Completely Unnecessary

Check out Meredith’s review of Pushed on her blog today. I’ve got to read this book; it makes my ranting/terror about the ‘husband stitch’ look mild.

Vaguely Related

• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention
• Women and the World: It’s Not Going Well.

Monday is Ideological Conservative Commentary Day over at the Chicago Tribune. The columns by Chicago-based Dennis Byrne and nationally syndicated Charles Krauthammer usually leave me wringing my hands.

One of the nice things about reading the Trib online is that they’re pretty buried on the site, so I can miss them with zero effort. Sadly, when presented with the print edition, I am not so lucky. Headlines like, ‘Why Isn’t This Study on the Pill Heeded?‘ draw both my eye and ire.

Byrne’s argument is that a study published ‘more than a year ago’ by Dr Chris Kahlenborn linking contraceptive pills and breast cancer is getting short shrift in the media:

… I couldn’t find a single reference to it in the archives of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times or this paper. The Associated Press appears not to have covered it. I couldn’t find a single mainstream media article about it in a Google search.

Byrne notes that Kahlenborn is ‘frustrated’ that he’s not getting ‘important information out to women’ that, according to his study, they’re much more likely to get breast cancer if they use the pill before pregnancy.

What Byrne doesn’t mention until the second to last paragraph is that Kahlenborn is - wait for it - anti-choice. Byrne questions, however, those who feel that ideology might have clouded Kahlenborn’s judgment:

…but what has that to do with his research? As for me, I am not opposed to contraception, oral or otherwise. I am not plotting to get the pill banned. I am not writing this column for hidden religious reasons. I am not saying that the Kahlenborn study is the last word; I’m not a scientist, so I can’t vouch for its methodology or conclusions. Just like the abortion/breast cancer study, I’m writing about it because people have a right to know about the existence of health information, even if it is contradictory to the given wisdom.

Byrne isn’t a scientist, so what could he know about methods? Yet he’s quick to argue at the beginning of his column that Kahlenborn’s study ‘employed an often-used medical research technique called “meta-analysis”‘. He seems to know enough about scientific methods to grant legitimacy to Kahlenborn’s techniques.

So let’s say you don’t read to the end of the article or, say, conduct a brief Google/Google Scholar search. You might never know that Kahlenborn’s work is cited extensively in the anti-contraceptive/anti-abortion literature promulgated by One More Soul, ‘a non-profit organization dedicated to spreading the truth about the blessings of children and the harms of contraception‘. (I’m going to go ahead and leave their copied links in there because they’re great.) Briefly, they’re against contraception for a number of reasons:

The first reason is that the use of contraception leads to abortion.

Also - and I know some of you think I make this stuff up, it’s in the Barrier Methods section - condoms have tiny holes that let the AIDS through.

Without that brief Google search, a Bryne reader might also not know that Kahlenborn’s ‘books’ (the first ‘book’ is a pamphlet), How the Pill and Other Contraceptives Work (1999) and Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill (2000) were both published by One More Soul.*

Kahlenborn might have moved up in the ranks - at least to getting a study published by Mayo - but clearly, clearly there is an ideology at work here. Perhaps those bad reporters at the NYT, et al did what I did - a five minute Google search - and decided that, Mayo or no, this wasn’t news.

Now, I’m no scientist, but I think that a legitimate scientist probably wouldn’t have his work published by an organization that cites a 1992 letter to the editor as proof that condoms have holes. As a scientist, looking to publish my work some seven years later, I would take this as empirical evidence that I should publish elsewhere. Unless, of course, I agreed with their ideas or couldn’t find anyone else to take my work.

Neither of these options makes me grant much legitimacy to Kahlenborn’s work then or now, especially in the face of numerous studies that demonstrate the opposite.

Mr Byrne, I know from your article that you did a Google search on Kahlenborn. Thanks for giving us all the facts - your commitment to the people’s ‘right to know’ is what makes you such a great columnist.

Update: As a legitimate scientist, I probably wouldn’t still be working with the crackpot ‘condoms have holes’ people after my study was released by Mayo. Here’s Kahlenborn’s pamphlet ‘ Newly revised and updated in September 2007′. It’s $0.35, but that drops to $0.21 if you buy 1000 or more.

