Shocked. We're just shocked.

We (well, most of us anyway) already knew that abstinence-only programs didn't do anything to prevent pregnancy or reduce teen sexual activity. Now breaking news, courtesy of the NY Times, shows that abstinence-only programs for HIV prevention do not work either!

The analysis, which was published in the The British Medical Journal, covered 13 studies involving more than 15,000 young Americans and covered mostly school based programs for kids in grades five through eight. Compared to control programs, says the Times, abstinence-only programs had no significant effect in either decreasing or increasing sexual risk behavior (the studies also found that none of the programs made any significant difference in preventing pregnancy, reducing unprotected sex, or delaying sexual initiation).

Hmm. What should we do next? I know -- MORE money to abstinence only because clearly the problem was not enough funding for the programs!

***

Also, I'm going to verbatim quote Will Saletan from Slate because, well, you'll see why:

"Another Egyptian girl has died from female genital mutilation. This is the second death in three months. Six years ago, according to a survey, nearly every Egyptian woman of childbearing age had been subjected to the procedure. The usual lethal risks are hemhorraging, infection, and childbirth complications—did we mention the mutilation? This time the cause of death was apparently related to anasthesia. It's been nine years since the government officially banned the practice and two months since it issued a similar decree, but apparently it's not doing the job. Legislation is in the works to stiffen the penalties."

To help stop female genital mutilation, click here!

The Blame Game

• Tumi MCCallum, strangled in Manhattan. The suspect: her boyfriend.
• Yvonne Rivera, shot dead in Staten Island. The suspect: her estranged boyfriend.
• Brenda Jones, a former domestic violence counselor, found dead in
  her Brooklyn home. The suspect: her husband.
• Guiatree Hardat, shot dead in Queens by her police officer boyfriend.
• Claudette Marcellus, and her son Brian, knifed on a Brooklyn street. The suspect: her boyfriend, despite an existing order of protection against him.

That’s (at least) five women in the last three months murdered by their boyfriend or husband. I don’t know if this is statistically high or statistically low, but I do know that it’s five women too many. Andrea Peyser, in today’s NY Post, essentially slams the women for staying with the men. I suggest that we should be slamming the men for killing the women.

People tend to ask “Why did she stay?” And while studies and interviews show that there are a host of reasons why women, once in an abusive relationship, stay in abusive relationships, the most cost compelling is that she is more likely to be killed if she leaves or tries to leaves.

I suggest that is the wrong question. The question we need to ask -- and answer -- is why did he ever think it was ok to be violent?

If you are in a violent relationship, you are not alone. Organizations, such as Safe Horizon, can help you. For more information, click here or call 1-800-621-HOPE.

What are we saying if we can't say abortion?

So last night I was at an (unfortunately titled) forum called "What's so Bad About Abortion?" sponsored by the New York Salon. Except for the title, however, the forum -- which included speakers from NARAL, NAF, Reproductive Health Technologies Project and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service -- was truly a fascinating conversation about the direction in which abortion language is moving. There was a level of previously unseen frankness and honesty to the discourse, as well as a willingness to (finally!) engage "difficult" questions. The audience was a mix of pro-choice and anti-choice and, while I think a bit too much time was therefore spent on the made-up "post-abortion syndrome" -- which really goes to show the pervasiveness of that junk science as well as the relative success of that particular anti-choice tract -- there were some challenging questions posed by all sides on the issue.

Including: Is abortion killing and, if so, what does that mean? Don't father's have rights? Does increase access to birth control really reduce abortions or does it actually increase them? If Roe falls, are states truly protected or can/will Congress simply outlaw it across the board?

I do think a large take-away that really underscores the movement's progress that repro health thought leaders have abandoned the "clump of cells"' argument and have adopted a more emotionally resonant way of talking about abortion that really takes into consideration the most important piece of the puzzle: the woman having the abortion.

To read the papers and learn more about the speakers click here.

I'd love thoughts and comments!

Real men don't eat quiche

Back when the NY Times started their Thursday style section, I remember a bit of mumbling about why, exactly, they needed two weekly style sections. Now we have our answer. This week, the Times treats us to "Be Yourselves, Girls, Order the Rib-Eye." The article goes on to explain that a lot of men find it sexy when women order steak (independent, confident etc.). This , says the article, belies the former strategy that women used to use to snare men: ordering nothing and eating less.

I love steak (med rare, please) so this is a train I would easily board. However. At the end of the day, it seems the article suggests that, regardless of what women order, they are doing it with the end-goal of not, say, enjoying their meal but for presenting a particular posture to their male date.

Is it so much to ask that women (and men!) be able to do as the headline almost exhorts and be themselves?

