countless women across the world were being denied access to reproductive and medical services due to his church's policies

(i'm just highlighting the CC in this instance, however, they it is certainly not the only culprit)

faith-based policies are literally KILLING people in the developing countries - lack of proper education and the teaching of blatant lies mean women, men and children suffer - poor women/families keep churning out babies they can't afford - men and women have unsafe sex - teens have unsafe sex - a whole population ends up with an endemic of STD's, which go largely untreated, due to unaccessible health-care - children are born HIV positive - and the cycle goes on and on - unhindered by the church(es) if not outrightly enabled by them - it's horrific

make no mistake, in my opinion, this kind of negligence is a global crime

look upon this post as a sort of post-script/companion piece to my earlier (more domestic) post, entitled, "Once More with Feeling or Stay the Hell Away from my Reproductive Rights"

this time, i present another woman's anger and frustration at such policies - and i echo her sentiments

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/83452/?page=entire

Men of the Cloth: The Vatican Isn't So Far From Fundamentalist Mormonism

By Katha Pollitt, The Nation
Posted on April 26, 2008, Printed on April 30, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/83452/

Child abuse. Sexual abuse. Women raised to be baby machines controlled by powerful older men in the name of God. These shockers -- and many more -- are flagrantly on offer in the spectacle unfolding around the 139 women and 437 children removed by Texas authorities from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado. The YFZ is an outpost of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a breakaway Mormon cult presided over by Warren Jeffs, convicted in Utah as an accomplice to rape and awaiting trial in Arizona for incest and conspiracy. The visuals are riveting: women in pastel prairie dresses and identical pompadour-cum-french-braid hairstyles weeping for their children in state custody; skinny-necked middle-aged men insisting they had no idea it was illegal to marry and impregnate multiple 15-year-olds. There's a feminist angle, a child-protection angle and a civil liberties angle -- it isn't clear that the children were in immediate danger, and this drastic and clumsy sweep might well cause cultists to isolate themselves even more. The original impetus for the raid -- a desperate phone call from someone claiming to be a 16-year-old girl raped and abused by her 50-year-old "spiritual husband" -- is looking more and more like a hoax.

I've written before about the evils of fundamentalist Mormon polygyny, which is thought to have some 10,000 followers in closed communities in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, South Dakota and Texas. I will never understand why the people who attack Islam as oppressive to women have nothing to say about the FLDS. The cultural relativist arguments they reject when applied to foreign countries are even less applicable here: Everyone in the story is American, supposedly living under American law. Yet for decades state and local authorities have looked the other way when girls are pulled out of school to be "home-schooled," i.e., prepared for marriage to their uncles, and teenage boys are kicked out of the community so as not to compete with the elder men. Indeed, in areas near FLDS communities, public services have been infiltrated by their members: the public schools teach their religious doctrines; the police are on the lookout for girls and women who try to escape.

Still, appalling as is FLDS's extreme male dominance, there was another news story unfolding at the same time that had certain affinities but got a very different slant: Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States. What a lovefest! We heard endlessly about Benedict's intellect, charm and elegant red shoes. "Cat Lovers Appreciate Soul Mate in Vatican" made the New York Times most e-mailed list. How little the Pope had to do to win applause as a wise conciliator: Having begun his reign trying to suppress the priestly pedophilia scandal, he met with the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and reminded Catholics that homosexuals and pedophiles, while both bad, are not the same. Having kept in the liturgy a prayer "for the Jews" so that God might "enlighten their hearts," he visited New York's Park East synagogue, where the rabbi did not similarly call on Catholics to give up their worship of Christ.

But what about women? Oh, them and their messy bodies! As blogger Dana Goldstein pointed out, only Barbara Boxer said boo when Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, proposed a resolution welcoming the Pope in coded antichoice language and asserting that religion, not the Constitution, was the foundation of our government. (Boxer led a movement that held up the vote for three days until the wording was changed).

