MORE RNC video

Associated Press shows video essay of police/protester interaction in St. Paul, Minnesota during the Republican National Convention. Continue to Feministing to read about the "Terror on Robert Avenue."

Cellphone ringtones for safe sex

Sexy boyfriend sent me another story to blog about. Thankfully this one was far less depressing than the last one.

I kind of love it!

In India, a ringtone just launched which features the word "Condom" sung in multipart a cappella harmony. The country has approximately 2.5 million people living with HIV, and this ringtone is part of a "three-year ad offensive aimed at making condom use there more socially acceptable."

The larger campaign for condom use includes ads on television, radio, and film, and print and outdoor media. The HIV-prevention messages are expected to reach an estimated 52 million men and it's being promoted with the line, "jo samjha wohi sikander" or translated "The one who understands is a winner."

An ad promoting the ringtone shows a man at a wedding holding a cell phone and becoming embarrassed when it starts ringing "CONDOM!" However, people around him treat him as someone smart and responsible.



From the article:

"Ringtones have become such personal statements that a specially created condom ringtone seemed just the right way of combining a practical message with a fun approach," said Radharani Mitra, creative director of the BBC World Service Trust India.

The campaign is funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The National AIDS Control Organization is also using the ads to support its condom promotion efforts.

The ringtone, which can be downloaded both via SMS or the Web site, has reportedly been downloaded more than 60,000 times in the last 12 days. And trust us, it's much better than that other safe-sex ringtone: "We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off."

** If you link to the article, you can hear the ringtone in unedited form if you scroll to the bottom of the page...

For the love of You Tube

I told you before that I loved Thom Simonson's you tube channel.

He's done it again:



Whenever men speak out for feminism, I just feel so endeared to them. It'd be so easy for guy's to completely overlook these issues. And here Thom is, hitting the nail right on the head.

In the you tube description he provided all this awesomeness as well:

Why do we insist on placing teens in such a difficult position when it comes to sex?

For more information about the Purity Ball Check out these links...
NY Times Article on the Purity Ball in Colorado Springs:

Pictures of the Purity Ball

Commentary on the release of the report about the Abstinence only report.

Information about teen sex and pregnancy

The Washing Post Story about the 8- year study of Virginity Pledges that establishes they are not effective in protecting kids from STDs

Thanks again to all of my subscribers. I'm flattered as always by your continued support.

Remember you can visit http://www.onefellowsopinion.com/ for my written blog.

Thanks Thom for being a fearless, feminist voice on you tube. Because sadly, that can result in some shocking abuse. I appreciate all that you do!

Candies campaign: Serious or sinister?

Part of me slacking at work includes visits to perezhilton.com

Today his entire backdrop is advertising the Candies Foundation, a celebrity-heavy campaign to reduce the rates of teen pregnancy. (pictured below, the background)



Since I'm actually at work and should be working not blogging, I didn't have time to look too much into this but I was intrigued. Some things gave me hope. For instance their 'Frequently Asked Questions' page read (*emphasis mine*):

Unplanned pregnancy is at the root of a number of important public health and social challenges ....... Another major consequence of high rates of unplanned pregnancy is, of course, high levels of abortion. Although there are many deeply felt and strongly held opinions nationwide about the proper place of abortion in American life, all would prefer that fewer women be faced with difficult decisions brought on by unplanned pregnancy.

Cool, I can get behind that. I want less women backed into the tough decision of abortion/adoption/keeping an unplanned pregnancy.

But other things are not sitting so right with me. Take for example the site's tagline: "Vow Not Now" --- have we learned NOTHING from no-good abstinence-only programs?? Those virginity pledges weren't so effective.

Then there was this PSA with Jenny McCarthy.




I'm not loving the implied message here that sex equals baby. Actually it's sex without protection or failed protection which equals possible conception which THEN equals baby. It would have made much more sense for McCarthy to hand the guy some rubbers and hand the girl the pill. Although that doesn't sit right with me either.

