The never ending question of the best form of protection

The first time I went on the pill, it was the high estrogen type that came in a thick pink packet. It made me feel like I had PMS all the time, I got moody, and it killed my sex drive. Since then I've tried low-estrogen, progesterone-only, a diaphragm, condoms, and lots of things in between. A few friends of mine started using an IUD and love it. Another friend of mine got hormonal shots and they made her clinically depressed. My younger sister once tried the sponge. The truth is when it comes to contraception, everyone has a story to tell, and there's no one simple option.

Which is why I was excited to see Planned Parenthood's new My Method – a quiz that helps you figure out what form of birth control & protection might be best for you based on cost, frequency, whether you want to take hormones and whether you even need birth control or just prevention against STIs. And who knew -- for me, it recommended I look into an IUD, cervical cap or diaphragm!

But I'm still curious. What do you all use? And does it differ when you're in a committed relationship versus non? For partners who don't have to worry about pregnancy, what do you use? And how often? Do you use more than one method? Which method has worked best for you, and which have you been dying to try?

Living Through Absurd Times

• Health Care Inequality is Key to Abortion Rates

It's a crime that we need to expend so much energy answering the absurd charges made by anti-choicers about the rate of abortions in communities of color. Charges like - we're waging big marketing campaigns targeting women of color, or that women of color use abortion as birth control, or women of color don't use condoms or contraceptives. All those charges are just malicious BS - made by people and groups who are vehemently against birth control and prevention and refuse to fund such programs. And who jump at every opportunity to de-fund programs that disproportionately impact poor women and women of color .

Hello! It's all about access fellas! Thankfully, Dr Melissa Gilliam, an African American woman, a physician, and a reproductive-health specialist, speaks truth to absurd claims by discussing the real-life consequences of unequal access to good health care. Dr. Gilliam is associate professor of obstetrics/gynecology at the University of Chicago and chairwoman of the Guttmacher Institute board of directors. She recently penned this excellent Op/Ed which ran in the August 10th edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

This should put an end to the absurd charges, but I'm betting it probably won't. Pass this article along to your friends. Everyone needs to be educated on this topic.

• Abortion Doesn't Cause Mental Illness

Here's another absurd claim - that abortion causes mental illness - promulgated by evildoers on the anti-choice side for decades. This should also be put to rest, but don't hold your breath.

Here's the good news - at the recent gathering of the American Psychology Association, their Mental Health and Abortion Task Force issued a 91-page report which says, in brief, "...there is no evidence that a single abortion causes significant mental health problems."

The New York Times summarizes it beautifully in an article in today's edition.

The false claims of mental health problems following abortion are put out there in bogus "studies" by the same people who brought you the bogus breast cancer and abortion lies.

• Is the NYC MTA Serious?
  

As if living in the 1950's, the MTA ruled that a pregnant officer was "unfit for duty," took away her gun and sent her to work in a toll booth. Even though her doctor pronounced the 10-week pregnant Lori Ann DiPalo fit for duty, the MTA thought otherwise.

You can read about this absurdity here.

Is it just me or does standing in a toll booth on your feet for 8 hours and sucking up car and truck fumes sound more unhealthy than enforcing the law?

I <3 Katha Pollitt

Author, poet, activist and feminist Katha Pollitt has been speaking truth to power from the pages of The Nation for almost 30 years. The Washington Post called Katha Pollitt's 'Subject to Debate' column"the best place to go for original thinking on the left." The NYC native has won major awards for her writing - including one from Planned Parenthood. Her most recent book, "Learning to Drive: And Other Life Lessons" is currently available in hardback from booksellers like Amazon.

But that's not just why I love Katha Pollitt.

I love Katha Pollitt most because no one I know writes with such passion and clarity about womens reproductive health and freedom as she does. And nobody exposes political attempts to deny a woman her reproductive freedom better than Katha Pollitt.

Katha's recent post on her The Nation blog spot, "And Another Thing," is a perfect case-in-point.

"Stealth Attack on Reproductive Rights" smartly links Bush's attempt to further restrict access to abortion with simultaneous attempts by his party's extremist right wing to deny a woman access to birth control.

