Science still under attack

I just visited Tennessee Guerilla Women, and had to link to this amazing post on Glamour's story about inaccurate health information coming from the government. I highly recommend reading the Glamour article in full, as it succinctly examines the many ways in which the Christian right is manipulating health information through the gov. in ways which put women at risk. Here are some highlights with commentary:

Dr. Shaber tries hard to separate fact from fiction because, she says, "rumor and hearsay can start to seem real." In the past, she'd sometimes refer patients to government websites and printed fact sheets, or rely on those outlets to help create her own materials. Not anymore. "As a physician, I can no longer trust government sources," says Dr. Shaber. She is not a political activist or a conspiracy theorist; in addition to her own practice, she's Kaiser Permanente's director of women's health services for northern California and head of the HMO's Women's Health Research Institute. Yet this decidedly mainstream doctor and administrator says, "I no longer trust FDA decisions or materials generated [by the government]. Ten years ago, I would not have had to scrutinize government information. Now I don't feel comfortable giving it to my patients."

This should alert us to a problem: doctors don't feel comfortable using government produced health information.

How did it happen? Many prominent figures in science and public health think they know the answer. "People believe that religiously based social conservatives have direct lines to the powers that be within the U.S. government, the administration, Congress, and are influencing public-health policy, practice and research in ways that are unprecedented and very dangerous," says Judith Auerbach, Ph.D., a former NIH official who is now a vice president at the nonprofit American Foundation for AIDS Research. In fact, Glamour, has found that on issues ranging from STDs to birth control, some radical conservative activists have used fudged and sometimes flatly false data to persuade the government to promote their agenda of abstinence until marriage. The fallout: Young women now read false data on government websites, learn bogus information in federally funded sex-education programs and struggle to get safe, legal contraceptives—all of which, critics argue, may put them at greater risk for unplanned pregnancies and STDs.

For anyone who follows the news, this shouldn't come as a surprise. My own gynecologist back home has been outraged about the Plan B over-the-counter debate for the past couple of years. A year ago she was warning me that the block against selling Plan B OTC was entirely driven by rightwing ideology. Turns out she was right (read on)

If it had been left up to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, American women would be able to walk into any drugstore and buy the emergency contraceptive Plan B over the counter (OTC). When the committee was convened in 2003 to review Plan B, a "morning-after" method of birth control that can reduce the odds of pregnancy by 95 percent if taken within 24 hours of unprotected sex, all 28 members agreed that the drug was safe and effective. The vast majority of them also voted to make it available OTC at any pharmacy. Susan F. Wood, Ph.D., then the head of the FDA's Office of Women's Health, heartily supported that decision.

Because of her focus on women's health, Wood examined the research and closely watched the review process for Plan B, a drug that has been available by prescription since 1999. Among the facts: Several studies showed that it works with few side effects and that making it more accessible does not lead to an increase in unsafe sex or promiscuity. In 2000 alone, the drug prevented approximately 51,000 abortions, according to a Guttmacher Institute estimate. But women who need Plan B often have difficulty obtaining a prescription and getting it filled—hence the need to approve it for sale OTC.

"One member of the panel told me, 'I wish we had data this good on everything that comes before this committee,'" Wood recalls. Fast approval should have been a mere formality.

Great: so we have a drug that prevents thousands of abortions, and somehow the right wing is against it? So this isn't really about preventing unplanned pregnancies, but about making sure that women are forced to carry pregnancies that they do not want. How is this pro-life? Unless by pro-life you mean, pro-unborn life, and against women's lives. Every other objection to Plan B (that it might cause promiscuity, that teens might not follow directions correctly) has been proven wrong and/or shown to be unevenly applied to this particular product.

So we have the FDA board and medical professionals lauding this product, wishing that they always had such "good" data to back up drug decisions... And what happens? Wait for it, wait for it...

But Christian fundamentalist groups like the Southern Baptist Convention and powerful religious conservative organizations like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America campaigned hard against OTC status by lobbying members of Congress, testifying before the FDA panels and bombarding the agency with letters. They argued that the drug was dangerous, would lead to unsafe sex and would corrupt children. Pia de Solenni, director of Life and Women's Issues at the Family Research Council (a pro-life group that also believes there are "long-lasting negative consequences of premarital sex," including "emotional problems" and "future marital breakup"), also argued inaccurately in a press release that Plan B "will most certainly make [women] ill from an overdose of hormones and potentially cause further complications."

What? WHAT? These accusations fly in the face of the medical studies actually done by professionals without an ideological ax to grind. And they're telling me I'll get "ill" from an overdose of hormones? Excuse me, but wouldn't carrying a pregnancy make me feel pretty ill?? Have these people heard of morning sickness, complications, labor? Plan B is just a higher dose of the same hormones that women take every day (quite safely) in the birth control pill -- somehow I'm not convinced that the possible complications of Plan B are somehow more dire than those of an abortion or pregnancy (Plan B would prevent both).

Did science listen to science? Of course not!

The campaign worked. Rather than rely on the recommendations of its medical advisory board, the FDA delayed ruling on Plan B for nearly two years. Why? Insiders speculated that the delay was, in part, the handiwork of conservative activist and ob-gyn W. David Hager, M.D., an active member of Christian right political groups and the author of As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now. Appointed by the Bush administration to the FDA panel that reviewed Plan B, Dr. Hager first voted with the committee that Plan B is safe and effective, but then went on to write what he termed a "minority opinion," laying out a case against OTC status. Contrary to numerous studies and the review panel's findings, he argued that the drug might not be safe for teens and that they might not understand package instructions. Shortly thereafter, Steven Galson, M.D., a high-ranking FDA official, cited similar concerns in a letter to Plan B's manufacturer—denying the drug approval at that time. Some women's health advocates had hoped that the logjam would break when Lester Crawford, DVM, Ph.D. was confirmed as FDA commissioner in 2005. But last August, Crawford put off a decision indefinitely.

So why, you ask?

Why did Plan B get deep-sixed? According to FDA officials interviewed by the Government Accountability Office, the decision to deny approval for Plan B had been made by top political appointees at the FDA months before staff even completed reviewing the application; many others suggested that pressure from the religious right played a key role.

FDA spokespeople have denied those accusations, but religious-activist organizations crowed about swaying the FDA, and Dr. Hager claimed the decision was God's work. "I was asked to write a minority opinion that was sent to the commissioner of the FDA," he told an assembly at the Christian Asbury College in Wilmore, Kentucky. "God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision."

If God's work includes meddling in women's lives by pretending to know better than the majority of scientists, then sure, you're doing God's work, Dr. Hager. Were you also doing God's work when you abused your wife? (If you missed it, Dr. Hager's ex-wife, who seems like an incredibly trustworthy woman, has accused him of raping and sodomizing her repeatedly during their marriage. Somehow, I'm more inclined to believe the victim in this case.)

Mainstream medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Medical Association, agree that emergency rooms should offer victims EC after a sexual assault. Doing so could prevent the estimated 32,000 pregnancies—and, subsequently, many abortions—that occur as a result of rape. "What person who has been raped would really welcome a pregnancy from that?" says James Trussell, Ph.D., director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University in New Jersey. "Even if you oppose abortion, what could be better than preventing the pregnancy in the first place?"

So when the DOJ was developing its first-ever guidelines for the treatment of rape victims, an early draft included EC. Yet strangely, in September 2004, when the guidelines were issued, any mention of EC had been deleted.

Yes, what could be better than preventing the pregnancy before it happens? Especially as two recent, impartial studies have confirmed that there is basically no chance of Plan B preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. But most organizations (the WHO included) define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, so this also should be a moot point.

Maya Jacobsen* was one such victim. In fall 2001, she was raped in her room on campus at the University of Denver. After her attacker escaped through a back door, she sat crying on a couch, frightened and stunned. Like many sexual-assault victims, she was too shaken at first to report the incident and waited until the next morning before she drove to the closest hospital, Porter Adventist. She says she spent hours undergoing a sexual-assault exam, but nobody brought up the issue of how she might prevent pregnancy—until she asked.

"I said, 'What are my options here if I become pregnant?' The nurse said I would have to wait to take a pregnancy test, and if I was pregnant, there was always adoption. I said, 'That's it? What about the morning-after pill?' And she said, 'You would need to do that on your own.'" Fortunately, Jacobsen was able to get the drug from a nearby Planned Parenthood clinic later that day.

WHAT? Are we trying to punish women for being the victims of rape?

And here's my favorite section, on the new war on condoms:

It seems that conservative activists saw an opportunity with HPV. Here was a disease connected to cancer against which condoms weren't yet proven effective. The perfect argument against premarital sex, and condoms, was born. "Condoms, whether used correctly and consistently or not, do not prevent the spread of HPV," the Family Research Council warns on its website, going on to note that "HPV has been linked to over 90 percent of all invasive cervical cancers and is the number-two cause of cancer deaths among women." In truth, cervical cancer is only the thirteenth-highest cancer killer of women in the U.S., behind bladder and kidney cancer. In the majority of cases, the immune system fights off HPV before people know they have it. Even when precancerous cells develop, they can be detected early by a Pap smear.