That's the problem with teen sex, it doesn't break down into tidy little 30 second PSAs. It's full of emotions, hormones, choices and consequences (emotional and physical).

But the overall tone still bugged me, especially with the girl being handed the baby and the boy running out (even though that can be quite true as well). As a matter of fact, NONE of the Candies PSAs sat right with me. I thought most were a throwback to the posters I remember from my high school health days-- which I also thought were offensive (I remember one in particular with a sad looking girl with a HUGE pregnant stomach-- the text read: "You thought acne was embarassing"--- charming, huh?).

Then I saw that the website for Candie's foundation has a tab called "Be Sexy tees" and I thought-- what a mind-boggle, teens are wearing sexy tees but they're supposed to abstain/be afraid of sex?

The tee they are selling is this number:



Practically a page out of the ol' abstinence only playbook. I can't help but read a subtext here that says, "Sexy girls wait and slutty whores don't."

Not sure how I feel about this Candies Foundation yet.

I *heart* Shelby Knox

Ever since this.




But now as you see from the Daily Show clip, she's still fighting the good fight.



Godstick vs. Shame Cave, does it get any funnier?

Also, I love Samantha Bee (the very pregnant woman at the end)


**UPDATE: I should have clarified--- Shelby Knox is the woman in the Daily Show clip speaking about the "dirty toothbrush" -- she is also the subject of the documentary (first vid). See Knox's entire testimony here

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?

911: Media conglomerates are officially brain-dead

Via Planned Parenthood

Today The New York Times reported that FOX and CBS are refusing to air a condom commercial.

How much you wanna bet they'll still have ads for erectile disfunction? IRONY MUCH?

FOX claims, “Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy” (cause preventing pregnancy has nothing to do with health?) CBS simply writes that they “did not find it appropriate” for its network.

Sarcastic comment coming up........You're right promoting healthy sexual relationships, STI & pregnancy prevention is sooo inappropriate. Condoms are yucky! EWWW!

Planned Parenthood is brilliant in pointing out...

In 2005, 70 percent of all television shows and 77 percent of prime-time shows contained sexual content. FOX and CBS shows are no exception. From Temptation Island to Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show to The O.C. — a show that broadcasts an average of 6.7 sex scenes an hour — FOX and CBS have taken sex all the way to the bank.

Preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are top public health priorities. Television networks that pride themselves on public service should take every opportunity to educate the public about safer sex. By rejecting Trojan’s ad, FOX and CBS have made the wrong move for public health.

Make sure that CBS and FOX know that the VAST majority of Americans think this is complete bullshit.

PS: You can watch the rejected commercial here

Don't even say it

This is what the anti-sex, abstinence only, religious right movement is leading us too...

Because the worse thing you could possibly do is talk about a vagina

Yes, god forbid you explain to your young daughter what a vagina is.

Because if she knows she has a vagina, she might touch it or decide that she's a wild sex fiend with no morals.

Nevermind that you're taking a medical term for a part of the body and making it dirty and shameful.

Nevermind that by refusing to name these parts you leave young girls vulnerable.

Really...How do you tell your parents that someone is touching you innapropriately if your parents have already made it quite clear that anything there is not to be talked about, and makes them mad/uncomfortable.

Specifically how do you tell someone that someone is touching you if you don't even know the name of the part they're touching.

This is so unbelievable. Why are people indulging these nutjobs?

The word Vagina is not offensive!!

You can bet Eve Ensler is not gonna take this shit lying down.

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!

Sorry, but I'm mad

This post is not going to be nice.

Because I'm tired of trying to write after I've "calmed down." I know it makes you sound more mature and it gives your argument more weight and validity if you don't sound like a screaming child, but I've had it... and I'm venting. Why should I try and be a civilized person and act like an adult when the other side simply calls me a "Godless Nazi" anyway? So here's the deal....

