Birth Control Injection For Men

OK, I admit I did not read the WHOLE article (it's long, and I have a baby stirring in his basket, he's about to wake up and my Internetz time will be up); I saw something on Twitter or Facebook about this the other day, but that article seemed wonky, and I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. This article has, like, sciency-talk in it and stuff.

If this is for real, then... DUDE.

If it IS 100% effective, and reversible, then... DAMN. MonkeyBoy will be strongly encouraged to get this injection when he's 13. He can reverse it when he's ready to have kids, if he and his partner choose to make babies.

And speaking of, he's awake. So I'll leave you with the article: The Revolutionary New Birth Control Method For Men. Go read, be amazed, get excited, and find that doctor in San Francisco who wants to bring this to the FDA. Let's make this happen! Soon!!

"About half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. Come up with a better contraceptive and the likely results are all good: fewer unwanted kids, fewer single parents, and fewer abortions."

Switching to condoms...

You can see the rest of these here, but the best one by far is this one:

Tweet

Abstinence-Only Driver's Ed

After the rousing success of abstinence-only sex ed programs, the only logical next step is implementing this highly successful method in other areas, such as driver's education programs. No?

It would probably look something like this:

Or, also, like this.

VAGINA!!! TAMPONS!!!! VAGINA!!!!

This article, Rebelling Against the Commonly Evasive Feminine Care Ad, is worth the read, for the main focus of the article (Kotex's new approach to marketing tampons). But this tiny tidbit has got to be my favorite part:

Merrie Harris, global business director at JWT, said that after being informed that it could not use the word vagina in advertising by three broadcast networks, it shot the ad cited above with the actress instead saying “down there,” which was rejected by two of the three networks.

The ads are selling tampons -- which are things you stick inside your VAGINA -- but they are not allowed to say the word "vagina."


THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THE WORD VAGINA ON TV.


You can say "bitch" on TV, but you can't say "vagina." You can say "ASS" on TV, but you can't say "vagina." BECAUSE THAT ONE IS DIRTY AND OFFENSIVE.


I have been accused, in the past, of overreacting to things. Of reading too much into it. Of looking for something to be offended about.


Years ago, this must have been in the late 90s because I was still in college (sitting around at home in the morning hours because my classes were in the afternoon) I remember seeing an episode of the Christina Applegate TV show where she worked as a nurse. She had to learn how to draw blood from people, so she was practicing on an orange. Something happened, where a guy got a promotion or raise or cool assignment and she didn't, and she got all up in arms and went to the supervisor or person in charge and said that it was not fair that the guy was given X (instead of it being given to her) just because he had a penis.


They said the word "PENIS." On TV. In a sitcom. In the middle of the day, when children could be at home, watching sitcom reruns.


I remember this distinctly because a few nights before, we had been watching The Big Lebowski on that same channel. At midnight. Late at night. When children and their precious, delicate virgin ears were in bed.


AND IT WAS THE FREAKIN' BIG LEBOWSKI.


Remember the scene where Julianne Moore is painting in her art studio, and she tells Jeff Bridges her paintings resemble VAGINAS? (Or something like that. The point is that the dialogue included the word VAGINA.)

When her character said the word "VAGINA," the word was muted. IT WAS CENSORED.


AS IF SHE HAD SAID A CUSS WORD (of which there are plenty in The Big Lebowski, if I recall correctly. EXCEPT THAT VAGINA IS NOT ONE OF THEM.)


This upset me. 


Why is it okay to say PENIS in the middle of the day in TV but we cannot say VAGINA in the middle of the night on TV?


What is wrong with the word VAGINA??? Can you even begin to explain it to me??


You can say "arm" on TV. You can say "foot" on TV. You can say "nose" on TV. You can even say "breast" on TV.


Why are VAGINAS so scary and offensive and naughty???


It would be one thing if we banned the medical term for all reproductive and/or sexual organs. Now, this would put several marketing campaigns in quite a pickle in October -- how are they going to sell us PINK JUNK if they can't tell us it's for BREAST cancer awareness? Are we going to have to refer to October as HOOTER cancer awareness month?


But when you allow breast and penis, BUT BAN VAGINA, you are sending a clear message that those are okay, but THAT ONE is not. THAT ONE is dirty. And bad. And icky. Ew!!!


No, I'm not okay with that.


And neither is my VAGINA.

formspring.me: "Do you think it is healthy for teenagers to view pornography? Why or why not?"

Do you think it is healthy for teenagers to view pornography? Why or why not?

Ooh... that's a tough one.

I think we need to remove the taboo from sex and sexuality, definitely. Teenagers are having sex and doing things their parents are ashamed to even think of, so we need to talk about these things, without shame or blame or fear or judgement, and provide teenagers (and adults) with the tools they need to particiapte in that behavior safely if that is what they choose to do, and the tools to know how to decline participation if that's what they choose to do.

We need to have this information out there.