Nevertheless, the HPV fear campaign continued to escalate. Through lobbying and testimony before Congress, the religious right attacked government sex-education programs that included information on condom use. The Family Research Council argued that such programs expose "our youth to incurable disease on a daily basis. Most notable among these diseases is human papilloma virus, HPV." The government appeared to be listening. Until then, the CDC had accurately encouraged condom use as smart safe-sex behavior—but in 2002, around the time of the HPV flap, it backed off. The agency suddenly removed from its website a fact sheet on condoms that stated "laboratory studies show that intact latex condoms are highly effective barriers to…HIV and other STDs" and that told readers how to use them. Later that year, the fact sheet was replaced with one stressing sexual abstinence.

Greeeeaaat. Because we all know how well abstinence works as a permanent way to prevent STDs. Um, what about when people get married and have sex? With the divorce rate, the fantasy that you'll have sex with only one person in your life time is naive at best.

At what point did these people actually get stupid enough to believe that it's better to tell teens not to ever have sex -- knowing full well that they still will -- than to equip them with the information they need to keep them safe?

Glamour has also discovered that blatantly false anticondom information has been incorporated into several federal and state health websites. One, an official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) site designed for families seeking health information for teens, 4parents.gov, suggests that there is no evidence that condom use reduces the risk of HPV infection and downplays its effectiveness against chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. Similarly, several states, including Louisiana, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina, have online abstinence programs that link to a site called abstinencedu.com, which warns that HIV might be able to penetrate a latex condom (patently false), that "condoms offer no protection against HPV infection" (not true) and that "there is no scientific evidence that condoms reduce the risk of becoming infected with the other 23 major STDs" (also false). It even claims that "the Federal Drug Administration [sic] allows up to 4 percent of a batch of condoms to be defective before the batch is rejected!" (Actually, the FDA rejects a batch of condoms if even one-tenth that number are defective.)

How do lies like these become official government health information? Both abstinencedu.com and 4parents.gov get some of their information from yet another outfit, called the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), which opposes premarital sex and has become a leading provider of the kind of "scientific" data now appearing on government sites.

Lies I tell ya, lies!

For more than a decade, public-health doctors and scientists have charged that MISH generates dubious and sometimes outrageously false data. One example: A 1995 letter from David R. Smith, M.D., then the Texas Commissioner of Health, rebuked MISH for a slide presentation given by founder Joe S. McIlhaney, M.D., to a panel of experts about a proposed sex-education program. Dr. Smith called the show "misleading," "false," "inaccurate" and even "ridiculous." Yet MISH continued to present the same data for years, and in the last two years, the federal government gave the group at least $600,000.

Lies that our tax dollars are working to perpetuate...

Dr. McIlhaney told Glamour that in the early days of MISH, he was still working as a physician, not an academic, and did not have the same access to resources as the now-larger organization does today. Nevertheless, he continues to stress condom ineffectiveness against HPV. "I think our conclusions were right," he says. "I was right on almost all of it, and they were wrong." Yet science does not back him up: Last November the FDA reaffirmed that condoms reduce the risk of every major STD including HPV.

How about preventing HPV even more effectively, then?

Soon, there will be another weapon even more effective against HPV than condoms. The drug company Merck has found that its new vaccine Gardasil is nearly 100 percent effective against the HPV strains that most often cause cervical cancer. Another vaccine, Cervarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline, appears to be just as effective.

The world's first anticancer vaccine would represent an incredible scientific breakthrough. But conservative groups began voicing objections as soon as the drugs started making headlines. Sen. Coburn, for one, testified before the House of Representatives that "going after one or two types [of HPV] is halfway," a charge health experts find illogical since the HPV strains prevented by the vaccine account for most cases of cervical cancer.

"The public should be outraged at this misrepresentation of facts for political reasons," says Dr. Holmes. "This really reveals the true agenda for those who have argued that the reason for not promoting condoms is to protect girls against HPV." If you truly cared about HPV prevention, his reasoning goes, you'd be thrilled at the advent of a vaccine to save women's lives. "It really illustrates that the opposition to condoms has nothing to do with protecting women and girls," he says, "but everything to do with opposition to discussion of sexual health."

The movement against the vaccine—Merck's version of which could be approved by the end of the year—has left John Santelli, M.D., chairman of Columbia University's Department of Population and Family Health, mystified. "We have a vaccine that could prevent cancer," he says. "People should be lining up and saying this is a great medical achievement, and yet people are actually opposing it. That's nuts."

Yes, Dr. Santelli, it is nuts. But nutty is as nutty fundamentalists do.

Actually, THIS is my favorite part:

Teens are perhaps the people most in need of trustworthy sexual-health information. Ironically, they are also the most likely to absorb misinformation from organizations like MISH that provide pseudo-science not just to websites but to abstinence-only sex-ed classes in public schools. One reason why public-health researchers now take a dim view of such programs: They may mislead students. In a meta-analysis of abstinence programs published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Dr. Santelli found that such curricula "do not seem to be well designed and have incomplete information, misinformation and questionable information." And last year, the office of Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) examined the most popular federally funded abstinence-only sex-education programs and found that nearly 70 percent of them include "serious medical or scientific errors." Among the wholly inaccurate claims: that up to 10 percent of women become sterile after an abortion and that "premature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancy." Says Princeton's Trussell, "It's an outrage. This is clearly another ideological distortion of what the real evidence shows." Yet such erroneous facts continue to be taught in public school districts in Montana, California, Washington, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

I never thought this was a problem, until I heard intelligent, rational people actually worrying that abortion could cause breast cancer. Just another lie being used by extremists as a weapon in what looks increasingly like a war against women's choice.

As a result, many experts believe abstinence-only programs leave teens unprotected against pregnancy and STDs. "These young women and men who are taught that condoms have a high failure rate say, 'Well they do not work anyway, so why bother?'" observes Kellie Flood-Schaffer, M.D., an ob-gyn and associate professor at Texas Tech in Lubbock, where high-schoolers are taught a strict abstinence-only health curriculum. "I'm a Catholic. I believe in abstinence until marriage. But I'm also a realist. And condoms prevent a huge percentage of STDs and are 90 percent effective against pregnancy."

She has data to back up her strong feelings. Along with Samuel Prien, Ph.D., Dr. Flood-Schaffer conducted a lengthy study that found that among girls under 18, the Lubbock area has quadruple the average national rate of chlamydia—an STD that often goes undiagnosed and that can cause infertility. Why are the rates so high? "It's the education they are not getting," says Prien, who considers himself a conservative Christian. "At least in our area, abstinence-only is not working."

So the right wingers have pushed for this false information, and where does it get us? An increased public health problem, as more people get STDs. Great! Let's use our tax dollars in a way that causes more STD problems that the state then has to deal with, using yet more tax dollars! So much for fiscal conservatism!

More on that lie about an abortion-breast cancer link:

Radical pro-life groups partly base their charge of an abortion-cancer link on research by a biochemist named Joel Brind, Ph.D., but his work—subsidized in part by an antiabortion group called Americans United for Life—has been widely discredited. So scientists protested vigorously when the NCI placed the statement on its website, and the NCI convened a special panel to address the issue once and for all.

The group found no increased risk of breast cancer after abortion—and by spring 2003, the NCI had amended its website to reflect that. But serious damage had already been done. The abortion-breast cancer link had gained airtime: Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, cited Brind's research to suggest that "abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 30 percent." And some state governments went further, actually passing laws requiring doctors to tell patients seeking an abortion that the procedure could increase their risk of breast cancer.

"The government allowed people to believe—and encouraged people to believe—that abortions were a risk factor for breast cancer, even when the government knew that this research had been discredited and that better research showed no connection," says Marcia Angell, M.D., a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School in Boston and former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. She goes so far as to call the pressure from the religious right "a source of corruption."

To date, abortion-breast cancer laws, called "Women's Right to Know," have been passed in Texas, Kansas, Montana and Mississippi. Texas State Representative Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin) vociferously opposed such a law, pointing to the scientific evidence that abortion does not raise the risk of breast cancer. But, she says, legislators who "pushed this law, supported this law, were terrified by right-wing Christian organizations. Some of my colleagues said, in confidence, 'I agree with you, but we are told that if we vote with you on this, we are supporting abortion.' They knew this information was invalid. They were frightened. These folks are afraid of this Christian coalition." Why? She says legislators were worried that the groups would mobilize against them in upcoming primaries. Herb Brown, M.D., an ob-gyn and faculty member at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, says these laws "put doctors in a terrible position. You have to show a pamphlet produced by the state to the patient and explain that it is part of the regulation. The conversation I have is that, 'This is what is written in the pamphlet. I disagree with it ethically and scientifically, but this is what the legislation has forced upon me.' That's all I can say… If I want to be consistent with the law, I have to lie."

