MTV Acknowledges the Option of Abortion

One of the most popular reality shows is MTV’s “16 and Pregnant” which instigated the spinoff show, “Teen Mom”. The sad thing about these shows that teenagers find so entertaining is that it only shows one side of the whole story, only one option. Last week, MTV aired a new spinoff that shows another, viable option for unexpected pregnancies called “No Easy Decision”. The episode followed the story of Markai and James, a teenage couple who decide that abortion is the best decision for them.

Markai and James were previously stars on “16 and Pregnant” through their pregnancy with their first child. The show revealed how difficult raising a child is, especially when young and faced with other hardships such as trying to graduate from high school and make a living to support your new family. When Markai becomes pregnant for the second time she and James come to the conclusion that abortion is in the best interest for the whole family financially and emotionally.

As explained in “No Easy Decision”, there are three options when faced with an unexpected pregnancy: becoming a parent, adoption, or abortion. All three choices are no easy decisions. As Markai says in the episode, either decision she makes there will be a “what if”. The most powerful thing you can hold onto is your freedom of choice, so that you can make the right decision for YOU.

Watch “No Easy Decision” from MTV.com

No Easy Decision - MTV Shows

Also check out:

www.itsyoursexlife.com

www.4exhale.org

Anti Choice Pseudoscience

On Monday, there was an article in the Washington Post about a new study that disputes the link between abortion and mental health. It has long been the agenda of anti choice advocates to dissuade pregnant women from seeking abortion by providing so called “medical” advice. One such “medical” scare tactic is Post Abortion Syndrome. Sounds fancy, right? Post abortion syndrome has yet to be scientifically proven as an actual medical condition and is not acknowledged by any professional medical or psychological organization. Anti choice advocates define post abortion syndrome as a form of posttraumatic stress caused by the guilt of having an abortion. In the Washington Post article, Study disputes link between abortion and mental health problems, Rob Stein writes about how a new study based on the same statistics and data used by anti choice advocates to “prove” post abortion syndrome, shows no casual correlation between abortion and mental health. In other studies, abortion has been found to make many women feel relieved, quite contrary to the reports of anti choice supporters. This does not go to say that abortion does not negatively affect some women, but carrying to term a pregnancy can also negatively affect some women. Stress is caused by any change in a person’s life and is not limited to abortion but to any aspect of a pregnancy and therefore medically accurate information and not a series of pseudoscience is important for every woman to make an informed decision. While it is the anti choice agenda to dissuade abortions by any means, it is the pro choice agenda to provide medically accurate information and let the woman choose.

Nevada County high school students! It's your legal right to have medically accurate HIV/AIDS information!

A group of Boston-area teens are pushing the city school department to provide access to condoms and comprehensive sex ed in all high schools.

What about you? In California it's a law that HIV/AIDS classes must be taught twice, once in junior high and once in high school. And those classes MUST be medically-accurate, and MUST provide local sources where students can get condoms, tested, and counseling. And if the schools teach sex ed, it must also be medically accurate.

How does your high school add up? Not too well in the past...read about Citizens for Choice's effort to ensure that you do get medically accurate sex ed.

And then demand medically accurate sex ed!

Take back the Ursus Arctos Horribilis!

There was an interesting blog today in the daily report for the National Partnership for Women and Families. Gail Collins, New York Times, writes that she "think(s) it is time to take back the mama grizzly," which former Alaska Gov. and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used as a symbol of GOP female candidates in the midterm elections. Feminist writer and activist Gloria Steinem told Collins that real female grizzy bears "are famous for their reproductive freedom." She added that they "mate later than other bears," have fewer cubs, wait longer between pregnancies and "re-absorb the embryo into their body" if they are faced with a poor situation for raising cubs.

Is this true? Is the female grizzy bear a better symbol for the pro-choice crowd? Of course we needed to check out the sources and you can check them out also, on Wikipedia.

• grizzly bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates of all terrestrial mammals in North America
• once mated with a male in the summer, the female delays embryo implantation (birth control!) until hibernation, during which abortion (abortion!) can occur if the female does not receive the proper nutrients and caloric intake.
• on average, females produce two cubs in a litter and the mother cares for the cubs for up to two years, during which the mother will not mate (of course they're not married so they should be abstinent!)
• once the young leave or are killed, females may not produce another litter for three or more years depending on environmental conditions.
• grizzlies are subject to fragmentation, a form of population segregation, which can decrease the average litter size (more birth control!).
• ...and they can reabsorb the embryo.(Eastern Slopes Grizzy Bear Project)

And btw, blond grizzlies are rare and they don't look white.

