Cristina Page's blog http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/831/atom/feed 2007-10-19T09:46:29-04:00 Cashiers for Life http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/23/cashiers-life 2008-06-24T08:00:00-04:00 2008-06-24T01:14:03-04:00 Cristina Page William Saletan, the Slate columnist who's made a career of claiming to be pro-choice while justifying attacks on reproductive rights, has had yet another epiphany: We should all support the rights of pharmacists to refuse to fill our doctor's prescriptions for birth control. According to Saletan, who defends pharmacy refusals in his June 19 piece "Drugstore Choirboy,"

You bring your scrip to the pharmacy, and the guy at the counter says, "Sorry, we don't stock contraceptives." That's annoying and, in my view, stupid. But nobody's walling you in. Your burden consists of finding another pharmacy.

William Saletan, one assumes, has not had to drive twenty-five miles to a second pharmacy – the case in a large swath of rural America – because a pharmacist imposed his moral beliefs on him. But then Saletan, one assumes, has never filled a prescription for birth control, has he? (Condoms are available at every 7-11 -- though William should be advised that the people he finds it provocative to defend would like to see the condom banned too.)

Saletan's proposed solution is to post a polite sign explaining the pharmacy does not fill birth control prescriptions. Saletan apparently thinks indulging extremists and, indeed, inviting them to take charge of our health care, to, in effect, supersede our doctors' recommendations is a minor inconvenience. If, however, we're going to let everyone's political beliefs or religious enthusiasms govern our important life decisions, then we must allow that any political or religious convictions can hold sway.

In this case, why not permit a Muslim fundamentalist pharmacist to simply put up a sign politely explaining that his religious beliefs require him to deny a woman's prescription for any medication? No doubt Aryan pharmacists have a belief system too. Why should they be forced to violate their dearly held beliefs and serve blacks? (It's worth pointing out that not filling birth control prescriptions is not merely discrimination by product category, is it? The pharmacist is discriminating against women.) By Saletan's lights, it seems that a "We don't fill prescriptions for black people" sign should not be a violation of black people's rights as long as it's accompanied by a 24 hour hotline, as Saletan proposed for those denied birth control, directing them to the nearest pharmacy that will serve them.

And, then to follow Saletan's thought line further, why should ethical concerns be limited to pharmacists? Why should only "pharmacists for life" get the perk of refusing to do their jobs? Why not, say, cashiers who just can't bear the thought of violating their ethical beliefs by ringing up birth control pills? If we follow Saletan's advice, isn't it just a matter of time before we'll have Cashiers for Life too? The pack of condoms and case of beer that provide hundreds of thousands of Americans with fulfilling Friday nights must first pass the approval of the cashier who, by Saletan's logic, has a right to deny those purchases. As for the rights of the rest of us, all we'll have to do is swallow our rage and find ourselves another 7-11.

Saletan's argument rests on the smug and dangerously uninformed notion that anti-family planning acts are fringe acts, and so are best ignored. He underestimates the scope, commitment, and resources of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception movement. He fails also to acknowledge that contraception is life-saving medication too.

Most American families want (and have) two children meaning women spend about seven years, on average, getting and being pregnant and about 23 years preventing pregnancy. Planning a pregnancy leads to dramatic declines in both maternal mortality and infant mortality. Indeed, the countries on earth with the lowest maternal and infant mortality rates are those with the greatest access to and use of contraception. Those with the highest death rates are countries that deny women and families access to family planning—many are nations that took Saletan's route and simply ignored the fanatics into power.

The best way to move beyond the abortion debate is to make preventing unwanted pregnancy, planning a family and protection against disease a top priority. Instead, we have witnessed in just the last few years a dramatic increase in activity aimed at rolling back American's right to use contraception and protection. Pro-life pharmacists are just this movement's warm-up act. This year Colorado is considering a ballot measure that would define life as beginning at conception, an unknown biological moment. Rejiggering the science has as its ultimate goal not only banning abortion, but all hormonal forms of birth control. These same forces have successfully de-funded the US portion to UNFPA, the contraception provider to the most desperate regions on earth.

Bush, no doubt a supporter of "pro-life" pharmacists, has worked closely with the anti-contraception movement throughout his presidency. One of his first acts in office was his attempt to strip federal employees and soldiers of contraceptive coverage. Another was to place at the head of the nation's contraception program for the poor an anti-contraception activist. In fact, he has delivered these activists many more anti-contraception successes than anti-abortion ones.

Now presidential-contender McCain is playing footsie with the anti-contraception movement, coyly refusing to answer reporters' questions on whether he supports contraception.

Saletan is no doubt under pressure to think provocative thoughts several times a week. What he doesn't see is that if we allow extremists to intercede in our medical lives by simply putting up a sign then the writing is, as they say, already on the wall.

]]> Better Fathers: Courtesy of the Sexual Revolution http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/13/better-fathers-courtesy-sexual-revolution 2008-06-13T08:00:00-04:00 2008-06-13T17:21:19-04:00 Cristina Page Most Americans believe that the right to plan when to become pregnant was the most important step toward women's liberation. A Gallup poll revealed that more people cite birth control as having the "highest impact" on women than "opportunity for higher education," "access to jobs," political representation," or even the much-publicized "women's movement." Certainly, once birth control became legal, and especially after the introduction of the instantly popular birth control pill, women's lives were transformed. June Cleaver became Hillary Clinton. The change was almost instantaneous.

Harvard researchers recently looked into the relationship between family planning and women's liberation and came to the same conclusion. The study, The Power of the Pill, shows that almost immediately after legalization of contraception there was a surge of women entering college and the professions. From 1970 to 2000, the number of women graduating college more than doubled. Women now represent 61 percent of undergraduates. In just two decades after the legalization of family planning the number of women in the workforce nearly doubled. Today, there are nearly equal numbers of women as men in the workforce. Women's liberation was set in motion by the sexual revolution — the correlation has been amply documented.

What's left out of all this good news is men. Little attention has been paid to the impact that women's liberation has had on men. The unacknowledged truth is that men have been transformed too. Today, men have more freedom, flexibility and choices — in the most meaningful ways. A University of Michigan study found that children's time with their fathers increased significantly only in families in which the mother worked out side the home. As researchers of the Families and Work Institute summed up, "There are many other indications that the workforce has become more family-friendly — especially the fact that American fathers are spending more time with their children than fathers did a generation ago."

This trait seems to be passed along in the DNA of the new workforce. Gen X fathers spend significantly more time with their children than baby-boomer fathers — a difference of more than one hour each day. And most men are aware of this difference: 84 percent report that they spend more time with their kids than their fathers did. As the researchers point out, "Obviously, this trend is affected by the increase in the number of employed mothers." Today, more husbands count on their wives to bring home a significant share of the family wealth; nearly one in four women now earns more than her husband. With this, men have options to leave a negative work environment, change careers, take more career risks, and be more involved with their children.

Today, as a result of not having to shoulder all the economic demands of the family, and by having smaller families, men have been allowed to become more involved fathers — better fathers — than ever before. And they seem to like being fathers. Eighty-five percent of dads say they get more joy out of fatherhood than their own fathers did.Photo by Tom A.Photo by Tom A.

Of course, you'd never know this if you listened to the so-called pro-family groups set on convincing us that they way we live is tearing the country apart, family by family.

No doubt, some men are angered — silently or otherwise — by women in the workplace. The competition is keener than ever. Yet in the past thirty years, men have been transforming. Today, the majority of men say they desire an equal marriage (77 percent). And they appear to mean it. Mothers spend thirty six minutes less on chores on workdays and an hour less on non-workdays, than they did 25 years ago. Dads spend thirty minutes more each day helping their wives raise their children than they did twenty-five years ago.

Fathers increased involvement starts at the very beginning of their children's lives: 90 percent of dads are present in the delivery room (compared to 10% in 1970).

"Men are doing more changing, feeding and burping than they were 30 years ago," states James Levine, who heads the Manhattan-based Fatherhood Project at the Families and Work Institute.

"At parent teacher meetings," says Levine, "you're still going to see more women than men, but the number of men is increasing. We're seeing this across all income, racial, ethnic and geographic groups. It's a very broad based social phenomenon."

