Lame Duck on a Rampage

Think you're finally done with Dubya's idiotic run of our country? Think Dubya can do no more damage? Think again.

In the spirit of so many leaving administrations, the Bush Administration is quickly instituting - via executive order - things that might take us years to be rid of. Here's a few of the sampling the Houston Chronicle reported on:

A proposed Justice Department regulation would allow local and state law enforcement to collect and share sensitive information on citizens even when they are not suspected of involvement in criminal activity. The Americans with Disabilities Act would be weakened by permitting state and local governments to make only a fraction of their facilities accessible to the handicapped.

A Department of Health and Human Services rule change would deny federal funds to family planning organizations and clinics that refuse to hire staffers who will not provide birth control to patients upon request. The regulation would also define forms of birth control as abortion, allowing physicians and others a legal basis for declining to provide family planning counseling that includes birth control techniques.

That's right, Bushie boy, take your last few days to make life worse for the handicapped, damage our civil liberties even more, force employers to hire people who refuse to do their job and enshrine legally your unscientific, medically inaccurate, religious boogaboo definitions of birth control, pregnancy and abortion. That'll do wonders for your legacy.

We're not done with Dubya yet. I just hope he doesn't do too much damage that can't be undone.

Read Full Post

Bishops on Reducing Abortions

According to some Catholic Bishops, abortion rates cannot be reduced unless Roe v. Wade is overturned.

You might think that makes sense, but it's false. Guttmacher's statistics indicate that there is no correlation (much less causal relationship) between the legality of abortion and the number of abortions that occur in a country:

while it may seem paradoxical, a country's abortion rate is not closely correlated with whether abortion is legal there. For example, abortion levels are quite high in Latin American countries, where abortion is highly restricted. (In fact, 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.) At the same time, abortion rates are quite low throughout Western Europe, where the procedure is legal and widely available. Also, Eastern and Western Europe have the world's highest and lowest abortion rates, respectively, yet abortion is generally legal throughout the Continent.

In fact, if you put a little thought into it, you realize that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent what causes them - unwanted pregnancies. How do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? Birth control! And the data bears this out:

Abortion levels are high in countries where the desire for small families is strong but contraceptive use is low or ineffective. For example, in most of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, where desired family size has been small for many years, modern contraceptive methods were not generally available until recently. As a result, women relied on abortion—which was legal, safe and easily accessible—to regulate births. However, as contraceptives have become much easier to obtain in recent years, the situation has begun to change rapidly, and abortion rates in some of these countries fell by as much as 50% between 1990 and 1996.

Of course, the Bishops can't tell you that greater access to contraception will lower the abortion rate in the U.S. because they oppose contraception just as vehemently as they oppose abortion. When will these people let their conclusions be informed by the data? When will they assess the facts on the basis of evidence rather than their preconceived dogma?

Oh wait... they're bishops. Nevermind.

Read Full Post

5 Reasons Bristol's Pregnancy Matters

So, with the news that Sarah Palin's 17 year old unwed daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, there has been a lot of chatter about how this is a private family matter and we should all just leave poor Bristol Palin alone. I agree that we should leave Bristol alone, but her pregnancy should force some light on the conservative policies and stances that her mother and McCain support. Here are 5 reasons Bristol Palin's pregnancy matters:

#1 Conservatives claim the moral high ground.
It is often complained by liberals that conservative republicans have hijacked the issue of values. And for the most part, this is true. Conservatives tout themselves as the religious who want to preserve traditional marriage (aka deny gay rights), love "the unborn" (aka force pregnancy) and prevent sex from destroying our culture (aka push their backward view of morality on everyone else). Yet Bristol's pregnancy seems to undermine that claim. Not because her pregnancy is wrong. I'm not one to say that premarital sex is immoral. Nor would I expect most liberals to say that there is something morally suspect about coitus before marriage. To most of us liberals, it's none of our business. But religious republicans, republicans like Palin, would say that it is immoral. This is a scandal by their standards, not ours, and yet they are reacting as though their core beliefs do not hold this situation to be a sin in the eyes of their god. I smell hypocrisy.

#2 Conservatives, including Palin, oppose comprehensive sex-ed and fight for abstinence-only education.
Many conservatives oppose anything but abstinence-only education for our teens, claiming that comprehensive sex-ed will lead to more sex. Palin herself opposes comprehensive sex-education and supports abstinence-only. McCain has also claimed that he supports abstinence-only. Now, as we should all be well aware at this point, studies have shown that abstinence-only education does not work, and in many cases, these programs disseminate false information to teens about sex and pregnancy. Furthermore, studies have also shown that comprehensive sex eduation programs are effective in helping teens to dely sexual intercourse or protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy.

Now, what should we take away from this? Comprehensive sex education helps prevent teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs. Abstinence-only education does not. And yet conservatives like Palin and McCain want to prevent teens from getting the information that might help them to avoid the situation that Bristol Palin is now in. Don't you think a mother who is dealing with helping her daughter with a teen pregnancy and has the political clout would work to keep other girls from being put in the same unfortunate position that her daughter is in? Apparently not Sarah Palin.

#3 Many conservatives oppose hormonal birth control or are unconcerned with women's access to it.
Even if sexually active teens and women know that they can protect themselves from pregnancy through various means, that doesn't help if they don't have access to contraception. But many religious republicans flat out oppose hormonal contraception, tossing out science to call the pill and its variants "abortifacents", and hence immoral. That means that the use of contraception is also immoral to this people and if they think abortion should be illegal, then surely "abortifacents" - things that cause abortions, should also be illegal. Furthermore, many conservatives have pushed to allow doctors and pharmacists to refuse to write prescriptions for birth control or fill those prescriptions if they have moral objections, thus limiting women's access, especially in rural areas (like, say, Alaska?).

Now, it's not clear what either McCain's or Palin's positions are on this. Republicans have a way of avoiding discussing their views on birth control (since the vast majority of the American populace is okay with it). But if Palin's "right to life" credentials are good enough to garner the support of the religious wingnuts like Dobson and Robertson, then it's likely that she opposes birth control as well. That would certainly explain why a busy woman in her 40s who already had four children would manage to get pregnant, despite the risks of birth defects (like Down Syndrome) for babies of older women. But denying access to birth control just means more teen pregnancy. More girls like Bristol Palin.

#4 As Governor, Palin slashed funding that would have gone to teen mothers.
Palin used her line item veto to cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers. The program gives young single moms a place to stay while they acquire some skills that will allow them to get by in the world. So, Palin doesn't want kids to be educated on how to avoid pregnancy, (probably) doesn't want them to have access to the means to prevent pregnancy, and yet won't give them money to help them once they (surprise!) get pregnant. Of course, this won't affect girls like Bristol, who, thankfully, have supportive (and rich) families to take care of them. But for lots of other young women who get pregnant, that support isn't there. And apparently Palin doesn't care.

#5 "Choice"
In the press release from the campaign on the pregnancy, the family claimed, "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby". The talking heads have been claiming that the fact that Palin practices what she preaches (i.e., that her daughter "chose life") will actually help with the conservative base. With regard to Palin's own recent pregnancy, in fact, many have been pushing the notion that she chose to have the baby despite his condition.

Well, guess what, Sarah Palin is pro-life. She believes that abortion should be illegal, even in
cases of rape or incest. She does not believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. And if she were really, truly pro-life, then neither she nor her daughter would have a choice in the matter. If you are pro-life, then there is no option other than carrying the pregnancy to term. And if there is only one option, then there is no choice. If Palin really practiced what she preached, then she didn't choose anything, and neither did her daughter. Yet the media does not bring this up. Instead, they laud her choice. Wrong. Pro-choicers can laud her choice. To pro-lifers, neither Palin nor her daughter actually had one to begin with, and true pro-lifers should be offended by the idea that either Palin or her daughter actually chose to carry their pregnancies to term. After all, "it's a baby, not a choice" right?

Read Full Post

McCain the Maverick? Not on Reproductive Rights.