Now, as to pornography... hmm. I'm a prude at heart, really. Also, from what I understand (I have viewed pornography, I'm not going to pretend I've never seen a magazine or a movie, but I also know there is tons of stuff, and genres and styles, out there that I have not seen) "most" or much of what's out there does not send positive or healthy messages to the role of the cis female in sex (I won't try to speak for trans or intersex people since I am wholly ignorant as to how they are represented in pornography, though I am willing to wager they are seen as a source of fetishes and not treated as real people/being with sexual desires of their own).

I guess before I could say yes, it is healthy for teenagers to view pornography, we'd have to change the industry and the material. I would want to make sure that lesbianism is not portrayed as a sexual fantasy for cis het men, and that women are not perpetually in the submissive role, only there to fulfill the fantasies of the males.

I do think porn has a place and a value, since, given our puritan, prudish society, teens can't get information about sex and sexuality and "alternative lifestyles" and non-cis, non-hetero sexuality any other way.

Ask me anything

Thankful Thursday, Roe v. Wade edition

(Edited to add linky-links and to correct some info as pointed out in the comments.)

I'm thankful for:

• being lucky enough to live in a country, state, and large-enough city where I had access to a safe and legal abortion.
• the support of my family and friends when I "came out" to them; I wish I'd done it when it happened instead of waiting 5 years to find out they didn't judge me and they loved me anyway.
• being lucky enough to be employed, with an employer who offered health insurance, so I could afford birth control for the majority of my fertile life (so far).
• the Internet, specifically blogs and Twitter, where I have found so many like minds who encourage and inspire me to keep fighting for what's right.
• growing up on Chile, where I received comprehensive sex ed in school (along with religion class -- though I can't say I'm thankful for that instruction; I just wanted to mention the unusual spectrum) since I was in middle school. *EDIT* I'm thankful my parents could afford to send me to a private school which provided comprehensive sed ex (along with Catholic religion classes).
• Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, NNAF, and all the other organizations who fight to offer reproductive choices and health care to low-income cis women. (I haven't done any research yet to know how/if these orgs offer those same services to trans men, or if they also offer basic health care to trans women, which is why I qualified the statement. Any info on the matter would be most welcome.)
• all the people who choose to bring children into the world because they want to love them and care for them.
• all the people who choose to remain child-free, for whatever reason.
• all the people who choose to bring a child into their home when the biological parent was not able to care for them.
• Roe v. Wade, all 37 years of it. I'm thankful I've lived in a society that respects me enough to grant me control of my own body, even if I have to fight each day to keep that right.

What are you thankful for today?

The ELCA and abortion, courtesy of @justsnapd8

Last night I posted a link to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's Social Statement on Abortion, since @KushielsMoon had asked me for it. I had heard a while back that the ELCA (Lutheran denomination of which I am a member) was pro-choice, but I had never looked much into it. Until last night.

Reading the statement, I was quite proud of my church. The wording, though cautious to make sure it doesn't tick off the antis, shows great respect for the woman, and an understanding of what pregnancy means for her. Every time the fetus is mentioned, the woman and her life and rights are also mentioned.

So I posted this:

@justsnapd8 decided to RT my Tweet, changing it to this:

As you can imagine, this yanked my chain. First of all, READ THE DOCUMENT. Second of all, READ THE DOCUMENT AND DON'T LIE. My church deplores the circumstances that lead a woman to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but it understands that abortion is a morally justifiable choice.

We went back and forth on this, but she wasn't able to follow the conversation. It was too taxing to be asked to back up her claims with, you know, accurate statements and facts (those silly things we pro-choicers always go on and on about).

So, I guess after she got some sleep, she wrote this blog post. Where she spent most of her time copying and pasting Tweets between @ProChoiceGal and me, instead of talking about the ELCA's statement.

The following is my response (which I copied and pasted here because I doubted it would survive comment moderation on her blog. Alas, it did, but I was going to write about the ELCA's statement anyway, and after writing my response I realized it said most of the stuff I was going to blog. So here it is):

The ELCA's statement is a 12-page document, and you quote three paragraphs? Don't you think you're missing something?

I know you're used to taking things out of context, but the second part of my Tweet to @ProChoiceGal, where we're talking about our church choices, is kind of relevant and important. If you're interested in truth and honesty, then post the second half of my sentence.

But since you like to deal in isolated quotations, let me give you a few more from the ELCA's statement (emphasis mine):

"The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life NOR THE VALUE OF THE WOMAN AND HER OTHER RELATIONSHIPS."

"A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born..." "The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb express a common commitment to life. This requires that we move beyond the usual 'pro-life' versus 'pro-choice' language in discussing abortion."

The ELCA is NOT part of your "pro-life"/anti-choice camp. Even if you only read the quotes you cherry-picked, the church clearly accepts a woman making a choice to terminate a pregnancy. It does not say abortion should be avoided or outlawed, it says "Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort." It says abortion should be an option available to women! Does that sound like an anti-choice organization to you?