And the heat goes on...

It's so very unfortunate that the House of Representatives will now be ruled by anti-choicers, who will do all they can to make not only abortion illegal or difficult to obtain, but also birth control. They will not doubt try to slash government subsidies for family planning - especially the government subsidy that currently keeps Family PACT afloat (the California state-run family planning program.)

As Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony group "This shift in numbers from pro-abortion to pro-life women is historic and not accident. It is a corrective moment for the women's movement who must either drop abortion out of its center or risk dropping off the face of the earth."

Oh, I don't think so.

Positive Sexuality!

If you're a teen, you need to visit Coalition for Positive Sexuality.

Here's what they say:

You have the right to complete and honest sex education. Demand information from your school, healthcare provider, and parents.

We have a quick and easy online tour through the most important topics for teens who are sexually active now or just thinking about having sex. It's called "Just Say Yes" because we're tired of people telling us what we can and can't do. There's no preaching. No moralizing. Just the facts.

Pro-life? Nah, they should be called pro-death.

The term "pro-life" is a great example of political framing, which means that the term is constructed that puts the beliefs in the best possible light; and in this case implies that the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death." It's a term that sounds as though its followers believe in the health and well-being of every living organism but in reality the majority are concerned only with fetal rights, and not with the health or rights of women.

Anti-choice, anti-women groups are almost always religious-based (each major religion has developed moral codes covering issues of sexuality, morality, ethics, etc. They want to control who can have sex, and when). These groups can either be single-issue, such as anti-abortion, or can be truly anti-choice, that is, wanting all contraception to be banned, even for married couples, no sexuality education, and probably no testing or treatments for STIs. A great many are completely anti-choice but don't want to alienate others who may be anti-abortion but not anti-choice.

As Pam Chamberlain and Jean Hardisty state in their article Reproducing Patriarchy: Reproductive Rights Under Siege "Sometimes the politcal "frame" promoted by the anti-aboriton movement is meant to deceive the public. For instance, the anti-abortion movement would have us believe that it is siimply anti-abortion; in reality, it is more broadly a movement that opposes reproductive rights, since it seeks not only to eradicate abortion, but to limit or prohibit other reproductive decisions by women. It is important for pro-choice activists to understand the larger agenda of the anti-abortion movement, and to see it for the broad-based attack on reproductive rights that it is." http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v14n1/ReproPatriach-01.html.

Pro-choice is also considered an example of political framing but I don't agree with that. What other name is there? "Pro-abortion" is too narrow (and I can't imagine many people liking medical procedures); "pro-reproductive justice" explains it fully (pro-choice being just one part of reproductive justice) but it is a bit lengthy.

"Pro-lifers" should really be called "pro-deathers:" they ignore the heatlh of the woman; indeed they often trivialize women by never mentioning their health or their rights, so that the emphasis in on the fetus, and so they don't look like what they really are, anti-woman. Since some pregnancies can end in death due either to complications or botched abortions, this is a descriptive term. Perhaps they could expend some of their energy on women's health - per Amnesty International, maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 lived births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 lived births in 2006. While some of the recorded increase is due to improved data collection, the fact remains that maternal mortality ratios have risen significantly. Although the US spends the most in healthcare, women in the US have a higher risk of dying of pregnancy-related complications than those in 40 other countries. For example, the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the US is five times greater than in Greece, four times greater than in Germany, and three times greater than Spain. http://www.amnestyusa.org/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/the-united-states/page.do?id=1351091.

But they would rather let women die.

Here's a more personal and recent case: in 2009 a pregnant woman was admitted to Catholic St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, suffering from pulmonary hypertension, which limits heart and lung function and can be fatal during pregnancy. Sister Margaret Mary McBride, the senior administrator, approved the abortion that saved the patient's life. She was automatically excommunicated for saving the woman's life, and was reassigned.

So I think that "pro-deathers" fits the bill.

OTC Birth Control?

A group of women's health experts is trying to get the FDA to approve an over-the-counter birth control for non-prescription use. They believe that prescription-only access to birth control patronizes women, restricts access to birth control, and does nothing to curb teen pregnancy. Visit www.ibisreproductivehealth.org.