*- should you wish to purchase Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill (and why wouldn’t you), I suggest buying it from One More Soul’s site for $5.95. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer - its other distributor - is selling it for $11.95! Oh, the savings!

Vaguely Related

• Today in Lady News
• Palin on Contraception

I don’t know if I’ve made this point before, but abstinence-only sex ed is stupid as hell. Apparently, it’s also making Americans infectious as hell:

• 1 million new cases of chlamydia
• Gonorrhea rates are jumping, especially the ’superbug’ variety
• Syphilis is also on the rise, including, for the first time in 15 years, congenital syphilis

Awesome. Maybe it all just got through the tiny holes God puts in the condoms so you get the AIDS.

US sets record in sexual disease cases [Yahoo News]

Vaguely Related

• It’s Purity Ball Season!
• You there, quit it.

The Bush Administration would like you to know that having premarital sex renders you unable to succeed.

And here I thought it just sent you to Hell.

So, I’m back on the virginity bandwagon, people - three cheers for my third virginity!

Something tells me this one will be a success.

h/t SLOG

Vaguely Related

• You there, quit it.
• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention

The Post reports that after years of downward trending, the rate of sexual activity amongst young people has reached a plateau. Since 2001, the number of teens having sex hasn’t changed much. What also happened that year?

The halt in the downward trend coincided with an increase in federal spending on programs focused exclusively on encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage, several experts noted.

So… it seems that abstinence-only ’sex ed’ not only ineffective at preventing more kids from having sex, but may have had a hand in arresting the already downward trend (there are some other factors like declining fear of AIDS that may also have played a role). Still, at best, abstinence-only ‘ed’ is doing little to stem the rush of teens to the bedroom. Clearly, this will send a message to abstinence-only ‘educators’ that their methods are not exactly working.

But abstinence proponents argue that, if anything, the data underscore the need for greater emphasis on encouraging youngsters to abstain from sex until marriage.

“We need to increase abstinence education and give more dollars to abstinence education. It is the healthiest program we have for young people,” said Leslee Unruh of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse.

Oh, there it is - ‘give more dollars’ - because millions upon millions aren’t enough (for instance, the $28 million additional funds approved by the House just last week (on top of the $176 million spent per year)).

I guess anything ‘works’ so long as the cow keeps giving up the milk. And isn’t that one of the core lessons of abstinence only ‘education’ - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

I guess you could say, abstinence-only ‘educators’ are fucking America. And, given their views, they’re probably doing it without a condom.

Condoms have tiny holes that let the AIDS through, you know.

Vaguely Related

• You there, quit it.
• Voyerism, Stealing from Gay Bashers, and Minors, oh my!!!

For Mexicans…

A congressman is pushing a not-so-quick fix in the debate over illegal immigrants from Mexico: free contraceptives.

“A slower rate of growth of Mexico’s population would improve the economy of Mexico. It would also reduce the environmental pressure on Mexico’s ecosystem. But a slower rate of growth would also reduce the long-term illegal immigration pressure on America’s borders,” reasoned Rep. Mark Kirk, who also supports stronger border security in the short-term.

That’d be Mark Kirk (R-IL), by the way. So glad to see he’s on board. I expect he’ll be coming out against Project Reality soon.

Thanks Mark!

[via HuffPost and Reuters]

Vaguely Related

• No related posts.

I saved a bunch of links from earlier today so that I could comment on the Tommy Thompson hates gays couldn’t hear the question had to go to the bathroom was sick kerfuffle.

Backstory: Amongst the abortion-bashing and creationism polls at the Republican debate, Tommy Thompson, former Health and Human Services Secretary and governor of Wisconsin, was asked if employers should be allowed to fire people because they’re gay. Thompson answered:

I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.

He ended the answer with, “Yes.”

Unsurprisingly, people across the country not so happy with this. It also happens to be illegal in a bunch of states. In Thompson’s defense, I would have loved to have seen a hand-raiser on this question (Sam Brownback probably would have gone “Oooh! Ooooh!” and knocked his lectern over). Anyway, Thompson quickly disavowed the answer saying that his hearing aid was acting up and he couldn’t understand the question. Now, a couple days later, it’s also because he really had to go to the bathroom and because he’d been sick with both bronchitis and the flu.