Now, to clarify, if you take the time to look at your Twitter stream, you will see that you are the only who told me to look at Section III. That section says (emphasis mine):

"We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her. We are moved particularly by the anguish of women who face unintended pregnancies alone. The panic and isolation of such pregnancies, even in the best of circumstances, can be traumatic. Poverty, lack of supportive relationships, immaturity, oppressive social realities, sexism, and racism can intensify her sense of powerlessness. The prospect of having and caring for a child can seem overwhelming.

"We confess our sin as a community of faith. We often have fallen short in respecting God's gift of life and IN PROVIDING CONDITIONS MORE CONDUCIVE FOR BRINGING NEW LIFE INTO THE WORLD."

Regarding sex, it does say, "Marriage is the appropriate context for sexual intercourse." Notice it says "appropriate," not "only." And it follows that with (emphasis mine): "We affirm that the goodness of sexual intercourse GOES BEYOND ITS PROCREATIVE PURPOSE." Alas! Sex JUST FOR FUN without the intent of conceiving IS ALLOWED!

"Whenever sexual intercourse occurs apart from the intent to conceive, the use of contraceptives is the responsibility of the man and of the woman." These statements go against your "pro-life"/anti-choice beliefs in several ways:

-sex outside of marriage is acknowledged and not condemned.

-sex for fun, too; it's not solely for procreation.

-birth control is encouraged.

-the use of birth control rests on BOTH parties' shoulders (i.e., the "blame" is not placed solely on the woman, like most anti-choicers like to do).

But there's more! If we turn the page, we find this:

"Our congregations and church schools ought to provide sex education in the context of the Christian faith." Wow! Sex ed! Look at that!

"It is especially important that young men and young women be taught to exercise their sexuality responsibly." Notice it doesn't say they should be "taught abstinence-only" -- it says they would EXERCISE their sexuality. They are allowed to be sexually active, but we must teach them how to do so RESPONSIBLY.

"It is important that those who counsel persons faced with unintended pregnancies respect how deeply the woman's pregnancy involves her whole person -- body, mind and spirit -- in relation to all the commitments that comprise her stewardship of life."

"This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induces abortion." Doesn't this go against the "pro-life"/anti-choice core beliefs???

"What is determined to be a morally responsible decision in one situation may not be in another... We also need to consider the conditions under which the pregnancy occurred and THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PREGNANCY FOR THE WOMAN'S LIFE." (emphasis mine)

Regarding politics and law (emphasis mine): "What is legal is not necessarily moral, and WHAT IS MORAL SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE ENACTED INTO LAW. LAWS CANNOT ENFORCE CHRISTIAN LOVE, but in principle and application they should be just."

"In our attempts to influence the shaping of public policy, WE SHOULD NOT DISREGARD THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, but work faithfully through the public process by which justice is sought for all."

"Prevention of unintended pregnancies is crucial in lessening the number of abortions. In addition to efforts within church and home, THIS CHURCH SUPPORTS APPROPRIATE FORMS OF SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS, AND PARENTING PREPARATION CLASSES. WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR CONTRACEPTIVES TO BE AVAILABLE, FOR VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION TO BE CONSIDERED, AND FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FORMS OF CONTRACEPTION." (emphasis mine)

Again, doesn't that sound like the OPPOSITE of what the "pro-life"/anti-choice side fights for??

"Because of our conviction that BOTH the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respectd by law, this church opposes:

-the total lack of regulation of abortion;

-LEGISLATION THAT WOULD OUTLAW ABORTION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES;

-LAWS THAT PREVENT ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO WOMEN FACED WITH UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES;

-LAWS THAT DENY ACCESS TO SAFE AND AFFORDABLE SERVICES TO MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE ABORTIONS;

-mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilization; -laws that prevent couples from practicing contraception;

-LAWS THAT PRIMARILY INTENDED TO HARASS THOSE CONTEMPLATING OR DECIDING FOR AN ABORTION."

Again, I have a hard time hearing the "pro-life"/anti-choice argument there... because IT IS PRO-CHOICE.

It even addresses laws about spousal or parental notification or consent: "While we strongly affirm family communication and support, the law should recognize that in some cases husband or partner involvement in the decision could be unwise or dangerous (e.g., if the relationship is broken or violent). If the law requires parental consent when the woman is a minor, it should specify other trusted adults as alternatives if parental involvement is inappropriate or unsafe."

I recommend that anyone wanting to know the full story read the actual document, all of it; it can be found here. After reading the full document, can you honestly tell me the ELCA is not pro-choice?

"Facts? We don't need to teach you no stinkin' FACTS!"

Here in Texas, we don't need to worry about silly things like scientific facts when we teach, like, science (I mean, really -- HOW are those even related!) Evolution? That's so weak. There is no proof! It's just a theory! We're not going to let the LIBERAL MEDIA brainwash our children with their "insufficient" theories on, like, evolution and the Big Bang and whatnot.

You see how much we value factual information in our classrooms. So it is really a surprise that we don't want no stinkin' medically-accurate information in our health classes?

So far the three bills introduced in the Texas legislature this session trying to get FACTS in sex ed classes have gone nowhere. What did these radical bills demand?

• SB 1076 / HB 1567 "would require that information about contraception and disease prevention in sexuality education classes be scientifically accurate. It would also require that sexuality education classes not discourage sexually active people from using any form of contraception or method approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reducing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."
• SB 515 / HB 741 (Education Works) "would require that information taught in public school sexuality education classes be medically accurate. They would also require that schools teaching about sexuality education include information about the importance of abstinence and medically accurate information about contraception and other methods of responsible pregnancy and disease prevention."
• SB 1100 / HB 1694 "would require that sexuality information taught to students be medically accurate and that schools inform parents about what they are teaching in sexuality education classes."

(emphasis mine)

RADICAL, I know. We are "stealing children's innocence" by giving them MEDICALLY-ACCURATE FACTS!!! How much more depraved can you get!

As Planned Parenthood of North Texas put it in an email sent out last night,

PPNT alerted you a few days ago that representatives in Austin were introducing amendments to an education-related bill (SB 283) that would require information taught in sexuality education courses be medically accurate. Thank you to everyone who called or e-mailed your legislator in support of these amendments!

Unfortunately, the House bill sponsor Rep. Mark Shelton (R-Fort Worth), who is a doctor, chose not to accept these amendments. They were then withdrawn after a point of order ruled they were unrelated to the subject of the bill. The bill pertained to School Health Advisory Councils (SHACs), locally appointed councils whose function (among others) is to recommend sexuality education curricula to their school boards.

This means there is no guarantee Texas' teens will receive factual information in their sex ed classes next fall.

Currently, Texas law does not require that the health curriculum in Texas classrooms be medically accurate. You might think such a law would be unnecessary, but a recent survey of sex education curriculum in Texas schools* found that almost half of what is taught is scientifically unsound.

However, the session is not over—any day now, the Texas Legislature could consider other bills that could restrict access to health care or information. Stay tuned for future updates.

*by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund

(emphasis theirs, links mine)

Somebody remind me again why I live in this state?

Sadly, the issue is way more complicated than that...

[Edited to include the video and give the names of the people involved.]

Yesterday I saw a YouTube clip of some Congressguy Congressman Tim Ryan on some cable news show Hardball talking about President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and his call to us to find common ground on the issue of abortion and provide access to birth control to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The Congressdude Congressman Ryan was described as "against abortion rights" but he was working with, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a pro-choice legislator to make birth control more affordable and accessible to women, specifically low-income women, to reduce the need for abortions.

I'm all for that, but one thing the guy Congressman Ryan said bugged me. He also went on about adoption and social services, to encourage women to carry the pregnancy to term. As I write that I realize that this guy did a lot of things I like (I might have to go find the video now); he used the words "carry the pregnancy to term" instead of talking about babies or other words that make the issue more emotional. He also pointed out that not having the abortion means carrying the pregnancy to term and needing social services to care for the child, so we need to provide appropriate health care for the infant and welfare for the mother and child. (So often in the abortion debate the anti-choicers scream and holler about the "baby" but forget to add its post-partum existence into the equation.)

But back to what bugged me -- I know he had very little time to make his points and the interviewer dude kept interrupting him and asking stupid questions he'd already answered, but I got the impression the Congressman thought the only reason a woman chooses to abort instead of carrying the pregnancy to term is economic restrictions: if we provide more info and support for adoption services, women will be convinced to carry the pregnancy to term; if we provide them with proper welfare and social services programs to help them care for the child, women will carry the pregnancy to term instead of abort.

Again, the issue is not that simple. There are many, many reasons why a woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy. This is not a minor inconvenience, this is a life-changing event. Even if she does not intend to keep the child, the pregnancy itself will have a huge impact on her life (and take a huge toll on her body). Think about it. Think about, every day of those nine months.

Going to work, pregnant. Dealing with morning sickness (that lasts all day long). Fatigue, because your body is taking every available ounce of energy to form the fetus growing inside of you. Showing.

Buying new clothes to fit your new body -- bigger bras, because your breasts will get bigger (they're making milk, remember?) And, in case you don't know, bras are effin' expensive. Buying new pants. Buying new tops. Buying new shoes because your feet and ankles have swollen that much.

Think about doing your job every day, pregnant. FOR A CHILD YOU WILL NOT KEEP. Are you on your feet all day? Are you talking to people who will ask you about "the baby"? (Most low-income women -- who have difficulties affording birth control -- don't have cushy desk jobs; they have more physically-demanding jobs. Do you want to wait tables or scrub toilets or restock shelves in your third trimester? Or maybe you have a customer service job, where people will ask you all kinds of baby questions and insist on touching your stomach. What fun!)

Can you afford maternity leave? Even one weekend, to give birth and allow your body to recover? What if there are any complications with the pregnancy, and you need bedrest? Can you afford the pre-natal care? Can you afford the time off from work for the pre-natal care doctor's visits? If you suffer post-partum depression, will you be able to afford more time off to go see a psychiatrist or psychologist? What about anti-depressants, will you be able to afford those?

How are you going to face all those people you interact with on a daily basis after the baby is born, and you don't have it? How are you going to deal with their questions?