And after only 50 years!

...of course it will take another 50 years for it to get approved...

The Death of Family PACT?

Family PACT is a California family planning program that provides reproductive healthcare for the uninsured and under-insured of California. Because these women and men have access to birth control that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, this program has reduced unwanted pregnancies by almost 300,000 - averting over 122,000 abortions - and has saved the state almost $6 billion (from conception to age five; the cost of healthcare and the raising of a child is about $20,000). That doesn't even include the savings and disease prevention/cure from STI testing and treatment...

On June 30, 2010, the waiver for Family PACT will need to be renewed. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Service (CMS) needs to approve a waiver (a legal thing) for the federal government to fund this program.

The cost per year (in 2007 it was about $438 million) is offset by the federal government, who pays almost 2/3 to California. Every dollar that is spent on Family PACT saves almost $14.

Pay $438 million, save $6 billion. It's a great program and keeping it going is a no-brainer, right? Wrong. Governor Scharwzenegger's current budget proposal cuts funding to Family PACT reimbursements which means that some clinics will close because the medical staff won't be reimbursed for services. And if California can't get the federal funding, then the entire program will be scraped, which ultimately will cost the state that 6 billion... There's an old adage that goes "Cut off your nose to spite your face."

Bottom line for The Clinic!? It could close.

Are young women really apathetic about reproductive rights?

A Newsweek article iterated the belief held by many that young women today don't think that abortion rights need defending; and that with the elections of anti-choice politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, the reproductive rights people (denigratingly I think, called "the menopause militia") have waning influence in Washington.

Do you think that this is true? Do young women tend to not worry about access to BC and pregnancy testing or abortion or even STI testing, because those rights have always been there for them? Here in Nevada County, California, we have a group of college-age women and men who've formed a group called CHOICES and are activisits for reproductive justice. But then again, our donor base and our Board members are made up of mainly older people...

Is it sex or isn't it?

Do you have oral sex but just consider it "messing around?" Well, you're wrong, it is sex. And it's dangerous to think that it doesn't have consequences. Although the risk is less than with vaginal/penile/anal sex, there's quite a few STIs that you can get - herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, human papillomavirus, intestinal parasites, hepatitis A, and HIV. Don't be lulled into thinking that it's less risky and that nothing can happen to you. Read this Guttmacher report.

Is your male partner forcing you to have unprotected sex?

A study last month by the Guttmacher Institute examined male reproductive control - when a man forces his female partner to have unprotected sex, through intimidation, threats, or physical violence.

The study found that women had encountered a range of controlling behaviors by their partners in an effort to get them pregnant, including violent rape and forced or unwanted intercourse (sometimes only unwanted because it was unprotected).

Has this happened to you or someone you know? If so, if you live in Nevada County, California, you can call DVSAC, Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coaltion, 530.272.3467.

Win: Health Care Reform; Lose: Abortion Rights

The House of Representatives passed the historic health care reform bill on March 21, following a compromise restricting women's access to insurance for abortions, in order to gain the votes of anti-choice Democrats needed for passage of the bill. That group of legislators includes Bart Stupak, the author of the highly restrictive Stupak amendment. The somewhat less restrictive Nelson admendment is now law, as it was part of the Senate health reform bill passed by the House.

President Obama agreed to issue an executive order clarifying that the Hyde amendment annual ban on the use of federal funds for abortion would apply to the health reform bill, promising not to rescind the order during his term of office. The President signed the health reform bill into law on March 23.

The House also passed a "reconciliation" bill to revise and improve the health reform legislation. The next step is for the Senate to consider the reconciliation bill. Opponents, mainly Republicans, promise to do all they can to undercut Democratic efforts to quickly pass the bill.

Funny or offensive?

Sex is cleaner... with a packaged wiener.

DoD stocks EC!

The Department of Defense will now stock emergency contraception! As a New York Times editorial states, the decision "marked welcome, if overdue, progress in meeting the needs of women serving the United States in the military." This decision came after the Pentagon's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee voted in November 2009 to include EC on the list of mandatory drugs for military facilities. The panel had previously issued similar recommendations in 2002 but the Bush administration chose to ignore them.

