Birth Control Pill Kills Babies!

Read more at Feministing

Read more at Pandagon

The definition of 'unfair'

The mayor of Santiago, Chile, Gonzalo Navarrete, has a great plan.

He's handing out free Viagra to men.

Why?

Mayor Navarrete said it's because "an active sexuality improves the overall quality of life."

Over 1,500 men are eligible to receive up to four pills each month. They just have to be at least 60, registered with the health service and have a doctor certify that they do suffer from erectile dysfunction and that their condition would not put them in danger of suffering cardio-respiratory side effects.

How about that? Sexuality improves the overall quality of life and we should support that! But apprently, only when this sexuality improves the life of MEN.

Women-- not so much.

Anna, blogger at Planned Parenthood, tells of how Chile just passed a law that makes it illegal for clinics to hand out free morning after pills.

The court case was prompted by 36 conservative Chilean lawmakers who banded together in 2006 to protest ... the use of emergency contraception ...on the grounds that the morning-after pill constituted an abortive medication. The Constitutional Court, consisting of eight men and one woman, upheld the lawmakers' complaints, voting 5 to 4 to ban the morning-after pill from being freely distributed at public clinics. The Court announced its belief that emergency contraception violates the Chilean Constitution's affirmation of a "right to life.

Charming, ain't it?

I guess sexuality is only safe in the hands of men.

CNN story: Male Birth Control Pill out soon

Dr. Gupta tells CNN of male birth control pill coming out next year.

Female anchor asks "What took you so long?"

What I've been up to lately

I've been having an interesting debate in the comment field of my college newspaper.

It all started when a friend of mine wrote an article commemorating the Roe v Wade anniversary. Then a guy named Chad decided to comment that "Abortion is the ultimate disgustingly selfish decision a person can make. Taking a life to make it easier on yours." He also claimed that "birth control is like $2 a month the last time I checked with my girlfriend."

When was the last time Chad had sex with his girlfriend?!?! TWO DOLLARS? Are you freakin' kidding me?

I've enjoyed being part of the discussion over there and am pleased to see that other commenters are pointing out how complicated access to contraception is--- for an example--- and beause I'm lazy, I'll just copy and paste one of my responses:

"Anon" suggested a compromise that pro-life people work with pro-choice people to "give women and girls easy and cheap access to birth control."

Absolutely brilliant idea! This is something pro-choice people have been asking of the "pro-life" community for years. But we never get anywhere on this issue because pro-lifers have no interest in life (example? – how about co-opting AIDS relief by demanding America not send condoms to Africa....)

There lack of interest in decreasing abortions was proved AGAIN- most recently in the South Dakota legislature on Friday February 8th.

South Dakota Senate Bill 164 read:

"It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities..." ...

The bill would have prevented pharmacists from refusing to dispense birth control. Planned Parenthood in S.D. has several documented instances where pharmacists have refused to do their job and fill prescription birth control for women.

This bill was voted down by the "pro-life" people who claim that they want abortion to end!??!?

So now we know--- pro-life is a misnomer. These people are the sex police. They have no interest in helping women avoid unwanted pregnancy. They want to tell people how to live their lives. No condoms, no pill, no abortion.

And then when you're an unwed teenage mother, they'll call you a SLUT. No really.

Colorado Spring Republican Rep. Larry Liston said (during a recent GOP legislative caucus meeting in Denver):

"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, and they were called what they are. There was at least a sense of shame. There's no sense of shame today, society condones it. ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."

Yes because we know how often MEN were sent away in shame for pregnancy. And we know how often MEN are called sluts with any derogatory meaning behind it.

Time to face facts, folks. "Pro-life" people have no intention of reducing the need for abortion. Their gripe is that women can't be shamed and called out for their "slutty ways" anymore. There is no interest in making it easier on single mothers.

-- If you want women to have options
-- If you think people need real sex education
-- If people need access to contraception
-- IF you want abortions to decrease

...then you would best serve your purpose on the pro-choice side.

So yeah, that was fun.

It just makes me absolutely nuts when "pro-life" people come out and claim to care about the welfare of children (in fetus form only of course). They want women to continue every single pregnancy possible... no matter what. Cause it's so "easy" to do?

There was a great article on MSNBC that talked about the child care crisis and how day care costs have outpaced what the average family spends on food. The majority of families rely on two-income households to keep going and that means the kiddies have to go somewhere. But when daycare costs more than food--- how are people supposed to stay on top of it?