There are a good number of people in this country that view John McCain as a bit of a maverick, a man who is willing to stand up to the Republican party has a whole, cross the isle in search of effective compromise, and stand behind his own beliefs even when they conflict with the dominant views of the party. This may very well be true with regard to some issues, but despite some public misconceptions to the contrary, reproductive rights certainly isn't one of them. There are some who have, due to McCain's image as a maverick, taken him to be pro-choice, or at least less anti-choice then the likes of far-righties like G.W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, etc. NARAL has started up a website where you can, according to them, meet the real McCain. And if you follow the links in search of info on McCain's record, you'll be led to a compilation of McCain's anti-choice votes and statements.

If you read through that list, you might be surprised to discover that:

*McCain is staunchly anti-choice, openly in favor of overturning Roe, and determined to nominate judges who will ignore the rights of women.

*McCain has voted to support abstinence-only education programs, which have been shown to be ineffective and often involve disseminating falsehoods to kids. He's also voted for substantial funding for such programs to be allocated from the fund for HIV/AIDS. That means that rather then putting our money toward effective means of reducing HIV/AIDS in areas of the world that are experiencing a devestating epidemic, the money is being wasted on ineffective, and dogmatically motivated, programs.

*McCain has voted to support the global gag rule, which precludes any openly pro-choice international organization from obtaining federal funds, even if they use non-federal money to provide abortion services or do not offer such services at all. This prevents these organizations from giving much needed family planning and women's health services to some of the poorest women in the world, and places a burden on other organizations which they may not be able to meet, thus leaving women out in the cold.

*McCain has voted against measures that would make birth control more accessible to women, and has actually voted for parental notification laws that would make it more difficult for teens to access birth control.

*McCain voted to end Title X, which provides women in need with all sorts of medical services, from birth control to vaccinations to cancer screenings.

Now, even if you're opposed to legal abortion, you've got to admit that McCain's record is not just anti-choice, but clearly unconcerned with the reproductive rights and reproductive health of women here in America and around the world. Unless your place on the ideological spectrum has you nestled between Dubya and Pat Robertson, some of McCain's record is going to leave a bad taste in your mouth. After all, if you're interested in reducing abortions, increasing access to and knowledge about contraceptives should be at the top of your list. It's not at the top of McCain's. If you're worried about the AIDS crisis in Africa, then making sure that we are funding programs that have the greatest effectiveness in reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS should be one of your concerns. It's not one of McCain's. If securing the rights and improving the health of women in the US and around the world is something that is important to you, McCain may not be your candidate, because his record clearly demonstrates that it's not important to him.

McCain may have the image of an ideological maverick, but when it comes to reproductive rights and women's health he's right in line with the far right. We should all be aware of that fact when we enter the voting booth this November.

Read Full Post

Let's Go Be Lazy in Wisconsin

So, anti-choice pharmacists in Wisconsin don't want to do their jobs. I've given my take on this before. If you can't perform the tasks of your profession, get another job. Don't ask the state to give you an exception. But the anti-choice, anti-birth control pharmacists of Wisconsin are in an uproar about more than just the prospect of dispensing what the doctor prescribes. They're ticked off about the Birth Control Protection Act, which not only protects the rights of patients by forcing pharmacists to do their job, but also defines 'abortion' so as to exclude the effects of contraceptives.

According to ChristianNewsWire, this is beyond the pale, since

It is a medical fact that the morning-after pill (a high dosage of the birth control pill) and most, if not all, birth control drugs and devices including the intrauterine device (IUD), Depo Provera, Norplant, the Patch, and the Pill can act to terminate a pregnancy by chemically altering the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so that a newly conceived child is unable to implant in the womb, thus starving and dying.

Well, no, actually, it's not a medical fact. If you define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization, then yes, IUDs do result in the termination of a pregnancy. And hormonal methods may have the same result, albeit very rarely, since their primary function is to prevent ovulation and thicken the mucus lining the cervix to prevent sperm from penetrating. And usually, if they don't succeed in that, the result is not an embryo being flushed from the woman's system, but implantation. But not only is it not a "medical fact" that pregnancy begins at fertilization, it's silly to even think of defining it as such. If that's the case, then many sexually active women have been pregnant numerous times and had miscarriages. Of course, they can't inform their doctors of this, since they don't know. Additionally, imagine attempting to expand this definition out, given the advances in reproductive technologies. When a doctor fertilizes a woman's egg with her partner's sperm in a pitre dish, is she pregnant? If a store of her fertilized eggs is preserved in deep freeze, does she remain pregnant until her blastocysts die? If she dies while those blastocysts are still being preserved, does that mean that a dead woman can be pregnant? If a couple enlists the aid of a surrogate mother, who is pregnant? It's obviously not the biological mother. But then the woman who has preserved blastocysts can't be pregnant either. If pregnancy begins at fertilization, then someone has got to be pregnant, though. The egg is fertilized, after all. Is the tank pregnant?