As Katha Pollitt writes,

"...There are several disturbing elements to this story. One is that even as it fades into history, the Bush Administration is catering to the anti-choice movement's larger agenda of making contraception harder to obtain. And, "...another dangerous feature of the proposed rules is that they redefine contraception as abortion."

We are at a critical point in our political history. Great damage could be done to reproductive rights as this administration prepares to exit, stage far right.

Read Katha's article, pass it along to your friends, and contact your Senator and your Congressperson and demand that every attempt be made to stop these rules changes.

And on Nov. 2 - Vote! - as if your freedom depended on it - because it does!

Women Beware Parting Gift From Bush

I've briefly discussed Bush's plan to deny women access to abortion and birth control before he leaves office. Since then the news has become the subject of editorial pages across the country, and I want to share one of those with you.

It's Joan Malin's Op/Ed in the current issue of METRO - hot off the presses as it hits newsstands in NYC, Boston and Philadelphia on Friday, August 6th. Joan is president & CEO of Planned Parenthood of New York City and understands what's at stake as well as anyone.

It’s 3 a.m. and your sister is in need of emergency contraception. She goes to her closest hospital emergency room and asks for it. Instead of being given this backup method of birth control, she is instead given a dose of heavy judgment and turned away by a health care provider who believes birth control is “wrong.”

Read more ... and let us know what you think.

Next up - why I love Katha Pollitt.

Have We Turned Our Backs on Black Americans with HIV/AIDS?

While the Bush Administration admirably enacted a $48 billion five-year extension of the program PEPFAR to battle HIV/AIDS and malaria overseas, the HIV/AIDS infection rate is the United States is climbing to equally alarming numbers among Black Americans. But the U.S. does pathetically little to address it's own epidemic.

The Black AIDS Institute recently issued a report which finds that AIDS in segments of Black America is as severe as in many African Countries, but receives much less attention.

"More Black Americans are infected with HIV than the total populations of people living with HIV in seven of the 15 countries served by PEPFAR," noted Phill Wilson, CEO of the Black AIDS Institute and one of the authors of the report, referring to the U.S. government’s program of extraordinary aid for countries severely impacted by the epidemic. "Were Black America a separate country, it would elicit major concern and extensive assistance from the U.S. government. Instead, the national response to AIDS among Black Americans has been lethargic and often neglectful."

In areas of the United States such as New York City HIV levels among segments of the Black community approach those of many severely affected countries in Africa. For example, HIV prevalence among middle-aged Black men in Manhattan is almost as high as overall prevalence in South Africa, home to the world’s largest population of people living with HIV.

Tragically, while the U.S. government requires countries receiving PEPFAR support to have a national AIDS strategy in place, the United States itself has no strategy for its own epidemic - no strategy while thousands of our most vulnerable citizens become infected with the virus every year.

In fact, an estimated 100,000 New Yorkers are living with a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS. More than one-third are women. Women of color, especially African-American and Latino women in low-income neighborhoods are at highest risk. 82% of all women living with HIV/AIDS are women of color. A significant number of these women are mothers with young children.

Unable to manage their health, maintain employment and care for their children, thousands of women with HIV/AIDS watch hopelessly as their lives fall apart and they slide deeper into poverty. Without the proper support, too often these women lose their independence, their self-esteem and their determination to provide and care for their children.

We all need to refocus our attention on the epidemic in our own backyard. Reach out and help those organizations that provide services. Here's a few that need your help.

• Church Avenue Merchants Block Association, Inc. (CAMBA)
• Community Healthcare Network (Dr. Betty Shabazz & Queens Center)
• Gay Men's Crisis Center (GMHC) Women's Institute
• Harlem Dowling - West Side Center for Children and Family Services
• Iris House
• Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc./Project Street Beat
  
• Ryan-NENA Community Health Center
• United Bronx Parents, Inc.
• VIP Community Services
• The Women's Center at Montefiore Medical Center

GUILTY: Cruel & Unusual Punishment

There seems to be no end to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals propensity to drive their judicial oversight states back to the dark ages. And that comparison isn't hyperbole - not when we are talking about a Federal Court that just OK'd the shackling of pregnant women while in labor. If that's not medieval I don't know what is.


In concert with Arkansas, the 8th Circuit said it's OK to violate basic human rights and engage in cruel and unusual punishment directed toward women who are pregnant and about to deliver. In bone-chilling language the Court ruled ...

"The policy of placing a restraint on [a woman] while in a hospital bed is unequivocally related to a penological goal and is not constitutionally excessive," the court wrote. "[her] experience does not rise to the level of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."

The Marquis de Sade couldn't have written more frightening words.

Why are we, as a people, not outraged at rulings like this? Why aren't we saying "Were tired of this, we won't take it anymore?"

Get outraged, & get involved in the struggle to protect pregnant women. Call or write the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. Act now.

Museum of Sex

Have you ever smugly thought "I've seen it all. There's nothing that would surprise me anymore." And then, one night, poof - you see things you never dreamed possible?

That's what happened to me last night when I attended a benefit for Planned Parenthood of New York City at the Museum of Sex in Manhattan. There I was viewing exhibits of outrageous and outrageously funny sexual nature and content with 400 people I never met before - not exactly a touchy-feely sort of experience ;-) I saw things last night that I am sure will either give me nightmares or send me to therapy. And I have one lingering question - who has the time to dream up all those weird machines?

But one thing was without question. Summer, Sex & Spirits, the benefit for PPNYC, was a gargantuan success. The benefit committee , made up of members of the Activist Council, sold the place out. There were raffles for gifts throughout the night and a very cool array of choices in the super-popular silent auction. Original art and photography by top artists, spa sessions by Providence Day Spa & Euphoria Spa, a night at the Gershwin Hotel along with dinner at Philippe, goody baskets provided by Babeland and the Pleasure Chest, private yoga lessons, a cooking lesson from professional chefs Nancy Wong & Alice Levin - along with a bottle of Barolo! A signed "Sex and the City" script was a big winner as were a wine tasting party, and strip tease lessons.

There was even a lunch for 4 with Dr. Ruth auctioned off - I actually wish I had won that one - I now have some issues I need to discuss with her.

The catering provided by Apartment 138 in Brooklyn was great - the dates wrapped in bacon were hot, savory & sweet, and the veggie burger sliders were out-of-this-world. And there was lots of wine and beer flowing all night long.

This might have been the coolest party in town this week. Congrats to everyone at PPNYC who helped pull this off. The crowd was super diverse with a wide range of ages - all coming out on a hot & muggy night to help support the great work of Planned Parenthood.

Oh, the best part of the museum for me? The film with Smally Paulie - but that's all I'm telling you - you'll have to go see the ending for yourself!

South Dakota: The Badlands of Reproductive Freedom

Planning a vacation to South Dakota? Don't forget to stop into a local women's health center and listen to a doctor who is being forced to read a court-ordered script to women who are seeking abortion services. The language of the script reads like a bad science fiction novel - but sadly it's not.

Effective immediately, doctors in South Dakota are being forced to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being." So, it's come to this - we now live in a country where the practice of medicine is fully in the hands of extremist politicians and judges. And we have the brilliant scholars of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, who recently lifted a preliminary injunction that prevented the language from taking effect, to thank for this.

And, that's not all ... Under the law, doctors must say that the woman has "an existing relationship" with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated." Also, the doctor is required to say that "abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide." The message must be delivered no earlier than two hours before the procedure. The woman must say in writing that she understands.

Really, doesn't that read like a bad science fiction novel? Trouble is it contains 0% science and 100% ideology!

Let's help preserve justice, dignity and rights in South Dakota - take the pledge and stand-up for South Dakota.

And stay tuned - because South Dakota will once again try to ban abortion when they put the issue to a referendum on November4th, 2008.

South Dakota - truly the Badlands of Reproductive Freedom!

