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.

As a woman who falls into the 18-24 and sexually active statistic, it should come as no surprise that I have used emergency contraception at least once in my life. I am lucky enough to live in a liberal town where access to Plan B (and other emergency contraceptives) is readily available without scrutiny.

However, many woman do not live in towns where they can obtain Plan B without scrutiny, discrimination, or harassment. Some women aren’t even aware that Plan B is available to them (at a steep cost) without a prescription from their local pharmacy. In an effort to combat the lack of knowledge, resources, and availability of emergency contraceptives, Back Up Your Birth Control has launched a Day of Action to increase awareness surrounding this vital piece of women’s reproductive health.

From Back Up Your Birth Control:

Back Up Your Birth Control (BUYBC) is a national campaign to expand access to EC by increasing EC education and awareness.

2008 BACK UP YOUR BIRTH CONTROL DAY OF ACTION

The Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign Day of Action is March 25, 2008! Join advocates across the country in raising awareness of EC and ensuring that every woman can back up her birth control with EC when and if she needs it.

FEATURED 2008 BACK UP YOUR BIRTH CONTROL ACTIVITIES

The 2008 Day of Action is dedicated to making EC available to all women regardless of their income, insurance coverage or immigration status. While we celebrate the FDA decision that made EC available over-the-counter to women 18 and older, we know that the high cost of EC over-the counter, usually between $40-70 in pharmacies nationwide, is a continuing barrier to some women accessing EC. Making the situation even worse is the fact that many college health centers and safety-net family planning clinics have had to drastically increase the cost of regular birth control methods because of a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act passed in 2005 that eliminated discounts on birth control for these clinics. This means that the four million college-age women across America – along with low-income women who rely on the 400 safety-net family planning clinics – may need to back up their birth control now more than ever before.

This year’s campaign will focus on:

• Raising awareness of the barrier to EC access posed by the high cost of EC over-the-counter
• Educating women, and teens who can’t access EC OTC, about sources of free and low-cost EC in their communities
• Encouraging and providing resources for advocates who are working for a resolution of the DRA price increase
• Highlighting innovative models that advocates and health departments across the country are implementing to help increase access to affordable EC (including free EC days, websites that help women compare EC prices at their area pharmacies, states covering EC OTC under their Medicaid programs, etc.)

Check out their website for more ways to get involved in this year’s Day of Action!

Why do you vote pro-choice? For me, this has always been an easy question to answer. I vote pro-choice because, above all, I think every woman has the right to decide what is best for her, her future, her potential baby, and her life. Instead of enforcing strict, and more importantly, restrictive, policies on all women, I believe that women should be granted access to the most liberal policies and allowed to make their own decisions.

If you can’t trust a woman to make her own decisions about her life, then what are you saying about half of the human species? Does a uterus make women completely incapable of deciding what is best for their bodies and their life? Does lacking a penis make it impossible for women to make logical decisions about their reproductive, physical, and mental health? I didn’t think so. The bottom line is, by taking away abortion rights, Republicans are telling women one thing: they don’t trust us to make our own decisions.

It’s really that simple. I wish I had more to say, but that’s all there is to it. And maybe, well, KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARY!

(Yes, ovary. I only have one.)

Maybe if Jamie Lynn Spears had received an education other than one that was focused on abstinence, she wouldn’t be three months pregnant right now. She would have learned how to use a condom properly or she would have been on birth control. Technically, legally, she shouldn’t have been having sex anyways: the age of consent in Louisiana is 17. I didn’t initially plan on vocalizing my opinion about the Spears pregnancy disaster, but I just couldn’t hold my tongue any longer.

Yes, it was her choice to have the baby and not get an abortion or give it up for adoption, but the way this story is being publicized is a bit ridiculous. Nickelodeon, the network which boosted Baby Spears to stardom with Zoey 101, released a statement in which they praised her for “taking responsibility”. With her family’s track record, I don’t think giving birth to a child at the age of 16 (or at all, really, let’s be honest) is even close to taking responsibility. Yes, Jamie Lynn is (was?) a teen role model (she might not be for long…), there’s nothing I can do about that. But there is something parents can do about it: they can stop sitting their kids in front of the television every night and bond with them and encouraging them to have healthy and safe lifestyles. Yes, Jamie Lynn is a celebrity and she’s 16, but the sad part is her life right now so sadly mirrors the life of many girls stuck in the same situation.

If Jamie Lynn was an adult who had an high school education, financial resources, and a solid home, I don’t think it would matter so much that she’s pregnant. I could care less that Lily Allen and Jessica Alba are pregnant: they are adults with solid finances and (supposedly) healthy homes. Regardless of the fact that she isn’t married, Jamie Lynn is only 16 years old. She’s barely experienced life and now she’s giving birth to a new one. You’d think she would have learned from her sister and that double disaster.

This sudden stream of celebrity pregnancies that appear to be completely unplanned and blockbuster flicks about the same can only negatively impact young women. If you see someone doing something easily (or perceive that they are doing it easily), it makes that alternative all the more desirable. Would it really be so bad if one celebrity said “you know, I was pregnant, but it’s not the right time in my career and I’m not ready for a family, so I had an abortion”?

And, by the by, has anybody bothered to mention that Jamie Lynn technically had no legal rights to consent to sex in the first place? I know in California there is a provision for age difference (as long as it is less than 2 or 3 years - don’t know which - it is allowed), but is there one in Louisiana? Now, I am not a fan of statutory rape laws (I don’t think they are necessary, especially since there are provisions solely related to child molestation on the books in every single state) but statutory rape is something that must be prosecuted if law enforcement knows about it (just like mandated reporting for child abuse). How much do you want to bet that her ex-boyfriend won’t be taken to court on statutory rape charges, even though it is mandatory to prosecute?