ChristianNewsWire's nutty statements of "medical fact" aside, what really caught my attention was this:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freely exercise one's religious convictions. The Wisconsin Constitution expressly protects the rights of conscience. Under Article 1, Section 18, of our state constitution, "any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience" shall not be permitted.

Now, obviously ChristianNewsWire and the anti-birth control pharmacists who are pushing this line against the Birth Control Protection Act are thinking that they are going to stop this legislation by claiming it violates their religious freedom through their rights of conscience. Here's the problem. Not every one who is anti-choice is religious, or is anti-choice because of their religious convictions. Are these Wisconsin pharmacists suggesting that it's okay to force someone who is anti-choice, but has no religious affiliation, to dispense birth control? I doubt it. But if this really is about conscience, and not about religion, then the Wisconsin constitution would seem to protect the rights of conscience of vegetarians who work at McDonalds and don't want to serve meat, or vegans who work at Mervyns but refuse to sell wool or leather, or school nurses, or doctors, who believe that vaccines are evil and refuse to distribute them to kids. Or heck, some renegade pastafarians who refuse to serve spaghetti, but insist on working at Italian restaurants. It's their right of conscience, after all. I guess anyone who has scruples against doing something required by a profession can work in that profession and yet not do their job in Wisconsin. My new set of principles - never prostituting my labor out for pay. I think I'll go get a job in Wisconsin.

Read Full Post

Surprise! The More Religious the Society, The Higher the Abortion Rate.

Given that many religious ideologies involve the condemnation of comprehensive sex-ed, or something like it, and various birth control methods, this actually isn't surprising at all. If you're really interested in reducing the number of abortions, taking a more liberal attitude toward human sexuality is definitely the way to go. Oh, and if that's the case, then John McCain is not your man.

Read Full Post

Colorado Has Lost It Too

On the heels of Georgia's proposed bill to define personhood as beginning at conception, Colorado now has a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would do the same. And Mike Huckabee has endorsed it.

I don't think it necessary to rehash the idiocy, from a practical standpoint, of legally defining a fertilized egg as a person. What really confuses me is that it seems as though the people of Colorado and Georgia haven't really thought about this - which is certainly something one ought to do before making something the law of the land.

Speaking of the people of Colorado and Georgia making something the law of the land, since when are facts determined by a popular vote? There is a fact of the matter as to whether or not a fertilized embryo is a person. This is something that certainly hasn't been determined. And without significant justification for the claim, which anti-choicers haven't provided (and I suspect can't provide), voting to recognize this "fact" seems both premature and arrogant.

I'm not saying that we can't possibily recognize a fact even when it's not completely settled. What I am saying is that before you can legally recognize a fact, you should have and provide evidence that it is a fact. Anti-choicers have not done this.

Read Full Post

Abstinence Only Driver's Ed

This is just awesome.

Read Full Post

Pharmacists and Plan B

Another idiotic ruling with regard to pharmacists and Plan-B has been handed down. At the core of this dispute is, to my mind, the special treatment given to religion in our society. If a vegetarian got a job at McDonalds and then refused to serve meat products because he believed their consumption to be grossly immoral, do you really think a judge would claim that he has a right to keep his job but not fulfill all the obligations that come along with it? Of course not. I have a personal hatred of guns. It's part of the core of my belief system, but I'm pretty sure that if I started working for Walmart and refused to sell the guns they keep in stock, no judge would say that I should have an exception. But because these pharmacists are objecting on religious grounds, they can get away with not doing their job and denying women much needed services. What a load of BS.

