Completely Unnecessary

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.

ABC News recently covered ‘purity balls,’ which are, of course, the creepiest thing since… wow, I actually can’t think of anything creepier.

Here’s the short version: Tweens attend a ball where vows are made, white cake is eaten, and dancing is danced - all with their dads! The girls take a vow to remain chaste until marriage, while their dads “vow to protect the girls’ chastity until they marry,” presumably with shotgun.

Call me crazy, but your teenage years are when you’re supposed to break out, challenge the notions you parents have put in front of you. Not so young Sarah, 12, who states:

“I’m going to stay pure until I’m married and I’m not going to date or kiss a boy…”

And won’t that be a fun wedding night? Married to someone you’ve never kissed, let alone dated. Best of luck honey; I hope all your… dreams (?) come true. They appear to mostly involve Daddy, but we’ll leave that to the side.

Chastity!

In fact, 88 percent of pledgers wind up breaking their pledge and having sex before marriage, according to a study by Peter Bearman, the chair of Columbia University’s Department of Sociology, and Hannah Bruckner of Yale.

The study examined the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents and found teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage have the same rates of sexually transmitted diseases as those who don’t pledge abstinence.

But some fathers discount the studies, and think their relationship with their daughters will help them stay strong.

Said one purity dad: ‘Cuz we’re different than those other fathers - the vast, vast, vast majority of fathers. Also, I think scientists are whores.

ps. This was an especially nice touch on ABC News’ part:

Young women and some young men sign virginity pledges at churches…

Keep up the good work, guys.

Vaguely Related

• No related posts.

A study released yesterday reported that nearly all Americans (95%) have had premarital sex. This is totally weird because… oh wait, it’s not. It does, however, throw into sharp relief the foolishness of abstinence-only education, especially for the under 30 set.

Imagine giving advice that you know 95% of people are going to ignore, and that you, yourself, probably ignored. It seems fruitless, but it is bearing fruit for some - to the tune of at least $50 million a year since 1998. Millions of dollars to people who tell kids that condoms have tiny holes or that having sex is like eating wet Cheetos chewed up by someone else.

Luckily, I’ve totally stopped having sex and am LOVING! my second virginity.

Most Americans Doin’ It [USA Today]

Vaguely Related

• No related posts.

Do you know anyone having sex? Are you, yourself, having sex? Are you under 30? The federal government wants you to know that it’s bad, bad, bad.

And they’re spending your tax dollars to do it.

“The message is ‘It’s better to wait until you’re married to bear or father children,’ ” Horn said. “The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence.”

The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are “to identify groups … most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range.” Previous guidelines didn’t mention targeting of an age group.

…

For last year’s state grants, Congress appropriated $50 million. A similar amount is expected for 2007, but the money has not yet been allocated, according to the Administration for Children and Families.

The government must also insist that you finish your broccoli and be in bed by ten.

Via Just About Everyone This Morning and USA Today

Vaguely Related

• Sweet, passionate success.
• Fingers in Ears

Biting Beaver recounts her story of attempting to get EC in Ohio. It is horrific in ever sense of the word.

“No.” I state plainly. “I am not married. I’ve been in a relationship for several years and I have three children, I don’t want a fourth.” I respond tersely.”Oh, I see.” He says and then he hurries on, “Well, see. *I* understand. I want you to know that I understand what you’re saying. But see, the problem is that we have 4 doctors here right now but only one of them ever writes EC prescriptions. But see, the thing is that he’ll interview you and see if you meet his criteria. Now, I called the pharmacy but I also talked to him and well….*clears throat*….you can come down and try to get it. You know, if you meet his criteria he’ll give you a prescription, I mean, there’s really no harm in trying.” the nurse trails off, his voice falters as I realize what I’m being told.

He continues, almost over eager at this point to distance himself from the hospital, “See, I understand what you’re saying and all. I think it’s a good thing that it’s going over the counter. I just thought I should tell you what he told me. You know, you’ll just have to have an interview with him and he’ll see if you meet his criteria. He’ll only be on duty until 2pm today though and you should ask for him if you decide to come down because he’s really your only chance.”

I sigh and thank him before hanging up. I know exactly what he was telling me. If I wasn’t raped and wasn’t married then too damn bad for me.
…
Folks, the condom broke Friday night and I searched all weekend for someone who could prescribe me EC. It is now Monday and I have to report that I have been unable to find anyone who will write me a fucking prescription for EC. None of the hospitals in the surrounding counties would write it for me. I stopped my search at about 100 miles from my home because my telephone book wouldn’t take me out any further than that.

I left a comment telling her that I was willing to get EC from my doctor and overnight it to her for the future, which I am, of course, willing to do for anyone, at any time. Please, please seek out me or friends who will do the same if you find your self in such an appaling situation.

[ Via - Boing Boing]

Vaguely Related

• Today in Lady News
• Ledbetter Fair Pay Signed Into Law