Dads today are more affectionate with their children: 60 percent hug their school age kids every day, and 79% tell their children they love them several times a week. "This is welcome news because it benefits the child," says Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, a professor of child studies at Syracuse University who has researched cross-cultural fathering for more than two decades. "Children whose fathers are involved with them show better education achievement, fewer problems in school, and they're better off socially."

All this seems to have created a revolution in how men see themselves. Seventy percent of dads today feel they would be just as effective staying home and raising children as their wives. The Gallup organization found that one in four men would actually like to stay home and take care of the house and family. Spike TV, the TV network for men, surveyed 1,300 men and found that the number considering staying home is even higher; the poll found that 56 percent of men would consider becoming stay-at-home dads. As the Spike TV pollsters explain, "This is the first generation of men to feel the full effect of women entering the workforce. As women have become partners in the workplace, men are now adjusting to a more equal status at home." And record numbers of men are choosing to stay home too. Today statistics show that roughly 2.5 million dads nationwide stay home to be their children's primary caretaker.

The unheralded result of women entering the workforce, thanks in large part to family planning, has been the rise of the real family man and the making of the more devoted father. It is to the point where the vast majority of men today, 72 percent, say they would sacrifice pay and job opportunities for more time with their families.

Spike TV found that most men would choose attending their kids' sporting event over an important work obligation. The Spike TV pollsters explain, "There's been a paradigm shift. Men want involvement with kids. Even with infants, they get up at night. It was NEVER like this before. They're taking parenting seriously. New responsibilities with kids and in homes are enriching men's lives. They're excited by it and proud."

So much for the break up of the family caused by women's emerging roles, the sexual revolution, and the birth control pill — family is more desired, and enjoyed, than ever before. With women sharing a larger stake in providing economically for the family, men have stepped up their investment in nurturing.

In a 1995 interview, feminist icon Gloria Steinem summarized the achievements of women's liberation this way, "We've taken one giant step forward by convincing the majority of the country that women can do what men can do. But the next step is convincing the country that men can do what women can do. So far, we don't believe it ourselves." Maybe it's about time we start believing.

]]> Obama: The Real Pro-Life Candidate http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/11/obama-the-real-prolife-candidate 2008-06-11T12:27:50-04:00 2008-06-11T15:13:26-04:00 Cristina Page Obama has a huge opportunity to win over an unlikely voting bloc: pro-life voters. The debate over reproductive rights has for decades existed in the abstract; it's been a back and forth volley over "values" that's heavy on emotion and light on fact. But the facts reveal surprising truths and they ought to be hammered home by Obama. The data show that the pro-choice approach is more effective at achieving what the American public views as "pro-life" goals -- i.e. reducing the number of abortions, preventing late term abortion -- than the so-called "pro-life" approach.

McCain may campaign on the "immorality" of abortion but the policies he supports seem to lead to lots more of them. Isn't it time to turn the tables? Obama should hold McCain and and other anti-choice leaders accountable for their failure to find solutions to the high rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. He has the opportunity to change the debate. It's not about abortion; it's about preventing unwanted pregnancy.

And it is the pro-choice movement that is finding effective ways to do that. This is the unacknowledged fact that should be broadcast loud and clear during this election campaign. Here's the message: It's pro-choice policies that result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion. That's a truth both pro-choice and pro-life voters would be interested to know.

The pro-choice movement, and pro-choice politicians, alone champion wider access to birth control, and birth control is the only proven way to reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion. Obama shouldn't get sucked into the silly debate about whether the Pill is an abortifacient since even the anti-abortion movement's most respected physicians agree there's no scientific evidence that it is. He should ask why McCain hasn't championed campaigns to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The electorate should be reminded that it's the pro-choice movement and pro-choice elected officials that have fought for health insurance coverage for contraception as well as to bring new and more effective contraceptives to market. (Emergency contraception, for instance.) Also, let's not forget that the birth control pill itself is available to Americans entirely because of the efforts of the pro-choice movement.

Check out any NARAL affiliate's agenda and you'll see that most pro-choice work is devoted to increasing access to prevention. Up until Bush ordered it removed, the Centers for Disease Control's website had a "Programs that Work" area for sex education programs that quantitative data showed resulted in reductions in the teem pregnancy and STD rates. Every program was comprehensive sex-ed, the kind promoted by the pro-choice movement. Not one was abstinence-only, the program that preaches that teens simply shouldn't have sex, which "pro-life" forces favor. Obama supports the comprehensive sex-ed programs that have been proven to work, McCain supports no-sex-until-marriage programs which have been proven to fail.

Obama could remind the voter that only 11% of sexually active women don't use contraception and from this 11% comes 50% of the nation's abortions. Ninety-one percent of the American public strongly favors contraception because of this very reason. Very few voters are aware, however, that not one pro-life organization in the United States supports contraception. Or that instead, pro-life groups have been spearheading campaigns to prevent Americans from accessing birth control. No less than 80% of self-described pro-life voters strongly support contraception. Few know that McCain has a long legislative resume devoted to voting against access to contraception and prevention.

McCain and the right to life movement may have sanctimony on their side but, so far, sanctimony has proven ineffective in preventing abortion. Study after study suggests the right to life approach, which McCain has helped execute for decades, is actually the root of the problem: leading to more abortions and later ones too.

Obama should pose this question to McCain: Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception? When questioned about his position last year McCain told a reporter: "I have to find out what my position was. Brian (a campaign staffer), would you find out what my position is on contraception...I'm sure I support the president's policies on it." (No president has led more attacks on the right to use contraception than Bush has.) Birthcontrolwatch.org, a group that alerts the public to attacks on the right to contraception, offers more questions Obama could ask McCain--many would be devastating bombs to lob during, say, a televised debate.

Not only would it be refreshing to see Obama go on the offensive, it would be wise. Scanning the globe we discover the countries where abortion is most rare have the strongest pro-choice policies. The countries with the strongest "pro-life" policies are the ones with the highest abortion rates, often twice our national average. These are the nations that have implemented what our "pro-life" movement strives to: banning abortion, making contraception hard to come by, and preaching abstinence-only to teens.

The "pro-life" paradox appears everywhere its policies are in place. School districts in the conservative South are almost five times more likely than in the liberal Northeast to teach abstinence-only. Southern states also have the highest rate of new HIV/AIDS infections, the highest rate of STDs, as well as the highest rate of teen births. Whereas new cases of AIDS decreased or remained constant in the Northeast, Midwest, and West, the South alone experienced an increase.

Results should matter. The electorate, bamboozled and misled by the Bush administration on so many issues for so long, is hungry for fact, proof, and truth. Obama should not skulk and apologize for agreeing with the majority of the American public on reproductive rights. Allowing Americans to make their own important life decisions is a core conservative ideal. Not only is McCain mucking around with Americans' most important decisions, he's imposed policies that result in outcomes that, even by his own measures, should be considered disastrous.

If Obama takes the gloves off he will discover a much larger cheering section. When the discussion is about prevention, contraception and results, the pro-choice candidate wins big. Obama should reveal to the American public that the pro-choice approach, his approach, is effective, safe and working wherever it's been tried.

This article was originally published at The Huffington Post.

]]> Coming Soon to a Bedroom Near You http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/06/coming-a-bedroom-near-you 2008-06-09T08:00:00-04:00 2008-06-08T19:55:14-04:00 Cristina Page Like lawn ornaments in summer, protesters outside the local abortion clinic are fixtures in many places in the United States today.

Their presence and message have long been so predictable that, without looking or listening, people believe they understand the point. And so you might not notice that the protest taking place outside your local clinic today has fundamentally changed.

It is no longer about abortion. June 7 is the anniversary of Griswold v Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that granted married people the right to use contraception. To mark the day, anti-abortion groups are taking to their normal posts outside clinic entrances not to convince Americans to oppose abortion but rather to stop using contraception.

The national campaign is called "Protest the Pill Day 08'" and it is organized by several leading anti-choice groups including the American Life League and Pharmacists for Life. The group's website is full of unscientific, medically inaccurate information.

Anti-contraception activism has been working its way up the priority list of the anti-choice movement in the United States in recent years and today's campaign is one of the most organized and visible displays of this broadening agenda.Who needs pesky birth control pills?!Who needs pesky birth control pills?!

Currently, there is not one pro-life organization in the U.S. that supports contraception. In fact, the multi-pronged attack against the right to use contraception is led entirely by anti-abortion groups. Their initiatives (to name just a few) include opposing health insurance of contraception, urging pharmacists to deny women's birth control prescriptions, and attempting (with no scientific rationale) to reclassify the birth control pill, and all other hormonal forms of contraception, as abortion methods with the goal of banning them. This represents an important and frightening shift in focus by the anti-abortion movement.

Despite the fact that contraception is the only proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce abortion rates, anti-choice groups would forgo these benefits, and even risk dramatically increasing abortion rates, in favor of a larger, more insidious goal: changing Americans' sex lives.

As the American Life League, the nation's largest pro-life educational organization, explains in its materials, "The American Life League denies the moral acceptability of artificial birth control and encourages each individual to trust in God, to surrender to His will, and to be predisposed to welcoming children." The American Life League prefers to put the choices in the hands of God, a choice they want to impose on everyone. "It must be clear that couples understand that when they ask God to not send them another child just now they are also saying, ‘If it is Your will to send us another child at this time, we praise You for Your divine providence,'" the group says.

Buoyed by their success in rolling back abortion rights, these groups seek nothing less than a complete American lifestyle makeover: sex can't ever exclude the possibility of procreation. But instead of convincing Americans to see things their way, groups like the American Life League have decided the more expeditious path is to attack the right to use contraception.

The right to use contraception is relatively new: the Griswold decision was rendered in 1965 and Supreme Court granted single people the right to use contraception as recent as 1972. But the changes these decisions set in motion now form a list of what Americans won't live without. Today, 95 percent of people have sex before marrying. Indeed, studies show that most Americans in a relationship are having sex, on average, once a week. The typical American female is fertile for approximately 30 years of her life. For about 23 of those years she is trying not to get pregnant. Much of our lifestyle, and the architecture of our most intimate relationships, is rooted in family planning. And we should be grateful for this.

In the 1950s, when there was no sex education, no birth control, no legal abortion (the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement!) teen birth rates soared and have not been equaled since. Today, the rate of teen motherhood, not coincidentally, has been reduced by more than half.

The right to plan your family to the size you want and can support is a cherished, and frequently exercised, American family value. So, the next time you pass by the protest outside your local clinic listen carefully: their real target is your way of life.

This article was originally published by American Forum.
Related Post
]]> Swine Song: Bush Ally Orr Leaves Just as Domestic Gag Rule Is Reconsidered http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/05/23/swine-song-bush-ally-orr-leaves-just-domestic-gag-rule-is-reconsidered 2008-05-23T16:03:52-04:00 2008-05-23T16:13:54-04:00 Cristina Page As the Bush presidency nears its end, the Christian Right is bellying up to the trough for a final feeding. They are hoping, with Bush's help, to get one more shot at their arch nemesis: the Planned Family. Thus the Unplanned Family Research Council has been spearheading a campaign to restrict federal funding for contraception to groups that offer comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion. Their goal is to throw sand in the gears of the nation's largest provider of family planning services, Planned Parenthood, by mandating onerous and superfluous policies on the health care provider. Their plan is to force Planned Parenthood construct a chasm between the contraceptive services it provides with Title X federal funding and the abortion services it provides with its own. We won't know how burdensome the details of their plans are until released but its rumored that clinics will have to make the chasm an actual physical distance between the services, i.e. miles. One thing is for sure: when the anti-family planning crowd is at the drawing table, what's "reasonable" won't come to mind.

Many believe Bush will alter the Title X regulations through an executive order and, given how deeply unpopular the action would be with the American public, it is suspected it could be done as early as today--just in time for the public to be distracted by Memorial Day weekend plans.

Certainly, the stage is being set for a dramatic attack on family planning. The Unplanned Family Research Council had gotten Bush to appoint one of their own, Dr. Susan Orr, a former Senior Director for Marriage and Family Care at the Unplanned Family Research Council to oversee the Title X program. Her most notable accomplishment in the year she has served is to defend the abstinence-until-marriage approach in the face of incontrovertible evidence it has failed. Now that the Unplanned Family Research Council is within days of hitting another nail into Title X's coffin, Dr. Orr suddenly and quietly resigns from her post so, one suspects, to not appear to have orchestrated the undermining of her own program from within. Dr. Orr's appointment to oversee the program was a huge controversy, given her antipathy for contraception and devotion to her former employer which hinders Americans access to family planning. But her resignation has received no coverage. (Only our dear friends at NFPRHA have reported on it.) The agency she works for, the Department of Health and Human Services, has not even put out a press release about it and those inquiring about it by phone have been placed in automated menu oblivion.

Something in this trough smells fishy.

Related Posts

]]> Outing the Pro-Teen Sex Agenda http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/05/07/outing-proteen-sex-agenda 2008-05-07T13:23:56-04:00 2008-05-09T09:53:42-04:00 Cristina Page On this National Day to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, I thought it would be a fun exercise to compare the sexual activity of teenagers and their pregnancy rates in the most pro-choice states with those of the most pro-life states. I used NARAL's rankings to determine which were the best and worst states on choice. (Simply, those that scored "F" are the worst and those with an "A" are the best.) I then filled in the state data for each on the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy website, the National Day sponsors, and compared the pro-choice states with the pro-life states.

Which side is actually doing a better job?

Conclusion: one side has a lot more to celebrate. Turns out pro-life states, those that are prone to tell kids that abstinence is the only proven contraception, and discourage use of actual contraception, then wag their finger at the less "morally superior" states, are where high schoolers are:

  • more sexually active
  • more likely to have had sex before the age of 13
  • more likely to have four or more sexual partners.


Turns out that to be "pro-life" is to be pro-your-young-teen-having-a-risky-sex-life. In addition, the states that are witnessing the most dramatic drop in teen pregnancies are the most solidly pro-choice ones (CA, VT, HI, AK) while the ones where teen pregnancy rates are declining most slowly are anti-choice (NE, MS, WY, OK).

As this election goes from a simmer to a boil, the culture warriors will be dosing ideological gasoline on the flames. Isn't it time to call the religious right's bluff? If we measured their agenda based on its results they could only be considered the pro-risky-adolescent-sex-unwanted- pregnancy-teen-mothers- and-more-abortion crowd. They have no right to moralize and no standing to be sanctimonious -- that should be our job.

They're wrong. We know it and it's time the American public did too. Pro-choice people, and most candidates, have got to use the gifts of evidence we've been given (and earned). The American public doesn't want its 12-year-olds sexually active or their daughters impregnated by one of their four or more sexual partners -- but that's what the pro-life agenda is poised to make America's reality, and sadly has for too many already. And there's quantitative data to prove it. One thing is for sure, they're not going to be the ones to mention it. Now wonder they're lying low today.

]]> 'Pro-Lifers' Plan National Protest of Contraception http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/05/02/pro-lifers-announce-national-day-to-protest-the-right-to-use-contraception 2008-05-05T06:32:00-04:00 2008-05-04T15:17:22-04:00 Cristina Page And you thought the anti-choice movement was only about abortion. Think again!

]]> Tired of the same-old lame protests outside of abortion clinics? Looking to impose your religious beliefs in other people's lives in a new and exciting way? The pro-life movement would like to expand your horizons.

On June 7th, the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that gave married people the right to use contraception, the American Life League, along with Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International Associate groups want you to join them in protesting in front of facilities that distribute birth control products. The national day against contraception, Protest the Pill Day '08: The Pill Kills Babies, was started to convince the American people of a simple and imaginative idea: attempting to prevent abortion is abortion too. These arguments have been confounded by diabolical scientists and experts who insistently point out there's no evidence to support that the birth control pill works the way these groups claim. As we all know, however, if ideology waited for science to prove scientific points, our ancestors would have never have spent all those years wandering the then-flat earth.

The campaign website is chock full of important information and you don't want to miss the informative "Talking Points" section. Here's a sampling:

Q: The Supreme Court has ruled that it's my right to privacy - who do you think you are to say otherwise?