Where were the tough questions about the church's absolute ban on contraception, condoms, divorce and abortion -- even to save a woman's life? If it was up to Benedict, we might be more stylish than the plural wives of the FLDS, but we'd be trapped in marriage and have fifteen children just like them. In the United States the Catholic church has lost some of its moral authority -- thank you, pedophile priests -- but it has more temporal power than you might think. Around 12 percent of US hospitals are church-affiliated, which entitles them to refuse modern reproductive healthcare to women. The church is the major opponent of the drive to make health insurance plans cover birth control, forcing women to pay up to $600 out of pocket every year for contraceptives. Along with evangelical Protestants, it is the main force behind every attempt to restrict abortion, defeat prochoice politicians, make contraception and the morning-after pill harder to get, promote false and sexist abstinence-only education and discourage the use of condoms to prevent HIV by spreading unfounded doubts about their effectiveness.

Catholic charities do a lot of good, but the Vatican is a major obstacle to the advancement of women's human rights. In Nicaragua and El Salvador it recently won a total ban on abortion that has already led to dozens of deaths. In Chile it defeated President Michelle Bachelet's plan to give out emergency contraception gratis. In Italy, Poland and elsewhere in Europe it works night and day to make abortion illegal or hard to obtain. In AIDS-plagued Africa its opposition to condoms, contraception and abortion rights has cost millions of lives. None of this is as titillating as pastel-swathed "sister wives" and their vast log-cabin dormitories, but it affects almost everyone on the globe. FLDS men have many wives and the Pope has none, which goes to show there's more than one way to keep women pregnant and in their place.

Katha Pollitt is a columnist for The Nation.

This article is great for many reasons:

I'm not going to say who's playing top or bottom in that statement, but feminism and porn have been like Crisco and condoms for decades, and feminist positions (ahem) on porn are diverse. They often boil down to the notions that porn is degrading to women, abusive, encourages rape and violence against women, and reinforces sexual domination, coercion and humiliation of women. ... Except for all the cool-headed women currently identifying as feminist and doing sex work and loving porn, like Young, Nina Hartley (nina.com), Carol Queen, Susie Bright (susiebright.blogs.com/), all the women behind Spread magazine, plus oodles more.

...The whole notion that a girl can get off watching porn, be in it, make it, and view sex work as positive — and be feminist — remains confusing for many. Women like Young have their politics about women and sex down pat; meanwhile ever-increasing thousands of women watch and enjoy all kinds of porn for personal gratification. Not because their boyfriends read an article in Maxim that gave them 10 easy steps to convince her to watch "I've Never Done This Before No. 48." Because women get off on explicit sexual imagery, and there's not only data and studies to back that statement, but hoards of girls with vibrators in one hand and a mouse in the other voting with each click on RedTube.com or Fleshbot.com. The privacy of the Internet has changed how we women enjoy and consume our sex toys — and porn is one of those toys, thank you very much. And we totally know who we're exploiting when we watch gay male porn. Um, the gay male feminists, of course.

...Let's not forget: Most mainstream porn is generally racist and sexist; it's full of sex acts people don't actually do when they really get off, and crazy-unsafe behavior. It's supposed to be fantasy, but much of mainstream porn plays on viewer's assumptions that sex is bad and shameful — the male "raincoater" slinking into porn stores is actually, sadly, the target consumer for mainstream porn. The attitudes are prevalent, but just as dated as Jay Leno making fun of gay people.

Seeing these porno-geezers headed to die off like the dinosaurs and the DVD, the Feminist Porn Awards wanted to participate in the growing popularity of sex-positive, non-formula porn. ... But "sex-positive" and "feminist" are catchphrases that might make it seem like a shy, soft-focus film fest. Quite the opposite, ma'am: Take one look at edgy, hardcore winners like "Bondage Boob Tube," local dyke and trans flick "In Search of the Wild Kingdom" and mainstream winners like Vivid Video's "Jenna Jameson is the Masseuse" and Tristan Taormino's "Chemistry" (also Vivid Video), and it's a range of diversity in sex acts from the extreme to the whimsical, explicit and sublime.

so, i read this article, which i've included at the end - which basically states that if women want to retain any power at all over their bodies, they should not, under any circumstances, vote for Sen. McCain

(please pay particular attention to his utterly inane and idiotic answers to a couple questions posed to him on the subject of sex education in the US)

*i have since added the above quote, thanks to Kirk, which leaves absolutely no doubt on the matter....

and, i realized that as far as abortion goes, i have quite a few things to say...

why isn't everyone Pro-Choice? - now, i'm not being obtuse or naive here - what i mean to say is - shouldn't all women, everywhere, want to keep their reproductive rights, um, THEIRS? - i mean, don't we have a right to say what we do with OUR OWN bodies? - no matter if you happen to personally feel that abortion is wrong - what right do any of us have to judge another woman in her reproductive choices? - we're not in her head, living her life! - what right do we have to impose our beliefs upon another?