And even that is not even scratching the surface of the reasons why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy.

This is a deeply personal issue. The reasons I had for choosing to terminate my pregnancy are totally different from the reasons any other woman in the waiting room with me in the clinic that morning had. For some, the economic factor is a big deal. For others, money is not the problem -- the problem is much bigger than that.

This is why we need to leave the option open.

We need to do everything in our power to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we need to leave the option open, for all the other reasons that your average Congressman can't even fathom.

Yesterday I used obesity as an analogy for the reproductive rights debate. I felt a little uneasy writing about it, because I am rather ignorant on the topic. Today, I read Julie Neumann's post on Change.org's Women's Rights blog, and I felt even more unqualified to have written what I did. Eating disorders are an extremely complex issue and the reasons why a person develops an eating disorder are very personal (unique to each person, there is not one easy answer); yesterday I reduced it to the stereotyped, simplified version (in my defense, I was not discussion the issue itself in depth, I was mentioning it as an example, but still).

Julie shares quotes from several people with eating disorders saying what their eating disorder is "all about" -- the reasons why they do what they do. I felt extremely narrow-minded and ignorant as I read; there is so much more to this issue that we don't even realize, because we are not there. (It's an excellent post, please read it.)

We're not going to fix it with a Band-Aid (eating disorders or reproductive rights). We need to do everything we can to fix the known causes and fix the stuff that we can fix (health care, access to birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we're never going to make it go away completely. Which is why we need to allow each woman to make the choice for herself.

Science, stem cells, and suicide: what would Jesus do?

Today, I'm in Austin, with Planned Parenthood, asking my legislators to put science back in sex ed classrooms. Or, rather, to put the "ed" back in "sex ed."* So we can put an end to this.

Earlier this week, we got the good news that President Obama** lifted the ban on stem-cell research, his first step toward putting science back in science. To read the details, go here: Blog for Choice - Community, Connection, Change

Of course, this made the anti-choice side angry, because stem cells come from embryos. Now, I've already told you when life does and does not begin, so you know that, to me, an embryo does not mean "a life," unless the mother deems it so (and these are not the embryos whose stem cells are being used, are they?)

Stem-cell research can save lives. Extra-uterine, unequivocal lives -- those both sides of the reproductive rights debate all agree are people. These lives are connected to many other lives, who are also affected by what happens to that life with cancer, or heart disease, or Alzheimer's. Can the in-vitro embryos say the same? Yes, they are meaningful potential lives to the parents seeking the fertility treatments, but if that couple has already had one, or two, or three (or more) successful IVF pregnancies and they are not looking to have any more children, whose lives are going to be affected if those extra embryos never become babies, and instead are used for scientific research, to help save lives?

An interesting thought hit me the other day, when mulling all this over.

God is not against death (He's against murder, but not death). After all, He sent His son to Earth -- to die so others could live.

When you think about it, you could even say Jesus commited suicide (but He did it for a really good reason).

Jesus knew He was going to be crucified. He knew how and when it was going to happen, and therefore He knew how He could get out of it, if He had wanted to. The disciples told Him to get out of it. But He didn't -- He walked into His own death.

But He did it to save all of us. He sacrificed Himself, for us. For all of our lives.

So why are His followers so angry about a potential life doing the same thing Jesus did? God sacrificed His son for the good of the many; why can't we do the same?

What would Jesus do? Probably allow His stem cells to be used for life-saving research.


*As a friend of mine pointed out, the students are already "sexed." We need to get them educated about sex (and contraceptives).

**I'm sorry, but I just really like saying that. It makes me happy.

This Week in Pro-Choicing*

Planned Parenthood's Lobby Day is Thursday! Have you signed up yet? (Today's the last day!)

We will urge our legislators to:

• increase funding for marketing and advertising for the Women's Health Program, which provides family planning and other basic health care to women who do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance. This is a GREAT PROGRAM, and it can save the state BILLIONS -- but less than 17% of the women eligible for the program are on it. Why? Because the budget to advertise this program is so tiny, nobody knows about it. My mother is a social worker, has worked with the state and county for years, counseling low-income women and children, and she had no idea about the program
• support Prevention Works! (HB 1694/SB 1100):

  Prevention Works! is a family planning initiative that expands access to preventive family planning health care services and education programs to help reduce unintended pregnancy, prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and improve women's health overall — all while saving scarce public health dollars.

  Prevention Works! will increase outreach and education so more eligible low-income women can learn about Texas' family planning programs. By expanding knowledge about state family planning programs, it is projected that thousands of low-income women will learn about access basic, preventive services like well-woman exams, contraception, screening for sexually transmitted infections, and screening for breast and cervical cancer.

  Did you know that "According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, for every $1 spent on family planning, $3 is saved in Medicaid costs for prenatal, delivery, and first-year infant care. Medicaid currently pays for more than half of all births in Texas, costing millions of public health dollars each year"?