So... we're going to make doctors lie to patients so that they'll do what we want out of fear (have a forced pregnancy).

It's extremely rare for a scientific conference to turn into something more like a political rally. "Scientists do not normally engage in what is going on in Washington, D.C., or politics," says Wood. But at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last February, a special conference was added to the agenda to discuss how politics have invaded the realm of science.

It quickly became a standing-room-only event, and scientists applauded as speakers like Wood and Nobel winner David Baltimore, Ph.D., president of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, condemned the government's interference in research.

Thank God there are still intelligent people working against the attacks on science.

For a group of researchers, the rhetoric was fiery. Baltimore accused the Bush administration of suppressing science. And when Wood said that morale at the FDA had sunk to a new low because of overwhelming pressure from social conservatives, she got a standing ovation.

Yes!

Outside of the halls of science, who are the real victims of this political maneuvering? "The American public, particularly American women," says Trussell. "Who's hurt when you can't get EC over the counter? When there is a suggestion that abortion causes breast cancer—something that is entirely made up? When it's suggested that condoms are not effective against STDs, when in reality they are effective against HIV and even HPV? Women."

But many women can't imagine how these lies could possibly have an impact on them, Trussell says. "The first time one of them walks into a pharmacy and can't get her birth control pill prescription filled, that will have a wake-up effect. Most won't feel the effects until these rights are gone—they can't believe there would be a time when these things would be outlawed. I hope their belief is true, but I'm very worried."

Brian Alexander is a contributing editor to Glamour and the author of Rapture: How Biotech Became the New Religion.

I'm very worried, too, especially with reports of pharmacists refusing not only to fill Plan B prescriptions, but also other more common drugs:

Cedar River Clinics, a women's health and abortion provider with facilities in Renton, Tacoma, and Yakima, filed a complaint with the Washington State Department of Health this week alleging three instances where pharmacists raising moral objections refused to fill prescriptions for Cedar River clients. The complaint includes one incident at the Swedish Medical Center outpatient pharmacy in Seattle. According to the complaint, someone at the Swedish pharmacy said she was "morally unable" to fill a Cedar River patient's prescription for abortion-related antibiotics. Cedar River's complaint quotes its Renton clinic manager's May 17, 2005, e-mail account: "Today, one of our clients asked us to call in her prescription... to Swedish outpatient pharmacy. [We] called the prescription in... and spoke with an efficient staff person who took down the prescription. A few minutes later, this pharmacy person called us back and told us she had found out who we were and she morally was unable to fill the prescription." (Cedar River thinks their client eventually got her prescription filled.)

Because it's soooo pro-life and morally upstanding to deny a woman treatment for an infection. Better that the woman die, right? That's totally what Jesus would do. In fact, when people were stoning a prostitute, didn't he throw the last stone? Oh, wait...

Cedar River's complaint, dated April 10, summarizes: "In each of the situations, we believe the pharmacist displayed behavior that was biased, unprofessional, and unethical. We are concerned that this type of poor treatment may be becoming a trend."

Yeah... so if they aren't doing their job, how about firing them?

The complaint also includes an incident from November 2005 in Yakima, in which a pharmacist at a Safeway reportedly refused to fill a Cedar River patient's prescription for pregnancy-related vitamins. The pharmacist reportedly asked the customer why she had gone to Cedar River Clinics and then told the patient she "didn't need them if she wasn't pregnant."

Having been to Yakima, and frequented many a Safeway (maybe even this Safeway), I'm appalled. So, now pharmacists want to protect their consciences from helping a woman and her fetus have a health pregnancy? Because, clearly, this woman believed she'd go to hell if she actually gave the vitamins to this pregnant woman. And by the by, since when does a pharmacist get to look at me and decide whether or not I'm pregnant, despite a prescription? And why would anyone have a problem with giving a patient freaking vitamins??

If this is just the tip of the iceberg with what we'll see if pharmacists gain the right to refuse to do their jobs... then I think we should all be very, very worried.

And shouldn't we all be worried, when, as the Tennessee Guerilla Women point out, Glamour, not the government, is the source trying to get accurate health information to women?

Pres. Bush reveals (again) complete ignorance

A must see video of Pres. Bush playing what some call the "Good Ol' Boy" act ad nauseam.

The whole "I don't know" act is getting really tired. What I want to know is, why are Pres. Bush and the audience laughing at the fact that our president -- the man who led us into a war with Iraq -- can't answer straightforward questions about what laws the private military contractors are supposedly following in Iraq?

Via Shakespeare's Sister.

Commercials & Benzene in soda

Andrew, take note:

Benzene is a common industrial chemical that the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure can cause leukemia and other blood cancers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Benzene isn't an ingredient in soft drinks, but it can form when two commonly found ingredients react: ascorbic acid, otherwise known as vitamin C, and the preservatives sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. The reaction can happen when products are exposed to light or heat.

"Soft drinks that contain ascorbic acid and sodium or potassium benzoate include Diet Pepsi Wild Cherry, Fanta Orange, Hawaiian Punch, Mug Root Beer, Pepsi Vanilla, Sierra Mist, Sunkist and Tropicana Lemonade, among others," the letter said.

The signatories, who included experts in pediatrics and activists for student health, asked that state and local education officials halt the marketing and sales of certain soft drinks in schools "until you can look parents in the eye and assure them that their children will suffer no harm."

So soda not only causes problem for teeth & obesity, but also for cancer risks. Great! Only in sodas such as Pepsi & Coke can you find an alluring mix of nutrition-robbing corn syrup, fake coloring, fake flavoring, questionable fake sweeteners, and now, carcinogenic benzene! Yum!

And even more pressing still, why are kids being targeted & lured with soft drinks?

Interestingly, the NYT ran this article a few days ago:

A bipartisan group in Congress plans to introduce legislation today that would prohibit the sale in school not only of French fries but also of other fatty or sugary foods, including soft drinks.

Under the bill, an amendment to the National School Lunch Act, high nutritional standards would be required of all food sold on school premises. That means not just in cafeterias but in vending machines, school stores and snack bars as well, even at fund-raising events.

The measure, which has strong bipartisan support in both houses, would do on a national level what many school districts have been trying to do for years: require that the schools set an example by providing only healthful food and so perhaps reduce the incidence of childhood obesity.

And Thursday night, as I was watching the OC in my room (turns out I DO get Fox, but only if I move my TV to my kitchen floor), I was shocked to see a commercial actually advocating for children's health. You know something's wrong when that's a shock, right? So the commercial (as I remember it) shows a child at the table, and involves the decision of his parent as to whether or not to feed the child fatty cookies. And the voice over actually addresses the health risks of fatty, sugary foods being marketed and fed to children. I was relieved to hear this TV announcer voice of reason noting the fact that such bad eating habits can "take years off your child's life." I actually had to do a double-take: there was a commercial on a national channel warning AGAINST buying sugary snacks? Was I still in the U.S.?

I give a resounding YES! to this tactic. Finally. People clearly need this message. Tuesday night, as I was riding the bus back from Trader Joe's, I watched as a young couple FED THEIR BABY PEPSI. This child was maybe 18 months, definitely not even two years old yet. And they were tipping a bottle of soda into the child's mouth. What the f*#! is wrong with people and the advertising monster in this country?

Jack Hitt's Article

Jill at Feministe has done an amazing job of commenting on Jack Hitt's "Pro-Life Nation," which came out in today's NYT Magazine. It's a must read. Completely chilling, as I've commented on before, especially (for me) the complete criminalization of women for attempting to control their own bodies, and the elevation of the fetus's life over that of the woman (misogyny at its best, folks, when you'd rather wait till the ectopic fetus self-terminates and bursts a woman's fallopian tubes -- a medical emergency akin to a burst appendix -- than treat the woman as a being in defense against this doomed pregnancy and save her reproductive organs & body from such trauma). And lest you think the US would be any more enlightened in their policies that reveal hatred and indifference toward the lives of women, Jack Hitt includes this from Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer (head of Human Life International), who is on the record as saying that "El Salvador is an inspiration."

As you'll see in Jill's response, such government policies haven't stopped abortions:

But despite that illegality, abortion remains common throughout the continent. Brazil, for example, has a higher abortion rate than the United States. In some Latin American countries, one out of every three hospital beds is filled with a woman suffering from a botched illegal abortion.

Women’s empowerment and reproductive rights are deeply and inexoribly related. Anti-choice activists aren’t interested in “saving babies,” or they’d be pushing for wider contraception access and universal healthcare. Instead, they’re willing to say anything — and I mean anything, no matter how obviously dishonest — in order to keep women indentured as servants to their biology.

Quite the inspiration. Why do anti-choicers still vehemently believe that a draconian law will suddenly change the abortion rate? Most women aren't in favor of handing their uteruses over to the state and elevating a potential life above their own health, safety, and freedom. Apparently, even in countries where they're told everyday that their bodies don't really belong to them, women are still not obeying this law. Do we really want to follow El Salvador as the "inspiration"?

Abortions the righty politicians aren't interested in

Just ran across this story about prison-like working conditions endured by Asian guest workers in the Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands. Interestingly, there are accusations of forced abortions -- but of course we don't hear many politicians worrying about this, despite these charges coming under the US flag.

Via Bitch Ph.D.

El Salvador: The GOP model for US abortion policy?

This is all over the feminist blogosphere. Listen to Rachel Maddow's interview with Jack Hitt (who knew there exists a title "Vagina Forensic Specialist"?). No exceptions: life of the mother, rape, incest... Nothing. As explored in the interview, if a woman has an eptopic pregnancy (ie didn't implant in the uterus, no chance of the embryo developing and surviving), in El Salvador they have to wait until the fallopian tube actually bursts -- causing the need for a "very dangerous medical procedure" akin to waiting for an infected appendix to actually burst before operating, which would be RIDICULOUS -- before operating. So they know that the embryo will not develop and is a risk to the mother's health and life, but they don't operate, because that would terminate a supposed human. And apparently women aren't entitled to self defense if the "offender" is in her own body. Clever!

Best line: "The complete criminalization of abortion in South Dakota, I'm sorry, El Salvador!"

If the U.S. starts traveling this road, we'll soon see the possibility of "forensic vaginal searches" for every miscarriage, women criminalized with up to 30 years in prison for terminating pregnancies they can't financially support, and women being forced to put their own health and life at risk in favor of carrying often doomed pregnancies. One more reason why "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."

The longest time

I can't even cope with how long it's been since I last posted. BOO me.

Spring break was amazing. And since I left early for WI and then returned to campus approximately 9 hours before classes started, it seemed like it lasted forever.

If you're interested in the details...

Weds: Event of the day was a free ticket. I woke up at 6 am and got myself to the airport way early, and then opted to stay even longer in order to get a free ticket voucher. But I figured that, for all the times that I've sat at airports waiting during blizzards for de-icing sessions, or wondering why my flight is mysteriously 2 hours delayed, or circling in the air waiting for a runway, that I should really go for a free ticket when I've got the chance. So I hung out in the SF airport, and later in the Chicago airport, where I cleverly drank a huge cup of tea right before boarding. No huge problems, and I arrived in Madison, where Andrew was expecting me, and my luggage was right there waiting for me. Such fun. We went home, and I watched OC episodes that I'd missed during finals craziness while Andrew rolled tons of sushi.

Thursday: It freaking snowed. But: Andrew brought home bread, and we satisified my intense craving for grilled cheese, with some AMAZING Amy's organic tomato bisque on the side (I brought two cans home with me in my suitcase. It was that good). Then it was off to the airport (which is like, 15 minutes away from Andrew's apartment), and we flew to NY.

Friday: City day! Ate bagels in Hastings, caught the train to NYC, and wandered around in the village all day. I got a free pair of contacts since I'd forgotten mine in Madison, and we found this wonderful Thai place (Isle on Bleeker) where we caught the lunch special. Their sink was amazing -- a washstand and a shell to catch extra soap. Saw the dogs playing in the park... so cute. I searched in vain for shoes at a number of stores, but did manage to secure a pashmina for $5. We just caught the train back and had dinner with Andrew's father at his favorite restaurant. Later, Jon and Jen arrived, and we had to tear Andrew away from watching "Conviction."

Sat: The four of us (Jon, Jen, Andrew, me) went to Mount Parnesse for brunch. But wait, it's closed! Crisis. So we went to Mont Olympus, which was nearby, and even SHINIER. Mirrors EVERYWHERE. I'm told that this is a representative Greek diner. Everything sparkled. Mirrors in the entry way and on the ceiling, silver embelishments, liquor bottles, glass... overload. Good challah french toast w/ strawberries, though.

Later, we had Andrew's grandparents' 60th anniversary party at this nice Italian restaurant. We had an enlightening conversation with Andrew's Grandma Hilda, who had ordered shrimp in a garlic sauce and had leftovers to take home -- shrimp not being kosher -- but keeps a kosher kitchen:

Grandma Hilda: I'll eat it on paper plates (explains how she keeps disposable dishware for just such occasions).

Andrew's brother: So what's more important, that you eat kosher, or that your kitchen is kosher?

Grandma Hilda: The kitchen of course.

We had another argument over whether or not there was actually garlic in the garlic wine sauce, which was solved (despite Grandma Hilda's protestations that she couldn't taste the garlic) when Andrew AND his brother sampled it, and pointed out large chunks of straight garlic.

After dinner, we went to Ann's for a lovely reception with yummy cake. Speech times and conversation, all that jazz.

Back at the house, it was our quality time over Law & Order and Mythbusters

Sun: Back to Mont Olympus for brunch, and then Jon and Jen had to leave. Andrew & I got ready to go (ie Andrew did tax and computer stuff with his Dad, while I packed our stuff), and then it was back to the airport. Had an awesome scrabble game (Andrew would have won if I didn't make him put a word somewhere else, but as it played I won by the swing tiles he had leftover at the end), and I wrote thank you letters. Had a quick stop, where we ate Subway for dinner (yum veggie delite), and then boarded a plane with a horribly annoying sports team that included a couple of girls who couldn't stop coughing. Normally this wouldn't be so bad, but during my finals induced madness, I actually watched the beginning of a HORRID 90's movie called Killing Moon. The premise is pretty straightforward: an engineered killer virus is loose on a plane, and it's wiping everyone out. The main symptom? COUGHING. And then blood spurts out of your eyes and/or mouth and nose and you're dead. So coughing on the plane not so cool.

Back in Madison, we had a hell of a time finding Andrew's car. Not that there were so many places to check in the little airport. I suddenly realized how cold it was... even compared to NY.

Mon: Shopping day! Hit State St., the mall, grocery store. Caught up on tv shows over mango curry.

Tues: I slept in while Andrew went to class. Worried about taxes. Andrew got back and tried to calm me down. Then we had a nice walk down to the lake, and spotted a muskrat swimming along the shore. We tried to follow him, but he ended up going beyond the dock without landing on the shore. Maybe the model battleship someone was playing with (remote control) scared him off. More shopping, & pesto for dinner.

Weds: Headed to New Glarus to see where they make the amazing Spotted Cow beer. Cool brewery. The Swiss town was closed, unfortunately, although we did get to sample a fairly good brownie at the bakery. Andrew drove us in the opposite direction with his amazing inner compass, so we actually saw the woods where we're going hiking this summer (and beyond). For dinner I orchestrated an enchilada making session -- yum! For dessert: Cold Stone, where I got my usual cake batter w/ yellow cake smooshed in & whipped cream. YUM.

Thurs: Slept in, and then when Andrew got back from class, we were off. Did some thrift storing... I found an Ann Taylor sweater (in petite small, no less!) for $2. Splurged (ie spent about $23) on a vintage looking top (ironic, right? bought that new, and the sweater vintage) & on-sale heels. Also: JEANS THAT FIT AT GAP. Which means that they were not on sale, because they always are out of my size in ankle by the time things go on sale. To reward Andrew for his amazing patience and assistance, I then got us Starbucks.

Fri: As the brunch place was already done serving breakfast at 11:30, Andrew and I did our own. Yummy cinnamon swirl french toast w/ fried apple. Then, believe it or not, I got my hair cut!!! Went to the trendy place Cha Cha where Andrew got his emo shag trimmed. The stylist was not happy with me: first for not having a hair style despite having stylish shoes & jeans (both of which he commented upon), and then for using sun-in. But I'd rather use sun-in than expose myself to carcinogenic coal tar (found in most hair dyes). Rather funny: he was having trouble combing through the ends, so we decided to just chop them off instead. He said he had a feeling it was going to be a really good haircut, and I was delighted. Shorter, and layers, and side bangs... and it's sooo easy to take care of. And my hair actually moves and seems happy and I can run my fingers through it again without getting caught in snags. And under $50 even with tip: not bad since I haven't had a professional cut in 3-4 years!

Later, I got to go out in public to test drive the look... Andrew's dept was doing its own admit week, so we went to the party. Very cool, re-met people, met others, and, most importantly, got to see Annie from MHC!!! We didn't stay too late, as we made brunch plans for the next morning.

Sat: Brunch with Annie at Lazy Jane's, which was awesome. And then some more thrift storing. Later, we watched Walk the Line (incredible, now am listening to Johnny Cash) and Andrew made more sushi. I'm having difficulties with meats, and didn't have an appetite for the smoked salmon, which I partly picked out. We did get some work done, and also had time to meet up with Andrew's friend John for cheesecake and coffee (or in my case, herbal tea at that hour). Back home, Andrew beat me at Trivial Pursuit, but I didn't care because I was having the best dark beer from New Glarus -- Bock.

Sun: Went to the Indian buffet for brunch (yummy, next time will go later in the day and eat more), and then watched Matchpoint at the AWESOME second run movie theater (2.75$ a movie -- we're going to be there all the time this summer). Matchpoint was amazing, greatly enjoyed it.

Later, watched tons of good tv, ate pasta, and cuddled. Very sad!

Mon: Breakfasting & walking by the lake despite the wind (people were actually windsurfing on the freaking lake, it was so windy) and lunching and a trip to Target to make sure Andrew had everything he needed and then to the airport. Ahh! I hate leaving. And of course somehow the airlines had managed to completely f&#! up their schedules, so flights were canceled (including the one I was supposed to be on, a fact which student universe cleverly didn't alert me to) and ridiculously delayed. I was on a flight that left around 7:30 pm, and was supposed to have left before 4 pm. Crazy. And there were NINE OF US. Nine! Plenty of space, which was nice.

In Chicago, I basically retraced my steps from F to C, passing by like 5 Starbucks in the process. The next flight was likewise empty, we nearly all had 3 seats to ourselves. So I stretched out, and was quite comfy, but couldn't fall asleep. Nerves? Being in a plane? The green tea I'd had earlier? The awesome music on my iPod that I couldn't possibly miss by falling asleep? Hard to say, but I didn't drift too far into sleep.

Got into SF late, and took the first van that was available... a bit pricey, but it's hard to be picky when it's 1 am and you've got class in 10 hours.

Anyway, classes have been going well -- it's crazy as usual figuring out what to take... Methods and Materials, Enigma of Victorianism ad hoc, Sublime and the Ugly, Postmodern Fiction, Medieval Survey, Explanation/ Interpretation... Think I'm going with Victorianism & Sublime, and hoping to TA for Masterpieces. Tuesday was busy -- after class I had to go grocery shopping, make dinner (pesto, yum), unpack, mop the floors, dust... Then it felt more like home again.

Weds, also crazy. Class at 10 am, then a nap at home & lunch, then back to campus till 5 pm, then taking the last admit to James's, Chinese food & party, then socializing with Sarah & co. till the wee hours. So fun! Met physicists, and a poli sci fifth year (awesome woman), and a fellow seven sister w/ a sister at MHC. Today was amazing. Moretti's lecture was perfect -- I loved actually learning rather than just having a round table discussion. MHC was all about discussion, and I'm realizing the benefits of playing the sponge. Then lunch, and it was time for Postmodernism -- another lecture, and they're reading V. I'd love to re-read it, but I'm thinking if anything I'll just audit the first couple of weeks. I know it's not going to be my subject area, but I do love Pynchon and DeLillo and I realized they're reading Canclini, theory which I worked with back in the day at MHC when I was writing on Castillo's So Far From God (amazing novel). But... everything else will be way helpful for me figuring out if I'm in the 19th century, and getting a handle on it.

After, I hung out with Jill & did the reading for our 19th century reading group. It was AMAZING. I had no idea how cool a reading group really could be. We had Indian take out, concocted a schedule (I get to investigate Goth/horror & Bram Stoker & help with Housman & the Invention of Love play & its references to Jerome K. Jerome (which I seem to forget how to pronounce!)) Can't wait!! I so so miss Stoppard. And I am so excited about really feeling like I have a better background in Victorianism. And what could be more awesome than hanging out with everything over dinner & discussing?

This was our "dessert": The BBC cartoon of Charles Dickens.

I'm almost out of here!!

It's time for... spring break!

Today I edited papers, handed them in, and then went out for a celebratory dinner at Three Seasons w/ Brianne & a very cool admit. Then I came home, and the packing frenzy began. Hours later, I'm tired and heading to bed... Looks like I'll be sleeping on the plane!!

Wisconsin, here I come!

New Favorite Blog

I just found my new favorite blog (and yes I should be outlining my Shakespeare paper. But after coming up with a semi-viable thesis paragraph, I was done). So here's one of my favorite bits on the ridiculousness of pharmacists "opting out" of dispensing Plan B (by the by, didn't anyone get the memo about those two studies I mentioned in a previous post, that concluded Plan B doesn't even interfere with implantation? So what the f*#$ is the excuse now??) from Radical Russ:

Why does your religion give you any special exemptions from doing your job? Muslims don't get to be bartenders who don't serve alcohol. Quakers don't get to be cops who don't shoot people. Vegans don't get to be waitresses at Hooters who won't serve chicken wings. Jews don't get to be waiters at the rib shack who won't serve pork. Mormons don't get to be baristas at Starbucks who won't serve caffeinated coffee.

...

I'm getting mighty sick and tired of "it's my religion" being the trump card against common sense and civil rights. If you think Plan B pills are immoral, then by all means, don't use them. If you think dispensing Plan B pills is immoral, then by all means, don't become a pharmacist.

Seriously, there is no end to how these "conscience clauses" could be interpreted. Could a pharmacist who finds homosexuality "an abomination" refuse to dispense anti-AIDS retrovirals? How about a Catholic pharmacist who refuses to fill any birth control prescription? Sheesh, why not just let the Christian Scientists be the pharmacists who refuse to fill ANY prescription?

This is nothing more than misogynistic anti-sex prudes masquerading as pious victims. They just won't be happy until everyone else feels as much guilt about sex as they do. They don't even care whether the woman seeking the prescription is a rape victim; as far as they're concerned she's as damnable as what they'd consider the libertine nymphomaniac slut (you know, women who enjoy sex without procreation) who slipped up with her birth control (and just wait; they're coming after that, too.) In their caveman minds, sex bad, babies good! Any woman who opens her legs must accept the consequences of government-enforced procreation, nevermind the advances in science and chemistry that make that ancient history.

Ahh. I love it. Russ is my new hero.

If this ridiculousness is implemented in WA, I think I'll move to Seattle and become a butcher -- that is, a butcher that doesn't sell meat on moral grounds.

Quotes of the Day, and the 4th Amendment

From the NYT on the Senate approval of the budget:

The budget decision at the end of a marathon day of voting followed a separate 52-to-48 Senate vote to increase the federal debt limit by $781 billion, bringing the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion. The move left Democrats attacking President Bush and Congressional Republicans for piling up record debt in their years in power.

...

"It is very disturbing, and it gives me a whole lot of heartburn," said Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, who attributed the additional spending to political anxiety. "They want to go and say they are helping people, but we are not helping people when we are selling out their future."

In the House, lawmakers easily approved almost $92 billion in emergency spending, with about $68 billion going for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19 billion for hurricane recovery, slightly less than the White House sought.

The Senate budget bill would clear the way to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, but the outlook for that provision is uncertain given strong resistance by Republican moderates in the House and a long legislative route before final approval.

...

But Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the push for $7 billion in extra money for health and education programs, said those areas had been starved for money in recent years and could not afford to be overlooked again.

...

The increase in the debt limit brought the total increase during the Bush administration to $3 trillion. Democrats said the rising debt was the consequence of what they described as a reckless Republican fiscal policy centered on tax cuts for the affluent.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Thursday that given Mr. Bush's record, "I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had."

Great. 68 BILLION for the war, 19 billion for botched hurricane recovery efforts, and a measly 7 billion for education spending. Priorities?


And somebody please get Bush & Co. a copy of the Constitution:

White House lawyers argued for warrantless searches after 9/11

RAW STORY
Published: Friday March 17, 2006

According to a news magazine, White House lawyers argued for the right to conduct warrantless searches of terrorism suspects on U.S. soil after the 9/11 attacks based on the "same legal authority" as President Bush's controversial wiretapping program, RAW STORY has learned.

The U.S. News & World Report article reveals that FBI Director Robert Mueller bitterly opposed warrantless physical searches "not only because of the blowback issue but also because of the legal and constitutional questions raised."

Via Tennessee Guerilla Women.

Another Mad Cow

Another good reason to avoid eating beef, and in particular non-organic, non-grassfed cows. Eek. How the US has actually INCREASED beef consumption is beyond me. Bad for the environment, bad for human health. Do people want to be the test subjects for understanding how mad cow jumps species?

As a sidenote: Since drastically cutting back meat consumption in general, and only occasionally eating seafood, I have not had any health problems. No colds, no flu, no out of the ordinary stomach upsets. Knock on wood.

Last week when I overheard a conversation about a recipe involving pork, I lost my appetite.

Wakeful

It's 2 am and I'm still sooo awake. Not sure if it's the wakefulness that will lead me to work, though, as I think I'm heading down from the caffeine high. The espresso machine is awesome. I'm still learning to use it without like, spilling coffee water all over, but I did manage to make a mocha-like concoction that kept me working for about 2.5 hours. And I saved a bit to drink tomorrow morning so that I actually get my ass to work at a decent hour. Thanks, Mum! Perfect timing, too.

Now it's time for some Nighty Night tea.

The Logic Baffles Us

Via Feministe and NewDonkey, here's the quote, straight from AJC:

Labored logic

Democrats have been buzzing about comments made by state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville) at a recent eggs-and-issues breakfast in Hart County. We quote from the Hartwell Sun newspaper: "Commenting on illegal immigration, Schaefer said 50 million abortions have been performed in this country, causing a shortage of cheap American labor. 'We could have used those people,' she said."

I've long been convinced that it's not all about "the innocent unborn" for many (if not most) right-wingers. So yesterday's post exposes the belief that sex should always be for procreation, meaning that, in real-life policies, the government should have no interest in helping women prevent unplanned pregnancies (when the gov. is simultaneously providing other basic health care services). I'd call this stance: pregnancy is the punishment for having sex, and we think sex is bad, so we're not going to even try to prevent unwanted pregnancies (despite realizing that this means abortion rates will rise).

And now today, the logic is even more baffling. So, women should have unwanted pregnancies and give birth to unwanted children, so that they can supply the American workforce with cheap labor, meaning that the country can enact even strict immigration policies? Riiiiight. Somehow, I'm holding myself back from having 10 kids that will grow up to flip burgers and bag groceries, while the top 1% continues to build ridiculous fortunes. I'd call this stance: We're not interested in keeping women healthy and ensuring that every child is a planned child. No, we're hoping that the poor will continue to pump out cheap labor forces. (Wait, somehow, these two stances are beginning to seem related. MO is banning funding to help poor people access birth control at affordable prices... what do they think the result will be?... working class children that will provide cheap labor?)

Conclusion: I don't want people like this in charge of making decisions about what I choose to do with my body.

Finals & Birth Control News

I'm coming out of hiding -- but only for a few minutes! I'm about 4 pages into my first final paper, two more coming after this. Will have updates on progress. Must leave next Weds morning, which seems to approach much too quickly.

But I had to post this, from Shakespeare's Sister: Poor People Shouldn't Have Sex. Apparently, Missouri is all for unplanned pregnancies, which someone ought to tell them is only going to increase abortion rates:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.

Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.

But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.

...

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as "pro-life," said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.

"It's going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions," said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.

The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state's costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.

That's great. Contraception = promiscuity. And what's with the insertion of "single women"? As if there aren't any "single men" involved in needing contraception? And do these people realistically think that poor people will simply stop having sex (which despite much of the religious rights' efforts, is still a "natural" part of life, beneath all the culturally laden "sex is bad" baggage)? I can imagine it now: a woman goes to one of these clinics, is denied contraception that she can actually afford, and goes home to her partner. Are said partner and said woman going to simply sleep in separate beds for evermore? Is there some magic point at which the MO republican lawmakers will allow poor married people to have contraception, because it offends their sensibilities less? This bill pretty much sums up the endpoint for many Republican lawmakers: not just outlawing abortion, but turning the clock back to the days when women couldn't access simple birth control devices.

Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.

The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding.

"State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.

And does the MO Right to Life bother to consult scientific studies on the morning after pill? Because two independent studies just came out which again confirm that Plan B works much like normal birth control pills. When taken in these higher doses over such a short period of time, Plan B prevents ovulation, but does not have the effect of creating a "hostile uterus." So now, even those who believe that when sperm meets egg, a complete human is formed, must concede that Plan B is not an "abortion." In other words, that worry is completely unfounded.

I especially love that the Missouri Catholic Conference thinks they should be able to opt out of the state providing basic family planning services (we're talking condoms and birth control pills here, people). Last I checked, I can't opt out of paying taxes that support a war I'm morally and politically opposed to. So let's break this down. I can't decide I'm not paying taxes because I don't want to financially support taking real human lives. And if I even suggested opting out, lawmakers might refer me to the IRS, and accuse me of being "unpatriotic." But the Missouri Catholic Conference, it's totally acceptable and laudable for them to influence lawmakers into taking away basic medical services for the poor, suggesting that poor people should simply never have sex unless they want a pregnancy. It's completely ethical for them to lobby to basically cause many unplanned pregnancies, many of which will be aborted. Right, it makes perfect sense.

Summers Redux

So tonight I went to dinner with James, Jill, & Stephen (who's going to be attending next fall -- yes!). We had a great debate going over who else we think will be accepting Stanford's offer, and some running bets -- either way we're going out drinking. Awesome time, and I'm so excited for next year's cohort!!

At some point James's roommate Tom joined us. There was one moment that I had to blog about (hence the title). I can't remember word for word, but I'll try to recreate the conversation and its sense. So after the topic of Lawrence H. Summers came up:

Me: Yeah, he was trying to use the example of his daughter playing with dolls and his son playing with toy trucks to stand in for biological truths, as if the kids weren't raised in America, with the TV commercials and the culture. [If you look at the transcript, he finds it significant that his daughters called trucks "baby trucks," just because he hadn't given them dolls to play with, so clearly they had no socialization that could possibly have influenced them to treat toys like dolls. Right?]

T: I don't think that was what he was saying.

Me: Well to look around society and then ascribe it to biology... it's kind of tautological...

T: Did you read the article?

Me: Yes.

T: I just read it a week ago, and my professor was saying that most of America wouldn't even understand the math.

Gradual dropping of the subject, especially as I don't want to get into an argument right as we're sitting down to eat.

OK. So first of all, Summers was just plain wrong. I don't care what math he was using, he basically says that more women aren't in the sciences because:

1. They have children/ want to have children

2. They don't have the same "high end" "aptitude"

3. Discrimination

And in that order. Yes, so basically, the biological function of childbearing, and the biological determinism of having XX chromosomes means that women are less able to compete in the sciences. Discrimination is added as if it's only an afterthought, as if we aren't coming out of thousands of years of women being barred from becoming intellectuals, or just ignored or discredited. So why exactly does pregnancy mean that women can't have high powered jobs? Last I checked, most women work through most if not all of their pregnancies (and keep in mind all the women that do massive amounts of house work and physical labor throughout). And there's no reason why society can't structure jobs to allow more leeway for parents (of BOTH sexes) to take care of their children. Further, no one's found a "science gene" that's only found on the Y chromosome. For the second premise, Summers cites one study, and his own calculations on standard deviation (which he admits are flawed), to estimate that the ratio is 1:5 in favor of men doing "high end" work. He doesn't seem interested in thinking about why such studies might be flawed, or explaining what exact biological factor could possibly determine scientific/mathematical ability. No mention of these fields of math and science being developed largely in male traditions, or the possiblity of IQ tests being geared toward favoring men's abilities (abilities that are either culturally or as he suggests, biologically created). So whatever math you pull out of our culturally bound societies, how on earth is that going to justify the following comments:

"So I think in terms of positive understanding, the first very important reality is just what I would call the, who wants to do high-powered intense work?"

"So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."

You can read the whole thing here.

And here are some more enlightening and encouraging remarks from people who I think have done more thinking on the subject that Summers:

DAVID TARGAN: Well, I have a lot of thoughts. I know that in his apology, he, from what I gather, he said that we need to do more research on this, clearly. And the odd thing about it is that, if he had talked to members of his own faculty, if he had talked to people right next to him at M.I.T., there's so much research that has been done on – that can be acted upon right now on – if we need to do more research on gender differences, on – that's fine, but we know that so much of the variance in between – in terms of the difference between the numbers of men and women at the faculty levels can easily be accounted for by social factors, that – that he and other people have tended to minimize that if we just take some simple measures that are well-known and easy to do, relatively, we can make great strides. And the fact that he didn't seem to know this is rather striking.

AMY GOODMAN: This weekend it was – the whole controversy was discussion on the Sunday talk shows, and I was quite astounded to see "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," on ABC in discussion at the end of the conversation with George Will, Claire Shipman, others; and they were in agreement that this is about being p.c. on campus, that you’re not allowed to raise truths, basically, that we all know that there are differences between women and men. Professor Hopkins, your response?

NANCY HOPKINS: Yes, I think this is deeply concerning, and I hope we can correct this, because this is terribly important. This is not about academic freedom and this is not about political correctness at all. This is, as the dean just said, this is about flying in face of all the evidence (of which there’s massive evidence) and just giving your own personal opinion in spite of that evidence, when your opinion is actually very damaging, and you're a leader the education world. That's what this is about, and if Summers would release the tape of his talk, I think this could help a lot to make it clear that what he said was not appropriate.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what is the percentage of women at M.I.T., also professors of color at M.I.T.?

NANCY HOPKINS: Well, the percent of women faculty, you have to always look at particular fields, of course. So, you have to look at science versus engineering. You have – you know, and so forth. And these numbers vary a lot depending on the field you’re talking about. So, overall, at M.I.T. the percent of women on the science faculty, that's six departments of science, is about 14%, and the same percent in engineering.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you know the figures of professors of color in these fields?

NANCY HOPKINS: The percent of minority faculty is about 4%. So, it's very small. And what you see is, if you look the data, with women, you see that you train a lot of women and they gradually leak from the pipeline. With the minorities, you see that there's a drop after college, so that they’re not enough getting PhD’s.

Whoa, 23!

So I'm now 23 years old.

Last night, although it wasn't yet my birthday, I realized my age. Or more accurately, I realized the age I am no longer. I was waiting at the bus stop after taking a shopping trip before my admit arrives (it's admit weekend, and we've got 17 prospective students coming), watching down the road for the bus, trying to imagine when I was going to get all my work done. And then I started listening to the three Stanford undergrads sitting on the bench a few feet away. Their conversation went something like this, excerpted for interest:

"Oh my God I loooooove sushi! I even had sushi for lunch today, and I want more!"

"I loooove pink!"

"Oh my Gaaaaawwwdd I looooooove Harry Potter!!!"

"I know! We should go out this weekend for sushi, and then go to Coldstone!"

Brilliant young minds, right? And then it hit me, that I was no longer an undergrad, and that there were many aspects of that experience that I wouldn't want to go back to (namely: dorm food (EXCEPT for grilled salmon caesar salad at Prospect) and shared bathrooms).

Ahh I'm growing up!

More later, but thanks to Mum for the espresso machine!!

"It's been a long year, it's been a long day."

Belated http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifInternational Women's Day

So I missed International Women's Day & coinciding Blogging Against Sexism Day, so I've just got a couple of links to pass on. I missed yesterday because I was crazy busy with the kick off to our admit weekend (which is going tolerably well thus far).

Twisty's reporting on this story of a man who just won a court battle over whether or not his now infertile-due-to-cancer ex-partner can use their previously fertilized and frozen eggs in order to have a child. Man's decision: throw the embryos away. Court: Yes, Sir! Makes you wonder, as Twisy points out: what would anti-choicers say? (specifically those men in South Dakota who are ooh-ing and ahh-ing over how brutal a rape has to be in order for a woman to be allowed an abortion.) Because if those people sided with the man in this case, I think we can see the blatant sexism. Twisty pulls out this quote, remind us of anything?: “The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when and if I start a family.”

Personally, I think it's just cruel to take your ex-fiance to court and deny her the chance to have her child, just because you've changed your mind. I can sympathize with not wanting one's biological child running about, but this guy doesn't have to carry the embryo or go through labor, and his comment of "starting a family" completely misrepresented the situation. He's not being expected to start a family, or have any emotional ties to the resulting children. The word "family" implies a relationship much beyond and distinct from a biological relationship. It's interesting because he's using the pro-choice rhetoric of "deciding" when to start a family, and yet he doesn't have the same physical relationship to producing a child.

And also:

Pandagon has highlighted another story defending the D&X procedure that seems to have been termed "partial birth abortion" by anti-choicers... Eek:

Nothing more “pro-life” than making a woman walk around with a corpse banging around inside her body, apparently.

The Cervical Cancer Vaccine & Misogyny

I'm calling it what it is. Protesting a life-saving vaccine doesn't look very pro-life to me. Here's the quote, from Sojourners & via Preemtive Karma:

A little-known debate is smoldering at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that may burst soon into a major fire. Two pharmaceutical companies - Merck and GlaxoSmithKline - have designed a cervical cancer vaccine. In clinical trials the Merck drug, Gardasil, is proving to be up to 100% effective in fighting the dominant strain of the virus causing cervical cancer. The pharmaceutical companies and a growing movement of public health advocates want all girls to be inoculated with the vaccine as they presently are for other high-risk viruses.

The Family Research Council is leading a charge of Religious Right groups to halt any such national inoculation program. Their resistance is driven by fear more than common sense. The human papilloma virus (HPV) that generates cervical cancer is most typically passed along through genital contact with others. So as long as an individual does not engage in sexual intercourse, he or she should be shielded from the virus. The Religious Right bloc concludes that offering a vaccine for HPV would undercut their promotion of sexual abstinence for adolescents.

In that spirit, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fortune magazine that he would not allow his 13-year-old daughter to be inoculated. "It sends the wrong message," Perkins said. "Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence."

Globally, cervical cancer kills more than 270,000 women each year - roughly 80% of them in developing countries. The Centers for Disease Control reports that as many as 3,700 women in the U.S. died of cervical cancer last year, and tens of thousands more had their lives completely transformed by a radical treatment regimen for the disease. The majority of those women are African-American or Hispanic, and poor.

Last I checked, teens weren't abstaining from sex purely because they had the fear of God in them over HPV. Most teens probably don't even know what that stands for, or that it can lead to cervical cancer in women. Furthermore, as everyone has been saying from the get-go, you don't see people rolling around in rusty nails post-tetanus shots.

I've got to call Tony Perkins out on this: deciding that his daughter shouldn't have this vaccine is not only completely morally corrupt, but downright scary. What sort of a parent decides that he'd rather his daughter died of a preventable disease than have a vaccine? A vaccine, I might add, that in the future one needn't explain to a young child who is being routinely innoculated against all matter of diseases. Women don't get HPV because they are "bad people" -- and even if you DID want believe that women get HPV only because they've been "immoral," that is NO REASON to deny anyone healthcare. A woman could contract HPV from a partner (even the most trusted), a husband, an unfaithful husband, a rapist, etc. There is no reason on God's green earth to prevent the HPV vaccine from becoming a standard innoculation, especially as many of the sufferers of cervical cancer are women from minority groups or the working class, which could mean that they would have less access to this vaccine if it is not made routine.

Deciding that women should be punished with cancer and/or death because they had sex or were raped by someone carrying a disease is not only ass backwards, it's thinly veiled misogyny.

Keeping it Wild

Shakespeare's Sister reminded me that we need to voice our disapproval of a US Forest Service proposal to sell off $1 billion worth of public lands (including 85,000 acres from National Forest property, and 730 from the National Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area). We've got about a month to do it! Here's the contact information:

Email: SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us

Fax: (202) 205–1604

Snail mail: USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Mailstop 1124, Washington, DC 20250–0003

Here's my email:

Dear Sir or Madame,

I am writing in response to the recent proposal to sell off one billion dollars worth of public lands, including 85,000 from National Forest property. I am adamantly and passionately opposed to this proposition. Having grown up in Hood River County, Oregon, I have a very personal reason for desiring that these publicly owned lands remain so. Seven hundred and thirty acres of this supposedly "expendable" land would come from the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, a beloved area for those in my hometown, and for all of those who come to visit our area to ski on Mt. Hood, windsurf on the Columbia River, hike in the unspoiled wilderness, and generally enjoy the outdoors. I believe that preserving land for public use and environmental conservation is essential. Over the course of my life, growing up in the Hood River Valley, I've seen a tremendous amount of development. Land has been parceled off and divided, while more and more houses have cropped up across the previously unspoiled hills. As people move in, trees are chopped down and ecosystems are disturbed. My stepfather works in nuisance animal control, and my family has therefore seen many of the displaced animals that result from these moves toward developing the land. My parents remember how the valley used to be -- it's nearly unrecognizable to them today.

Clearly, not all development is detrimental to communities or even the environment. But as we make decisions about nationally and publicly owned lands, we are ethically bound to consider what the consequences will be in ten years, fifty years, a hundred years. Our country's land is increasingly urbanized, suburbanized, and privately owned. When I take walks along the irrigation canal behind my parents' home in Oregon, I see "No Trespassing" signs and fences. And yet people in this country deeply believe in publicly owned lands that our communities can both enjoy and preserve for future generations. Whether I'm hiking around Devil's Lake in Wisconsin, or reaching the summit of Mt. Holyoke in Massachusetts, or venturing with my mother along the same trails on Mt. Hood that she hiked as a young girl, I see other people enjoying these public resources, away from all the "No Trespassing" signs.

Selling public lands means that our wealthiest citizens will increasingly own the resources that our communities have a shared right to both protect and preserve. In fifty years, I hope that I can still recognize the Hood River Valley. I hope that we won't be living in a world where we can't see the forests for the "No Trespassing" signs.

I urge you to put a stop to this proposition.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Richardson

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

1. Outlawing abortion is not the way to go about preventing abortions.

&

2. This country is woefully lacking in reality-based sexual education and accessible birth control/ family planning resources.

This seems to have gotten increasingly worse under the Bush administration, which simultaneously claims to be "pro-life." Pro-life would involve ensuring that we do everything possible as a society to stop unwanted pregnancies before they start.


So how are we doing? Not so hot. With high school teenagers actually stepping up to the plate and demanding better sex ed, and women having trouble getting birth control pills even from f-ing Planned Parenthood (via Feministe), one wonders if the current administration is actually seeking to INCREASE the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Bush has been steadily funding abstinence-only sex ed programs, while turning a blind eye and underfunding organizations such as Planned Parenthood, which provides birth control at affordable rates. And as we all know, actual birth control is a whole helluva lot more effective than telling kids not to have sex. Louise Melling of the ACLU writes:

Yet when President Bush proposed a $39 million increase in federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education in his 2006 budget, he asked Congress to do just that. If the president gets what he asked for, the federal government will throw nearly $206 million in the next fiscal year into programs that a growing body of evidence shows are ineffective at best, and dangerous at worst.

So what's going wrong with abstinence-till-marriage programs? Oh yeah, right, most people aren't getting married at 18 anymore, and actually *gasp* have sex before the age of 30!