According to the article:

Child-care costs are rising at twice the rate of inflation. After paying the mortgage, health insurance premiums, transportation costs and child-care fees, today's two-income families have less money left over than the one-income family did a generation ago.

"In order to go back to one income, families would have to make significant changes, possibly losing health insurance and their home."

So even the good old fashioned nuclear family might have some serious concerns about an unplanned pregnancy. But surprise surprise it was the democratic, pro-choice canidate, John Edwards who talked about more significant tax breaks for people with children in day care.... not the anti-choiceres... seems to me they don't give one lick about making it easier to afford and adequately care for children.

And as for $2 birth control... PULEAZE

Happy on the way home

It's frickin' freezing here today!!

Most people go outside only when forced. And they spend that time keeping their head down to avoid the wind.

Days like today you're really thankful for those extra special swear words-- like, 'm*therf*cker' -- that's a good one for below zero temperatures with wind chill.

As I walked into my apartment I saw something amidst the snow, it made me really happy...


Aha, what is up ahead?




WOW-- it's contraception to the rescue!

YAY! Someone in my building knows about Plan B and is using it to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

It's enough to make me warm inside!

Glenn Beck & Bill Donahue tie for IDIOT of the year award

My last post was all about the middle school in Maine dispensing birth control for girls. So I'm not going into all the details or why I think it's a good idea. You can just read it.

When it comes to controversial topics involving sex, some things are just 100% predictable. I'm talking romantic-comedies-starring-Drew-Barrymore predictable. First predictable thing: CNN's Glenn Beck will be a total moron and #2 President of the Catholic League will be invited on moron's moronic show to be an even bigger moron. ... one more time for good measure... MORON!

It's no surprise that people are talking about girls getting birth control and it's definitely no surprise that Bill Donahue would get in on the action-- he revels the opportunity to bash feminism, contraception and talk about "saving women from themselves." Here's some of the gems from the conversation between Beck and Donahue:

Beck: Now, right now it is illegal in Maine for kids under the age of 14 to have sex at all, whether it is consensual or not. Yet you have a local school commission that is not only underhandedly encouraging sex; they`re actually enabling it. "Hey, kids, go break the law."

I understand that there`s disease out there. But we`re talking now about taking the pill. Now we`re saying, "Hey, you go ahead" -- I mean, how easy are we going to make it?

Sex Ed 101, Glen-- The pill isn't about preventing disease, it's about preventing pregnancy! Giving a woman (or girls) a prescription for birth control is not the same as saying "go have sex." It's saying, "if you have sex, and don't want to become pregnant, you need this."

Since 2000, this middle school gave out condoms and Glenn Beck wasn't wetting the bed. Now that we give young girls the option to protect themselves against pregnancy (itself terribly dangerous for an 11-13 year old) NOW-- it's a problem.

Such a problem that we're practically building a copulation room and tearing down the library. Seriously, Beck was on Good Morning America when he said,

Why don`t we -- the library`s outdated. Why don`t we have a copulation room?

What type of rounded logic is that? By giving a sexually active girl options to prevent pregnancy we're forcing sex on her?

The program only gets better because then, Bill Donahue (AKA EVIL INCARNATE) is invited to speak.

DONAHUE: Well, you know, this is the goal of the sexual engineers. It has been for a very long time. This libertine notion of sexuality.

....I would say this. You know, the original feminists -- I`m talking about the ones in the 19th century -- they understood that one of the goals of their movement was to protect innocent women from being preyed upon by irresponsible men."

Really? Feminism was started to protect innocent women from irresponsible men. I thought feminism was about giving women equal opportunity so she wouldn't have to be dependent on men-- irresponsible or not. Feminism meant that women could vote, be assured safety within her marriage, hold property, secure a job to feed herself and have some control if she wanted a divorce but didn't want to lose her kids.

But no, I guess Susan B Anthony just wanted to save women from "irresponsible" men. What kind of bullshit, non-committal word is "irresponsible" anyway, Bill? What irresponsible things were these men doing-- beating their wives? Taking all their money? Raping women? WHAT?

The insanity continues:

Donahue: There`s no question that -- that young men have always been throughout all of history in all societies the most irresponsible segment of society. You know what the message is being sent to young men, and I`m talking about ones who are also over the age of 18.

The message that will be sent to young men is this: they`re fair game. The girl is just off her tricycle. She`s 11 years of age. You can`t even dispense an aspirin to the kid in the school, but you can get them the birth control kit. The boy picks up the message she`s fair game; let`s go get them.

If you want them to exploit girls, this is the way to go.

This is the classic argument against contraception (and frankly it's insulting to women and men). Most often you hear this nonsensical tirade from the Catholic Church. You can't give women the option to prevent pregnancy because if she has that, men will take advantage of her sexually and use her as an object (cause that never happens to women who aren't on the pill).

This asinine argument makes women out to be helpless pawns. Rather than admit that preventing/planning pregnancy gives women power, these pricks twist the argument so that THEY are the only ones looking out for women... poor little woman, she doesn't realize the harm she'll cause to herself.

In Donahue's world, these 11 year old girls would be safe and chaste without the pill, but with it, they'll be preyed upon by boys who just want to use them. Anyone else think that's unreasonable?

Donahue further explains that contraception is really the root of all evil for women and that girls who dare use this method are setting themselves up for a life of terrible sadness.

When these girls become emotionally distraught and when they grow up and they realize that they gave in to young guys and some of the guys not so young, because their own mother had the nerve to go ahead and offer that girl the pill, and the guys in the neighborhood all knew about it and therefore took advantage of her, that`s the real price and the damage that will be done.

I like how this is all the mother's fault-- where is the dad? It's pretty obvious that Donahue blames feminism and contraception for "destroying the lives of your children."

Also-- once you're on the pill, "all the guys on the block will take advantage of you" -- it sure sounds like Donahue is calling contraception the SLUT pill.

If you still have any questions as to Donahue's sanity, guess what he thinks the evil libertines want to do with newborn boys?

You know, these people say that they`re on the side of women? The biggest enemy of women in America today, and particularly young girls, are coming from the sexually libertine sexual engineers who will stop at nothing. And if they had it their way, they would order the doctor to sew a condom onto the infant male on his penis as soon as he`s born. They`re simply out of control.

How is it possible that Glenn Beck and Bill Donahue equate pregnancy prevention with copulation rooms at school, sewing condoms onto infants and getting freaky on a tricycle? It's because the idea that women could avoid consequences of sex (PREGNANCY) scares the shit out of them.

As I stated in my last post, it is awful to think that young girls would have sex. But if we can all agree that we don't want a pregnant 11-year old girl, and we can't FORCE kids to remain chaste (or force their parents to ... parent), then we should help them prevent pregnancy. Yes, the pill won't prevent disease but condoms do and the school has those on hand as well. Imagine that-- equal opportunity protection!

Beck and Donahue give us a world where women and girls are helpless victims incapable of making good choices about sex. Their solution is to give them less options. Raise your hand if you detect circular logic and misogyny!

How young is too young?

Oh dear! I saw the birth control pills, now I want the sex!

Sometimes you just see the HEADLINE of a story and you know it's gonna be trouble... For example, today I saw this on CNN and MSN's homepage:

“Maine middle school to offer birth control.”

Now, we all know the anti-choice movement is adamant in its opposition to birth control. I’ve discussed that dirty secret on another blog. While the overwhelming majority of Americans support contraceptive access for adult women, the lines get fuzzier when it comes to children. Hence the debate about sex education and access for minors.

A middle school health center prescribing birth control is surely going to spark debate.

At King Middle School in Portland, Maine young girls age 11-13 can now access birth control without consent from parents. This thought makes a lot of people uncomfortable. From the comment field on the MSN story:

No---this is a moral issue. They should keep their pants ON!!!!

NO NO NO. How can parents think/feel that THEY should not be responsible for their children's lives and leave it up to a school board????

Absolutely not. People seem to love undermining parents when it comes to their own children these days. If they are going to offer it, parental consent MUST be necessary for each individual thing administered to the student

Hell no! Since when do we allow our CHILDREN to make those kinds of decisions! I am completely disgusted

I don't see how this is even legal and do most 11 year olds even have a period?

It goes on and on… it does make me squirmy to think of girls having sex. Actually it makes me downright depressed. Of course sex isn’t healthy for children. But it makes me far less squirmy to know that IF these kids are having sex, they are taking some adult responsibility to protect themselves.

Clearly 11 year old girls DO get their period. As evidenced by the stats from the schools in Portland, Maine.

Portland's three middle schools reported 17 pregnancies during the last four years, not counting miscarriages or terminated pregnancies that weren't reported to the school nurse.

Also according to the article, “Five of the 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year reported having sexual intercourse” – not counting all the students who didn’t disclose or didn’t report other forms of sexual activitiy.

Some parents don’t like the idea that birth control will be prescribed without parental consent. Others feel that this will encourage sexual activity; some are even claiming that this “goes against God.”