A: On June 7, 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Griswold v. Connecticut decision. The Supreme Court justices first presumed that previous Court decisions dealing with a citizen's right to liberty and security that prohibited invasion of one's home and acquisition of evidence that might later be used to convict him of a crime also addressed privacy within marriage. In fact, the justices argued, "The concept of liberty is not so restricted... it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly [emphasis added] in the Constitution" and is based on "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights [which] have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

This confusing language, which has no relationship whatsoever to what the Founding Fathers intended, gave married women permission to use the birth control pill. The Supreme Court literally created the "right to privacy" out of thin air.

We now know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that not only did the Supreme Court literally make up the right that you claim gives you permission to use birth control, but the most popular form of birth control, the pill, can kill innocent preborn children. If there is a chance that human beings are going to be murdered, I am going to do everything in my power to help prevent that from happening. If you knew there was a chance that someone might poison your neighbor, don't you think you would try to notify your neighbor and do as much as you could to help save a life?

And before you despair that your right to privacy is being lost, take comfort in the knowledge that once we all finally live in a country where ideology is valued over evidence and our government is run by and for those who subscribe, or succumb, to the exciting agenda of these groups...privacy will no longer be needed. Your point of view and way of life will, conveniently, be decided for you. So what are you waiting for?! Sign up now!

]]> Escape from Wisconsin http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/03/24/escape-from-wisconsin 2008-03-24T09:42:21-04:00 2008-03-24T08:41:58-04:00 Cristina Page For anti-contraception activists in Wisconsin, it’s been a busy year. Nary a month has gone by without a fresh attack on family planning by Pro-Life Wisconsin. The most recent has taken the form of a deceitful ad campaign falsely claiming that one of the most effective pregnancy prevention methods, emergency contraception, is an abortion method. ]]>

For anti-contraception activists in Wisconsin, it’s been a busy year. Nary a month has gone by without a fresh attack on family planning by Pro-Life Wisconsin. The most recent has taken the form of a deceitful ad campaign falsely claiming that one of the most effective pregnancy prevention methods, emergency contraception, is an abortion method. The target of the ad campaign? The population most at risk for unintended pregnancy and which has the highest abortion rate: college women. Timed to run directly before the spring break recess, the ad encourages women to not use emergency contraception if their primary birth control method fails. A Pro-Life Wisconsin press release about the campaign explains, “Emergency contraception is a powerful, high dose of steroids that tricks a woman’s body into thinking it is pregnant. These steroids can cause chemical abortions and deadly bloodclots.” The group admits it was motivated to place the ads because “Unfortunately, in the past, Wisconsin college campuses have promoted EC to students, urging them to “prepare” for spring break by stocking up on it.”

Pro-Life Wisconsin, which two years earlier had attempted to ban EC from all University of Wisconsin campuses, tried to place the ad in every college newspaper in the state. But after looking at the content of the ad, three campus newspapers, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, University of Wisconsin-Stout and Marquette University, rejected it. Peter Fox, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, told the AP that "newspapers have the right to refuse any ad deemed inappropriate. He added the decision often is based on whether the ad is factual, if it creates false impression or presents someone in an inaccurate light." Naturally, the fact-challenged folks at Pro-Life Wisconsin were incensed by the decision to not run their inaccurate ads. “I was shocked when the Tribune objected to the words ‘chemical abortion’ in the ad,” said Virginia Zignego, Communications Director for the group. Her executive director, Peggy Hamill chipped in, “This is censorship. It truly is. When newspaper editors have a problem with the medical term ‘abortion’, there is something really wrong here.”

What really is wrong here is that Pro-Life Wisconsin has spent much of its energies trying to scale back access to contraception without revealing that as their true aim. Earlier in the month, the group opposed the “Birth Control Protection Act” which would have assured women can get their prescriptions for contraception filled at any pharmacy in the state. In response to the bill, Peg Hamill, the group’s director, stated, “This bill is not about access to birth control at all. Birth control is everywhere – even the morning-after pill is now accessible over the counter for those aged 18 and over. What this bill is really about is forcing pro-life pharmacists to cast aside any moral or medical qualms about birth control and do the bidding of the birth control industry.”

In January, the group waged a campaign against providing pregnancy prevention for victims of rape. When the bill passed ensuring that rape victims, no matter which emergency room they are taken to, will be offered emergency contraception, the group threatened a lawsuit. Peg Hamill explained, “The state Assembly has shamefully ignored the fate of embryonic children by forcing Wisconsin hospitals to dispense a known abortion-causing drug to vulnerable women. In so doing, they have trampled upon the conscience rights of hospitals and hospital workers in blatant disregard of our federal and state constitutions which guarantee freedom of religious expression and liberty of conscience. This deadly legislation should never have been scheduled for floor action. That it passed the day after the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is an added insult.”

In October, Pro-Life Wisconsin successfully opposed a bill that would have expanded the Medicaid Family Planning Demonstration Project to offer confidential sexual health services to teenage boys. Despite the fact that all studies indicate that greater access to prevention services has no impact on the degree or initiation of sexual activity, Matt Sande, of Pro-Life Wisconsin, claimed that offering birth control to teenage boys increases their likelihood of having sex, stating, “The availability of confidential ‘family planning’ services to our teens is encouraging sexual promiscuity and with it a host of social pathologies. Protecting young boys and girls from the devastating physical and emotional effects of STDs, pregnancy and abortion, as well as ensuring the rights of parents to be involved in such important issues in their children’s lives, is our moral and civic duty.”

In June, the group hosted a talk by Joseph Scheidler, organizer of the Contraception is Not the Answer Conference, lamenting the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v Connecticut granting married people the right to use contraception. A press release for the event explained, “By commemorating the Griswold decision our affiliates are raising awareness about the judicial tyranny that has been going on for over 40 years...Ever since the Griswold decision, the courts have arbitrarily protected all sorts of immorality, all under the banner of so-called ‘privacy.’ Those who are appalled about the condition of our culture should have both a moral and civic interest in exposing the fraud that began with the Griswold decision.” Along with the Scheidler event, the group marked the anniversary of the decision by holding protests outside of seven health care centers around the state that prescribe birth control.

At this point, most of the work of this supposedly anti-abortion group isn’t against abortion. It is in opposition to contraception although few Wisconsinites have discovered the clear pattern. This is a long term, dangerous shift in focus. And for the pro-life folks it not only informs most of what they do, but seems to distort their ability to even think about the subject with an open mind. A few years ago I noticed the group had indicated on its website that most birth control methods are abortifacients. It included the cervical cap and spermicides. When I called to inquire about the last two they claimed it was a mistake and removed those from the list. But that mistake is telling. It seems clear by the events and statements of the group it’s after all forms of contraception, and science, fact and reason won’t stand in their way.

To lay all doubt to rest, here is their official admission of that fact:

 

This article originally appeared at BirthControlWatch.org.

]]> The McModerate http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/26/the-mcmoderate 2008-02-26T09:15:21-05:00 2008-02-26T16:26:57-05:00 Cristina Page With detractors like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay and James Dobson, most thinking people might conclude that John McCain comes highly recommended. But just because John McCain is an enemy of some of our most cartoonish villains does not make him a friend.

]]> With detractors like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay and James Dobson, most thinking people might conclude that John McCain comes highly recommended. But just because John McCain is an enemy of some of our most cartoonish villains does not make him a friend. This is most true on reproductive health issues.

Pro-choice Americans haven't yet pegged McCain as the extreme anti-choice copy of George W. Bush he is. But for close watchers of pro-choice politics, he's John McSame.

In fact, the Straight Talk Express has skidded off the road that most Americans drive. He is more extreme than even some who consider themselves "pro-life." For example, most Americans would be stunned to learn McCain won't - or can't - say whether he even supports the right to use contraception. Last March, McCain fumbled through this exchange about contraception with a reporter aboard his campaign bus;

"Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: "Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes - and I was just reading the thing he wrote- that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, then he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it." (Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: "I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money for it [contraception]."

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception - I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before."

The Coburn that McCain has chosen as his mentor on all things reproductive is Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, which is like having the Taliban head up the Office for Women's Initiatives. (Think that's an extreme comparison? Keep in mind Coburn supports the death penalty for abortion providers.)