Regretting South Dakota

Some days, when it's Monday and 100 degrees outside it can be hard to get motivated to write. Fortunately, the NYT's Adam Liptak did my job for me today in his column "Putting the Government's Words in the Doctor's Mouth." Detailing South Dakota's draconian law requiring doctors to advise women seeking an abortion that "they will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Great.

This admonition reminds us of Justice Kennedy's conclusion in Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales that "while we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptional to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

I'm sorry, but if there's no RELIABLE DATA to measure the phenomenon, how can he possibly conclude that it exists at all, let alone enough to make it into a SCOTUS decision? Sadly, laws and language such as this only make it more difficult for women to access a legal, safe medical procedure.

I don't seek to discount the very real sorrow of the woman who may come to later regret a decision that she did her best with at the time, but I hardly think it means that ALL (or even most) women feel the same way. At the end of the day, abortion is a very private, personal decision and politicians really have no place interfering it. Makes me long for that rallying cry: Keep your laws off my body.

Why, Ohio?

This one blows me away (and kinda makes me wanna vomit).

A group of state reps in Ohio are pushing a bill that would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the potential father of the fetus. If his identity is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort (question: what if he doesn't want to submit to a paternity test? Is he tied down and forced? Or is she forced to give birth? Lots of forcing in this bill...). Also, claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.

As a matter of law, this is already against it. Planned Parenthood v. Casey said that SPOUSAL consent posed an undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion; now the state is trying to allow a one night stand to overrule a woman's personal decision about whether or not to have a child?

Not surprisingly, this bill has been greeted with outrage. In addition to eliminating a woman's right to make this most personal of decisions, it is clearly designed to embarrass and penalize women who have more than one sexual partner.

Contact Rep. John Adams, the bill's sponsor, and tell him what he can do with this legislation by clicking here.

***

In more promising news, Congress today is debating The State Children's Health Insurance Program, a bill that would -- gasp -- actually provide health insurance for millions of low-income children and adults.

It's unconscionable that, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, millions of children and their parents still have no health insurance. Imagine for a second how terrified you'd be if you were unable to bring your feverish child to the doctor and then tell Congress why you care by clicking here.

Respect the right...

The latest anti-choice brainchild appears to be the innocuously-enough worded ""Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative."

Recently approved by the House, the bill seeks to fund family planning and pregnancy prevention programs. As I mentioned the other day, that is all well and good, but forgive me if these programs sound like a not so subtle way to continue to vilify abortion. As a repro health and rights advocate, I think it's important to remember that -- for some women -- abortion is their best and only option and we need to respect a woman's right and ability to make that decision. I honestly believe that women have abortions for many reasons (not necessarily purely financial, as some of these initiatives would have us believe) and, even if we disagree with a particular reason, it is still best that each woman decide for herself what is best for her and her future.

Equally frustrating are the incredibly flawed polls that abortion opponents cite to support their contention that the public is conflicted. Everyone of these polls ask if people are opposed to "late-term abortions." The answer -- invariably overwhelmingly yes -- is then used to support the federal abortion ban. The problem with that logic is that -- say it with me -- the federal ban is NOT a ban on late-term abortions; late-term (or third trimester) abortions are already banned in almost every state (with the exception if the mother's life is in danger). The ban actually applies to a safe second trimester abortion that is (umm, was) sometimes necessary to protect a woman's health.

You can bet your life (or health) that, if worded another way, "the public" would support to keep women healthy and alive.

***

In happier news, this week's Newsweek highlights Danica McKellar (former "Wonder Years" star) and her new book "Math Doesn't Suck," which is meant to encourage girls to actually like math. Taking a different approach from many other Hollywood women, Danica majored in math and wants "to tell girls that cute and dumb isn't as good as cute and smart." Hear, hear!

O'er the weekend

Not sure if anyone caught the ridiculous Washington Post Style Section story on Hillary Clinton's cleavage about a week ago. (Yes, they devoted an entire story to the topic). In addition to the various Wash Post and NY Times critiques of the story, yours truly published a letter to the editor in Sat's Washington Post, as follows:

It was almost funny that The Post devoted an entire column to the subject of Hillary Rodham Clinton's breasts -- excuse me, cleavage. Robin Givhan compared seeing Clinton to "spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far," but I doubt that would spark a comparable Style article.