• support Education Works! (HB 741/SB 515):

  Currently, Texas law does not require schools to provide sexuality education courses. If a school does choose to offer a sexuality education course, Texas mandates that the program must stress abstinence as the preferred behavior for unmarried persons as a way to prevent unintended pregnancies and STIs. Unfortunately, most of abstinence-only sex education programs in Texas schools often give misleading or outright false information about condoms and contraceptives, leading teens to believe that condoms and birth control are not effective.

  HB 714/SB 515, also known as Education Works!, would require schools to still discuss abstinence but also require information be included alongside about testing and prevention for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and complete, medically-accurate information about the health benefits and risks of contraception and condoms.

  Additionally, these bill includes strategies to encourage young people to develop healthy communications with their parents and peers, and help build other living skills such as goal setting and responsible decision-making about sexuality.

Did you see that last part, about building living skills and about responsible decision-making about sexuality?

Look, unless they're planning on turning to a life of the cloth, everyone will have sex at some point. Do we teach this in college? It wasn't part of my liberal arts degree (and if it should be part of any non-medical degree, wouldn't it be part of the liberal arts?) Please, let's give women the information they need to take care of their bodies, regardless of when they choose to have sex.

For more info on these bills, or to take action even if you can't go to Lobby Day, visit Planned Parenthood of North Texas's site or visit Education Works!


NARAL Tweeted some interesting links today:

Where to pass the torch? Those of us who have grown up post-Roe v. Wade don't understand what the women before us had to go through to secure the rights we take for granted. While some of us write our Congresspeople when ugly bills come up, how much of a commitment are we willing to make? Will there be enough of us to carry the torch when the generation who gave us these rights retires?

And some good news! Obama Aims to Shield Science from Politics, lifting the ban on funding for stem-cell research.

"The president believes that it's particularly important to sign this memorandum so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals," Melody C. Barnes, director of Obama's Domestic Policy Council, told reporters during a telephone briefing yesterday.

On a slightly related note... Catholic Church, you know why I hate you? Because of stuff like this: Catholic Church Excommunicates Doctors for Aiding Raped Child. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

While I'm on the subject of bills and laws and policies, I also read a ReTweet asking me to sign a petition to keep tax dollars from funding abortions. This petition blamed the Freedom of Choice Act as the culprit; please read this article to educate yourself about the FOCA, which pretty much merely upholds Roe v. Wade:

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

(Text copied from the House version, but the Senate version says the same.) Also? According to THOMAS, neither bill has seen action since 2007 (May 4th and April 19th, respectively). We know the anti-choice side likes to deal with scare tactics and misinformation (as they do in their abstinence-only programs), but... am I the only one who finds all this a little silly? Getting your people all riled up over something that's not even happening? Isn't there a better way for you to spend your time, energy, and resources?


Trying to figure out how to close this post (looking for something a little more positive than the above), I saw this from the White House blog: Remembering Christopher Reeve.


*With apologies to Nathan Bransford for the blatant plagiarism.

Lobby Day is in One Week!

From Planned Parenthood of North Texas:

Your Legislators Need to Hear Your Voice!

Lobby Day is next week and we can't do it without you! Your legislators need to hear your voice of reason on issues you care about, like family planning funding and sex education in our schools.

Join us on Thursday, March 12 for Lobby Day 2009!

Sign-up here: http://www.ppnt.org/lobbyday2009.html.

During Lobby Day, Planned Parenthood supporters from all over Texas travel to Austin to meet with legislators and their staff to discuss important reproductive health issues.

Help us educate legislators about life-saving and cost-effective family planning for women and medically accurate sex education for teens.

No experience necessary! The last day to register is Monday, March 9, so register today.

What we SHOULD be teaching in Texas public schools (and across the nation)

Please go read Marcy's post about the Mirena IUD: her reasons for getting one, reasons why IUDs should be something we talk about more and women use more often.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all talked about these things openly, with clear, accurate information? We talk about other aspects of our bodies and health care, so why is birth control such a taboo?

And wouldn't it be great if the general public knew the facts about IUDs? And all other forms of birth control? Instead of outdated and incorrect reports or misleading information?

If you want to do something about it, check out EducationWorksTexas.org for more info and ways to get involved. Or join me at Planned Parenthood's Lobby Day, March 12th!

Here are some of the bills we'll be talking about to our congresspeople (from an EducationWorks email):

Texas Legislators Take on Sex Education

The Texas Legislature is in session! Lawmakers will be considering new legislation and the state budget until June 1, and issues concerning sex education and teen pregnancy are among the most talked-about topics.

Several bills have been filed that would improve sex education in Texas:

HB 741/SB 515 The Education Works Act would require that if Texas schools choose to teach sex education, they must present medically-accurate, age-appropriate information, including information about abstinence, contraception, effective communication, responsible decision-making, and what it really takes to be a parent.

HB 1371 Would require that Texas refuse federal funds dedicated to abstinence-only sex education.

HB 1567/SB 1076 Would require instruction on contraceptive use to be scientifically accurate when it is taught as part of a school's sexual health curriculum. It would also prohibit schools from discouraging the use of contraceptives.