I find no merit in hypothesizing on what angers God. However, I hope that parents do their research and realize that the availability of contraceptives should not encourage sex, but simply protect the sexually active. Also, if you already have a good relationship with your child, chances are they’ll discuss options with you anyway.

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:

Teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to their parents are much less likely to become sexually active at an early age. Also parents rate high among many teens as trustworthy and preferred information sources on birth control. One in two teens say they "trust" their parents most for reliable and complete information about birth control, only 12 percent say a friend.

Therefore if you’re committed to having honest dialogue with your kids, then you’ll likely have a positive affect. From the same site, we understand the consequences of unprotected sex is devesatating for teens:

A sexually active teen who does not use contraception has a 90 percent chance of pregnancy within one year. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school and are likely to end up on welfare (nearly 80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare). The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.

We know that some minors will have sex. If we ignore this fact, we are denying basic healthcare to protect young men and women. The availability of birth control doesn’t mean kids will start having sex. That is much more dependent on the relationships children have with their parents or other moral force (faith community, mentor etc).

When it comes to kids, where do we draw the line at access? Condoms? The patch? The pill? Or should we just teach them to “JUST SAY NO”?

Since 2000, King Middle School students have had access to condoms. With this new policy, birth control prescriptions will be given only after a student undergoes a physical exam by a physician or nurse practitioner. Furthermore students must have written parental permission to be treated at the health center. Howevever, once permission is attained, the student's medical records are confidential so parents would now know if their daughters were prescribed birth control.

According to the article:

About one-fourth of student health centers that serve at least one grade of adolescents 11 and older dispense some form of contraception, said Mohan, whose Washington-based organization represents more than 1,700 school-based centers nationwide.

In other parts of the country, things are very different. In Topeka, Kansas, school district policy forbids providing any contraceptives to students.

What would you like YOUR school to offer? Or what should YOUR kid's have for options?

Hat Tip

To pandagon and their absolutely fabulous post regarding Emergency Contraception and the wingnuts. MUST READ.

Some choice quotes:

The belief that women are impossibly stupid is the only way that misogynists can square away their misogyny with themselves—they don’t hate women! They just want to take away our rights to protect us from ourselves! The law is a big neck cone so the stupid bitches don’t chew out our stitches.)

YES-- GOOD

The attempt to redefine woman-controlled contraception as “abortion” speaks volumes about both the anti-choice agenda (ban all female control over reproduction) and their understanding that their actual goals are so far to the right that they can’t be spoken out loud. In an effort to stop new, effective contraception from getting into the market, anti-choicers launched an unfortunately successful misinformation campaign to convince people that EC works by sloughing off fertilized eggs. It doesn’t. The overwhelming evidence suggests that it couldn’t work that way. Anti-choicers exploit scientific unwillingness to speak in absolutes to suggest that it could conceivably slough off a fertilized egg and therefore they figured that people’s ignorance of biology would fill in the rest until people assumed that’s how EC must work.

Blogger, Amanda Marcotte also does some great deciphering on the medical "how does it work" aspect of E.C. For one thing, we are a culture so uncomfortable talking about sex we tend to go with a lot of misinformation. For instance... the movie "Look who's talking" and the famous conception scene where it appears that there's sex and then miraculously-- A BABY-- video below, spliced quite brilliantly with Star Wars.

Most people tend to overrate the importance of male orgasms as the central event in baby-making and assume, wrongly, that conception must occur within seconds or minutes of ejaculation. The myth makes a rough kind of sense, and it’s aided mightily by patriarchal frames that give credit for making babies to men (from the idea that conception-not-pregnancy makes a baby to the naming of children after their fathers). In reality, sperm are built for endurance for a reason—conception often takes up to three days after sex to occur, which is why the window for using EC is 72 hours, though the longer you wait, the worse the chances of it working get.

I *heart* Marcotte.

Click here to read it all in full. It's a sweet post.

Happy One Year Anniversary E.C.

CNN has shocking news. Sales for the morning after pill went up -- now that you can get it over the counter.

Shocking, right?

It's easier to get. So more people are getting it.

Can I get a "DUH"?

The end of the article gives lip service to the nutters.

Conservative and religious groups argued that easy availability would promote promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases among teens and others.

Yeah, they've got it now. I really wanted to go out and nail every guy I met but I wasn't sure I could get some EC. Now that I can-- PARTAY! On a side note, "birth control promotes promiscuity" when translated from conserva-speak is actually: "Giving women options to prevent pregnancy means they can enjoy protected sexual relationships. And that is bad. Women enjoying sex without threat of children! AHHH SLUTS!"