The New York Times article goes on to state that "Next, Pentagon officials and members of Congress need to address the callous treatment of servicewomen with regard to abortion," noting that military facilities currently can offer abortion only in cases of inces, rape or danger to the woman's life. "And even in cases of rape and incest, the women must pay for the procedure...It is outrageous that politics is allowed to interfere with the health care decision of women who wear the nation's uniform." (New York Times, 2/15/10)

Review by the Guttmacher Institute of "Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months," Guttmacher.org/media/.../03/EvidenceCheck/Jemmott-study.PDF.

In the review, under "Background," the advisory states: "An abstinence-only intervention aimed at young, urban African-American adolescents successfully delayed sexual initiation among participants in the program... While the evaluated program is the first abstinence-only intervention to demonstrate this positive impact in a randomized control trial, it was not a rigid "abstinence-only-until-marriage" program of the type that, until this year, received significant federal funding. The evalution, therefore, add important new information to the question of "what works" in sex education, but it essentially leaves intact the significant body of evidence showing that abstinence-only-until-marriage programming that met previous federal guidelines is ineffective."

While the recent report "Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months" might be exciting for abstinence-only proponents, you need to be careful of what the study actually found and what it could mean. The authors of the study, John B. Jemmott III, Loretta S. Jemmott, and Geoffrey T. Fong cautioned that abstinence programs are not an effective long-term solution. "A common shortcoming of behavior-change interventions is that efficacy is demonstrated in the short term but disappears at longer-term follow-up," the report said. "This may particularly be a problem for abstinence interventions. Unlike many risk behaviors (e.g. cigarette smoking, drug use), sexual intercourse is an age-graded behavior; the expectation is that people will eventually have sexual intercourse." (We don't yet have the full report and are trying to obtain one, to substantiate these quotes. They appeared on this site: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/0202/abstinence.study/index.html.)

The study was conducted on 662 black 12-year olds in urban public schools over a period of two years, to help those 12-year olds delay sex until they were ready. There were four different courses: an 8-hour abstinence-only intervention which targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sex-only intervention which targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour conprehensive interventions which targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention which targeted health issue unrelated to sexual behavior (link to the abstract at Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home).

According to the Advocates for Youth webiste, the Jemmotts stated that "It (the abstinence-only intervention) was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected." http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=content&task-view&id-1559&Itemid-835. It included contraceptives and STI information if requested by the students.

They model-estimated (not reality but a model) that 33.5% of the abstinence-only group would have sex by the 24-month follow-up, and 48.5% in the control group. The result was that 20.6% of the abstinence-only group reported having sex while 29% of the control group did. Remember, however, that the control group had health-promotion control intervention (that) targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Once we obtain the full report, we'll write about the other statistics.

It seems that the study showed that it's a good thing to teach comprehensive sex education to 12-year olds, with an emphasis on abstinence, with a continuation of comprehensive sex education for older children with abstinence as one of the subjects. It's a good thing to advocate for abstinence until a committed relationship - as long as medically correct and adequate information if provided about STIs, contraceptives, and other crucial issues as well. (and, as a few blogs have mentioned, perhaps they should also teach masturbation or at least dispel the myth that masturbation is bad).

Our Outreach team has been handing out pamphlets on abstinence for quite a while now...along with information on contracepton, STIs, self-esteem...and condoms. Maybe we're ahead of the curve!

Are twenty-somethings really not taking control of our reproductive health?

A Health Fellow from the National Women's Law Center wrote about why teens who have a desire to not get pregnant when they have sex, then go on to have unplanned pregnancies - 7 in 10 pregnancies among unmarried 20-something women are unplanned. The studies the author cites show that:

- when it comes to contraception, they don't know much
- they don't believe that contraception works
- they think that it can't happen to them

Go to www.womenstake.org for the article.

It could also be that they're apathetic when it comes to reproductive rights. Abortion has always been legal for them, reproductive healthcare clinics have always been around to give them contraceptives. But reproductive rights are being eroded and it still takes work to make sure that they're not eroded.

Your best choice... is a choice.
A great many people equate "choice" and "reproductive healthcare" with abortion - and they are wrong. Reproductive healthcare includes pap smears, pelvics, birth control...and prostate exams. Reproductive healthcare is for everyone, even women in menopause. Did you know that HPV, the human pappillovirus that causes cervical cancer, can lay dormant for years and then activate itself and possibly become a pre-cancerous lesion? What would happen if a group of people decided that getting a pap smear (which can catch those pre-cancerous cells) is against their morals and they try to stop girls from getting checked?

Reproductive healthcare is for everyone. And everyone should have a choice.