Read Full Post

Outmoded Gender Norms and Teen Pregnancy

Check out this awesome post by Amanda Marcotte over at the RH blog. She really hits the nail on the head with her discussion of how dated attitudes toward sex lead to teen pregnancy. And how, as a result, abstinence-only education problems are doomed to lead to the same result.

"In lieu of teaching people how to use contraception safely and effectively, the programs spend most of the time on teaching "relationship skills," i.e. pushing old-fashioned ideas about gender roles. Which means teaching girls that good girls don't, and that means not just "don't have sex" but also "don't want sex," "don't take initiative," and "don't take control." Sure, maybe some of the girls in an abstinence only course will have sex at 17 or 18 instead of 15 or 16. But when they do, will they be more afraid that bringing birth control along will mean that they're not good girls? It's not more fun to be pregnant against your will at 17 than 15."

These attitudes, of course, are born out of an ideology that has lingered in the United States for quite some time, and continues to be pushed by fundamentalist Christians and their ilk. And this is an ideology that is inherently sexist. While we're all aware that sexism is a societal issue that needs to be dealt with, we often are incapable of recognizing all of its faces. But under the notion that good girls don't want, prepare for, or have sex is a very nasty, if well hidden, misogyny. Marcotte explains it beautifully:

"I have a pet theory as to why, out of all the various agencies and clinics dedicated to furthering sexual health and reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood gets the most abuse from the anti-choice set--it's all in the name. By putting the word and concept of planning in the very name of the organization, Planned Parenthood frames women's agency as a positive value, which social conservatives take as a direct assault on their belief that women are passive objects. The anti-choice steadfast refusal to accept female agency explains the stammering discomfort from anti-choicers when asked how much a woman should be punished for abortion. Legal punishment for abortion upholds the idea that women have agency like men. It's not that they're against punishing sluts, but the punishment is about returning the slutty, agency-possessing women to her rightful passive state, and the proper method of doing that is putting her body at the mercy of the pregnancy. Every other possibility is just upsetting."

She's exactly right. And it should not be surprising that this idea - the idea that good girls don't - comes from an era in which female agency was denied all the time. It stood right along the idea that there was something seriously wrong with a single mother, a married women in the workforce, or single woman in any position of authority and importance. All of these notions have, at their root, the idea that female agency is negative. And this idea, of course, was a necessary component of a belief-system that saw women as inherently weak and properly submissive.


It should be no surprise that those people who insist on pushing these outmoded ideas on the next generation are the same who are fighting to deprive women of any sort of control over their own bodies - be it the right to an abortion or the right to birth control. Once you view women as properly without agency, it is a short step to viewing them as without rights, without domain over themselves. If women can't do anything, then someone has to look out for them - the same way we look after children, who we do not consider to be full agents until they reach a certain level of maturity. Of course, it is a huge mistake to assume that women are without agency. And most people (at least 'round here) would not be willing to outright claim that female agency is negative. If that's really the case, though, we need to beware of the norms that we are teaching young girls and boys. If women really are to be treated equally, and our rights are to be preserved, there must be a change in the basic attitudes that people have toward women and sex. It's not that good girls don't have sex, it's that they don't have sex until they're ready. It's not that good girls don't want sex, or that they don't initiate it, it's that they don't do it unprotected.

Read Full Post

When Ideology Controls Funding

A sad bit of news, from the AP:

Unable to override a promised veto, Democrats have backed down on their insistence that the 2008 foreign aid budget reverse President Bush's ban on providing aid to family planning groups abroad that offer abortions.

A measure to ease restrictions on international aid was stripped this weekend from a $500 billion-plus government-wide spending bill, which includes some $3 billion for the State Department and foreign aid programs.

This has to stop. I was hoping that when the Democrats took control of congress, they would be able to reverse some of the damage that had been done by allowing backward ideology impact where our foreign aid dollars go. When are people going to realize that these organizations which - *gasp* - provide abortions are some of the most effective in making sure that women have access to much needed reproductive health care, to birth control, to aid for their children and to the means to prevent the transmission of STDs - including AIDS? But rather than giving these people the funds that they need to go out and do important work, our government would rather give the money to people who think condoms have gigantic holes in them and birth control pills are the work of the devil. And philosophers think that people are rational. Ha!

Read Full Post