quality and full access.  So, it was a pleasant surprise this holiday season when Mr. President delivered two nice big packages to the AIDS service movement.  While these two major changes directly affect US law, they both have a significant effect for people living with HIV worldwide, as well as for international prevention efforts.

On December 18th, congress voted to lift the ban on Federal funding for needle exchange programs, while the new laws allowing people with HIV to enter the US came into effect on January 4th.  The lifting of the travel ban has had lots of attention in the media and blogosphere; the lifting of the federal ban on needle exchange funding, not so much.  Of course, we enthusiastically applaud both moves, but I have been anxious to learn what these changes will look like in practice—what effect do they have in the US and around the world?  Where’s the “fine print”?  Is there a catch?  I found some answers, both good and not-so-good.

The lifting of the travel ban means that an HIV test will no longer be part of the medical examination that is required of people applying for residency in the United States.  It also means that somebody applying for a visa or attempting to cross the border cannot be turned away simply because they have HIV.  You could say it’s a good ol’ fashioned case of American DADT—they won’t ask and you don’t have to tell.  But what about those visitors who are already flagged in the system as HIV positive, who have already applied for visas and been denied, or who have been banned while trying to cross the border?  It is possible these people will have to take additional steps to apply to have their entry ban waived or overridden.  It is also possible that border guards will take issue with HIV positive foreigners trying to enter without meds for fear they are somehow trying to take advantage of the stellar American healthcare system (!?!) and get meds there.  This could be a problem for all the healthy HIV positive people out there who aren’t taking meds.  It remains to be seen how exactly things will pan out.

On to US needle exchanges … Basically, it has been left to state governments to fund (or not fund) these harm reduction programs which have been proven time and again (even here in Vancouver) to curb the spread of both HIV and HepC.  They also play a vital role in connecting injection drug users with the healthcare and support services that open the door to recovery from addiction.  While many states have chosen to (mostly under)fund syringe programs, more conservative states (including states like Florida and Nevada, who badly need them!) have opted out.  There has been no possibility of federal funding, since it was banned in 1988.  Now the possibility is there, but here’s the potential catch … no funding has been promised.  Let’s see if any becomes available.  Meanwhile, the ban had a significant influence on international AIDS prevention programming, because guess who holds the purse strings for many of the AIDS prevention efforts around the world?  You got it, USAID.  Hopefully this new “acceptance” of needle exchanges by the US government will mean other governments have more freedom to direct US funding to harm reduction programs.  As always, time will tell.

-Miriam

One of our favourite online information sources is The Body – The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource.  They have an excellent high-traffic Ask the Experts forum where twelve HIV specialists (many of them doctors) answer the public’s questions.  A recent thread got me thinking about the notion of risk.  Dr. Robert Frascino (Dr. Bob) calls it the QTND – question that never dies – what’s the risk of getting or passing on HIV by giving or receiving oral sex?  “Sometimes I wish there were a universal factsheet” writes Confused London Boy, “[…] saying when and in what situation a condom should be used”.  “Where is the line?”

Dr. Bob responds to CLB the same way we always respond, reiterating that the risk of HIV transmission via oral sex is very low, but not completely non-existent.  He also clearly outlines a few of the other risk factors, which can increase the risk of transmission: the presence of other STIs, oral trauma or gingivitis, the viral load of the HIV positive partner and whether they are on treatment, etc.  There is no line; “in reality what exists is more of a zone”.  Some people choose to take a “no avoidable risk” approach and always use a condom or dental dam for oral sex with an HIV positive partner.  Some don’t.

One angry answer-seeker had written to Dr. Bob on Christmas day, claiming that he contracted HIV from oral sex and demanding that Dr. Bob retract his assertion that oral sex is a low risk activity “and take a more strident stance that Oral Sex [sic] is a significant risk”.  (It turns out this man actually hasn’t taken an HIV test “yet”, but he’s pretty sure the scratchy throat he’s feeling is caused by HIV …)  Dr. Bob basically says, no, because that would be lying, and defends himself for consistently presenting the risk as it stands statistically (very low), providing as much information as possible about risk factors, considerations, etc.  But he considers it a decision for each individual to make with their sex partners.

There have been a handful of studies on this issue, summarized in 2007 by researchers from Imperial College in London. (Dr. Bob describes these studies here.)  The results all indicate very low risk (with six out of ten studies reporting no HIV transmission via oral sex), but the researchers agree that it is extremely difficult to tell whether somebody really did get HIV from oral sex, because most people don’t engage in oral sex only.  Among the handful of people who make the on-line claim that they contracted HIV from oral sex, it is completely possible that some of them really did.  These people might be one in a million, making up that tiny little statistical probability that makes us say “very low risk”.  For them though, becoming infected with HIV is not “one in a million” … it’s 100%.  You either have HIV or you don’t and if you do it’s a big thing to live and deal with.  But this is exactly the dilemma that intrigues me about statistical probabilities and the notion of risk.  Statistical probability is a scientific measurement of risk, but it is definitely not an adequate indicator of personal impact.

We take risks every day, some smaller, some greater—driving a car, crossing the street, skiing, eating in a restaurant.  The trick is to be informed, avoid unnecessary risks and take precautions when it makes sense.  This navigating of risks is something that each person must do for herself.  As professionals, we can inform you of the facts—the statistical risk and other factors—and we can even strongly caution you against high risk activities, such as sharing needles and having unprotected vaginal or anal sex with somebody you cannot guarantee is STI-free.  But ultimately, you decide what your risk threshold is.  Of course, it’s also important to consider whether something is putting other people at risk …

To make your own decision about oral sex, definitely take a look at The Body’s oral sex chapter and search for “oral sex” on our You Should Know website, dedicated to the sexual health of women after 40.  And remember that there are other, more common STIs that are transmitted by oral sex, including Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, both types of Herpes and Syphilis.  The risk of getting or passing on one of these diseases is greatly reduced by using a condom or dental dam when giving or receiving oral sex.

-Miriam

This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.

Many years ago I read an essay about women in Vietnam working to rebuild connections and communities after the Americans pulled out. Someone criticized their efforts, saying they were as useless as water. But the women responded that water is a great force: just look what it can to do stone over time. I may not have the quote perfectly cited, but it captures the idea that has stuck with me all these year. I believe in the power of every woman. Even what looks like the smallest gesture is connected to other gestures and actions, and has the capacity to make great change.

We need some great change here at the start of a new year and new decade. Late last year, the World Health Organization reported that HIV is the leading cause of death in women aged 15-44. One of the primary routes of infection is unsafe intercourse. Microbicide research has taken another hit, so a prevention tool that women could use is still beyond science and well beyond widespread distribution worldwide. Unfortunately, challenges to women are widespread, worldwide and kept up daily. As blogger Melissa McEwan says, we live in a culture that perpetuates sexual violence and the myth that women are at fault for it. This attitude is available everywhere – just look around. And seeing that many people still don’t know about safer sex, our work is cut out for us.

I can see some of the challenges, but not all. But I’m not disheartened, because I also see people who are making a difference every day. How did I find out about Melissa McEwan’s blog? Through an email forwarded to me by women (thanks Dalya, thanks Melissa). Even a simple keystroke to send a message on can help shift things.

Happy New Beginnings. Happy change.

- Janet

 This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women’s Network.