Of course getting the FDA to approve over-the-counter sales for the morning after pill was tricky. It took years and more than 60,000 letters or support and many signed petitions. There were people at the time who argued that if we dared to approve EC it would start up sex cults among teenagers. No, seriously.

We need to wake up to the scary truth! The conservatives and religious right aren't
just against abortion-- but they want to outlaw birth control as well. They believe women should have NO control over their bodies and people should not be able to plan their families.

So for now, we celebrate-- one year ago today Emergency Contraception was given the green light to be sold over the counter. That is a victory for the good guys. However, pharmacists can refuse to dispense the drug and conserva-nazis want to take the right away so keep fightin' the good fight.

Are you kidding?

Oh dear god.

This will sure help other women come forward and report sexual assault.

Rape -- violated

rape kit -- violated with intrusive exam

visit with cops for interview -- re-live violation

Cops arrest rape victim -- Another violation

Person at jail refuses to give rape victim E.C. to prevent pregnancy -- Re victimized yet again

HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE!?!?!?

Sign this petition

Help out Planned Parenthood

This petition urges support for the Prevention First Act.

Remember the facts:

Birth Control-

Title X, the nation's first and only family planning program, provides reproductive health care services to five million low-income women each year -- helping to avoid one million unintended pregnancies annually.

- Unfortunately, Title X is grossly underfunded and cannot serve all 17 million low-income women who need access to publicly-funded reproductive health care services. Unintended pregnancies and abortions among low-income women are on the rise.- Title X must be fully funded and access should be expanded through Medicaid.

Sex Ed- One billion dollars has been wasted on abstinence-only education, which denies young people real information about how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including AIDS.

- Seventy-five percent of parents believe comprehensive, medically accurate sex education should be taught in schools.- Congress should protect teens' health by passing REAL, the Responsible Education About Life act.

Reality Check Time

Man, I wish President Bush read the news from time to time...

A new study explains how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time. Interviews were conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. The finding: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex!

Shocker? Not really. We know that humans are sexual beings and that people are curious and experience dramatic hormone changes as young adults. What's more, people wait longer to get married, instead choosing to perhaps have long term, live-in relationships. Plus-- sex isn't exactly an "unfun" activity.

This study is exciting because it proves that all those loudmouth conservatives don't know what the deuce they're talking about when they wax idiotic about the "chaste days of the past generation."

"The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44."

These findings only serve to deepen my frustration because when has clear reasoning ever worked with our current administration? Um never... like appointing Dr. Eric Keroack to oversee all family planning funds. This man said contraception was "DEMEANING" to women. Um, earth to Keroack-- 95% of American women use contraception at some point during their reproductive years.

Clearly this type of leadership is not interested in facts, just promoting more and more crap to satisfy the crazy religious right movement.

People have sex before they're married. So let's stop wasting HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars telling them not to, and start giving them information to keep them safer!

Plan B anger

A quick thought while I sit in class today. I'm just cranky.

True, it's a major victory that Plan B is now avaliable over the counter (as it should have been years ago, before it was blocked by anti-choice zealots). But why the age limit? Women under 18 still need a prescription.

WHY? We know it's a safe drug to take over the counter!

No man ever has to flash an ID card when he wants to buy condoms. But a girl under 18 needs to go have an appointment and possibly beg to get E.C.? There's no good reason except we want to monitor these young girls and make it more difficult and possibly let them know (yet again) that we don't trust their decisions.

Lame. So very, very lame.

Great articles

A great article:

What happens when there's no Plan B -- very interesting and illuminating.

Another interesting read:

Contra-Contraception

Just makes you mad to read it... One pro-life group states, "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set."

Ummmm, okay? And I guess we can't enjoy married life sexually unless we're wanting to create children? No common sense... so sad.

I cannot fathom why people put up this intensly silly argument..

"Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."

That's just plain old offensive to men. Suddenly if men know they can have sex with their wife without possibility for a child, he'll decide she's simply an object... as opposed to the other option where women are supposed to be incubator-like objects, ready to pop out a kid at any moment?

People who make arguments like that are the REAL problem. Apparently they are incapable of finding any respect, spirituality or love in sexual relationships. They feel "dirty" and "used" for pleasure when they have sex. But you know what I say to them? That is your issue, not mine! The fact that you find sex so damaging... take that up with your therapist. But leave the majority of people (those who can enjoy married life and a healthy, happy and nurturing sexual relationship) ALONE. Leave them alone! They want to enjoy sex and there's nothing wrong with that! You cannot dictate when other Americans bear children.