Yet another story to make you want to tear your hair and scream

How they can find fault with a 44 BILLION dollar donation to charity is beyond me! I'm talking of course about Warren Buffett pledging his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation-- an organization which busies itself trying to end minor problems like oh say... combating disease and poverty in developing countries!!

Sure, less than one percent of their charity funds go to Planned Parenthood BUT that money is ear-marked for non-abortion services. Planned Parenthood is an organization which provides women with reproductive health check-ups, affordable contraception, pap and cancer screenings and information regarding many other women's health issues-- not to mention, offers counseling and sex education (including a focus on abstinence and SAFE sex).

How many of us can imagine having 44 billion dollars-- let alone donating it all to charity? Yet, the Catholic Church and pro-life zealots (read: idiots) are foaming at the mouth over this because less than one percent is going to Planned Parenthood-- and not even for abortions!!!

Rev. Thomas Euteneuer (a Roman Catholic priest who is president of Human Life International) compared Buffett to Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor; Euteneuer said Buffett, "will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents."

Here's a clue, Buffett doesn't have to repent to you. You're not Jesus. You're a priest on a soapbox who has decided that he speaks for God and knows exactly how God feels on every issue (even though Jesus never said one word on abortion.) As far as I'm concerned Rev. Euteneuer is just another face in a looming Catholic faction who have devoted themselves away from the word of Christ and become a cult of hatred and misogyny. Earth to uber-conservative one-track-mind priests….YOU ARE NOT GOD. You are simply a "celibate" man in a dress (celibate providing you can stay away from those tempting alter boys) who has no business commenting on what reproductive choices are available to women. Maybe if you'd ever grow up and acknowledge that women don't want to pop out kids constantly and want some say in their body, we could take you seriously. And probably not even then because you don't have families and you don't even allow women to hold the same position of power within the church as you do (Um yeah "No girls allowed clubs" are so 4th grade).

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, holds the Buffett family partially responsible for the approval of RU-486 (the abortion pill) because their financial contributions went to research for the drug. Perkins said, "Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486."

Okay once again going to have to explain the obvious: Buffett didn't kill any babies. First and foremost because abortions don't "kill babies" they terminate a pregnancy. It is illegal to murder infants. It is not illegal to terminate a pregnancy, or fetus, or in some cases a literal cluster of cells that has the POTENTIAL to become human life.

How can we ever hope to make headway in this country between moderates when those shrieking loudest are these incompetent fools who want the world's population to explode until there's no room, water, or resources to feed them all? In their world a woman cannot have control of her reproductive destiny. Well obviously this is not a problem certain celibate priests have taken the time to ponder....

Wonder if they've noticed that most of their Catholic followers use contraception anyway and the majority of their priests don't even buy into this bullshit nonsense? I've met progressive priests and NUNS-- they are out there and they are getting sick of this garbage)... Sadly I also know priests and priests-to-be that have decided to focus all shreds of energy to this problem of the "murdered unborn." To them I say without apology: I don't think you are real Catholics. Real Catholics, they read the bible and go to church and applaud people like Warren Buffett for giving so generously of his fortune to help the sick, needy and hungry... something Jesus was all about!

The Religious Right is trying to kill you

Seriously!

Where could I be going with such a dramatic statement? Let's talk stats first.

Did you know that the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -- a sexually transmitted disease-- infects over 80% of 15-50 year olds and can cause cervical cancer?

The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, over 9,700 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,700 women will DIE from this cancer in the U.S.

There is promising news. An vaccine has been created to prevent HPV. It has already been tested in over 11,000 females (ages 9-24 years) in many countries around the world and there are no serious side effects (only problem reported was soreness at injection site). The vaccine contains no thimerosal or mercury and there are no infectious materials.

This vaccine will guard against 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. Clearly women would still need pap tests to regularly screen for possible cancer. And this vaccine would not prevent other S.T.I.'s (Sexually Transmitted Infections).