One story about McCain mentor Coburn is particularly telling. Coburn, in recent years, led a sneaky offensive against the condom. In 1999, Coburn drafted legislation mandating that condom labels state that they cannot prevent the transmission of HPV. In 2000, at Coburn's request, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, USAID and the CDC (the agencies responsible for condom research, condom regulation, condom-use recommendations, and HIV/AIDS and STD prevention) hosted a meeting of experts to compile and examine 138 peer-reviewed papers on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing transmission of STDs. In its report, the panel explained the difficulty in making definitive conclusions based on available studies. For one, thing, there exist ethical boundaries that prevent ideal studies from being conducted. Researchers cannot ask study subjects to go have sex without a condom and come back and see what they caught. They also cannot ask those with treatable diseases, like HPV, to remain untreated, have sex with others using a condom, and see how likely transmission was.

Thus NIH took the cautious route. It pointed out that given the studies out there, it was not always possible to say with certainty that the condom stopped everything, like, for example, HPV or chlamydia. With regard to HPV, it stated, "The panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs." In other words, a definitive answer was not possible either way. Still the panel was able to conclude, " Study results did suggest that condom use might afford some reduction in risk of HPV associated diseases, including genital warts in men and cervical neoplasia [or cancer] in women." With HPV, the diseases are what you care about.

The panelists knew how their careful words might be construed by those with a political agenda and explicitly cautioned anyone against using the report to discourage condom use. On cue, Coburn reacted as if the CDC's careful wording proved his case. Somehow he managed to conclude that the government was covering up for "condom pushers." Coburn issued a press release entitled "Condoms Do Not Prevent Most STDs" and joined anti-condom groups the Physician's Consortium and the Catholic Medical Association to call for the resignation of the director of the CDC.

President Bush rewarded Coburn for his good work by appointing him to co-chair, of all things, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. When it comes to the preventing the spread of AIDS, Bush clearly prefers Right-thinking anti-condom crusaders to scientists. It would appear McCain does too. And might similarly reward Coburn - to oversee HHS, perhaps.

Sadly, though McCain often appears to be the palatable Sunday talk show conservative, the good-humored, apparently moderate Republican, on reproductive rights he's a lot like Coburn. Down the line, positions will leave even the middle-of-the-road reader wondering if we can really afford more of the same.

When asked about his position on reproductive rights, McCain talking with the National Review advised, "I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little... misleading." And there's no truer statement. McCain's voting record, which NARAL Pro-Choice America scrupulously tracks, is telling. He has consistently voted against the right to a legal abortion and he has also consistently voted against contraception. McCain voted to end the Title X family planning program which is the only way millions of Americans have been able to plan their family. Title X has also been heralded as having prevented more than nine million unwanted pregnancies in the last two decades. Without Title X, the number of teenage pregnancies would have been 20% higher too.

McCain voted against legislation that would have required insurance coverage of prescription birth control and would also have provided more women with prenatal health care. (So, throw in anti-baby too. It's also worth noting that in 2004, McCain ranked among the 25 worst Senators for children, scoring 38%, according to the Children's Defense Fund Congressional Score Card.)

He's an unapologetic proponent of the failed abstinence-only approach as well. He voted against making "abstinence-only" programs medically accurate (the most authoritative study found that more than 80% of abstinence-only curricula, used by more than 2/3 of federal recipients, contains false, misleading, or distorted information.) He also wanted to take $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to launch an abstinence‐until-marriage program that prohibits sexually active teens from learning about birth control. Yet another time he tried to route one‐third of all HIV/AIDS prevention funds to the completely ineffective "just say no to sex" programs.

It's clear; Iraq is not the only unpopular war Bush started that McCain hopes to continue. The war on Americans' sex lives is another and McCain has already proven himself a good, loyal general.

]]> Family Planning Is Family Values http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/26/family-planning-is-family-values 2007-12-26T09:43:55-05:00 2007-12-26T11:28:33-05:00 Cristina Page The religious right is right in this: Birth control is the source of seismic change. Family planning has led to a transformation of our society so rapid we've only recently had the occasion to take stock.

]]> If you listen to the apocalyptic rhetoric of the religious right you'll find an important theme emerge: The introduction of contraception, which permits people to have sex for fun, is bound up with all of society's ills, from the imagined breakdown of the family to an undocumented surge in crimes against children. It's a cornerstone of right wing thinking. And, no doubt, it's also the reason that not one pro-life group in the U.S. supports the use of contraception even though it's the only proven way to prevent abortion. Sadly, most Americans seem afflicted by some strain of this prejudice. If they credit the pro-choice, birth control movement for anything, it's for the dubious honor of protecting vice. Planned Parenthood has never been tagged as a pro-family values group. A greater oversight has never been made.

The religious right is right in this: Birth control is the source of seismic change. Family planning has led to a transformation of our society so rapid we've only recently had the occasion to take stock. For example, the past century has actually witnessed a steep decline in extramarital affairs as a result, it would seem, of the very changes that drive the pro-lifers wild: the more lengthy and thoughtful trying-out of marriage partners in combination with greater candor about sexual desires within marriage. Studies conducted in 1948 and 1953, found that 26 percent of women and a whopping 50 percent of men had an extramarital sexual experience. But today in our sex and sin saturated culture the number of married people who have had an extramarital affair has plummeted to 6 percent of women and 10 percent of men, according to (conservative) Ben Wattenberg in his book, The First Measured Century. (Other respected sources claim that today's infidelity rate is higher but still half the 1950s rate.) Preaching about faithfulness didn't lead to this family value upgrade. Rather, the uptick in fidelity today is the result of a society that accepts our sexual urges as natural and couples can look within marriage for fulfillment of even desires once branded indecent. (It is also this belief system supports gay marriage and the children that result from it. To us, family is so important we believe everyone has a right to make one.)

Another truth is that when the birth control revolution got underway, women waited to marry and start a family. In 1970, the average age of a new mother was 21 years old. By 2000, the average age was 28. Harvard researchers recently reported that legalization of contraception is directly linked to the spike in the number of women becoming more highly educated and entering the "career" professions. In 1970, five percent of all lawyers and judges were women; today they are six times that. In 1970, one in 10 physicians was female, today it's one in three. Similar patterns are true for women architects, dentists, veterinarians, economists, and women in most of the engineering fields.

Few women today would trade places with the '50s woman and mother, the one fervently idealized by so-called "pro-family" groups. In the fifties, women didn't approach parity with men in education and, guess what, their housework time was constant-despite having new "time-saving" technologies. This era in which birth rates soared doubled the time devoted to child care. And with women assigned to endless tasks of the home, men shouldered the full responsibility of supporting the family economically. One dire consequence was that one in four Americans in the mid-1950s lived in poverty. By the end of the 1950s, one in three American children lived in poverty. Not surprisingly, researchers in the '50s found less than one in three married couples reported being happy or very happy with their relationship. Compare today, when 61 percent of married Americans report themselves to be "very happy" in their marriage. Part of the sour spouse problem of the '50s was that many couples didn't really want to be married to each other. Often, they were trapped into marriage by unintended pregnancy. With no sex-ed, no birth control, no legal abortion -- the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement! -- teen birth rates soared, reaching highs that have not been equaled since: there were twice as many teen mothers in the '50s than today.

Postponing or planning marriage and children have allowed women to get a foothold in the workforce, and this has led to important benefits: They have made their families wealthier. Today, the rate of poverty is half what it was in the 1950s. In fact, now if a husband is the sole breadwinner the family is four-times more likely to be poor than one in which the wife brings home an income too. Dual income homes earn nearly two-thirds more than that of families in which the husband alone works. Consequently, the percentage of children living in poverty has decreased 50 percent since 1959. Money may not be everything. But it's something.

Today, more husbands count on their wives to bring home a significant share of the family wealth; nearly one in four women now earn more than their husbands. With this, men have options to leave a negative work environment, change careers, take more career risks, and be more involved, indeed better, fathers than ever before. You'd never know this if you listened to the so-called "pro-family" groups set on convincing us that the way we live now is tearing our country apart. Because of the pro-choice movement's efforts, we now have a true "Family Man," the very one the right wing seems to still be looking for.

Men have as much at stake as women (if not more) with the religious right's intensifying attacks against family planning. A University of Michigan study found that children's time with their fathers increased significantly only in families in which the mother worked outside the home. Fathers today spend much more time with their children than '50s fathers -- a difference of more than one hour each day. And most, by the way, are aware of this difference. Eighty-four percent report that they spend more time with their kids and get more joy out of fatherhood than their fathers did.