Get a new soapbox.

Insurance Woes

I'm in the midst securing my own health insurance. After turning 22 in April, I only have 30 more days and then I lose coverage from my family plan. This would of course happen right as I found out I would needing major surgery-- not fun. But through this process I have learned even more about how insurance works and doesn't work, for that matter.

Let me clarify up front... I am not pretending to offer any better system of health care. I don't understand insurance law and our country's health system enough to offer a solution. I am merely pointing out what I find as a very important problem.

I have learned quite a bit recently that has me very worried.

First of all, something that concerns men and women of all ages:

Our own U.S. Senate is about to eliminate guaranteed insurance coverage for mammograms and other vital cancer screenings! Imagine your mother, sister, daughter, wife getting a mammogram and then being told the insurance company refuses to cover it. This is dangerous for both men and women as colonoscopies, prostate cancer screenings are also at risk!

Now I understand that insurance companies can't cover everything-- but what could be more important than cancer screenings. Especially when we know how dangerous breast cancer and prostrate cancer are.

Click here to send a quick email to your U.S. Senators Now. Tell them to Save Mammograms and other life-saving cancer screenings-- OPPOSE S.1955. At risk are our mammograms, pap smears, colonoscopies, prostate cancer screenings, clinical trials, and off-label drug uses!

However, contraceptive coverage is once agian at major risk!!!

Equity for Women's Health Is at Stake

Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act (S.1955-HIMMAA).

Just today Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) stood up and demanded an amendment that would cover contraception in this proposal. Without this, the HIMMAA would gut states' contraceptive equity protections and exempt insurance companies from virtually all state laws regulating health insurance benefits.

For years, many insurance plans covered prescription drugs, but refused to cover birth control pills and other prescription contraceptives for women. In the past decade, lawmakers in 23 states have remedied this inequity and enacted contraceptive coverage laws. Under HIMMAA, women would lose contraceptive equity protections currently guaranteed by state law.

The HIMMAA is especially dangerous for women because it would nullify hundreds of state laws that ensure patients get the medical care they need. The law would potentially

-- not allow women to designate their ob/gyns as primary care providers

--not allow women to seek care directly from their ob/gyns, but would force them to be screened by their primary care doctors first

-- dismantle coverage for contraception

-- dismantle coverage for annual cervical and ovarian cancer exams

--not allow women to stay with the same doctor throughout a pregnancy, if that doctor was dropped from the insurance provider plan

More than 250 national organizations have opposed HIMMAA. This includes 41 state attorneys general, 19 state insurance commissioners, many governors, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, United Cerebral Palsy, the American Cancer Society, the American Nurses Association, the American Mental Health Association, and the American Association of People with Disabilities.

How would HIMMAA affect my state?

Take action and oppose this loss of coverage to women!

New trends in Birth Control

Continuous Birth Control Enables Women to Plan Their Period Around Their Lifestyles, Says DoctorSolve
New research indicates that it is safe and effective to use birth control without stopping for a period.

Vancouver, B.C. (PRWEB) May 9, 2006 -- Would it surprise you to learn that for many years, women have been deliberately skipping their period? Female athletes and women planning important events such as their wedding or a vacation have simply deferred their period through continuous birth control therapy. That is, they continue to take the pill until they reach a convenient time to have a period.

Once an unconventional practise for a small group of women, continuous birth control therapy is now an oft-discussed topic as new research surfaces regarding its safety and effectiveness. “Oral contraceptives have always been intended to manipulate the menstrual cycle,” says Dr. Paul Zickler of DoctorSolve online pharmacy services. “The ‘placebo’ week became part of the schedule for a number of reasons, none of which are biological. Taking a week off to have a period made women feel more comfortable and natural. There were also cultural and perhaps even religious reasons why this made sense, but there is no scientific evidence that indicates a woman ‘needs’ to have a period.”

In addition to the convenience of having no periods and preventing pregnancy, continuous birth control therapy can help with severe PMS, cramping or menstrual pain, endometriosis, and menstrual-related headaches. When the woman is ready to conceive, fertility may return immediately or after a few months.