"We had no idea"

I've decided it's time to weigh in on the horrific story of Christy Freeman. As you may have known, police discovered four dead fetuses scattered throughout her home. The story goes that three were still-born and/or early miscarriages while one, apparently indisputably and, I would add, unforgiveably, she watched drown in the toilet.

I'm going to skip right over the debate on the ethics and legality of self-induced abortion and disposal of, umm, fetal remains and go straight on over to two other -- I would argue -- key issues.

First. Abortion is (still) safe and legal in this country. Anyone who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and considering drastic steps should know this. In fact, everyone should know it in general.

Of course, there are legal date cut-offs to the procedure and we know that for reasons that may include depression, denial, irregular menstrual cycles, mental illness and weight issues, some women may not realize until relatively late in a pregnancy that they are, in fact, pregnant. That said, even if I can understand how a woman might somehow not know she was pregnant until the end of her second trimester the first time, how did that situation occur twice more? I would suggest that it might stand to reason that she'd pay more attention the next time her period was very late. (Also, it's useful to know that most states have "Save Haven" laws where a woman can safely and legally leave her infant, no questions asked, with a staff member at a hospital, emergency medical service, police station, or fire station. For specific state info click here.)

Truly, the entire tragic situation could have been avoided, safely and legally. Instead, among other things, she watched her baby drown.

Second. How did people not know what was going on? Statement after statement from friends, neighbors, loved ones: we had no idea, she would never do this. Can someone be that good at hiding a huge issue in her life? I personally cannot wince from a menstrual cramp or experience a 3 pound weight fluctuation without all of my friends noticing. I guess I may have especially observant friends or I'm particularly open about my goings on or both, but still. Three pregnancies -- one of which was twins -- no babies and nobody notices a thing?


Thoughts, anyone?

"I may disagree with what you say...

But I'll defend to the death your right to say it."* Sigh, those French sure had a way with words.

Speaking of words, seems the NY City Council has a problem with them. Shortly after voting to "ban" the N-word, several members are now seeking to ban "bitch."

Now, you won't catch me defending (or using even for example's sake) the N-word in any circumstance. BUT I do own an adorable little girl puppy that breeders non-pejoratively refer to as a bitch. So in some cases a cigar is just a cigar. But, admittedly, in other cases it isn't and hopefully most people are intelligent, considerate and informed enough to use discretion in those other cases. And honestly, if someone is going to call someone a nasty name in the first place, a ban on said word is unlikely to stop them.

So, courtesy, maybe? How about that?

* My one exception to the free speech rule would apply to a certain NY Sun columnist whose last name rhymes with Poland minus the D. Oh, and Ann Coulter.

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.

Now: Denver

Heaven help us.

Denver has proposed a ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg, either inside or outside the womb, as a person. In addition to, umm, complicating abortion rights, has anyone thought through the practical implications of such a move? Let's just say that a woman was pregnant with a wanted pregnancy and there was a fetal abnormality that could possibly be treated through surgery but would cause grave risk to the woman. Would she now be required to have that surgery, potentially against her will, in order to save the other... person? Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it is simply impossible to consider a developing fetus independently of the woman.

And the biggest irony of all? I'm not quite sure WOMEN are defined as people... ERA anyone?

More on Ohio

Upon further contemplation, this Ohio bill just gets more and more disgusting.

Two things spring to mind. First, as Broadsheet points out, it isn't possible to to perform a paternity test until 11-20 weeks in pregnancy. Which means that a woman would have to wait longer to have an abortion. Oh, and never mind that performing the test in the first place is an invasive procedure on the woman...

Second, bill sponsor Rep. John Adams justifies the bill by saying that "In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."

So... does that mean Mr. Adams would allow the father force the woman TO have an abortion if he didn't want to support the child?

***

Update on the child healthcare legislation I mentioned yesterday: the House DID pass the expansion of SCHIP by a vote of 225 to 204 (a little too close if you ask me). So thumbs up for health insurance, thumbs down for 204 representatives.

***

Finally, can we all pause for a moment to be appalled by the story out of Florida re: the woman behind a $3 million adoption scam who shackled and abused 11 or 12 (unclear) children for YEARS? Among other things, the kids told police they were never allowed to attend school, see a doctor or a dentist and were fed little more than noodles, rice and beans. Often, they weren't allowed to use the bathroom and had to urinate or defecate on themselves. Their guardian was formally charged yesterday with 10 felony counts, including abuse of a disabled person and witness tampering. If convicted on all the charges, she faces a maximum of 160 years in jail.
Clearly they should throw away the key (umm, if she's guilty I mean), but you gotta wonder -- how did nobody else know what was going on?

Oh wait, someone did. Seems a complaint was filed -- and dismissed -- eight years ago.

Those poor kids.

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.