“I didn’t hear the question. All I was thinking about was getting off the stage,” Thompson said. “I said it, I’m sorry, and it won’t happen again but it’s not my record. … There’s nothing discriminatory about me at all.” *

Now, as I said, I was planning on leaving this because I have lots of feminist film theory to read tonight, but Alex Pareene (presumably) over at Wonkette put it nicely enough to make me want to post again:

Thompson now says he really meant exactly the opposite of what he clearly said, because his hearing aid suddenly broke during that question, so even though he didn’t hear the question at all, he specifically answered it — but not the way he meant to answer it, of course.

And all the rest of the questions in the hour and half session.

If you have an impairment (hearing, digestive, Tourette’s, whatever) that sometimes makes you say the complete opposite of what you meant to say, you probably shouldn’t be president. You need to be at least as whole as Reagan, which is not exactly a high standard. I don’t want to accidentally go to war with China because Thompson had to go potty. Because being deaf or sick doesn’t make you an idiot - what makes you an idiot is not saying, “I’m sorry, could you repeat that, please?”

So, let’s say this isn’t all a big lie to save his butt (which, of course, I think it is). It’s not the hearing aid malfunction (or the willingness to describe his need to use the toilet as “hanging on”) that disturbs me. It’s that he’s now presenting himself to the American people as a man who would blindly proceed with an answer despite not knowing the question. This portrait is not less alarming than a man who thinks employers should be allowed to fire gays. We have laws to protect gay people, we don’t have laws to protect us from the colossally foolish (see: Iraq War). America can’t handle another president who refuses to ask questions. That Thompson would choose such a course to resolve his gaffe does not speak highly of him or his campaign team.

Luckily, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of being president, so I’ve just wasted your time.

Again!

Thompson Offers Apology on Gay Comment [HuffPost/AP]

* Maybe some discriminatory stuff from Thompson after the jump… (more…)

Vaguely Related

• No related posts.

Yet another study has shown that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Anti-choicers love to scare women with the big-C, so don’t really expect much to change. In fact, here’s what the woman who runs the fantastically-named Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer had to say (seriously, go for something a little more subtle):

“Clearly [the cancer institute] must suspect a link, or else they know that a link really exists,” Malec said. “Why else would they continue to pay for these studies?

Um, okay. I think the answer might be - because scientists get pissed off when you continue to create/cite ’studies’ that use bad science to achieve bad ‘data’.

[Seriously, I can't believe they couldn't think of any better name for their org! Just something with a little more euphemism. Like Coalition for Women's Breast and Reproductive Health. You know, something that hides what you're about a little bit better. Take a cue from those supposed women's health clinics that show women fake ultrasounds and try to convince them not to have abortions. They're always named something like, 'Comforting Place for Abortion Women's Home'.]

Anyway, I naturally thought of Minnesota’s Women’s Right to Know law. The LA Times article mentions that Minnesota, Texas, and Mississippi all have laws on the books requiring doctors to ‘inform’ women of the risks of breast cancer, fetal pain, puppy drowning, nuclear war, and depression that are associated with abortion.

Lots of people in Minnesota were pretty shocked when the 24-hour waiting period and state-scripted info were put into place (and not just because they were hilariously attached to a law about circus regulation and linked Minnesota inextricably with Texas and Mississippi). As anyone who has ever spoken with me knows, the laws are an undue burden on women who work hourly-wage jobs (i.e., working-class and poor women) and those who live far from the 90% of MN abortion clinics located in the Twin Cities. The City Pages wrote a good article at the time about the stupidity of the pamphlet that doctors were forced to ’share’ with their patients.

In addition to pictures of developing fetuses and graphic descriptions of abortion procedures, the pamphlet includes a passage suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer. “Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion,” it reads, “while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk. This issue may need further study.”

Today the pamphlet reads a little differently:

Cancer of the Breast: Findings from earlier studies suggested there was an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion.

In March 2003 the National Cancer Institute (NCI) released a consensus report finding no link between abortion and breast cancer. An additional report issued in March 2004 by a cancer research group at Oxford University also indicated there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Read summaries of these reports

Women who have a strong family history of cancer or who have clinical findings of breast disease should seek medical advice from a physician regardless of their decision to become pregnant or have an abortion.