HB 1694/SB 1100 The Prevention Works Act would require that if Texas schools choose to teach sex education, they must present medically-accurate information. It would also require schools to notify parents of the content of their sex education curriculum.

Thanks so much for your commitment and support! We will continue to keep you informed through these emails and on the web at EducationWorksTexas.org.

Texas public schools health class

"Facts" taken from materials actually used in Texas public schools' classrooms. To find out more of what your tax dollars are paying for, you can read the report or go to JustSayDon'tKnow.org.

Side effects of abstinence-only programs

I've linked to AmplifyYourVoice.org's "When Rape Culture meets abstinence-only sex ed" post in the last two (or three?) posts, but haven't actually written about it. First of all, because I didn't think I could calm down enough to write about it coherently. Second of all, because the post already says it so well.

Abstinence-only programs are stupid*. They have one thing to say: DO NOT HAVE SEX. By definition abstinence-only programs have to withhold information; since they do not have information to give out, they have to use scare tactics and misinformation.

From Planned Parenthood's site:

Comprehensive Sexuality Education	Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education
Teaches that sexuality is a natural, normal, healthy part of life	Teaches that sexual expression outside of marriage will have harmful social, psychological, and physical consequences

And don't tell me my source of info is biased, because we see abstinence-only programs outside of health class, and this is what they do. Their message is DO NOT HAVE SEX. Why? BECAUSE SEX IS BAD. PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX ARE BAD, because SEX IS BAD.

Most of these "bad things" will happen to the girl: pregnancy, obviously, but also girls are more likely to get an STI from unprotected sex than guys. And we are all familiar with the popular double-standard: girls who have sex are sluts (thank you abstinence-only programs for promoting this thought process), guys who have sex are studs. We get this from the media, but abstinence-only programs reinforce the mindset that "if you have sex you are a slut" (and, from what I have seen, they do not do much to shift any of the guilt to the guy).

Nobody puts a scarlet "S" on your chest when you have sex, but you might as well wear it once you start showing. Sadly, the pregnancy only shows in the girl; the guy has no visible symptoms proving him guilty of impregnating a girl. So we blame the person we can point to, the girl.

And she is a whore, because she had sex.

And SEX IS BAD.

You know what else happens?

When you spend so much time drilling into a girl's head that SEX IS BAD (until marriage), the part of the message in parenthesis doesn't really get across. You can't turn it off. You've spent so much time telling these girls that SEX IS BAD and that if they have sex, well, then YOU ARE BAD, that by golly some of these girls are going to learn their lesson well. So the first time they have sex? They now feel "bad," dirty, whorish. Yes, because we need MORE ways to crush girls' -- and women's -- self-esteem and sense of worth.

I received comprehensive sex ed in school (at least in middle school; don't remember much from high school health class), but I grew up Catholic. So I got the SEX IS BAD message loud and clear.

This did not keep me from having sex before marriage; it simply made me feel like a whore when I eventually did have sex (before marriage). It also made me think, "Dammit, if I'm already a whore, might as well go all out, huh?" In for a penny, in for a pound!

I was already a BAD person for having had sex, regardless of how I felt about the guy, how he felt about me, or how long we'd been together. SEX IS BAD, period. Since it didn't matter, might as well go out and have one-night stands, since, as long as it was outside of marriage, it was all equally bad.

This mindset leads women to make some very stupid choices.

Even now, as a married woman -- when it's "okay" to have sex, because I have a little piece of paper that says so -- the message is still deeply ingrained in my head. Sex should be something natural, something intimate, special... no, it's just something BAD. You cannot undo the programming.


*And THEY DO NOT WORK.

Sex ed, birth control, and access to each (part 2)

Sure, we have "comprehensive sex ed." It's written in the Texas legislature.

But the textbooks the Texas State Board of Education has approved for schools to use don't mention birth control methods.

The "teachers" in the classrooms are too embarrassed to talk about it, and don't have time to find out the details of the different methods of contraception available today, in order to give informed answers to students' questions.

So, are we really educating our children about their reproductive systems? About the different methods of contraception available? Are we providing them with the tools they need to make informed decisions about their lives and their bodies?


Women have a legal right to purchase birth control. But can they afford it? Is it covered by insurace -- at least as often as Viagra is? Do insurance companies cover more than just "the pill," since there are many more options out there for women, besides the daily, take-at-the-exact-same-time-every-day pill?

In college, I got my birth control from Planner Parenthood. I got the pill, because that's the only one I knew (besides diaphragms and IUDs, it was pretty much the only choice back then). Then I heard about Depo-Provera, and decided I much preferred to have a shot every three months than to take a pill every day, at the same time (which seldom happened. I'm not a robot, I don't do things at the exact same time every bloody day). When I got a full-time job, I got health insurance -- not only did I no longer qualify for PP's sliding-scale discounted services, but I wanted to use my shiny new insurance. It was so cool!

While the rep went through his whole maternity-coverage spiel, I walked up to the other rep to ask about birth control (since the rep giving the spiel had not mentioned it). Perhaps it was my mistake; I asked if they covered "birth control."