Public Health officialls are speaking out for administering this vaccine before females are sexually active (the proposed age of vaccination would be for girls 11-12 year olds with catch-up vaccination for 13-26 year olds).

So what does all this good news have to do with the religious right? Or the religious WRONG as they ought to be known...

Because those bible beaters are doing everything they can to ensure this vaccine never becomes a reality. True, it has already become FDA approved (they failed there) but the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will vote on June 29th whether or not to recommend the vaccine and if so, who should get it and at what ages. Even then laws will vary from state to state regarding, age of vaccination and insurance coverage. You can bet the religious wrong are lobbying hard.

The religious wrong in this country and the pro-life groups have come out against the vaccine suggesting among other things, that it will simply incite youngsters (read: especially women) to become more promiscuous. They say it will give kids the green light to have sex and send the wrong message.

These religious wrong is basically saying: "Sluts deserve to get cancer."

Think about it, that IS what they are saying. Since they know women are getting cervical cancer every day but keep preaching that if you don't have sex you're a good person and God loves you then what does that mean for the infected? They are bad. They deserve it. If they had simply done what they were told, they'd be healthy now.

The Religious Wrong are gambling with your lives and trying to tamper with medical information. They do this by constantly lobbying against life-saving vaccines and Emergency Contraception going over the counter. The continually lobby for the FDA to change warning labels on condoms so the label will talk NOT about what condoms actually do, but rather talk of the condoms' ineffectiveness.

Well to that I say, read this article --- BOO YAH!

It's sad that people had to conduct a whole study proving to these morons that YES condoms are effective.

"A three-year study of female college students -- all virgins at the start -- found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time."

Notice that in the numbers, condoms do not 100% prevent HPV. Well that's a given. Every one knows the only way to 100% prevent a S.T.I. or pregnancy is to abstain. However, if you are going to engage in sexual activity and want to DRAMATICALLY lower your odds of contracting HPV or a number of other diseases... WEAR A CONDOM. This is not rocket science.

We shouldn't have to prove that this is scientifically the right thing to do. It should only take common sense. But in a world of these nutjobs... we have to prove common sense with exspensive scientific studies.

Wearing a condom is safe. It prevents disease. Getting a vaccine against a widespread S.T.I. is a great medical breakthrough. If it's safe and approved, why not sign up your daughters?

Think... even if your daughter was a virgin on her wedding day, her husband could still pass her the virus if he had even just ONE other sexual partner. Does that mean she should contract cerivcal cancer and die? OF COURSE NOT! Stop punishing people for engaging in sex!

Help protect your community's health!

For more info:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/
http://www.cdc.gov/std/pubs/

Or browse for more internet stories
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=1010001QQOY6

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.

Abstinence Education = dangerous for Teens

In my perfect world, our government and schools would advocate "abstinence based education" There is nothing wrong with advocating abstinence – especially for teenagers. Showing respect and restraint is something to be admired. While I love the show Sex and the City, I would never advocate Samantha’s lifestyle for any of my friends. Young people -- are receiving far too many irresponsible messages about sexuality. Sex is cheapened in our culture today yet at the other end of things, the abstinence-only movement is making a fear campaign of our human sexuality.

Abstinence-only education is simply a moral movement thinly disguised as a public-health campaign. They like to quote alarming statistics about high STD rates, teen pregnancies and talk about scary emotional scarring. Take for instance the picture of the duck. Several abstinence-only groups use the example of duct tape in their teaching.

I have read of this example in Ariel Levy’s book “Female Chauvinist Pigs” and also in an online debate that is well worth reading. Here is an exerpt:

When speaking, the Abstinence Clearinghouse sometimes gives students a mental picture about premarital sex using duct tape. We stick duct tape to someone's arm as though they were my sexual partner to represent the bonding associated with sex. The first time it sticks very well. Then, we break up.