There are two new additions to the contraception family that make continuous birth control therapy possible for women today:

Yasmin and the NuvaRing®.Yasmin, a low-dose combined pill, is the only birth control pill to contain the synthetic progestin known as drospirenone. As a result of this particular progestin, common benefits of Yasmin include less water retention, less premenstrual weight gain, fewer PMS and menstrual symptoms and the prevention of acne. Similar to other birth control pills, possible side effects of Yasmin include headaches, menstrual changes, breast tenderness, abdominal cramps and bloating, nausea and vaginal discharge.

The NuvaRing is a low-dose, flexible hormonal ring that is inserted into a woman’s vagina where it slowly releases estrogen and progestin for three weeks. A “one-size-fits-all” device, the NuvaRing is easily inserted by the woman, and simply removed after three weeks. At this time, the woman may wait a week to give her body a chance to have a period, or insert a new ring for continuous birth control. Benefits and side effects of the NuvaRing are similar to those of Yasmin.

“Continuous birth control is a matter of personal preference,” says Zickler. “However, every form of birth control therapy comes with benefits and side effects. Women need to be sure they get the facts from their doctors, so they can decide for themselves whether continuous birth control therapy is right for them.”

DoctorSolve, a Canadian Internet-based pharmacy intermediary (license #BC Q37), offers lower cost, long-term prescriptions. A professionally registered pharmacist fills all prescriptions. A certified member of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association, DoctorSolve is ranked as one of the best online pharmacies by PharmacyChecker.com.

DoctorSolve has filled more than 200,000 U.S. prescriptions. For more information, call 1-866-732-0305 or visit http://www.doctorsolve.com.

What pro-choice means

Some women inherit serious problems when they go through puberty. I started taking birth control when I was in high school, not because I was sexually active but because of terrible pain. Often doctors will use a birth control pill to regulate problems with menstrual cycles. Luckily, this worked for me.

People may not know this, but birth control pills are often used to treat a variety of non-family planning issues: Endometriosis (prolonged and painful bleeding) or Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome-- my friend who has PCOS takes the pill because otherwise her uterus does not shed the lining, she has no cycle and she can become very ill. Some women even take low dose progesterone-only pills to regulate a period if they are in sports and want lighter, easier to manage/schedule cycles. Some people take it to clear up acne!

Recently a conversation with a friend of mine (we'll call her Nora) made me think about what pro-choice really means.

Nora was telling me recently about an experience she had with a hospital. I love and respect this girl but we are very different. She is conservative and has deep religious beliefs about contraception. When she went to the hospital with debilitating cramps and complained of feeling weak and sick during her menstrual cycle, her doctor gave her the pill. Nora, desperate for a better quality of life, decided to try it but unfortunately it didn't work for her. This is a setback because the pill would often be used to clear up a problem like this.

When Nora went back in to explain to the nurse that she needed more options, the issue of birth control itself came up. Nora was asked if she objected to using birth control. She was honest, and answered, "Yes, I am Catholic. I want to use natural family planning and I don't think this is right in case it could interfere with a possible pregnancy."

At this, the nurse became very haughty saying, "You need to get over this and take care of your body." When Nora explained that she had been on the pill for several years with no results the nurse cut her off saying, "Look, this is what works for women. You need to push these ideas out of your head. There is nothing wrong with taking the pill."

This upsets me because if you are really pro-choice then you understand that EVERYONE gets a chioce.

If a woman comes to a hospital and doesn't want to take birth control, you cannot push that on her and give her a lecture. It is her choice what she puts into her body, especially if it's a chemical hormone that could control pregnancy options and she objects to that morally.

Not only that, but this shows an inadequate hospital staff. Moral beliefs aside, the pill was clearly not working to solve Nora's medical problems anyway.

When I hear things like this, I get frustrated. Medicine needs to offer options to women like Nora, who didn't want to take a birth control pill but still needs help managing complications in her reproductive organs.

Pro-choice goes both ways. Just as I don't want a pharmacist refusing my pills or a doctor lecturing me on taking the pill, Nora shouldn't be lectured for her beliefs either.

How BIG is the problem?

Go to this great site for more info

One of my biggest fears is that America is being swayed by a extremely small but very vocal minority who wants women to lose access to contraception. "The culture of life" has deemed any form of contraception as an abortifacient. This is very confusing to me since combination pills work "by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). They also thicken the cervical mucus, which keeps sperm from joining with an egg."

The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs.

However, it's becoming more and more clear that we need to fear, not just the grassroots campaign but the office of our presidency. President Bush has REFUSED to answer press questions regarding birth control.

Excerpt from May 26, 2005 White House Press Briefing:

Q There are news reports this morning that parents and children who were guests of the President, when they visited Congress, wore stickers with the wording, "I was an embryo." And my question is, since all of us were once embryos, and all of us were once part sperm and egg, is the President also opposed to contraception, which stops this union and kills both sperm and egg?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has made his views known on these issues, and his views known -

Q You know, but what I asked, is he opposed -- he's not opposed to contraception, is he?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and you've made your views known, as well. The President --

Q No, no, but is he opposed to contraception, Scott? Could you just tell us yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think that this question is -

Q Well, is he? Does he oppose contraception?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think the President's views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life --

Q If they were clear, I wouldn't have asked.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if you want to ask those questions, that's fine. I'm just not going to dignify them with a response.
**********

The White House and Bush have also refused to answers several letters from members of congress--

“Mr. President, does this mean that abstinence is the heart of your birth control policy? Mr McClellan mentioned teens but what about married women, college women, working women, women in the military, divorced women, mothers who don’t want more children? Do you think promoting absitence should be their birth control method as well? If so, then this position is a radical departure from previous administrations, and undermines women’s Constituional right to birth control that has been respected in this country since the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut.

For 95% of Americans- including the 43 million women who are sexually active, many of them married, and do not want to become pregnant- it would be a shocking revelation to learn that you believe that their preferred method of birth control is abstinence.”

The fact is that the majority of Americans use and support the right to use birth control. So why is our President refusing to come clean on this issue?

Catholic church -- stepping up?

My father is Catholic. I was baptized Catholic. I am dating a Catholic. All that being said. Those who are close to me, know that I am generally, pretty pissed at Catholicism in general. Don't get me wrong, the religion I converted to (Lutheran) not that much better. But at least there I get the feeling that there is some effort to be progressive. Women as pastors etc, nobody is refused communion depending on who THEY vote for.

I have had long talks about this with my boyfriend, father and my friend Phil, who's in seminary on his way to becoming a priest. I get angry often at what I perceive to be "moral authority" from Catholic leaders. They condemn any woman who needs an abortion but yet their church history is full of shuffling around pedophiles. Talk about protecting the innocent children.

Women are given bogus reasons for not being allowed to enter the priesthood (well Jesus and his disciples were all men-- first of all not every biblical scholar agrees with that, second of all, Jesus and his disciples were all Jews. Does that mean only Jews can lead mass?) Also the harping on no contraception obviously grates against my beliefs. If you're a Catholic and want to use natural family planning-- more power to you. That's your right and belief but stop telling countries to vote the same way you do. The days when Vatican governed the world are over. Stick to the people who show up for service at your church and leave the rest of us alone.

All that being said. Keep a watchful eye on what is going on right now. The church may be heading in the right direction as they begin to discuss whether or not condoms should be allowed.

By their logic, contraception is bad because it acts like an abortifacient (well I completely disagree but it's beside the point) because they believe sperm + egg meeting = baby. Okay, but condoms don't work like that, if a condom breaks and sperm and egg meet there is nothing but natural causes which could stop a fetus from forming. Their beef against condoms is that it could encourage pre-martial sex. Well, everything in this world encourages pre-marital sex. And when there are sex-workers, or child brides involved, their choices are limited. As one Vatican official brought up, It cannot be fair if a wife is married to a man who is HIV positive to deny her a condom to protect herself. Yeah, I would agree.

Hopefully correct decisions can be made to stem the global epidemic of AIDS. Since so many are loyal followers of the Catholic faith, this could be a major victory.

Protect your pills

People keep telling me I should just be quiet and pay for my pills. Well, first and foremost, this is not about me but about every other women out there. Access to contraception is vital for women's health! And the right to this basic health need is not being met. Pharmacists are refusing and insurance companies are not paying.

Some people have brought up the money issue. But I aim to prove this irrelevant. First of all, if it were about morality- insurance would not cover Viagra, and paying for birth control is much much cheaper than doctors bills, pre-natal work and the cost of delivering a child in the hospital -- not to mention maternity leave. I aim to prove that here...

Here are some facts for the day. This should get us talking...

--Sixty million women living in the U.S. are currently in their childbearing years (age 15 - 44 on average).

--Forty-two million of these women are sexually active and do not wish to become pregnant.

--Half of all indemnity (fee-for-service) insurance plans in the U.S. do not cover any reversible contraception.

--Women of reproductive age pay 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men in the same age group.

--Providing full contraceptive coverage in employment-based health care plans would cost employers, at most, only $21.40 per employee per year.

(Source: The Alan Guttmacher Institute)