It’s a little bit better, but it’s still in there. Alerting women to something and then saying, “But I wouldn’t worry about it” is pretty much the same as telling them to worry about it. Plus it comes under the heading “Long Term Medical Risks.” You can look for it just after the bit telling you “But I wouldn’t worry about it” for your future childbearing. And it’s just before the section on fetal pain.

Presumably, Minnesota Commissioner of Health Dianne Mandernach will want to update her pamphlet to include these new findings. Also, maybe hire a professional writer. The 19 pictures of fetuses are important, but if the writing isn’t there you can’t effectively scare women out of an abortion:

Counseling or support before and after your abortion is very important. If family help and support is not available to the woman, the feelings that appear after an abortion may be harder to adjust to. Talking with a professional and objective counselor before having an abortion can help a woman better understand her decision and the feelings she may experience after the procedure. If counseling is available to the woman, these feelings may be easier to handle.

Remember, it is your right and the doctor’s responsibility to fully inform you prior to the procedures. Be encouraged to ask all of your questions.

Good god that’s awful. The method of describing the subject (Chris do we have an editorial phrase for that?) changes in every sentence. Seems like they were just copying and pasting from somewhere else (Texas? Mississippi?). And “Be encouraged”? Is that a command or an expression of a medical ideal?

Speaking of ideal, Minnesotans could also stop electing Tim Pawlenty.

Vaguely Related

• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read
• In other editoral pages with strong opinions…

Oh wow. Someone else did a study on kids who had abstinence-only sex ed. Guess what it found?

The kids in the programs and the control groups are exactly the same. Same on when they started having sex (14.9!), same on what they knew (or didn’t know) about condoms - most everything straight down the line.

It is good to see that, at least in this study, the kids were using condoms at the same rate. That didn’t used to be the case. Disturbingly, however, the kids in the abstinence programs more likely to think that condoms never protected against HIV and other STIs. They were also less likely to think that condoms were generally effective against STIs. As I and everyone else has preached time and time again, if you teach them that condoms aren’t effective, they don’t stop having sex - they just stop using condoms.

I’m not sure what’s up with the control group - I don’t have time to read the entire document today (but note that I’m blogging about it anyway. Thanks citizen journalism!). It’s unclear from their ‘Study Sample’ section whether the control kids would get comprehensive sex ed or just no sex ed. A more useful study would probably be comparing what kids who actually get real education know.

So, given that millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars (now $176 million per year, but who’s counting?) have been spent (and apparently wasted) on abstinence-only sex ed, what did the Bush administration have to say for itself today?

Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study…. Officials said one lesson they learned from the study was that the abstinence message should be reinforced in subsequent years.

I know what you’re thinking: I’ve taken this quote out of context; clearly, it’s about the Iraq War. We couldn’t possibly be mindlessly following the same outrageously wrong-headed trajectory in more than one area. That’s where you’re wrong. Apparently the lesson learned from this study is that abstinence-only should be expanded.

But wait! That’s actually old news. If you’ll remember all the way back to October, abstinence-only money is being offered to target unmarrieds through age 29!

To recap: abstinence-only sex ed is ineffective (yet again), but we will continue to push it to an ever-expanding group of people. Awesome.

The Study [Mathematica-MPR]

CNN

Incredibly Frustrated at Her Government and Its Unspeakable Idiocy

Vaguely Related

• No related posts.

Oh happy day!

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) introduced the “Responsible Education About Life” (REAL) Act, which would provide equal funding for medically accurate, comprehensive sex ed. Millions upon millions are spent on abstinence-only education that is ineffective at best and is, at worst, extremely dangerous for our kids. Some of the “lessons” in abstinence-only involve having kids chew up Cheetos or gum and then asking them to switch. Apparently, sex is just like that. I wouldn’t know; I’ve never had it. I feel like that’s not exactly how it works, though.

Anyway, good job to the three members of Congress, especially Rep. Shays who will, no doubt, be hearing from the right wing… now.

I just hope this isn’t going through Barney Frank’s committee; I don’t think the REAL Act is going to sit well with his ban on cute bill titles. Oh Congress.

Vaguely Related

• No related posts.