Most disturbing, however, was the misogynistic tone Givhan took, most notably with her comment, "No one wants to see that . . . Just look away!" It really should come as no surprise that women tend to have breasts. With breasts come cleavage. They are part of the female body, not "part of a bold, confident style package."

***

In other news, our friends at NOW have alerted us that The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 (H.R. 2831), sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), will likely come to the House floor for a vote this evening Monday evening, July 30. Why does this matter? You may recall that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court recently (and unfairly) limited the ability of anyone who has suffered pay discrimination to seek back pay and other compensation. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 will fix this constitutional misinterpretation and ensure that pay discrimination victims get their fair day in court. Tell your rep to support equal pay!

***

Finally, some of the articles I've been linking to -- in the LA Times, Wash Post and NY Times -- require registration to read the articles. There's nothing I can about that except advise you to register; it's free!

Can't we all just...

Gosh, yesterday's LA Times story, "Democrats shift approach on abortion," gets so many idealogical things wrong it's almost impossible to address it all here. So, focusing on my two largest bones of contention:

1. While it's commendable to offer services (financial and otherwise) to women who want to have children and feel that barriers are preventing them from making that decision, such programs are hardly the panacea the story suggests them to be. The fact, is some women simply do not want to -- or are not ready to -- have children and, for them, abortion may be their best and only option. To exclusively promote services that neglect that reality does a real disservice to the decision-making process that women go through when they consider what is best for them and their families. Working to prevent unintended pregnancies and offering women tools to help them make a life-altering decision is both important and helpful; villifying abortion is not.

2. The conservative push to frame increased access to birth control as promoting free love begs a knee-jerk, post 60s reaction: "No, that's not what we're doing! Sex? Who said anything about sex? Nobody is talking about sex here!" Umm, my question is, so what if it does? If people are having safe, consensual sex, what problem, exactly, does that pose to the greater good? I'm so tired of this (morality police) idea that we constantly need to assure people that increased access to birth control won't increase sexual actiivty... what if we actually said, "hey, what if it did -- that's STILL NOT A BAD THING?"

Alright, rant aside and with due diligence to reality: #2 is a hypothetical argument. While I personally don't see anything wrong with increased access = increased sex, everyone (conservatives included) should sleep more easily at night knowing that studies show over and over again that increased access does not actually change ( e.g. increase) sexual activity.

So there.

Birth control $$ back in the news

Thanks to the misleadingly named "Deficit Reduction Act," (read: Drastic Reduction Act) a bill passed by the 2005 Congress, college students continue to face soaring birth control prices. Before this Act, pharmaceutical companies discounted drugs for a range of health care providers, notably colleges. Now, college students are being asked to pay double or triple their old fees at student health centers.

Now, if I remember correctly, college kids are not necessarily flush with cash (Ramen noodles ring a bell?) and increased prices can put them in a the dangerous situation of being unable to protect themselves against an unplanned pregnancy. Which is exactly what politicians claim not to want (Prevention first, anyone?).

"Girls Gone Wild"

This is not a celebrity blog. Yet I feel compelled to speak to today's blaring headlines about Lyndsay Lohan and Britney Spears if only to say that the "trend" of young women being arrested/using cocaine/being out of control drunk is alarming at minimum. These women's behavior seems to be a real cry for help, a cry that appears is going unanswered by anyone of note in their lives. Shadenfraude aside, why do none of them have a caring, committed friend/family member able to lend a hand? And if they do have such a person, why isn't s/he or helping?

***

Elsewhere, remember that YouTube/CNN Prez debate? Thanks to our friends over at Feminsting, we've learned that only 11 of the 29 chosen video questions were from women... If I divide that correctly, that's... umm... less than half (I think so anyway, after all, girls can't do math either, right?).

And they're off...

