anythings.org

Our lovely lawmakers have finally gotten up the nerve to tackle Bush’s abstinence-only sex education funding. It’s no surprise that it took a Democrat controlled House and Senate to allow this challenge to happen, but the question is, why didn’t it happen sooner? Despite years of outcry and criticism, it took our lawmakers seven years into Bush’s term as President to put any concentrated energy towards the removal of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

In a letter signed by 76 House and Senate members, they urged Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, to redistribute abstinence-only education funds towards more effective programs, such as the comprehensive sex education that was used several Presidents ago. While I am all for a letter urging someone to action, I highly doubt that will be the solution to ending abstinence-only education. I’d think the many studies from prominent and well-respected institutions that have shown that abstinence-only education does not work would have pushed our legislators to action sooner, but apparently not.

From the National Partnership on Women and Families:

The letter did not suggest specific alternative programs that could be funded, CQ HealthBeat reports. Emily Kryder — press secretary for Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who signed the letter — said that Capps would prefer to fund the type of comprehensive sex education programs authorized by HR 1653 and HR 819, which contain a variety of measures intended to increase access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) — sponsors of HR 1653 and HR 819, respectively — also signed the letter.

Capps in an e-mail said, “Abstinence-only education, such as that funded through CBAE, doesn’t work and is a waste of our limited financial resources.” She added, “We need to give our young people access to accurate information that will enable them to make healthy decisions.” Shays said, “The extraordinary number of teen pregnancies and growing rate of sexually transmitted disease transmission among teens underscores the necessity of comprehensive sexual education.” He added that children “need a responsible education that includes both abstinence and contraception approaches to pregnancy prevention and sexual health.”

Reps. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) also recently sent a letter to Obey that asks for CBAE funding and policy guidelines to be maintained. “Millions of youth will continue to receive education that provides a risk-eliminating advantage gained by abstaining from sexual activity if abstinence education funding is continued,” McIntyre and Terry wrote, adding, “This is not a partisan issue” (Grimaldi, CQ HealthBeat, 3/31).

Call you local legislators and urge them to join sign onto this letter. It may not be the driving force to end oppressive abstinence-only sex education, but it could be the catalyst for something bigger.

Image from Getty.

I guess today is the day for humor! As I’m sure everyone knows, the Vatican has just recently released new sins. Yes, much like a summer blockbuster or a new fashion line, the Vatican decided to get hip with the times and tell everyone that there are more things they need to not do in order to get into heaven.

Of course, the hilarious part is the sins are totally and completely political. Some, quite ironically, are liberal… but the majority, in true Catholic fashion, are conservative and completely irrelevant to your level of innocence and sin free-ness.

The new sins also are seven in number, and as far as I can tell, have not been advertised with quite the “deadly” fervor of the original sins, even though they are (apparently) also considered deadly. The Catholic Church divides sins into venial, or less serious, sins and mortal sins, which threaten the soul with eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence. Guess what kind the new sins are? Yup! Mortal! Mmm death by hellfire!

Side note: this is going to be confusing, now there are original sins and new sins - as opposed to original sin, which is one particular type of act. Damn Catholicism and their sins.

For the record, the original seven deadly sins are:

1. Pride
2. Envy
3. Gluttony
4. Lust
5. Anger
6. Greed
7. Sloth

While I can understand the root in the original seven deadly sins, I don’t really understand how some of the new sins are, well, deadly. Unless, of course, you’re a Democrat, in which case there is also a nice cozy chair made of nails and thumb tacks for you right next to Satan and Bill Clinton. The new sins are decidedly political in nature, and somewhat amusing, especially since they don’t contain pedophilia, which is kind of a huge hello, DUH.

1. Bioethical violations: birth control seems to be the big example everyone is using. So, apparently, it is now a sin punishable by death and eternal hellfire to wrap it up or pop a pill that prevents pregnancy. Courteous of Mark Morford: “Speaking of babies, here’s a terrific new statistic: 25-40 percent of American teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease. Isn’t that wonderful? Abstinence education has been a blessing and a joy.” I’m thinking adding “bioethical violations” to the list of deadly sins isn’t going to help that problem.
   
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research. You know the Catholic church had to squeeze something in there related to abortion, they just had to. And, of course, the only way the Catholic church sees stem cell research is as a close cousin, or hell, maybe sibling, to abortion.
3. Drug abuse: duh, but somehow I think their definition of drug abuse is vastly different from mine or the legal and psychological definitions.
4. Polluting the environment: a shockingly liberal point of view, if they mean saving the trees and oceans and fluffy baby penguins. However, they could also mean polluting the environment by talking about sex, drugs, and alcohol, so maybe not.
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor: so, basically, you can’t be a Republican. How sad!
6. Excessive wealth: this one just makes me giggle. I mean, the Catholic church saying excessive wealth is a sin? Are you serious? Again, thank you Mark Morford for writing what I was thinking: “I also enjoyed the new sin of excessive wealth, given how the Vatican is one of the most — if not the most — gluttonously wealthy organizations on the planet, oozing with real estate and massive stock portfolios, dripping with cash, billions of dollars in hoarded treasure and unknown gems, icons, art, the solid gold vaginas of 1,000 pagan goddesses locked up in its vaults. The hypocrisy is positively comical. Epic.”
7. Creating poverty: …

I AM SO GOING TO HELL.