“I hope every woman in this country, whether they agree with Roe or they disagree with Roe, whether they themselves would make one decision or another, will come together and say: Pro-choice means that the Government respects the individual, and isn't that really what our country is all about?” --- Barbara Boxer

this compunction to pass judgment on other people in matters which are none of our collective business is really troubling to me - and to pass legislation on such matters is offensive to me - i happen not to be personally opposed to abortion - i have never had to make the choice, but i do understand that by the time it comes down to abortion, it is truly a hard decision to make - but, there are times that it is necessary (for any number of personal, medical, or economic reasons) - whether you agree with WHY it is necessary for someone else to make this choice, is none of your business - it is not your life - it is theirs

it is MINE

“Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.” --- John Kerry

unfortunately, that does not seem to be the way America is heading

as an adult woman - is it too much to ask for the government to stay out of my sex life AND to stay out of my reproductive rights?

(and i'm only dealing with abortion here, not any of the other personal issues which the government also has no business poking its looong nose in)

apparently, it's like asking for the moon and the stars - actually - you might as well ask for your own galaxy!

Rewind...

As a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," declared his firm opposition to certain affirmative action programs, and strongly endorsed a government role in "protecting traditional values."

-- No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985

Fast Forward...

well, he's certainly held up his end - restricting access to reproductive procedures and not even pretending that he and his like-minded Justices are ruling with womens' health in mind

April 30, 2007

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's regressive ruling on April 18 in the two abortion ban cases, women's rights advocates in Congress have introduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) S. 1173/H.R. 1964. This legislation, if enacted, would override the Court's decision in the two cases, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the court upheld vaguely-written bans that could prohibit the most commonly used and safest abortion procedures after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

In upholding these bans, five conservative Supreme Court justices have effectively overruled a core element of Roe v. Wade that had been reinforced in many Court decisions: the requirement that legislative restrictions on abortion must contain an exception to protect the woman's health. The gravity of the Court's decision as it relates to the health of all women of child-bearing age is immense. It is a giant leap toward overturning Roe and, at the same time, signals approval to the state legislatures with anti-abortion majorities to move forward with abortion ban bills that would go into effect when, and if, Roe falls completely.

With the two recent Bush-appointed justices—John Roberts and Samuel A. Alito, Jr.—and their anti-abortion-rights colleagues Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, it seems only a matter of time that Roe will be overturned by the high court. States will then be allowed to re-criminalize abortion; doctors and their patients would face the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, and even imprisonment. Doctors will not risk the consequences, and women's reproductive health clinics will close. We all know what will take their place.

--- Freedom of Choice Act would Guarantee Roe Protections in U.S. Statutes

!!!

if i'm not mistaken, the other guy could croak any second...gee, i wonder who would take his place...

never mind the fact that uncontrolled birth rates would be a disaster for the US - um - see India - see China

The erosion of a woman's right to choose began almost immediately after the Roe decision, she said. In 1976, a law known as the "Hyde Amendment" outlawed the use of federal Medicaid funds to the poor for abortion services.  -- http://www.counterpunch.org/higgs02012006.html

!!!

Since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, anti-choice legislators in the states and in Congress have systematically eroded reproductive rights. State and federal restrictions already in place make reproductive freedom an empty promise for many American women. Many of these restrictions fall most heavily on low-income women and teens. For example, numerous states and the District of Columbia currently restrict low-income women’s access to abortion; and the federal Hyde Amendment bars access to abortion care for low-income women who rely on the federal government for their health care. Likewise, many states dangerously restrict teenagers’ access to abortion care.

--- ACLU - Support the Freedom of Choice Act

...because the smart thing to do is restrict access to these services to people who can't afford them and to people who are too young to be having babies...does anyone NOT see the socio-economic implications that this amendment has wrought and will continue to spawn?

and, thanks to Truthdig, i found this the other day...

    Last November, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists outlined the ethical guidelines for doctors. Those who have moral objections to performing a legal abortion for a woman don't have to do it, but they do have to refer her to another doctor or health care provider. [ACOG]

    We'll quote the ACOG: "Physicians and other health care providers have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request. In resource-poor areas, access to safe and legal reproductive services should be maintained."