So last night the Dem candidates (yes, for Prez) debated on a CNN/YouTube forum with questions posed by regular ol' folks. Fielding such queries as "are you black enough?" or "are you female enough?" the candidates did their best to not seem annoyed that Tom Brokaw wasn't the one forming the questions. For a full transcript click here

In addition to the questions re: War & Peace, someone did inquire whether or not the candidates had chatted with their kids about sex. For some reason, this seemed a bit harder to answer than one might imagine; Senators Edwards and Obama (the two who answered the questions) both deferred to "good touching v. bad touching."

Hmm... does this apparent discomfort maybe underscore the point that it is HARD to talk to your kids about sex? Y'know what could help? If you think the answer is: SEX ED click here.

One dark morning in the middle of the night...

Skipped Thursday and Friday, apologies. But to catch you up: in the wees hours of Wed night/Thursday morning, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) tried to get Congress to pass an amendment that would prohibit Title X funds from being made available to Planned Parenthood health centers.

Why does this matter? Title X funds family planning services for low-income and uninsured patients. In fact, each year, more than five million women receive family planning services at approximately 4,500 family planning clinics funded by Title X. Happily, PP was able to work with our allies on the Hill to defeat this short-sighted amendment.

Good work team. Boo Pence.

This is not an endorsement, either

Yesterday, Presidential candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with Elizabeth Edwards, spoke at Planned Parenthood Action Fund's convention. Each pledged to support reproductive health and rights. (All Prez candidates were invited, the above were the only ones to attend...) Probably nothing we didn't already know right there, but nice to see the tops of the ticket show up and stand up.

And, on that note, what legislation are we supporting today? Check out Senator Clinton's re-introduction of "The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act," a law that would make Emergency Contraception (EC) -- a second chance to PREVENT unintended pregnancy -- available at all facilities for our servicewomen. As it stands now, Department of Defense policy does not require EC to be available at all health care facilities. In fact, current availability of EC is up to the discretion of each individual facility. Considering that timely access to EC (which is effective up to 5 days after unprotected sex but is most effective the sooner you take it), Congress should waste no time passing this common-sense legislation. But. They probably will.

***

On a COMPLETELY unrelated note, I think that the people who have uploaded Harry Potter #7 are really not playing fair (oh, and breaking the law). Marketing aside, there's something to be said for an extremely rare, exciting experience that has truly united the global community and the HP madness has singularly offered/captured that. Don't spoil it for the rest of us...

This is not an endorsement

So it seems the "controversy" du jour percolating around the internet is whether or not the (adorable) new Obama Girl(v. Guiliani Girl) video is in fact sexist. While I'd be hard pressed to argue that almost any ad involving women, stilettos and short shorts doesn't have some shades of sexism, I don't think it makes me a bad feminist to say that -- in this case -- I don't care that much. The video is engaging, cheeky and imminently humm-able and it may even serve that elusive goal of getting young people interested (or at least aware) of politics. To see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSxxlj6rGE

In far more disturbing socio-political advertising news, CBS and Fox continue to refuse to air the "use a condom every time" Trojan ad. The ad has been dismissed by execs as not being enough about disease prevention (I mean, seriously, must the ad come out and say "can help prevent HIV and STDs." Is it not enough to encourage condom use and thereby prevent disease?!), a nuanced standard of morality notably absent from the network's programming... To tell the Fox and CBS to drop the hypocrisy, click here: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/condom_ad

Call Joe Bruno -- (518) 455-3191

Today's Monday, July 16th -- does everyone remember what that means? State senate is back, probably very busy not passing the Healthy Teens Act. For more reasons why they should, check out PPNYC's President Joan Malin in today's Metro: http://www.ppnyc.org/new/releases/inthenews/metro071607.html

***

In other news, Louisiana has the dubious distinction of becoming the first state to outlaw an abortion procedure since SCOTUS upheld the federal abortion ban. Like the federal ban, Louisiana has outlawed a safe, effective abortion method unless the woman's life is in danger (who cares if her health is in jeopardy, right?).

Why, some may wonder, does the state need to its own ban when the federal government has already (foolishly, dangerously and purely politically) done the deed for them? Well, this way the state can arrest and prosecute doctors itself rather than having to wait for the federal government. Nice going Gov. Kathleen Blanco: you've come a long way, baby...