HELLO, DUH! Of course sex education works!

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]

Equality is an abstract concept. I don’t believe that it is something that can easily be defined. But apparently, every year, the World Economic Forum thinks it can easily define gender equality. This year, the evaluated 128 countries. The WEF just released the Global Gender Gap Report for 2007. According to their website, it measures gender equality across the following four areas:

1. Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment
2. Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education
3. Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures
4. Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio

I sat and stared at these categories for awhile and tried to figure out what about them it was that bothered me. It took me some time and a lot of thinking, but then I realized it. And it was so obvious. They didn’t even consider choice. And I’m not talking about pro-choice or anti-choice, I’m talking about the choice to excel economically or to be a stay at home father.

You can’t measure choice. And if you can’t measure choice, how can you measure equality?

A huge part of equality is the fact that you get to choose what you do with your equality. Yes, there is 20% female labor force participation in Saudi Arabia… but is it because they want to be in the work force, or is it because they have to? In the 7 countries I looked at closely (Sweden #1, Ireland #9, United Kingdom #11, Canada #18, United States #31, Saudi Arabia #124, Yemen #128) the workforce participation of men always exceeded that of women. Mozambique, which was rated #1 in Economic Participation and Opportunity (#43 overall, #120 in educational attainment), in contrast, has 85% of women but only 35% of men in the labor force population. This is also the same country that received the worst score possible on polygamy, an extremely poor score on legislation preventing violence against women, and a mid-range score on genital cutting (the report says “female genital mutilation”). How much do you think choice has to do with women being members of the labor population?

Studies such as these rely heavily on statistics and the use of surveys, which, to a point, delivers the facts. But the statistics deliver facts in a very scientific way. This study doesn’t taken into account the satisfaction people feel towards their gender equality - or lack thereof. While it is a huge step that studies like this are being done, they have yet to catch up with the things that are most important when it comes to equality. The study does make for a very interesting read, and I do encourage you to read it… but do so with a grain of salt. Statistics only give you the numbers, they don’t give you the satisfaction people feel in regards to their home, finances, government, or overall quality of life.

I feel that I should also mention the statistical profiles on each individual country mention nothing about gay marriage.

For those interested in the study, other information provided in individual country reports are:

• Mean age of marriage for women
• Fertility rate in births per woman
• Year women received the right to vote (which they list as 1965 in the United States…)
• Overall population sex ratio
• Maternity and Childbearing: births attended to by skilled health staff, contraceptive practices among married women, maternal and infant mortality rate, length of paid maternity leave, maternity leave benefits, provider of maternity coverage, adolescent fertility rate.
• Education and Training: percentage of female primary, secondary, and tertiary teachers
• Employment and Earnings: female and male adult unemployment rates, women in non-agricultural paid labor, ability of women to rise to position of enterprise leadership
• Basic Rights and Social Institutions: paternal versus maternal authority, “female genital mutilation”, polygamy, existence of legislation punishing acts of violence against women

Sweden (0.815*), the #1 ranked country on overall gender quality, also received the best score possible in all the Basic Rights and Social Institutions categories and the statistical equivalent of gender equality in terms of Educational Attainment (but they did not rank #1 for this).
* 0.00 = inequality, 1.00 = equality

I adored Knocked Up. I thought it was a funny movie - better the first time than subsequent viewings - that put a rather serious life issue into an amusing context to help people cope with the seriousness of the plot. But as a feminist, I have a problem with it.

While I understand it was a comedy about two adults getting into an awkward situation, with one of them semi-prepared for it and the other not even close. I even get that the movie wasn’t about Katherine Heigl’s character, Allison. I totally get (and was amused by) that fact that the movie is about Seth Rogen’s character and how he comes to grow as a man and accept his impending doom role as a father.

What I don’t understand, though, is why Katherine’s character did not even consider getting an abortion. I would have been able to accept the plot more easily had she even considered the option, instead of just glossing over the somewhat sticky subject. When works in the major spotlight such as Knocked Up decide to ignore all of the options available to a woman who finds herself with a bun in the oven, it makes it more difficult for young women to discuss all of their options if something similar happens to them. Movies like Knocked Up are, essentially, taking us back to the ideal that if you get someone pregnant, you better be ready to marry them and be in it for the long haul. While the two characters didn’t get married in the movie (and Heigl’s character actually turned down Rogen’s proposal), they were involved in an intimate relationship, and the movie made it appear that they moved in together after the birth and remained together years afterwards. I feel like the film’s creators opted to not include abortion as an option in the film because they didn’t know how to balance the seriousness of the subject with light-hearted (and occasionally crude) humor, like they did with an unexpected pregnancy. I understand that abortion is a heavy topic and could have potentially caused the comedy to take a turn for the worse, but they didn’t even try.

I understand the limits of a film and I can grasp the concept that the creators of the film may not have had adequate time in the film to include this plot in the movie. Allison’s “decision” to keep the baby didn’t even feel like a decision. It felt like someone coming to terms with the fact that they were pregnant, accepting it, and moving on. There was no decision because her character wasn’t given any other options. I’m not saying she should have had an abortion (although I would have) because then there would have been no movie. What I’m saying is the creators of the film could have spent 2 minutes discussing her options and then show her character coming to the decision that she wants to have a child and that keeping it is her choice.

Keeping a baby is never a simple choice for a young and single career woman. Knocked Up made it look like a young and single career woman has no other option than keeping a baby.

The scary thing is, if the Supreme Court continues going the way it does, no woman will any options other than having the baby - or adoption. To me, Knocked Up is a frighteningly realistic perspective on what the world could look like after the end of Bush’s presidency.

(Granted, it was a very amusing movie that I opted to eventually become an owner of.)

[images via getty]