  It would seem to be a straightforward, ethical guideline, but then the guys at the Bush White House decided to get involved.

    Friday, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt in effect put an asterisk on the ACOG guideline saying, actually, he doesn't' think doctors should have to refer women to another doctor before they kick them to the curb. [HHS]

    Leavitt: "I am writing to express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers ... It appears that the interaction of the ACOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification."

    A) What? ACOG never said anything about losing board certification.

    B) Leavitt expresses concern about the well-being of the doctors, which is all well and good, but what about the well-being of women who could be thrown out into the cold, unable to find accessible health care?

    C) And according to OB/GYN Wendy Chavkin of Columbia University, Leavitt's policy may also allow physicans to deny emergency contraception to women who have been raped.

and so, here we have further intrusion into matters which are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS - and, not only that, but going even further to threaten action against the doctors themselves! - in essence, completely leaving women-in-need without options

now, compound the above with this excerpt...

Big Rise in Cost of Birth Control on Campuses

In health centers at hundreds of colleges and universities around the country, young women are paying sharply higher prices for prescription contraceptives because of a change in federal law.

The increases have meant that some students using popular birth control pills and other products are paying three and four times as much as they did several months ago. The higher prices have also affected about 400 community health centers nationwide used by poor women.

The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.

Some Democratic lawmakers in Washington are pressing for new legislation by year’s end that would reverse the provision, which they say was inadvertently included in a law intended to reduce Medicaid abuse. In the meantime, health care and reproductive rights advocates are warning that some young women are no longer receiving the contraception they did in the past.

Some college clinics have reported sudden drops in the numbers of contraceptives sold; students have reported switching to less expensive contraceptives or considering alternatives like the so-called morning-after pill; and some clinics, including one at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Me., have stopped stocking some prescription contraceptives, saying they are too expensive.

“The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not you can pay for it, that doesn’t mean that you’ll stop having sex,” said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12...

...and what do you get? - young women everywhere - trying to get an education - at needless risk for pregnancy - do i need to spell out the socio-economic implications of this?

(btw, i'll have to look into that year's end legislation fix - if any of you have any info on that, please share it)

in 1995, my senior year in college, i paid 5 dollars a pack - for my BC - Ortho-Cept 28 - which, i am still on - it is subsidized here in New Zealand, in the socialized health system

(here, i do want to say, that if i get any moralizing on sex before marriage and how people shouldn't be having sex in college,  i will be ignoring you)

it is possible to be sexually responsible (meaning have a healthy sex life and being responsible about it) if one is FULLY and EXHAUSTIVELY educated about sex

it is NOT possible without the proper education

and, how many times can i repeat this - abstinence-only sex-ed DOES NOT WORK - in fact, it makes the situation worse, especially among teens! - and WHY do we want teen girls at risk of getting pregnant though ineffective, counter-productive, and downright dangerous faith-based initiatives?
 

The evaluation, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, examined the impact of the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs funded under the 1996 federal welfare reform law.

Through the study, more than 2,000 children were randomly assigned to groups that received abstinence-only counseling and those who received no counseling. Over the next four to six years, numerous surveys were done to determine the impact of these programs on the behavior of the kids.

Researchers found no evidence that these abstinence-only programs increased rates of sexual abstinence.

The study also showed that the students participating in these abstinence-only programs had a similar number of sexual partners as their peers not in the programs, and that the age of first sex was similar for both groups too.

"The basic takeaway message is that there are no differences between the two groups on any behavioral outcomes," says lead study author Christopher Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research...

"The data coming forth now is simple proof -- solid, unassailable evidence to back up what many of us have known from the get-go," says Joy Davidson, a certified sex therapist in New York City who is on the board of directors of the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapist.

"There have been studies that have been done over the last few years at least that have made it quite clear that abstinence-only education is not only a waste of money, but it is a danger to young adults as well."

--- 'Abstinence Only' Sex Ed Ineffective

Recent surveys show that 70 percent of U.S. teens have engaged in oral sex by the time they reach 18, and more than 45 percent have had intercourse at least once. More than 70 percent of young women and 80 percent of young men approve of premarital sex, according to a study published recently in the Review of General Psychology.

In addition, studies show sexually transmitted diseases are spreading at an alarming rate among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nearly half of the nation's new cases of STDs each year occur among adolescents and young adults. A recent study found that teens who took pledges of virginity as part of abstinence-only sex ed classes ultimately had STD rates similar to other young people and were less likely to use contraception or other forms of protection when they did become sexually active.

In short, the idea that teens will remain celibate until they marry — and that they don't need information about sex — says much more about the values and fantasies of the people who are promoting these policies than it does about teens.

---  Abstinence-only sex ed defies common sense

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said...

--- Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

---------------

yes, i seem to have gone off on a related tangent, which actually segues quite nicely into the article about McCain below

but first, here are my final words on the matter:

supporting the restriction or total federal ban on womens' reproductive rights hurts ALL women as well as society-as-a-whole

WE MUST WORK TO KEEP SUCH MATTERS A PERSONAL CHOICE

we must work to maintain our reproductive freedoms

are we just going to stand by while control over our own bodies is eroded by legislation?

heads up, ladies!

or someday, women in the US will be fighting far worse battles for our freedoms

and i don't need to tell you the socio-economic implications of THAT

(anybody read Margaret Attwood's  A Handmaid's Tale? - what, you don't think it could happen?)

* For Your information: Abortion stats for the US and more - also, if you click on the link at the top of the page which says "State Center" - you can find info on legislation for each state when you click on its location on the map

----------------------------
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031008WA.shtml

I always thought I was pretty well-informed on the wildy fallacious and increasingly bizarre arguments employed by the anti-choice lobby. But somehow the one that claims it's all a plot by neo-Nazis to eliminate black people from the gene pool seems to have slipped by me until recently. I'd heard some rantings in the past about Margaret Sanger, birth control, and eugenics; but never had anyone try to tell me with a straight face that OBGYNs who perform abortions were all part of a secret cabal of skinheads. Or maybe it's supposed to be a Jewish plot, I don't know. Logic is not a strong suit with these people.

So anyway, I scoffed and then pretty much dismissed it, until I saw this article:

The call to Idaho came in July to Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

On the recording provided by The Advocate, an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because "the less black kids out there the better."

Kersey laughed nervously and said: "Understandable, understandable. ... Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out."

(The Advocate is a "right-to-life" student magazine at UCLA which claims that abortion is racially motivated. I wonder if they're aware that they share a name with one of the most well-known magazines of the LGBT community?)

I sort of groaned and mentally facepalmed when I read this, like "Thanks for handing these nutballs more ammo, Planned Parenthood!" Also, it's Planned Parenthood! In the words of Principal Vernon:

Principal vernon

I expected more from a varsity letterman.

But I held off on writing about it, because one of my favorite bloggers works in fundraising (and in the women's health field), and I wanted to see what she had to say about it. I suspected there might be some kind of ironclad rule where you're never, ever allowed to just scream "Fuck you!" and hang up, no matter how obviously insane a donor is being.

Turns out: yep.

I do understand the pressure of trying to please everyone when you're in fundraising.  I've taken some absolutely repulsive calls about people who hate the gay folk.  You can't just say, "You're a fucking loon" and hang up.  We were coached to say things like "I understand your position. I'll pass along your comments to the President." and shit like that.

And, as she pointed out in her own blog post about this, it's possible Kersey thought the caller was mentally unstable, and was just trying to "poke the bear" as little as possible.

Personally, I have to think this might not have happened if Planned Parenthood didn't have to fight and claw for every nickel, and weren't constantly under threat of losing funding. I very much doubt that, had the caller been in earnest, he would have been able to legally enforce his "Use it to kill them tarbabies!" caveat. Perhaps Kersey was just thinking she'd take the nutball's money and get him the hell off the phone, then go about her day.

If Planned Parenthood does have some kind of "Don't get the freaks riled up" policy, then I really hope they stand by it and don't can Kersey just to save face. If anyone truly believes their agenda is to slay unborn black children in the womb, then firing one employee isn't going to make them see how insane that is. They shouldn't pander to these wingnuts, who will always demonize them anyway--never mind that Planned Parenthood actually prevents more abortions than it performs, by providing birth control to young and/or underpivileged women.

(+ posted to Hey, Be Us!)

Clark Country, GA has decided to switch their tactics. Currently, an "abstinence only" curriculum is taught in the high school. The country also has a 4.5% teen pregnancy rate, which is higher than the state average. In order to try to combat these rates, the county has voted to start teaching safe sex in schools, which has proven to be effective in preventing teen pregnancy.