So much joy that the vast majority of men, 72 percent, say they would sacrifice pay and job opportunities for more time with their families. Dads today are even more affectionate with their children, 60 percent hug their school-aged kids every day and 79 percent of fathers tell their children they love them several times a week. States James Levine, who heads the Fatherhood Project. "Children whose fathers are involved with them show better education achievement, fewer problems in school, and they're better off socially."

So much for the break-up of the family caused by sexual liberation and pro-choice, pro-birth control movement. Just the opposite is true. The family is more financially secure, and more enjoyed than ever before. And what better family value is there than valuing the family?

This article first appeared on The Huffington Post.

 

]]> Cheers and Jeers on Birth Control http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/cheers-and-jeers-on-birth-control 2007-12-21T09:26:55-05:00 2007-12-21T10:41:23-05:00 Cristina Page Been asleep for the past year? Not to worry! BirthControlWatch.org recaps the year in birth control -- and even tells whether each event is good news or bad news for your reproductive freedom.

]]> Without further ado -- BirthControlWatch.org's Cheers and Jeers of the Year in Birth Control!

1. Jeer: The Cost of Birth Control on College Campuses Skyrocketed
When Bush signed the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, few knew it would scale back access to contraception for the group of people who need it most: college-age women. But that's just what it did. It eliminated incentives for pharmaceutical companies to offer contraception at a discount to college health centers. In 2007, those centers ran out of their reduced-rate stock and were forced to increase prices to cover the new inflated costs. For many college women, birth control prices went up 900 percent - from $5 to $50. Since college women already have the country's highest rate of unintended pregnancies, making contraception less affordable for them was a plan for disaster.

2. Cheer: Governors Said No to Abstinence-Only Money
In 2007, Colorado and New York joined the movement to reject federal funding for school programs that teach abstinence as the only sure way to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases and provide inaccurate information about birth control. With the addition of these two important states, a total of 14 states have now rejected efforts by the federal government to promote inaccurate, ideology-based and ineffective abstinence-only programs. As a result, more than a third of the funds available under this federal program are going unclaimed or unused. The 14 states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

3. Jeer: Congress Abandoned an Effort to Repeal the Global Gag Rule
The Senate voted early in the year to repeal the so-called Global Gag Rule, the Bush administration policy barring U.S. aid to any overseas group that provides abortions, counsels about them or advocates liberalized abortion laws. The House later voted to allow at least donated contraceptives to go to such groups, while leaving the policy in place. But President Bush threatened to veto any measure that contained language weakening the gag rule. When the gag rule language became entangled with the huge omnibus spending bill that funded the entire government at the end of the year, its fate was sealed. Both House and Senate negotiators surrendered it rather than calling Bush's bluff, so the gag rule survives into 2008..

4. Cheer: Bush's Former Surgeon General Defected from the War on Sex
Former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona revealed that the Bush administration routinely blocked him from speaking about or issuing reports on abstinence-only sex education and emergency contraception when he served as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Carmona said at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

5. Jeer: Anti-Contraception Extremists Were Appointed to the Top Federal Contraception Post
In 2006, President Bush chose Dr. Eric Keroack to direct Title X, the nation's contraception program for the poor, despite Keroack's stated belief that "the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," In March, Dr. Keroack resigned under suspicion of Medicaid fraud in his private practice in Massachusetts. In 2007, Bush chose as Keroack's replacement Dr. Susan Orr, who told the Weekly Standard that any effort to get health insurers to pay for birth control is "about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death."

6. Cheer: Title X Finally Got a Funding Increase
After years of flat-funding, Title X, the federal program to provide family planning services to low-income people, finally got a slight budget increase. The $17 million dollar bump was the third largest increase in 25 years, and it is needed now more than ever. Had Title X funding just kept pace with medical cost inflation since 1980, it would now be getting more than $725 million per year, more than double the proposed fiscal 2008 level of $300 million. Even though strapped for resources, it is estimated that clinics with Title X support prevented almost 20 million unintended pregnancies, nine million of which would have ended in abortion. Imagine the results if the program were funded to meet the need.

7. Jeer: Washington State Pharmacists Got Permission to Reject Prescriptions for Emergency Birth Control
In November, a federal judge appointed by President Bush suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists fill prescriptions for emergency contraception. The District Court's ruling, known as "refuse and refer," allows a pharmacist to reject a woman's prescription as long as he or she refers the woman to another pharmacy. Emergency contraception is only effective if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and it gets less effective during every hour of those 72 hours. This ruling allows pharmacists to give women the runaround, minimizing the drug's effectiveness and making pregnancy more likely. The decision is being appealed.

8. Cheer: An Definitive Study of Abstinence-Only Programs Confirmed Again that They Don't Work
A long-awaited national study by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex they will use a condom. Authorized by Congress in 1997, The report, Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs: Final Report, followed 2,000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. "After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds, these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological boondoggle of historic proportions," said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth.

9. Jeer: "W" Stands for Wrong: For the Sixth Consecutive Year, President Bush Turned His Back on the Women of the World
The U.S. Congress passed a 2007 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that included $34 million for UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. The money would have meant vital assistance to end fistula, improve maternal health worldwide, prevent HIV/AIDS, and provide family planning and other essential programs to the poorest people on earth. However for the sixth consecutive year President Bush refused to release the funding.

10. Cheer: Countries with the Sharpest Declines in Abortion Rates Were Found to be Those Where Contraception Use Has Increased Dramatically
According to a worldwide study reported by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO) in The Lancet in October, abortion rates fell most significantly in countries where contraception is widely available. The world's lowest abortion rate in 2003 was in Western Europe, where contraceptive services and use are widespread and safe abortion is easily accessible.

This article first appeared at the BirthControlWatch.org blog.

]]> What Some Candidates Don't Want You to Mention http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/17/the-question-some-candidates-dont-want-you-to-ask 2007-12-17T09:14:00-05:00 2007-12-17T10:50:55-05:00 Cristina Page Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson are practicing "dog whistle politics" -- most Americans won't realize it, but they're sending signals that they're opposed to contraception.

]]> 98 percent of American women have done it.

37 million Americans are currently doing it.

Most of the GOP candidates oppose it.

What is it?

If you said "sex," you were close. The answer is "use contraception." In recent weeks, the GOP candidates have been asked a lot about their views on abortion but not one has been asked his position on contraception (or even prevention in general). Really big oversight. Maybe its because everyone just assumes they all support contraception. After all, who doesn't?

If their statements and actions are indicators, most of the GOP candidates oppose contraception. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson all define life as beginning at conception or fertilization, in other words when sperm meets egg. (It's worth noting that there's no medical way of knowing when sperm meets egg. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a fertilized egg isn't even considered a pregnancy.) This "life at fertilization" assertion is what is called in the business "dog whistle" politics: a political message only a specific constituency can hear. The reason, of course, to keep the message on one frequency, is that in most cases the issue is deeply unpopular with most of the American people. The candidate's whistle, in this case, is a pledge to support the anti-abortion movement's campaigns to roll back access to contraception.

If a candidate pledges to define life as beginning at fertilization, then anything that prevents implantation will end a life. And pro-lifers insist the pill does that. Birth control then becomes abortion, and as we know, abortion gets banned. Why hasn't the media sunk its teeth into this little curiosity? At the very least, it would make for some really great TV. Someone needs to ask any of the GOP candidates (except Guiliani) whether he supports access to birth control. 91 percent of the American public (the majority of the pro-life public included) does so strongly.

Along with pledging to give a fertilized egg full constitutional rights candidates prove their anti-contraception credentials in other ways. McCain boasts that he has consistently voted against funding pregnancy prevention for poor women. Romney vetoed an emergency contraception bill, calling it an 'abortion' drug. Ron Paul opposes federal funding for any contraceptive service.

These guys may try to outdo each other on anti-abortion rhetoric and explain, unflinchingly, how doctors will be thrown in jail when Roe fails (an inevitability in their minds). But it's the contraception question that really scares them. Because once the presidential debate focuses on how the candidates plan to alter the average American's sex life (made possible thanks to family planning) it is lifted from the pink ghetto of "woman's issues" and becomes a concern of male voters too.

Study after study proves that contraceptive use is the only way to prevent abortion; the places on earth contraception is most available are also where abortion is most rare. According to Save the Children, the countries where infant and maternal mortality are the lowest is where contraception is used the most (because planned pregnancies are healthier pregnancies.) Using abortion rates, maternal and infant death rates, as measures, it's undeniable: the most pro-life thing a president can do is support the right to use contraception and make it widely available. The public knows this. And sometime before the primaries the candidates must be made to state openly whether they support contraception. Because the candidates know those professional pro-life dogs are still listening for the right whistle.

This piece was originally published on the Huffington Post.

]]> Unsafe, Illegal and On a Prayer: The No-Roe Plan http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/04/unsafe-illegal-and-on-a-prayer-the-no-roe-plan 2007-12-04T09:12:00-05:00 2007-12-04T11:27:15-05:00 Cristina Page At the CNN/YouTube Republican debate last week, the Republican presidential contenders all seemed to nod in agreement on a breathtaking (though unstated) policy initiative for women: the DIY abortion.

]]> There were many disturbing moments during the Republican presidential debates last week: The menacing bible-guy thrusting the King James forward like a handgun, the smack down of the seventy-old gay general and, of course, the creepiness of Mitt Romney, who seems to drum up oily sincerity over a dropped napkin. But what had to be one of the more defining moments of the strange night occurred when the question turned to abortion. The graying, gray or bald white men all seemed to nod in agreement on a breathtaking (though unstated) policy initiative for women: the DIY abortion.

The question posed by the "young lady," as homey Fred Thompson called the gal, was: If abortion is outlawed then who is the criminal: woman, doctor, or both? This has always been the sticky question for the anti-abortion side. Do they intend to start locking up women for murder? Stunningly, Fred Thompson, National Right to Life's endorsed candidate, said no. He suggested that some people will be able to perform abortions with no fear of prosecution: women on themselves. Thompson explained his (and one figures, National Right to Life's) bold new plan that would kick in once Roe is overturned. Said Thompson, "The question is who gets penalized and what should be the penalty. I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws that outlaw abortion after viability and [the criminal penalty] goes to the doctor performing the abortion not the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be. I think that same pattern needs to be followed." Under this plan, apparently a woman is free to perform an abortion on herself, possibly with the help of her parents or "whoever it might be" as long as a physician or a health care provider actually skilled to provide safe abortion care isn't involved.

The last time the United States banned abortion -- pre-Roe -- doctors faced only minimal penalties for providing safe care. Apparently Thompson, and every GOP candidate except Rudy Giuliani agree, that policy was a mistake. This time around the crime of abortion, if (and apparently only if) performed by a doctor, will be murder and extreme penalties will apply. It seems clear that the environment post-Roe will be harsher than pre-Roe.

Last time around, a clandestine network of safe abortion services sprung up. This time, if the anti-abortion candidates have their way, the risk for physicians would be too great. And so women who can't reach safe care will be much more likely to take matters into their own hands, which the Republicans apparently don't mind. At least, this is the newest talking point assigned by right-to-life headquarters (and picked up by Republicans pandering to these reliable voters). This new messaging has a brief but important history. It surfaced after Anna Quindlen's August article in Newsweek on the National Institute for Reproductive Health's "How Much Time?" campaign. The goal of the campaign is to have voters ask anti-abortion candidates how much jail time they think a woman should serve if Roe is overturned and she has an illegal abortion. If abortion is a crime, then women are the perpetrators and penalties should apply, no?

Politically, of course, this is not where Right to Life wants to be: allowing Americans to imagine handcuffed women taking perp walks. And so Right to Life in its most recent rollout has sought to pre-empt this image and answer the question highlighted by Quindlen. If a woman takes matters into her own hands, there will be no penalty other than the danger she risks to her health and life, says right to lifers -- she won't get time, just prayers. And so, here is the pro-life movement's biggest idea since banned abortion: the Do-It-Yourself abortion.

In August, the National Review, in what seems a hustle to counter the Institute's campaign, convened legal experts, scholars and leaders of the anti-abortion movement for a " symposium" to help create talking points on the issue. The dilemma was this: How to justify charging one person, a doctor, with the crime of murder for performing an abortion and another, the woman, with nothing for the same act? The solution was simple. Treat the women having the abortion as, essentially, a child. Most of the legal scholars and anti-abortion functionaries clearly agreed: women in need of abortion must be viewed as not fully intellectual beings able to make decisions for themselves. They are victims of circumstance (or greed - in this view abortion providers are only in it for the money). And so, it follows, the decision to have an abortion is not fully consented to. "Most women who get abortions are under tremendous stress and pressure, and few of them recognize the full humanity of the child in utero. This goes to the woman's mens rea and, accordingly, to the reasonable legislative judgment about the non-punishment of the mother," explained Wendy Long, legal counsel at the Judicial Confirmation Network a group that supports the appointment of "strict constructionist" judges, i.e. those who will overturn Roe.

Fascinatingly, just submitting to the dangers of illegal abortion, and putting the "child" at harm, is further proof of the woman's mental incompetence, they suggest. Joseph Dellapenna, professor of law at Villanova University School of Law, explains, "Until less than a century ago, abortion under the best of circumstances was an extremely dangerous activity and under less than ideal circumstances was tantamount to suicide. As a result, a strong tradition arose that women were victims of the abortion and not perpetrators." It was so dangerous, in other words, you'd have to be crazy to do it.

Casting women as victims and incompetent moral agents has long been an unstated assumption of the anti-abortion movement. Indeed, it serves as the philosophical architecture of recent attempts to ban abortion. It was in large part what Justice Kennedy used to justify upholding the Federal Abortion Ban, writing, "It seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained." The South Dakota Abortion Ban, which captivated American politics for months, was for the most part built on the premise that no woman in her right mind would murder her own baby; therefore, women seeking abortion were clearly not thinking straight. Once women are viewed as mentally (or emotionally) deficient, as irrational decision-makers, it's a quick step to: they shouldn't be held accountable for what they do. This is why the anti-choice movement has invested so much in the "I regret my abortion" campaigns. The only rational woman is one who admits she is irrational.

The unfortunate reality - always the rough patch for right to lifers - is that there's already ample evidence that women, and/or their loved ones, will be tried for DIY abortions. Bear in mind that whatever Fred Thompson says, penalties for the crime of abortion won't be controlled by the federal government. It's the states (where zealous legislators can't seem to find an anti-abortion law they don't like) that will set the penalties. And they already are. As Lynn Paltrow, president of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, points out, "Even with Roe still in effect, there are women who have been arrested and are serving time on murder charges for having suffered unintentional stillbirths. In South Carolina, a woman was convicted of homicide by child abuse based on the scientifically unsupported claim that her drug use during pregnancy caused her to suffer a stillbirth. In Utah, a woman was charged with murder based on the claim that she caused a stillbirth by refusing to have a c-section earlier in her pregnancy. If women are now being arrested as murderers for having suffered stillbirths, one should assume that in a post-Roe world intentional abortions would be punished just as seriously."

During the Republican debate, there were some anti-abortion ideas that seemed even too preposterous for the rabidly anti-choice. Will there be a "federal abortion police" force? Candidate Ron Paul seemed to think that would be too difficult.

But let's not shelve it too quickly. Other "pro-life" wonderlands, with far less resources than the US, have done just that. In El Salvador, for example, they do use police. Actually they're called "forensic gynecologists," and they investigate possible crime scenes (in other words: women's bodies) after a miscarriage because, of course, once abortion is illegal every miscarriage is suspect. Closer to home, the immediate past Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline, attempted some version of this. He seized abortion patients' records in an attempt to find misdeeds on the part of the physician.

One last disturbing takeaway from the Republican presidential candidates should put every American on edge. Given the pro-life movement's attempts to conflate abortion and contraception, "pro-life" politicians consistently signal that they are uncomfortable with birth control. While Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, now as adamantly pro-life as he once was pro-choice, received a bill on contraception. It would have made emergency contraception (EC) more widely available. He vetoed it because, he believes, EC is an "abortive" drug. It's a belief he shares with the whole of the right to life movement. So the next frightening question posed by GOP candidates is this: in a no-Roe, DIY abortion world, will doctors who dispense EC face the same criminal penalties as those providing abortions? The more we learn of the GOP's no-Roe plan, the more surreal it becomes. After all, to them it's not just unclear what's a crime, it's also unclear what's abortion.

]]> Over Her Dead Body http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/11/19/over-her-dead-body 2007-11-19T12:29:54-05:00 2007-11-19T12:29:54-05:00 Cristina Page In the 1960s, Mitt Romney lost a "dear" and "close" relative to an illegal abortion. These days, he's promising to overturn Roe v Wade. Indeed, he seems eager to reinstate those laws that drove his close relative to fatally take matters into her own hands.

]]> Mitt Romney's "very close" relative died of an illegal abortion (which is why he used to say he wouldn't force his pro-life beliefs on you).

In the 1960s, Mitt Romney lost a "dear" and "close" relative to an illegal abortion. She was the sister of his brother-in-law, Loren "Larry" Keenan, husband to Mitt's sister, Lynn. By all accounts, her death "deeply impacted members of the family." Romney's sister, Jane, explained, "'She was a beautiful, talented young gal we all loved. And [her death] pretty much ruined the parents -- their only daughter. You would do anything not to repeat that." She, apparently "was very close" to Mitt personally and he, too, appeared moved by the loss explaining, it "obviously makes one see that regardless of one's beliefs about choice, that you would hope it would be safe and legal." During a debate with Senator Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney pledged, "It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

She seems to have disappeared from his memory (as has his promise to not waiver.) There's no more Weekend at Bernie's political strategy; he no longer exhumes her body to serve as proof of his pro-choice credentials as he did routinely when running for governor of Massachusetts. These days, he's promising to overturn Roe v Wade. Indeed, he seems eager to reinstate those laws that drove his close relative to fatally take matters into her own hands.

Some imply that his pro-choice pledge may have always been a ruse. Ann Coulter explained, "He tricked liberals into voting for him. I like a guy who hoodwinks liberals so easily." Is it possible for a politician to stoop that low -- using the tragic death of someone so close for political expediency? (And is it possible that, as Coulter would have it, we (not Romney) are the assholes for expecting more of him?)

But here's worst part: the average American isn't paying any attention to what politicians like Romney say about reversing Roe. So here's the key political question: Is it a lie if no one hears it? The majority of the American public wants Roe v Wade to remain the law of the land (54 percent approve of Roe, while only 32 percent approve of the president). Most Americans also persistently believe Roe v Wade will never be overturned. What Romney and the rest of the GOP contenders say is white noise to most people. Throughout the bunker bombing, Roe has withstood in the last few years, most Americans have been in a political stupor. They've missed the red flags, unaware of how close by a Roe reversal really is. They're the neighbors who, once the serial killer living next door is discovered, report that he seemed like a really nice guy, despite all that middle of the night digging in the backyard. The reason Roe won't be overturned, most Americans figure, is because it can't happen, not in this day and age.

Recent national polls amplify this phenomenon. Lake Research Associates found that in states that have just passed bans on abortion (timed to go into effect the moment Roe is overturned), most residents think that the right to abortion in their state is safe. The majority of voters nationwide favor making changes in the law to increase protections for a woman's right to abortion. Meanwhile, over the last three years, 14 states have moved to immediately ban abortion and spark a direct Supreme Court challenge of Roe. The Center for Reproductive Rights' recently released an update of its "What if Roe Falls?" report. The Center found that since Justice O'Connor stepped down in 2005, there's been a 3.5 fold increase in the number of state legislative actions to immediately ban abortion. By the Center's estimate, 28 states are at risk of completely outlawing abortion if Roe is gone (19 of these states are at high risk). For some context, 400,000 women, mostly mothers, in these states had an abortion last year.

According to GOP plans, they're the future dead close relatives of presidential candidates.

The 2008 elections will decide if Roe falls, whether we believe it or not. We're now one Supreme Court justice away from an anti-Roe majority on the Court. Our strongest pro-choice justice, John Paul Stevens, is a vibrant 87. The next president will likely appoint two justices just as Bush did. Roe is in the crosshairs. For the one in three women who will seek an abortion in her lifetime, and everyone who loves her, it's time to start noticing, and mentioning, what the GOP is digging in their backyard.

This article was first published at The Huffington Post.

]]> The Defeaning Silence http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/10/10/the-defeaning-silence 2007-10-19T08:00:32-04:00 2007-10-19T09:46:29-04:00 Cristina Page The "anti-abortion" movement has been silent about the newly revealed "pro-abortion" effects of their efforts.

]]> It's been a week since The Lancet published the comprehensive Guttmacher Institute study which found that bans on abortion fail to reduce abortion rates. The researchers of the study also discovered that countries where abortion is legal (and the emphasis is on prevention rather than prosecution) experience the most dramatic declines in abortion.

Such news should undoubtedly give pro-lifers reason for pause. What with the endless railing about the immorality of abortion, and now it turns out their way of thinking does nothing to actually reduce abortions. It's only fair to give them a minute to collect themselves. Perhaps some careful (re)consideration is in order.

But there has been nothing but silence from the "anti-abortion" movement. There have been no press releases admitting the (now scientifically proven) error of their ways. Nor have we heard that anti-abortion groups are excited to discover that at least there is an approach that succeeds in reducing the need for abortion. (Doesn't that deserve a 'hallelujah' from the religious right?) Instead, the "anti-abortion" movement is silent about the newly revealed "pro-abortion" effects of their efforts.

I came across a blog about the Guttmacher study on a site called Mirror of Justice (it's "dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory"). It was posted the day the report was released and was written by Professor Eduardo Penalver of Cornell University. He wrote,

Here's my question. If this study were true, and if it were the case that making abortion illegal would most likely only drive it underground, without having much effect on its actual incidence but making it far more dangerous for women to have an abortion, would that be a reason to rethink the Church's teachings, not on the morality of abortion, but on the tight connection between abortion's (im)morality and its legality? I've tried to get this conversation off the ground a few times at MOJ, but I feel like we often get side-tracked onto the question of abortion's morality or into the empirical question whether studies like this one are actually correct.

Pro-lifers clearly delight in discussing the morality abortion - all merrily participating in the forced march to the same answer - but when the discussion turns to prevention they're flat out of ideas. Those who can't do, preach. I wrote to Professor Penalver this morning inquiring about the responses he's so far received on this anti-abortion friendly site. He emailed back promptly to report his "disappointment" over "the general lack of a response." And so the silence increases in volume.

Now, to be fair, some spokespeople have spun. These few brave enough to go public with a reaction to this devastating study are engaged in this strategy: kill the messenger.

Randall O'Bannon, saddled with the oxymoronic title "director of education and research" at National Right to Life, said, "These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data." No doubt Mr. O'Bannon understands how Lancet editors let the researchers' agenda trump their science. After O'Bannon is done questioning the validity of studies published by one of the world's renowned scientific journals he can explain why 5 of 15 "fact sheets" on his organization's website offer no citations and 6 of the remaining 10 use the Guttmacher Institute, the very organization he claims has an "agenda," as a source. (Apparently a source can be both trustworthy and untrustworthy depending on the reader's agenda!)

You'd think genuine pro-lifers would be interested in knowing what results in low abortion rates. The fact that the only reaction that has come from the pro-life establishment is one of disbelief, cynicism and silence indicates that's not the case. Indeed, as we've known for a while, this whole ugly conflict isn't really even about abortion. For the anti-abortionists, the goal is to re-introduce the preventable consequences to sex as a way to scare people into abstinence. If that isn't the point, then why aren't National Right to Life staffers on a plane right now heading to the Netherlands to learn how that country managed to achieve the lowest abortion rates on earth? (Because it's free birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and a universal acceptance of sex for pleasure that did it. All solutions they appear to oppose more than abortion.)

It's worth offering up a comparison. What if a whole movement devoted to curing cancer insisted on only supporting techniques shown time and again to fail? What if they supported the ones that result in the highest cancer rates? Would it even be considered an anti-cancer movement? It's time to clean up the semantics: Is it possible that the "anti-abortion" movement is really a pro-abortion movement in disguise?

]]>