"Oh, yeah, sure. We do."

Great!

I got myself a doctor in the network, went for my first appointment. Mind you, this was back when you had to go to your general practitioner to get referred to an ob/gyn, since that was a "specialist." So, I picked a GP from the list, based in his zip code, and went to ask about sending me to a girly doctor. I wanted a female girly doctor, but the man doctor told me he was an ob/gyn as well, so he could just do all that stuff for me.

I wanted a girl girly doctor, but what was I going to say to this guy?

"Uh... okay. If you say so." (Read the previous post, on the ingrained subservient nature of females, if you want to know why I didn't tell him that I preferred a female ob/gyn.)

Since I'd been on the Depo, I continued getting the shots.

The doctor's office said they'd bill the insurance company, so no problems. Every now and then I would get a bill from the doctor's office telling me I owed $60 for the Depo shot, but I called the doctor's office and they said it was probably a mistake. I called the insurance company and they said it must have been a mix-up, they'd take care of it.

Three years later, I got a letter from a collections agency. I owed $360 for medical services.

Because my insurance company covered the pill, but no other forms of birth control.

Funny, nobody bothered to point that detail out to me.

Maybe the insurance rep I talked to (male) didn't know there were other options available for birth control. The pill was it, right? That's the only one people talk about.

How widely-known is it that IUDs are safe even for women who have not been pregnant? Because they didn't use to be, and IUDs got a bad rap from women who became infertile (understandably so). However, the kind of IUD that caused those side effects is no longer available.

This site looks like it's a pharmaceutical in Belgium, but they cite their sources at the bottom of the page so they're credible enough for me:

On a worldwide scale there are nearly 160 million IUD users, most of them (over 100 million) in China. The popularity of intrauterine devices stems for their effectiveness, combined with their long duration of action. Because of their long lifespan, IUDs require fewer visits to doctors, which means high cost-effectiveness. IUDs are implanted and, therefore, cannot be “forgotten”, an asset much appreciated by many women.

IUD use in developed countries, however, varies from as low as 1% in the Netherlands and the USA to about 30% in Scandinavia.

The limited IUD use, particularly in developed countries, can be ascribed to various causes:

• Pharmaceutical industry : The pill market is of great economic importance. This is the single drug that is taken by the greatest number of healthy women in the world.

• Medical profession : prescribing oral contraceptives is less time-and energy consuming than insertion an IUD. Moreover not all practitioners have acquired the skills to perform a correct insertion which guarantees the best possible results.

• Women themselves are often very poorly informed, and fear that inserting an IUD in their uterus has to be painful and may bring an unknown infection and even cancer.

• The media have never been kind to IUDs and have often neglected their many advantages, but are still repeating the old stories of the ill-fated Dalkon Shield (which has been refuted in post-marketing studies conducted in the UK, See M. Cox J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2003;29:8).

Experts conclude that it is due time for the medical profession to realize that contraception does not equal oral contraception. The correctly inserted IUD in correctly evaluated recipients has come of age, has eliminated a great deal of its previous disadvantages, has received a clean bill of health and offers an economically and medically justified choice.

So, are we really educating women about their choices?

Even if they are educated, do they really have access to birth control? To all the different options available?

Do insurance companies pay for birth control? All forms of it? (Or will these women get an angry letter in the mail years later, demanding payment for something they were told was already covered?)

Let's say all the above conditions are met. Let's say the woman received clear, straightforward information about all the different methods of birth control available today, and the pros and cons of each. Let's say her insurance covers all these different methods, so she was able to choose the one that works best for her lifestyle and her body. Let's say she was able to go to the doctor of her choosing and get the necessary prescription.

Then she went to her local pharmacy, and the pharmacists refused to fill her prescription because of his personal moral beliefs.

(Hey, you know what? I am morally opposed to the TAKS test. Can I refuse to administer it? Please get back to me on this soon, we have TAKS test proctor training next week.)

There are several layers of "access." It's kind of like an onion. And, sometimes, stinks about as badly.

Let's say this woman lives in a small town. The kind where everyone is in everyone else's business. What's going to happen when she goes to the one pharmacy in town to get her prescription filled? Because, alas, this woman is unmarried.

Lots of layers.

Money shows up in many of those layers. Let's say this woman has a job, but she's not eligible for health care benefits until she's been with the company for three months. My Nuvaring? $60/month, without insurance. At my last job, it was $40/month (the only thing I'll miss about my current job is its great health insurance: $20/month for the Nuvaring. The first time they rang me up at Walgreens I high-tailed it out of there, sure they'd made a mistake). That can add up.*

Again, birth control is WAY CHEAPER than pre-natal care, childbirth costs, and, well, post-natal care, whether the insurance company is paying for it or the state is. Why do both these entities refuse to take the cheaper option? Someone please explain this to me.

*This is where people say, "Well, she can just keep her legs together for those three months!" or, "Uh, it's called a condom. Duh." These people have not dated much, methinks. They have not come across the men I've come across. I'll address this issue in a future post, since it's too big for a footnote.