Is it just me, or are sins #5-7 all related to wealth? Couldn’t they have just combined that all into one happy sin? Apparently not. I guess the whole point was to not have excessive wealth by donating to the Catholic church so they could use some of that to stop poverty.And because I always find a way to tie everything back to women, feminism, and reproductive health:

Note to the Vatican: You want true sin? Here you go: Lying to women is a sin. Pathological hypocrisy is a sin. Half a billion dollars in pedophilia lawsuit payouts is a sin. Homophobia is a sin. Hiding those golden vaginas is a sin. And creating new sins in a strange attempt to stay relevant as your church withers and struggles and falters in the new and spiritually hungry but religiously mistrustful world, that’s surely a sin.

No, wait. Check that. That’s not a sin at all. It’s actually just a sad, inexcusable joke.

See! I don’t hate the Catholic church. I just find them absolutely hilarious and moderately (to severely, depending on the day) annoying.

[Image via Getty]

When verbally assaulted at a rally by anti-choicers, Bill responded, and I have to say, I am impressed by his response… and not just because he’s Bill, but because it’s an awesome response. Yes, he got angry, and yes, he may have yelled more than a little… but he did get his point across and (I hope) filled the anti-choicers present at this rally with a more than a little embarrassment.

Anti-choicers have done NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions being provided in the United States, but pro-choicers have. Pro-choice activists have lobbied for more available birth control and other family planning methods to be made available on a wide spread range at extremely low cost. These efforts have only been discouraged by anti-choicers, who refuse to make the connection that more contraception means fewer abortions because they aren’t just anti-abortion, they are anti-contraception. The anti-choicers know that the anti-contraception stance is an extremely unpopular one in America, which is why very few of them publicize it. But if you look at their motives and their rhetoric, it’s very clear: they are against contraception, abortion, and sex for any purpose other than reproductive.

As Bill put it:

“We disagree with you. You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth! Tell the truth! If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother, as an accessory to murder, in prison, and you won’t say you wanna do that, because you know that you wouldn’t have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is, you can’t name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions, instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally.”

My favorite part, of course, has been bolded for your reading pleasure. For those dying to see the video, click here.

[Via every feminist blog I’ve read today.]

When talking about doctors giving women abortions and holding the doctors - but not the women - accountable when (not if) he makes abortion illegal and shoves women back into their barefoot and pregnant lifestyles, my least favorite person said the following of the woman seeking an abortion:

I consider her a victim, not a criminal.

A WOMAN IS NOT A VICTIM OF HER OWN CHOICES. A woman is not a victim when she gets up in the morning, puts on jeans and a sweatshirt, and walks past a man who has an urge to kidnap and murder a woman wearing jeans and a sweatshirt. A 12 year-old girl is not a victim when she decides to walk home from school instead of taking the bus and gets raped by a scary old man who likes to eat girls and bury their bones in his basement.

However, Huckabee’s stance is the only “easy” way to get around the question without hurting your poor, teeny, tiny Republican brain to to blame the doctor, not the woman. Who went to the doctor’s office. Specifically to get an abortion. And got one. Because that makes sense…

If you criminalize abortion, you have to punish the woman who gets it, or not make it illegal in the first place. Apparently, the Republicans don’t understand this concept.

Let’s try an analogy for those who cannot wrap their brains around it: let’s pretend buying cars is illegal. A lovely Mormon wife (gag) with her 8 full clothed and perfectly behaved children goes to purchase a minivan to haul around said children. She pays a fair price for the minivan, is satisfied, and drives away happily, knowing her quality of life is now much better, even though she has risked great harm to herself, her family, and her children by engaging in this grave illegal act of purchasing a car. The police discover her terrible crime, they pat her on the head “You silly woman!” they say, “You know buying cars is illegal!” and they run off and arrest the person she purchased the car from.

It would, of course, just make more sense for abortion to stay SAFE, LEGAL, and ACCESSIBLE to women of all ages, races, socio-economic status, and location.

(Also, please, laugh with me as you realize Huckabee believes the “her” in victim is always a woman, but that the abortion provider is always, without a doubt, a man. Probably an atheist Democrat trying to steal the aborted fetus for stem cell research.)

Time magazine recently wrote about a research study that linked abortions to future occurrences of premature births and low birth weight babies, by 2 and 3, respectively. I understand that Time was trying to explain to the general population that

the study is hardly perfect; the data is more than 40 years old and doesn’t distinguish between medical abortions and ’spontaneous abortions,’ better known as miscarriages.

Even with this statement in the first paragraph of their article, the shocking headline doesn’t quite convey the same message.

They claim that the large sample size helps to increase significance, but when they sample used for the study is over 50 years old and doesn’t distinguish between medical abortions and miscarriages, I would think that sample size doesn’t matter when something this big was ignored by the researchers. While the journal it was published in is not that credible, but the general American public doesn’t know these things.

Do your part to help spread the word about bogus studies that impact a woman’s right to choose!

Find out more at Choice USA.

Apparently, teen birth rates are up (quite a lot) for the first time in 14 years. I also enjoy the fact that births by unwed mothers are still connected with teen births. I thought we had accepted the whole single parent thing?

Think it has anything to do with Bush’s ridiculously failed attempt at sex education? Abstinence only education does not work, Mr. President.

[Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs]