Dawna Cornelissen's blog

Who Cares?

2008-01-11T09:06:00-05:00

Sometimes I wonder: Do any of my elected officials really care what I think? Sure, I can write or call, but every time I write or call, I hear about his/her conservative values and that he/she does "not support the use of abortion." One of the most frustrating feelings is knowing that the politicians who are supposed to represent me disagree with almost everything I believe.

This could be why unmarried women are not voting in numbers as high as their married counterparts - the issues and concerns that are important to them are marginalized in legislative priorities. Although altogether women vote in higher numbers than men, unmarried women are still underrepresented in voter turnout and seem to be a low priority for campaigning politicians. One reason could be that unmarried women make less money than married couples (assuming two incomes are greater than one) and so are not targeted by politicians because they are seen as unlikely donors.

Enter the birth control crisis. Since issues and concerns that are important to unmarried women are often marginalized by legislators, it is no surprise that Congress recessed last month without fixing the birth control crisis. That's not to say that some legislators did not give fixing the problem a good, honest try - for example Obama (D-IL), Crowley (D-NY) and Lowey (D-NY), who introduced the Prevention Through Affordable Access bill. But in the end, the simple fix that would have corrected the problem got lost somewhere in the goal of passing the omnibus spending bill without a veto threat from President Bush.

So, what happens now to the millions of unmarried, underrepresented women affected by this birth control crisis? Until Congress reconvenes on January 15, there is not much that can be done - even then, who knows how long it will be until a fix is passed. So, some of us will continue paying triple what we paid last year for birth control, while others will buy condoms and cross their fingers. Let's hope that all of us will register to vote and vow to vote for the candidates who listen to us and value what we have to say.

On Ramen Noodles and Birth Control

2007-11-21T08:14:31-05:00

Last week, students at the University of Houston displayed a stack of Ramen Noodles at a visibility event demanding cheaper birth control. The connection: $35 worth of Ramen Noodles could feed someone for a month -- or it could purchase one month's supply of birth control. Birth control that had been only $10 a few months ago at the University of Houston health center has now more than tripled in price. And this isn't happening in just Houston. Students all over the country are demanding that Congress fix the birth control pricing problem caused by the Deficit Reduction Act before the legislative session ends in December.

At some schools, students are protesting the increase with petitions and rallies. In Iowa, where at the University of Iowa Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo jumped from $15 to $53 per month, more than 400 college students signed a petition protesting the increase in the cost of birth control. The petition will be delivered to the state's Senators next month. Students from New York University rallied in Washington Square Park while chanting, "Birth control shouldn't break the bank, who in congress do we thank?" and "What do we want? Birth control! How do we want it? Cheap!"

Another way students are making their voices heard is by writing letters to the editors and news stories for their school papers. At Washington University in St. Louis, MO, students wrote, "Birth control is a facet of basic health care and all women should have easy and affordable access to it. If Congress is truly serious about reducing the rate of unintended pregnancies, then fixing this law should be a top priority."

Lastly, and most impressively, students are reaching out to university spokespeople and officials in order to demand Congress' attention and action. A few weeks ago, the University of Montana at Missoula's student government association (ASUM) passed a resolution expressing the association's support for discounted birth control for students and pledged to contact Montana's congressional delegation about the issue. Legislators may be able to ignore students, but I believe university presidents and regents will make elected officials think twice about ignoring this issue.

The issue, after all, is an easy, no-cost fix. In fact, legislation has already been introduced by the Congress that would restore access to affordable birth control for college and not-for-profit health clinics. The bill is called the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act and already has more than 100 sponsors in the House. To help ensure the passage of the Prevention through Affordable Access Act, check out Lon Newman's action suggestions!

Behind the Price of Birth Control

2007-09-28T09:00:00-04:00

For the last few weeks, numerous media outlets have been reporting on how the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) is causing the price of birth control to increase dramatically. Signed into law in January 2006, the DRA inadvertently caused birth control prices to rise because of a complicated change in the way drug companies calculate Medicaid-related rebates. The effect, however, is simple: women will no longer be able to access affordable birth control through their college health centers or local non-profit health clinics.

While some conservative commentators fail to understand the gravity of the issue -- throwing out abstinence as a simple solution and calling interviewees irresponsible -- not having access to affordable birth control is a serious setback for women in the United States. In reality, the inaccessibility of birth control will propel women back one hundred years to when birth control was illegal. The early pioneers of birth control must be turning in their graves -- if birth control is not affordable, it might as well not exist.

In addition to sending women back to the time in history before birth control, the birth control pricing issue is about a way of life. By ignoring the birth control pricing problem, conservatives seem to think they are preserving a way of life that limits both government spending and sex. But what they will likely get are more unintended pregnancies, resulting both in more abortions and more children in welfare programs. They will also get something else they are supposed to be against: more governmental interference in their personal lives.

Those of us who would like to see birth control remain affordable are trying to preserve a way of life also - one that values healthy sexual relationships and does not believe sex is shameful. Cristina Page describes this way of life in her book, "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America," explaining that the debate surrounding the pro-life and pro-choice movements isn't about abortion anymore; it's about "birth control and, more to the point, Americans' sex lives."

Even though condoms are an alternative to pricey contraception, women will no longer have the added confidence of knowing their birth control pills back them up. In addition, couples (even married ones) will be forced either to abstain or use condoms, neither of which is reflects the way most people in the U.S. live. Even according to the Centers for Disease Control, contraceptive use is virtually universal in the U.S. and the pill is the leading contraceptive method among young women.

Although the bill was signed into law almost two years ago, the majority of affected health centers are just now running out of their discounted stock, causing those concerned to put pressure on Congress to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the problem remains unresolved as some members of Congress refuse to make it a priority. You, however, can help to make it a priority be contacting your own legislators and asking them to fix the birth control pricing problem.

Equal Access for All

2007-08-13T06:51:00-04:00

When the Texas Equal Access (TEA) Fund started, Gretchen had no idea how pervasive the need was for abortion funding in North Texas. Previously a women's studies professor, Gretchen and one of her former students began the abortion fund in 2005. Gretchen is now the Board President and has seen the TEA Fund provide grants to over 600 women ranging from $50 to $150 for various abortion procedures. Geographically, the TEA Fund covers the area east of Abilene and north of Waco, but also funds women from Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas who come to North Texas to have abortions. Additionally, women from East Texas will occasionally travel to providers in Louisiana to have the procedure.

Like other abortion funds, the TEA Fund provides low-income women equal access to abortion by closing the gap created by the Hyde Amendment. But, while interviewing Gretchen, it became clear that women in North Texas face more than just economic obstacles when trying to obtain an abortion. Specifically, Gretchen cited social obstacles, such as anti-choice families, communities, and partners as factors working against women in North Texas. She also mentioned other obstacles unique to the women she serves, such as a low number of abortion providers in the area and intentionally burdensome abortion laws and restrictions. For example, a woman in Abilene would have to drive over 100 miles to reach an abortion provider and a minor would have to have parental permission.

While all of the women who seek the services of the TEA Fund are in need of financial assistance, each story is different and unique. Gretchen told me about a young woman who was 17 and already had two children. She was pregnant, but didn't want another child because she wanted to finish high school. The TEA Fund helps a large number of young women who are still in high school. This may be because Texas has the highest teen birth rate in the nation. Statistically, 42 percent of the women the TEA Fund serves are under 21 and 15 percent are under 18. Another woman helped by the TEA Fund already had one child who was very ill and required frequent trips to the hospital. She ended up selling her car in order to pay for her abortion. Gretchen also mentioned that a number of the women she serves are survivors of domestic violence and rape.

For Gretchen, access to abortion is about control over one's life. "When women don't have control over their bodies, they can't control their lives," she stated. Because of this, she has incorporated feminist theory and activism into all aspects of the TEA Fund. For example, part of the mission of the organization is to "promote social justice by giving low-income women access to abortion." Also, the TEA Fund is run by a multi-generational Board of Directors designed to include many different viewpoints and to foster women's leadership. In the future, the TEA Fund is sure to grow. Gretchen hopes to reach out to more non-English speaking women and to increase their volunteer base. To volunteer or to make a donation, please visit www.teafund.org.

The Face of HIV in Texas: Minorities and Women

2007-07-05T08:50:00-04:00

In 2004, Texas ranked number four in the nation in the number of HIV/AIDS cases. Accordingly, Black people represented the fastest growing population living with HIV/AIDS in Texas. The Texas Department of State Health Services reports that in 2004 both Blacks and Whites represented 38 percent of living HIV/AIDS cases, except Black people only made up 12 percent of the general population. In other words, the living HIV/AIDS rate for Black people was four times higher than for Whites and almost five times higher than for Hispanics. In addition, Black people had the largest number of new HIV/AIDS cases in 2004. Because of this, HIV/AIDS organizations are being created in order to target Black people, particularly young Black people, in Texas.

One place this can be seen is in Houston, which has the largest percentage of people living with HIV/AIDS in Texas (32.3 percent). It is also where you will find the AIDS Foundation of Houston, Positive Efforts, and Families Under Urban & Social Attack (FUUSA), all of which are involved in the Mayor's State of Emergency Task Force, also known by its website address ItsRealHouston.org. The Task Force started in 1999 when the governor announced a State of Emergency because of the rise of HIV in the African-American community. Today, the Task Force continues reaching out to youth by hosting events such as the concert held last week in recognition of National HIV Testing Day, called Hip Hop 4 HIV: Know Your Status. The Task Force teamed up with area organizations and handed out free tickets to people aged 15-30 who got tested for HIV.

In Texas, young women make up the other fastest growing population living with HIV. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, nearly two thirds of both males and females diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 2004 were between the ages of 25 and 44, although females tended to be slightly younger than males. In addition, almost half of newly diagnosed females were in females under 35 years old, compared to 41 percent of males. This means that the largest proportion and rate of new cases for females is among 25-34 year olds. With regards to Black women, they made up the majority (62 percent) of all females living with HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately, this reminded me of what Senator Clinton said last week during the debate: "If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged outcry in this country."

While I think there is already an outraged outcry in this country for those living with HIV, I think it needs to be louder. For example, I think ending abstinence-only education, like RH Reality Check's petition aims to do, is one step in the right direction. I think that specifically targeting at-risk populations with things like concerts and online campaigns, like the organizations in Houston are doing, is another way. I also hope people will take what Senator Clinton said and turn that into action as well. If what she said infuriates you, but you know it is true, then do something about it!

The YouTube video below features Ms. Dana Gray who is the chair for the Task Force's Advocacy Committee. In the video she speaks briefly with Kwame T. Hall from Texas Southern University in Houston. Although she is an adult now, Ms. Gray speaks about how she acquired HIV when she was a university student. She also talks about her experiences as a woman living with HIV and the work she does to educate people about it.

Funding and Support Needed for Microbicides

2007-06-14T08:30:00-04:00

Over the last 20 years, researchers and activists have taken interest in a product that could be the most important innovation in reproductive health since the pill: microbicides. Like the pill, microbicides are being promoted as a woman-controlled or initiated prevention method. But, unlike the pill, microbicides go beyond just preventing pregnancy to preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well. In fact, at this point the prevention of STIs, with an emphasis on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention, makes up the majority of microbicide research, development, and advocacy. Although they are not yet available, it is hoped that microbicides will greatly reduce the transmission of HIV worldwide.

Generally, an ideal microbicide would be odorless, colorless, tasteless, non-irritating, fast-acting, long-lasting, inexpensive to manufacture and purchase, and available in contraceptive and non-contraceptive forms. Microbicides come in a variety of forms, including gels, creams, films, suppositories, pre-loaded diaphragms or cervical caps, sponges, vaginal rings, etc. Although most microbicides are designed to be applied topically to the vagina, there are some baseline studies being done on rectal microbicides.

The woman-controlled strategy employed by microbicide advocates is in response to both social and biological factors uniquely affecting women. Social factors like gender inequality and violence against women have led to the feminization of HIV. Biological factors affecting women include women being more likely than men to contract HIV after just one exposure. Worldwide there are now more adult women (15 years or older) than ever before living with HIV. According to UNAIDS, the 17.7 million women living with HIV in 2006 represents an increase of over one million compared with 2004. Clearly, microbicide research and development is greatly needed.

A key factor in getting microbicides available to the public is adequate funding. One way that advocates of microbicides are attempting to increase U.S. government funding is through legislation that would establish and coordinate units specifically designed for microbicide research and development. One piece of legislation that attempts to do this is the Microbicide Development Act (MDA). It is hoped that with this bill, microbicide funding will soon become the priority it should be in the federal government's budget to combat HIV/AIDS. Versions of the MDA have been introduced seven times since 2000, but none have ever passed. It was most recently introduced again in both the House and the Senate on March 8, 2007 (International Women's Day). The Senate version currently has 18 cosponsors and the House version has 54 cosponsors; both versions are in committees.

Although the U.S. government has appropriated some funding, it has not been adequate to produce an effective microbicide for public use. According to the Global Campaign, barely 3% of the U.S. budget for HIV/AIDS research is spent on microbicide research and development. Passing the MDA would help to secure the funding needed by coordinating microbicide research and development efforts within the three U.S. federal agencies already involved in HIV/AIDS research. It is unclear why exactly the MDA has not received adequate support from Congress in the past. I would hope that curbing and hopefully stopping not only the spread of STIs, but also the HIV/AIDS pandemic is important to the United States. To learn more about what you can do to support the MDA, visit the Global Campaign for Microbicides.

Reproductive Justice Spotlight: Northeast Florida

2007-06-04T08:45:00-04:00

Ever since getting involved in the pro-choice movement, I have wondered how the abortion debate plays out in the places I grew up. As I visited one of those places this past Memorial Day weekend, I decided to do a little investigating. Basically, I wanted to know how a woman in Fernandina Beach, Florida would go about obtaining an abortion. Fernandina Beach, the county seat of Nassau County, is the northern most point of Florida. It is located mostly on Amelia Island and sits just south of the Georgia/Florida border about 30 minutes north of Jacksonville. It is home to about 66,000 people, about half of which are female.

My investigation began by doing internet searches. When I found nothing, I began asking around. What I soon found out is that Fernandina Beach has no abortion provider. In fact, Nassau County is among the 70% of Florida counties with no abortion provider. To be sure, I called the Nassau County Health Department. After being transferred a few times, I was finally told the closest abortion provider was about 45 minutes away in Jacksonville.

Instead, what I did find in Fernandina Beach was a crisis pregnancy center. A Care Net Pregnancy Center, called Greater Nassau Women's Services, is located on a main stretch that leads directly to the beach. This particular agency proudly proclaimed "Free Pregnancy Tests" on its roadside sign, so I went there with a friend who actually needed the free pregnancy test. While there, she had to fill out a form which asked questions like, "How would you describe your relationship with God?" She was then taken upstairs while I was asked to wait in the waiting room where I collected brochures and read Focus on the Family's monthly magazine.

When my friend was finished, we left and I asked her to tell me what happened. She said it began with a counseling session about premarital sex, abortion, and contraception. My friend then took the test, which came back negative, and the appointment ended with a post-counseling session. My friend's overall reaction was that the messaging was very religious and anti-abortion. While she was not given any misinformation about abortion, she did say that the woman looked shocked when my friend said she would consider abortion as an option.

I find it interesting that an agency like this exists in such a small community that doesn't even have an abortion provider. Although it is a very conservative and religious area, I expected more from the town where I graduated high school. After all, Fernandina Beach was the home to Dr. John Britton, the abortion provider murdered outside a Pensacola women's clinic in 1994. It has been almost 13 years since anti-abortion extremist Paul Hill shot Dr. Britton; during that time "Doc's" legacy seems to have all but faded away.

After a brief interview with Planned Parenthood of Northeast Florida's (PPNF) CEO, Carol Anne Steiger, I learned even more about the strength of the anti-abortion movement in the area. She noted that although there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the Jacksonville metropolitan area, there is a strong anti-abortion religious base coming from a combination of the Catholic Diocese in St. Augustine and the mega churches of Jacksonville. But, Ms. Steiger also explained, PPNF is growing by working with area organizations like the Jacksonville Area National Organization for Women and the Women's Center of Jacksonville. Furthermore, Ms. Steiger believes, and I agree, that the answer is in the young, single women's vote because single women still vote less than married women.

I will leave you with this statement from Women's Voices. Women Vote: "Forty-eight million unmarried women live in this country. If they all voted and elected officials who supported the policies that addressed their needs, real social change could occur."

The Intersection of Reality and Politics

2007-05-08T09:58:31-04:00

The week the Supreme Court made the decision to uphold the late-term abortion ban consisted of a series of events that left me in a state of contradictoriness. It started the day before the decision was made. On that day, the organization I belong to, Vox: Voices for Planned Parenthood at Texas Woman's University, hosted an on-campus event called "Discovering Pro-Choice Faith: A Discussion," which was sponsored in part by Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom. The event was a panel discussion between four local pro-choice clergy members who spoke about their faith's perspectives on reproductive rights. While the panelists represented different faiths, there was one thing they all seemed to agree upon: that the woman took precedence over the fetus. All of the panelists agreed that because of this it was ultimately the woman's choice of whether or not to have an abortion. The panelists used the same logic to defend birth control and emergency contraception. It was so refreshing to hear self-identified people of faith talking sense about abortion.

As the event came to a close, I felt a huge sense of optimism for the future of the reproductive rights movement. Our pro-choice student organization had just successfully put on one of our most enlightening and progressive events yet. However, the next morning, I was awakened to the sound of my cell phone alerting me that I had a new text message. It was an automated text message from what I later realized was Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) notifying me that the Supreme Court had just ruled 5-4 to uphold the federal abortion ban. I had completely forgotten about the case and had no idea it was to be decided anytime soon. For a second I thought maybe it was just a bad dream. But, as I soon found out, it was no joke; as we all know, on April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of imposing a ban on what has been inappropriately called "partial-birth" abortions.

I wondered how any rational, nonbiased person (as a judge should be) would uphold a ban that is unconstitutional and just plain wrong for so many different reasons. In her post, Gloria Feldt makes two very good points about why it is wrong: First, it overturns the legal principle of the importance of the woman's health by not providing exceptions and second, it sets a precedent for medical techniques to be legislated. Even if the Supreme Court Justices didn't put their religious views aside, even though they should have, it is not an excuse for putting women's lives in danger. As I learned the day before, religion is not an excuse for being anti-abortion. The whole day I wrestled with the decision in my head, wondering what other sort of legal precedents it set for abortion related bills and at the same time thinking about how simple the argument for a woman's right to choose seemed just hours before.

The next day I attended an awards ceremony at school because Vox had been nominated to receive the Outstanding Organization of the Year award for 2007. Even before the Supreme Court's ruling I was skeptical about whether or not we would win the award. Although I thought we deserved it, I knew there were people who felt passionately that the very thing Vox stands for, reproductive rights, is wrong. But, at the ceremony, I suddenly heard the presenter describing a pro-choice organization and then announce that Vox: Voices for Planned Parenthood won the award for Outstanding Organization of the Year! It felt good to be acknowledged and accepted among our peers, especially at a time when it seemed like everyone was against us.

Later that night I was still in shock while trying to figure out what it all meant: the pro-choice faith event, the abortion ban, and the award. I still don't know what it all means or how it will all play out in the end, but I do know that this movement is important to me. It is important to me because it affects me; it is woven into my life in ways I never imagined possible. Since the Supreme Court's decision, the Texas legislature has been busy with anti-choice bills, but it is still hard to tell what the future holds for Texas in regards to reproductive rights. The good news is that on the same day the Supreme Court upheld the ban, the trigger bill in the Texas legislature (HB175), which would have outlawed abortions in Texas if Roe v. Wade was overturned, failed to make it out of committee. So, maybe there is hope, even if it is just a little.

Is Feminism Bad for Your Health?

2007-04-11T08:55:00-04:00

It is unfortunate that in the year 2007 feminism still gathers negative media attention with such ease. For the last few weeks the blogosphere has been buzzing with fervor about a study claiming that feminism is bad for people's health. The topic has gone viral, ranging from conservative blogs such as rightthinkinggirl to liberal blogs such as feministe. All you have to do is search for "feminism is bad for your health" and up pops 11,200 results.

The fact that this topic has garnered so much attention, including kudos from Rush Limbaugh, worries me deeply. It is reminiscent of the late nineteenth century theory that education was bad for women's health, which attempted to keep women out of higher education. Fortunately this theory was dispelled, as the one about feminism hopefully will be. As absurd as it sounded, I decided to go to the source and see if there's any merit to the claim that feminism is bad for people's health.

As I searched, I realized the discussion focused on a study done by researchers in Sweden. Although most of the blogs mentioned the journal the study came from, Social Science and Medicine, not one blog stated the name of the study. Because of this, as you can imagine, it took me some time to find the actual study everyone was talking about. Eventually I found it through my school's library and was somewhat surprised that the title of the study, Does increased gender equality lead to a convergence of health outcomes for men and women? A study of Swedish municipalities, did not contain the word "feminism." I realize not everyone will agree with me, but to me feminism is not the same as gender equality. I consider it an aspect of feminism, but certainly not the only aspect. I immediately took all of the attention as simply an overblown simplified version of whatever the study was claiming. Despite this, I read the study to see if in fact the researchers claimed that feminism was bad for people's health.

Just by reading the abstract I could tell this study was not about feminism, but rather it was about certain indicators of gender equality—mainly those associated with levels of employment. Furthermore, upon reading the entire study, I found that the word "feminism" wasn't even used and the word "feminist" was only used twice—both within the same paragraph. The researchers used what they called "general feminist theory" to guide their choice of dimensions and indicators, but from what I could tell the only major feminist theorist they cited was Sandra Harding and the text they used was published in 1986, over 20 years ago.

What the researchers loosely concluded ("The conclusion from our study must be tentative due to methodological uncertainties") was that "gender equality (not feminism) was generally correlated with poorer health for both men and women." But, the researchers also concluded that "(t)rue gender equality, with a simultaneous expansion of both men and women into previously gender-segregated spheres, has, however, the potential to both alleviate stress and counteract health-damaging behaviours."

What Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have failed to report is that the researchers found certain people in Sweden to be in a transition period or what they termed "unfinished equality" where women have become more burdened and men have lost previous positions. Although more research needs to be done, the researchers generally believe that full gender equality could potentially ease any distress this transition process might be causing.

Aside from this, it is important to consider that there have also been studies claiming gender equality is beneficial to people's health. This article is one example:

Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Gupta, V., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1999). Women's status and the health of women and men: A view from the States. Social Science & Medicine, 48(1), 21-32.

The moral of this story is that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Although it took a little research to find the original article, it was definitely worth getting to the bottom of the story. My conclusion is that the researchers' conclusion is sketchy at best and needs to be replicated with different types of "feminist" dimensions and indicators and in different geographical areas. Although it is my personal belief that feminism and even gender equality are not bad for people's health, I would be willing to read more studies on the topic and welcome other people's varied opinions.

The Texas HPV Vaccine Controversy

2007-03-09T07:55:00-05:00

The biggest debate in Texas right now is over Governor Rick Perry's executive order mandating all girls entering the sixth grade to be immunized with the recently approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine starting in September 2008. The order, signed on February 2, has sparked all sorts of controversy: the conservatives are furious, the liberals are speechless, and the independents are suspicious. Personally, I have mixed feelings about Perry's decision as well. At first, I was elated that Perry, a conservative Republican, was able to see past the absurd argument that the vaccine would increase sexual promiscuity. But, almost as soon as Perry's order was signed, it turned out to be too good to be true.

It seems Perry has some strange bedfellows at Merck, the maker of the HPV vaccine, Gardasil. First of all, Perry's former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is now one of Merck's lobbyists in Texas. Second, it has been reported that Perry received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his 2006 re-election campaign. Lastly, his current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas state Rep. Dianne White Delisi (R), is the state director for the Merck funded advocacy group, Women in Government. Perry's suspicious dealings made me question not only his motive for by-passing the legislature, but also his reason for making it mandatory. Was this just a sneaky way to both please Merck and, at the same time, create public resistance to the vaccine? My guess is that he is not quite that sly, but unfortunately that is exactly what is happening.

The opposition to the vaccine now brewing in Texas will most likely end with a bill overriding the executive order as well as leaving a bad image of Gardasil in most people's minds. Already, members of the Texas legislature have filed four bills that would supersede the Governor's order. In addition, some members have written letters to the Governor asking him to rescind the order. One bill (HB 2326) goes as far as to amend the Health and Safety Code in order to spell out the exact vaccines that would be mandated, which seems contrary to the argument that vaccines shouldn't be mandated at all. This list, of course, purposely excludes the HPV vaccine.

But, so far, Perry stands firm in his decision and surprisingly sounds very progressive. The Washington Times quotes him as saying, "Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use." I think this is very well said, but I am still not completely convinced about the necessity to make the vaccine mandatory. Don't get me wrong; I think the vaccine is great and I will have it myself (when I can afford it), but my issue is with the government telling people what to do with their bodies. I just don't think that is the answer. I think education, availability, and affordability are the answers.

While I applaud Perry for trying to be progressive, as well as making it easy to opt-out by having a form online, I still feel like he went about it the wrong way. For one reason, it is pretty well known that if you tell people they have to do something, they will resist it. Also, the vaccine is still very expensive. Marilyn Keefe gives a great breakdown of the problems associated with the cost of the vaccine, as well as issues with insurance and government-funded healthcare. Additionally, having an opt-out form online is great, but only if you have a computer and internet access. Unfortunately, the whole situation is a big mess and it looks like the executive order really was too good to be true.

Although I don't have a clear answer as to how to resolve this issue, it needs to be resolved. I think that if a bill, similar to Perry's order, had been allowed to go through the regular legislative process it would have been better received and, at least, there could have been an opt-in option. But now, because of all of the negative attention surrounding Gardasil, it looks unlikely the girls and women of Texas will even get that. As I think about the future of vaccines, particularly an HIV vaccine, I worry that this same debate will happen again and again. That is why we need to figure this out. I see this HPV vaccine as just the beginning of vaccines that will be considered controversial just because they are spread through sexual contact. In reality, these types of vaccines should not be controversial at all; instead, they should be welcomed and appreciated.

Editor's note: Watch Stephen Colbert discuss Governor Perry's decision to make the HPV vaccine mandatory—"Bad Medicine" clip from Comedy Central's Colbert Report below.

The State of the Texas Legislature

2007-02-06T08:00:00-05:00

"AN ACT relating to the protection of life, including unborn life, from the point of fertilization." This is the opening sentence in the new abortion ban trigger bills filed recently in the 80th Texas state legislative session, which opened on January 9, 2007. The wording of this bill tells us a lot about the authors, as well as the state of the Texas legislature in general. The author of the House bill (HB175) is, not surprisingly, Rep. Warren Chisum from Pampa (R-District 88). Known for his anti-sex legislation, specifically for reinstating Texas' anti-sodomy law, Chisum also recently authored and filed HB 311, which requires parents to give written consent in order for their child(ren) to be allowed to participate in their school's human sexuality class. Requiring consent for a class on human sexuality is absurd when you take into account written consent isn't required, at least through legislation, for any other science class in public school. Additionally, a little required sexuality education might do Texas teens well considering we have the fifth highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation.

The author of the Senate bill (SB186) is, also not surprisingly, freshman Sen. Dan Patrick from Houston (R-District 7). Patrick, a conservative radio talk show host, is credited with discovering Rush Limbaugh and is also widely known in the Christian community for his book, "The Second Most Important Book You Will Ever Read: A Personal Challenge to Read the Bible." Patrick is a self proclaimed "strong pro-life advocate" and has even received an award from Texas Right to Life. His campaign website says he believes "God has given him a platform to share biblical principles to many who may never step inside a church." Now that this platform has moved from the radio to the Texas legislature, there is no telling what will be next from Sen. Patrick.

For now, both abortion ban bills have been referred to their respective State Affairs committees, but if these bills pass, they would trigger an abortion ban in the state of Texas if the U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade. Although there is an exception if the life of the woman is in danger, there is no exception for rape or incest. It is also interesting the way the bills differentiate between the penalties depending on whether the woman consents to the abortion or not. For example, the bill states it would be a third degree felony if someone performed an abortion with the woman's consent, but it would be a second degree felony if someone performed an abortion without the woman's consent. Additionally, it would be considered murder if someone performed an abortion and the woman died. I'm not sure why there is a ranking of the penalties. If abortion is what the right says it is, murder, then why would there be a difference in punishment? Also, the bill does not indicate if or how the woman would be punished if she consented to the abortion.

Most people on both sides of the debate have said it is unlikely the abortion ban will pass during this legislative session. The Houston Chronicle reported Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, as saying, "I don't see Roe as being overturned anytime soon, and I want to put our resources behind things I think will save lives right now." They also quoted Fran Hagerty, chief executive officer of Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, as saying, "We do not expect the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in this manner to trigger this bill." In the meantime, there are plenty of other bills for Texans to look out for during this legislative session, including one (HB23) that would require pharmacists to inform women seeking emergency contraception that the drug may prevent implantation or fertilization, but leave out the fact that it can also prevent ovulation from occurring first. Click here for more information on similar pending legislation in Texas.

What We Don’t Know Will Hurt Us: Gynecologic Cancers

2007-01-03T07:58:00-05:00

Did you know...?

Nearly 80,000 U.S. women are newly diagnosed with cancers affecting reproductive organs each year.
Ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecologic cancer.
Annually, more than 27,000 women in the U.S. die from some form of gynecologic cancer.
Survival rates for gynecologic cancers are as high as 90% when diagnosed early but drop to 50% when diagnosed later.
September is Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month.

If you didn't know this information, don't feel bad, because most people don't. According to the Women's Cancer Network, almost one-third of U.S. women feel they are not knowledgeable about gynecologic cancers, the majority (55%) feel they are only somewhat knowledgeable, and only fourteen percent say they are very knowledgeable about gynecologic cancers (PDF). But, hopefully, this will soon change. On December 9, 2006, Congress approved the Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act, also known as Johanna's Law. The bill, which is currently awaiting President Bush's approval, would provide $16.5 million to Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to carry out a national campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of gynecological cancers among both the public and health care providers. This would be done in the form of written materials as well as public service announcements designed to encourage women to talk to their physicians about gynecological cancers.

Johanna's Law was created in memory of Johanna Silver Gordon by her sister Sheryl Silver. Gordon, who was diagnosed with late-stage ovarian cancer in 1997, passed away in 2000 at the age of 58. The bill Gordon's sister created in her memory would help to educate people about the many types of gynecological cancers, including ovarian, cervical, uterine, endometrial, vaginal, and vulvar. It took Silver more than three years to get the bill passed, but when it did it passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate. Although it is encouraging to know that politicians agree gynecologic cancer awareness is important, what concerned me was the lack of women's advocacy organizations supporting or promoting the bill. As a woman and a reproductive rights activist, this bill is something I should have known about long before it went through Congress.

Within the last month, I have experienced three instances where a friend of a friend was diagnosed with some sort of gynecologic cancer. All of these women are under 24 years old. This frightens me because even I don't know a lot about the signs and symptoms of these types of cancers. Growing up in the age of breast cancer awareness, I almost forgot that women get any other type of cancer. With the recent approval of the HPV vaccine and the likely enactment of this bill, I can only hope that people will become more aware of and better equipped for early detection of gynecologic cancers. I also hope that women's organizations will become more involved in the advocacy of gynecologic cancer awareness and education because what we don't know about it will hurt us.

Young People, MTV and HIV

2006-12-07T07:55:00-05:00

This past Friday, World AIDS Day 2006, I took a moment to reflect on the impact AIDS has had on my own life. I was born a year after the "discovery" of HIV. I have never known a world without it. I have seen it go through all of the myths from something only gay people get, to something you could get through casual contact, to what we know today: that you get it through certain body fluids, like blood and semen. Although I learned about HIV/AIDS in school (before the times of abstinence-only), I didn't know what the disease meant for me.

The first time I realized the seriousness of HIV/AIDS was through Pedro Zamora by watching the 1994 season of the Real World on MTV. It was the first time I "knew" someone with HIV. Watching someone on a day to day basis live with HIV helped to squash my misconceptions about the disease. I watched Pedro go from healthy to sick in a very short amount of time. Still, it didn't seem real to me until the day I heard that he died of AIDS. His death saddened me and still does. Pedro was just 22 years old, which is two years younger than I am now. But, his legacy lives on, not only in the numerous foundations and organizations created in his memory, but also in me and others who were educated about the disease through him.

As I reflected on my own experience of learning about HIV/AIDS, I began to wonder how young people today experience it; how they learn about it, deal with it, and prevent it. Realizing that abstinence-only-until-marriage sexuality education may not adequately cover HIV/AIDS education, I searched for alternative ways young people are learning about HIV. Ironically, I found myself looking at a website co-created by MTV called thinkhiv.org. In conjunction with the Kaiser Foundation, MTV has created an interactive website for young people to learn about HIV/AIDS. The website includes sections like "Get the Facts", "Take Action", and "State Resources" as well as video documentaries and a message board.

The documentaries are great and offer a glimpse into how young people all across the U.S. view HIV/AIDS. Kelsey, 17, from Waco, Texas takes viewers with her as she gets tested for HIV for the first time. Bailey, also 17, from Elkmont, Alabama interviews people in his community to see how they think HIV/AIDS has impacted their lives. The message board also offers glimpses into what young people think about HIV/AIDS and how it has affected their lives, ranging from revelations to ignorance. Additionally, the website has a "Get Tested" sidebar where you can enter your zip code in order to find where to get tested.

Although this website and others like it provide new and innovative approaches to HIV/AIDS education for young people, I still fear that not enough is being done to reach young people in the U.S. I wonder how many people actually knew Friday was World AIDS Day and then how many actually did something to acknowledge it? While I applaud MTV for attempting to get the message to young people, I fear that websites and TV shows are not enough. I know in my area, there was hardly any mention of World AIDS Day and would have gone unnoticed if not for a few commercials I saw on MTV.

Additionally, there were few events in my area designed for young people. What does this mean for the future of my generation and the generations after mine? Have we forgotten the seriousness of the disease? Have we become complacent in thinking of it as just another sexually transmitted infection? It is estimated that half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. occur in people under age 25. Although people with HIV are now living longer, it is still life threatening and there is still a lot of work to be done. There is no cure for HIV and there is no vaccine. Please, become involved. Educate yourself, your family, your friends, and your community.

Legislating Sex in the 21st Century

2006-11-10T07:58:00-05:00

Governments have been legislating (controlling) peoples' sex lives for hundreds of years. Take for example sodomy laws, which broadly referred to any form of non-procreative sex, but more recently, have only referred to anal sex between two men. In the U.S., sodomy laws date all the way back to the 1600's. It wasn't until 2003 that the Supreme Court invalidated all state same-sex (as well as some heterosexual) sodomy laws, finally making it legal for two consenting adult males to engage in sex in privacy (see Lawrence et. al. v. Texas). This was a huge victory for same-sex couples in the U.S and a welcome precedent for the protection of private sexual behavior for all people. Lately though, I have begun to fear for that protection and have become fully aware that my sexual rights are at risk.

The problem today isn't so much the existing laws restricting sexual behavior, like the one in Maryland that makes it illegal to have oral sex or the one in Massachusetts that makes adultery illegal, because they are mostly unenforceable. Rather, I am afraid of the ones that more subtly attempt to tell people who they can and can't have sex with/be intimate with/love, for example same-sex marriage bans. The first time I voted in Texas, I voted on Proposition 2, also known as the same-sex marriage ban. This amendment proposed marriage to be defined as only "the union of one man and one woman" and would prohibit the state from "creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The amendment overwhelmingly passed with only an 11 percent statewide voter turnout, although the Houston Chronicle reported that some precincts with a predominantly gay and lesbian population had turnouts as high as 35 percent.

As someone who voted against the ban, I was crushed, disheartened, and extremely disappointed. I felt my rights slowly being taken away, not just from me, but from people I loved and cared about. I became temporarily withdrawn from politics and permanently disenchanted with the concept of marriage. I was sickened by the realization that I lived among people who would (and now could) tell me who I can and can't marry/love/have sex with. The realization that the government was attempting to control peoples' bodies by controlling their sexual behavior became extremely clear. It felt like a slap in the face and the hurt was real. But, it woke me up to other ways the government subtly controls sexual behavior. Take for example federal abstinence-only funding, anti-abortion legislation, mandatory HIV testing, and reduced family planning services under Medicare.

With this week's midterm election, I am again reminded of the ways the government tries to control sexual behavior. I have come to the conclusion that I was voting to secure my right to a private sex life. Now is not the time to return to archaic anti-sex legislation. In a state where my Representative and both my Senators are openly anti-choice and anti-gay rights, I can only hope that my vote will have made a little difference.

Rhetoric vs. Reality

2006-10-11T07:55:00-04:00

If there is one thing that pro-lifers are good at, it is creating posters intended to shock and blame. The most disturbing and extreme pro-life poster I have ever seen is, by far, the "Malachi" poster (circa 1993), which shows a blown up photograph of a supposedly aborted fetus. Lately, the pro-lifers have been less graphically disturbing but just as relentless, displaying phrases like "Abortion is Murder". Last weekend posters like these were on exhibit at a pro-life rally less than one mile from my school. Over 50 people came out to stand with National Life Chain Sunday, a project of a Christian pro-life ministry based 45 miles north of Sacramento, CA called Please Let Me Live. These "life chains" are held in numerous cities across the U.S. on the first Sunday of every October (for a list of cities that participated, click here).

The event, which was advertised in the Community Calendar of the Dallas Morning News, was facilitated by the Immaculate Conception (how ironic) Catholic Church and lasted for about an hour underneath the hot Texas sun. I was unable to attend, but a group of about 15 counter protestors, made up of mostly students, were there to represent the pro-choice side. Even though the Life Chain manual encourages "Chainers" to accommodate counter protestors with kindness, the manual does advise them to refrain from conversation. But, according to a North Texas Daily article, there were instances of heated debate between some pedestrians and protesters. One of the things that upset the counter protestors the most was when a male protestor brought his daughter over and proceeded to tell her that they were evil and wanted to kill all children. Additionally, according to the counter protestors I spoke with, the pro-lifers engaged in scare tactics, including taking pictures of them and asking if they have had abortions themselves.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems contradictory to be teaching hate at a Christian event centered on prayer. But then again, pro-life rhetoric is steeped in contradiction. For example they are against abortion, but also against most of what can prevent unintended pregnancy (contraception, condoms, sex-ed, etc). They say that abortion hurts women, but so does taking away their right to choose when to have children. They pray to end abortion and claim that "God's salvation plan is the surest weapon against abortion" instead of acknowledging real ways to prevent unintended pregnancies. But in the middle of a protest, it is impossible to effectively argue with baseless, irrational rhetoric; the most outrageous will almost always gets the most attention.

Debates like these are both deafening and silencing, but there must be a place where the rhetoric disappears and all that is left is the reality of the situation. As you go to the polls next month, keep in mind the reality of anti-choice legislation. Take the time to find your candidates' positions and understand the real implications of voting them into office. Strip away the rhetoric and find the answers to the questions that are important to you. This mid-term election is crucial to securing a pro-choice U.S. Know that there is a reality behind the rhetoric and that reality is yours.