As we break up, the tape is ripped off his arm along with several arm hairs. When I find my next boyfriend and sexual partner, I can stick the duct tape to his arm, but it won't stick as tightly as the first time. The tape sticks less and less with each sexual escapade and eventually will not stick at all.

The bonding can't be as special or powerful, and with each relationship you carry the garbage from the past right along with it. Would you call that a healthy, loving relationship? I most definitely would not.

The deep bonding and "emotional expression" that only sexual intimacy creates must be limited to marriage. One cannot be deeply bonded with many people. That would contradict the very definition of intimacy. Do you think that prostitutes have many deeply bonded friendships just because they have had sex with so many people? It is this faulty bonding and "emotional expression" that leads to increased divorce and abandoned families.

How charming. Their motto, “Sexual attraction is like duct tape. It sticks really well the first time, but if you peel it off it doesn't stick so well the next time. After five or six go 'rounds, it hardly sticks at all...”

Promoters of abstinence also use analogies of fire.

Story 1: You are coming home from school on a cold afternoon and you walk in your house to the warmth of a fire in the fireplace. You feel warm and cozy and can‘t wait to get closer to warm your hands. As you sit by the fire you unwind you begin to relax from a hard day at school. You talk with your parents about your day, drink hot chocolate and listen to the crackle of the fire in the comfort of your own home. You continue to feel safe as you nestle by the fire.

Story 2: You are coming home from school on a cold afternoon and you notice a fire is burning on the hill beside your house. You drop your backpack and start screaming for help. Your heart is pounding and the look of terror is on your face. The fire is blazing down the hill just yards from your home.

Ok. Two stories about fire. Two completely different feelings going on in your mind. You see fire is really nice and warm; pretty to look at and great for relaxing on a cold day, WHEN IT IS IN THE FIREPLACE.

However when a fire is not in the fireplace and is about to destroy your house, the fire isn’t so pretty and enjoyable.

Abstinence education is insulting. Many people are not virgins on their wedding day and most do not regret this decision. To insist that sex is immoral and profane when outside the bounds of marriage is narrow-minded. Plenty of people can have a sexual relationship before marriage that is healthy, spiritually moving, and can heighten the emotional and physical intimacy of the relationship.

Refusing to have an adult conversation that recognizes the complexity of sexual exploration is patronizing at best and frankly, endangers the rights of adolescents.

I recently learned that someone very dear to me was molested as a child. So tell me what happens when someone like her enters an abstinence-only sex education program? We tell her, “it’s too late, you’re a used up piece of duct tape because you’ve already experienced sex outside of marriage. People who are virgins on their wedding day are really happy and loved in the eyes of society and God because they are pure clean pieces of duct tape.”
Please.

And I’m sure it’s pure coincidence that these religiously based moral groups say “sex is only for marriage” and homosexuals can’t get married. Pure coincidence.

Abstinence education is a cruel thing to impart on teens who deserve real discussion on how to respect their partners and how to be as safe as possible to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, and any sort of sexual manipulation (pressure, molestation, and assault). Abstinence should always be encouraged since it is safe and promotes respect for sex. But it shouldn’t be trumpeted as the only way to educate on sexuality.

Pro-Life Nation

An aboslute must read From the April 9th New York Times. (click and sign up for free registration and you can see the article)

This article is 14 pages long but will blow your mind. Here's a synopsis for those who don't have time to read it...

Author Jack Hitt takes an in-depth look at the abortion laws in El Salvador. Previously this country had laws similar to our own in America, where abortion could be used in severe circumstances or if early enough. Now abortion is a serious felony in El Salvador. Prison sentences can be as long as 30 years... not just for the doctor... FOR THE WOMAN.

The restrictions on abortion in El Salvador are simple. No abortion. PERIOD. Not in the case of rape, incest, fetal malformation, or life of the mother. This means when an ectopic pregnancy is discovered NOTHING CAN BE DONE!!--- (where a microscopic fertilized egg moves down the fallopian tube - which is no bigger around than a pencil- and gets stuck there or stuck in the abdomen). Take a moment and stop and think of what this means...

A microscopic fertilized egg that is caught in a fallopian tube can mean serious medical complications for a women, often it means death. As the egg grows and runs out of room, the tube ruptures, internal bleeding occurs. Operation is necessary to save a mother's life but in El Salvador the doctor must wait to operate until the egg shows signs of rupturing. So when a woman comes into the office with an ectopic pregnancy she is kept in the hospital where she will receive daily ultrasounds to check for rupturing. Once it starts rupturing-- THEN the operation can take place. But rupturing causes severe pain and can result in death.... SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC?? Oh wait, there is none.

In El Salvador, they are serious about their ridiculous laws. They have whole teams of people to enforce them. Police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor’s office charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating women and the doctors or back-alley people who operate.

When El Salvador's law changed it was backed by strong grass-roots campaigning from conservatives and the church. Even Pope John Paul II visited Mexico City in 1999 urging "The church must proclaim the Gospel of life and speak out with prophetic force against the culture of death." I'm sorry but I consider keeping women in a hospital waiting for the fallopian tubes to rupture a WAY BIGGER culture of death.

This is serious business. I mean ARTICLE #1 of the constitution in El Salvador declares that the prime directive of government is to protect life from the "very moment of conception."

"The penal code detailing the Crimes Against the Life of Human Beings in the First Stages of Development provides stiff penalties: the abortion provider, whether a medical doctor or a back-alley practitioner, faces 6 to 12 years in prison. The woman herself can get 2 to 8 years. Anyone who helps her can get 2 to 5 years. Additionally, judges have ruled that if the fetus was viable, a charge of aggravated homicide can be brought, and the penalty for the woman can be 30 to 50 years in prison."

In case you are wondering, the judicial system in El Salvador determines that viability is when a fetus weighs more than a pound. A pound of fetus = way more important than a woman who may have been raped, or abused in incest, or afraid of a deformed or sick child....

Women in El Salvador have turned to clothes hangers, iron bars, high doses of contraceptives, fertilizers, gastritis remedies, soapy water and battery acid or ulcer pills to induce abortions. If these result in severe complications, women often die rather than visit a hospital.

But can you blame them?

If a woman goes to a hospital and it's suspected she's had an abortion, the investigation begins immediately. Women are handcuffed to hospital beds while their vagina is "searched as the scene of a crime" for evidence. If a botched abortion results in a hysterectomy, the uterus is saved as "evidence" for a criminal trial. A women's own uterus is used against her.

Police also interrogate relatives and neighbors of the woman. They visit the woman's place of business (if she has any, studies show many of these women are homemakers or very young) and ask co-workers and supervisors if they knew whether the woman was pregnant and whether she'd had an abortion. The law mandates that if a doctor finds signs of an abortion, they are required to turn the woman in -- confidentiality be damned.

There's so much more I could go on about. Obviously, this law affects primarily the poor women. Rich women in El Salvador still fly to Miami to get their abortions, or pay off trustworthy doctors for safe operations.

The scary thing is-- there are some in this country who wouldn't mind seeing this happen in the USA! Thomas J. Euteneuer, the head of Human Life International, based in Virginia said, "El Salvador is an inspiration, an important victory in the counterrevolution of conscience."

We can also fear this attitude in our own politicians. During an October 2004 show of "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert asked Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican representative to explain his position in favor of a total ban on all abortion procedures. DeMint said he thought Congress should outlaw all abortions first and worry about the fallout later. "We've got to make laws first that protect life," he said. "How those laws are shaped are going to be a long debate."

The fallout?? Like my life and the life and health of women everywhere? Where we have to die in a wave of blood at home because going to a hospital means being chained to the bed and examined and having our own uterus as evidence against us??

Don't be fooled! The religious right are not about protecting women or saving life. They are about trampling women's rights. Be very, very afraid.