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the Western world, most likely due to a conflict between an over-sexed media and a moral approach to sex ingrained in the Protestant society. Abstinence only programs only help to support this conflict, telling kids that sex is wrong and then sending them home to their televisions which portray lots of gratifying, unprotected sex -- even on basic cable.  

It seems curious that if I was 28 weeks pregnant and presented to my doctor saying there was no way I wanted to continue with the pregnancy, the doctor would not be able to refer me for termination unless I met the restrictive criteria which have been outlined. It would be assumed I had an obligation to the fetus because it was potentially viable and I had passed the point of viability. I therefore would be compelled to maintain its life and deliver the child. In contrast I have a two year old, and if he suddenly became ill, and needed me to donate an organ to survive, I would probably consider myself a heniously immoral woman if I did not concede to that demand. However there is no law in the land that could oblige me to do so. In effect we impose greater obligation to women to preserve the life of their fetuses than we impose to preserve the life of their born children.

In abortion law we are therefore distinctly privileging the life of the fetus over the wishes of the woman in a way we do not do in any other form of medical practice. I would therefore argue that the current abortion law is ethically inconsistent in the way it permits abortion in some circumstances but not in others and that it in denying abortion it undermines the basic principle of individual autonomy which is accepted in the rest of medical practice.

Source.

So Grover Cleveland High School (in Reseda, California) has its panties in a twist because some rascals at the student newspaper published a labeled diagram of a vagina as part of a Valentine's Day spread (tee hee). Predictably, parents complained, teachers were outraged, the papers were pulled, and the suburban moral panic that had been in hibernation since rock-n-roll ensued. I imagine it was like a John Waters movie.

My favorite quote ever from one of the administrators: "This is a high school, not Hollywood Boulevard."

Ha! What side of the valley are they living on, anyway?

Seems to me that an anatomically accurate drawing of a vagina might be exactly what teenagers should be looking at. So that girls won't confuse their urethras with their uteruses, boys won't stick things in the wrong places, and everyone will know exactly where the clitoris is.

With more educational vag pics, young women could communicate better with their doctors, and develop a greater understanding of common health concerns, contraception, and sexual pleasure. There would be less shame, confusion, repression, and misinformation surrounding female bodies. How this can be construed as negative or inappropriate is absurd to me. Especially in a world full of myths and euphemisms.

Or we could just blush and babble on about storks and God and how a body part belonging to over 50% of the population is the scariest grossest most unspeakable thing ever.

Like, gag me with a spoon, Reseda.

i heart my obscene body

In this article, the term "feticide" is used to refer to the killing of a fetus, as occurs during abortion or miscarriage. I greatly dislike this term, for it seems to equate "feticide" with words like "genocide" or "homocide," which are inarguably crimes more heinous than the taking of a life of something parasitic and incapable of conscious thought.

This is dangerous. The article itself is about the House of Virginia passing a law that makes "feticide" a class 4 felony. In Virginia, a class 4 felony means 2-10 years of imprisonment and up to $100,000 in fines. Also a class 4 felony in Virginia: rape/sexual assault and statutory rape, so you get the idea to the sort of moral standards its being equated to -- funny that it's with laws that supposedly exist to protect women. Basically, this means that in the eyes of the Virginia law, a woman trying to terminate a pregnancy gets the same punishment as a child molester. Sound a little crazy to you?

This is not to mention the fact that, according to the famous Roe vs. Wade, "feticide" is a constitutional right. Never has the constitution been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to say rape was a constitutional right, but, hey, no one really knows what the fore fathers were thinking when they wrote it!

Death of the father: British scientists discover how to turn women's bone marrow into sperm
By FIONA MACRAE - More by this author » Last updated at 09:28am on 31st January 2008

British scientists are ready to turn female bone marrow into sperm, cutting men out of the process of creating life.

The breakthrough paves the way for lesbian couples to have children that are biologically their own.

Gay men could follow suit by using the technique to make eggs from male bone marrow.

Researchers at Newcastle upon Tyne University say their technique will help lead to new treatments for infertility.

But critics warn that it sidelines men and raises the prospect of babies being born through entirely artificial means.

The research centres around stem cells - the body's 'mother' cells which can turn into any other type of cell. 

Source