NPR reports only 7% of Americans don't believe sex ed should be taught in schools. So why are teachers trying to scare students by giving them blatant misinformation, of the abortion-causes-breast-cancer variety? Here's a prime example from the above article:

Alesha Jones, 18, of Waterloo said she caught a teacher in a falsehood about the facts of life.

The teacher told her class that 99 percent of all high school girls who have sex become pregnant, Jones said. "That's not true," she said. "(It) made me feel good to tell her the truth. I just said, 'I know for a fact that's not true.' "

Great, right? And here's the kicker: abstinence-till-marriage programs seem to delay sexual intercourse for 18 months, but in the meanwhile might just steer teens towards other (often even riskier) sexual acts:

These programs, it should be acknowledged, do lead teens to abstain from intercourse for, on average, 18 months longer than teens not in similar programs. And that's impressive. In the teen years, 18 months is a big chunk of time. Yet, it's worth noting, those 18 intercourse-free months are a special time and not exactly what the pro-life sponsors had in mind. A major study of some 2,500 "virgin pledgers" showed that the kids who pledge to abstain from having intercourse don't abstain from sex. They just have other kinds of sex. Virginity pledgers have porn-star sex (though porn stars appear more likely to use protection). These "virgins" are six times more likely to have oral sex than nonpledgers, and male "virgins" are four times more likely to have anal sex than those who do not take the pledge.

So... to cater to the minority of parents who would rather that their children be fed lies and half-truths, we're funding a program that doesn't work, while turning our backs on organizations that could actually hand out effective birth control to those women who seek it out (ie, Planned Parenthood). Great. I'd be all for funding programs that don't work, except for that little detail... oh yes. We have like, no money, as it's all being dumped into the disaster-that-is-the-war-in-Iraq.

Break into personal rant:

You know, that war that was going to be simple and short and effective... that war that was going to cost $1.7 billion? That war now costs $200 billion, with another $60 billion proposed. With that money, we could have made changes in the health care system, addressing the millions of adults and children with inadequate or nonexistent health care. We could have used it in our schools, and in catching Pell Grants up with inflation. Hell, we could have bought every Katrina victim a new f-ing house.

End rant.

Conclusions: Reality-based sex education & better funded contraceptive programs would do the most to prevent abortions. And we'd have the added bonus of actually taking women's rights to reproductive control seriously.

I now have yet another reason to suspect that the South Dakota bill banning all abortions is completely unethical. Jill of Feministe blogged about this article, which basically states that, since the legal costs of fighting this bill in court are likely to be around $1 million, the state government is now looking toward private funders. That's right -- the state doesn't even have the money, and I'm betting that taxpayers wouldn't accept the burden -- so a few rich people are going to try to determine public policy. I'd be really curious right now to see what South Dakota's population thinks about this ban.

"Clearly the state can use taxpayer dollars," Sarah Stoesz of Planned Parenthood said. "I wouldn't be surprised if they could devise a scheme to use these donated funds. What it does underscore, there is a belief that the taxpayers don't want to pay for this, and consequently the only way to get something done that the taxpayers don't want to pay for and that the politicians don't want to pay for, the only way to do this is to find a private, anonymous person who will effectively purchase public policy that is not taxpayer or voter supported."

Is South Dakota pleased that one rich man (rumored to be Steve Kirby) is going to foot the bill (literally) to ban a procedure that many people are on the fence about? Hell, I'm willing to bet that this bill as it's written right now wouldn't pass a statewide vote. No allowances for trimester, health, rape, incest -- that's more strict than most attempted bans have been. 12 year old rape victims, women carrying terminal fetuses with no brain tissue, women at risk for paralysis or kidney failure -- all will be expected to serve as incubators for the duration. Even if you think life begins at conception (which is quite debatable, I see more life in my cat than in a clump of human cells), you have to believe that the woman's rights are outweighed by those of the "potential life" or fetus's. And this, of course, is where feminist groups come in. I don't see a law demanding that healthy people give up a kidney to save all those needing organ transplants -- are their lives less valuable somehow? Parents aren't required by law to donate a kidney even in the case of their own children -- how is this any different from expecting a woman to donate her body and her bodily tissue to a zygote? The only difference, in my eyes, is that a zygote is not a "person" in the same sense as a child with kidney problems.

What also strikes me as problematic about the SD ban, is that even in cases of the woman's life being in immediate danger, no one in SD will be able to perform the abortion. As it is, they're flying doctors in, what happens when no doctors who know how to abort a pregnancy are in the state? Women in immediate jeopardy will likely have to go to another state (and probably will want to, too -- would you really feel safe with a doctor that's never done a procedure operating on you?).

Getting back to the point of this article: is it morally troubling to anyone else that this SD bill sets a precedent for the rich backing whatever government action they approve? Haven't we seen how easily this can go wrong with the lobbying scandals?

Ahh, the Olympics. I couldn't care less about most sports, but I do have a soft spot for ice skating in the winter games, and gymnastics in the summer. Partly, because the commentary is ridiculous, and partly because I can't do either, at all. When I'm on the ice I hold onto the railing and tremble. And I can't even turn a cartwheel. There's something incredibly gratifying about watching sports that seem in complete defiance of my body's physics, while eating.

So last night Jill came over, and we made pizza and watched the ice skating finals, which I had taped. After dinner, we ate ice cream while critiquing jumps and disagreeing with the commentators. I'm convinced that we could have stepped in with commentary, and no one would have noticed.

You might be wondering, how could one simply step into Olympic ice skating commentators' shoes? Quite simply, I'd argue. One needs only construct a guidebook of truisms, cliches, and the occasional mystical comments, which need not make any sense. I thought you still might be in doubt, so I took the liberty of writing down some of the choicer statements by our exhalted commentators, including Scott & Sandra.

These are all, I kid you not, from the actual commentary during the women's finals:

"She just went out gangbusters... nuh-uh, I'm not giving up on this bad boy." - One of the men on Emily Hughes.

"She's such a talented jumper... it's like she just hasn't thought through her technique yet...so she often just jumps and hopes."

Sandra (I assumed): "You can't just pull a rabbit out of the hat at the Olympics."
One of the men: "More like a rhinoceros out of a hat."

Sandra on Sarah Meier: "She skates on top of the ice, not in the ice." One of the deepest moments, right?

"It's like the rest of her body just can't keep up with her feet."

Sandra, in another particularly deep moment: "The difference between Sasha and everyone else is, everyone else skates to Romeo and Juliet, she is Juliet."

I'll spare you the rampant comments on the skaters' physical appearances, which seem inappropriate at some point. I don't know if this also holds true for the men's ice skating commentary, but it seems like people feel free to comment on these girls' and women's bodies in a way that you just wouldn't ever hear when watching, oh, say, the luge. Most sports aren't dependent on having attractive legs or long arms -- it's all about how fast you get through the 100 meters, or how far you can throw something. But in ice skating, it seems inextricably linked with appearances. So here's one comment that particularly got me (and not only due to the grammatical incongruity):

"She has long arms that any ballerina would give their eye teeth for." - Commentator on Kimmie Messinger. [By the way, Mer, if you ever read this, remember that for next time you complain about your arms.]

Of course, this is like the least remarkable of the body-comments, but it was one of the few that I wrote down... Guess I'll have to watch the men's skating next time around, and see if the trend holds.

Oh, and just in time for sitting on my ass and watching the Olympics, Ben and Jerry's is coming out with new flavors. Here are three that look particularly promising:

Neapolitan Dynamite™ Original Ice Cream - "Cherry Garcia® and Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice creams, side by side." YES. Two of my favorites, in one container. So I don't even have to get my lazy ass up off the couch to try another flavor.

Turtle Soup™ Original Ice Cream - "Vanilla ice cream with fudge & caramel cashews & a caramel swirl." I'm intrigued by the caramel cashews.

Vermonty Python™ Original Ice Cream - "Coffee liqueur ice cream with a chocolate cookie crumb swirl & fudge cows." Ahh this one is going to be good -- cookie crumbs in a swirl AND fudge cows AND coffee liqueur (are they going for kahlua?). Jesus. I want that.

I hadn't been getting involved in the partial-birth abortion ban debate, until I read this:

If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.

In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.

Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."

"Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing," says Watts. "But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?"

[...]

When Congress first considered the ban in 1995, Watts testified on Capitol Hill. So did Viki Wilson of Fresno, Calif., who had a late-term abortion because the brain of the fetus she was carrying had developed outside the skull. So did Vikki Stella of Naperville, Ill., whose fetus had dwarfism, no brain tissue and seven other major abnormalities.

All three women told legislators they owed their health to late-term abortions and that a continuation of their doomed pregnancies posed grave health risks such as stroke, paralysis, infertility or even death.

As they campaign to save access to these procedures, Watts, Stella and Wilson point out that in virtually all cases, late-term abortions are the only way to respond to unanticipated complications: the death of the fetus inside the womb, problems that mean the fetus can't live outside the womb, or serious threats to the mother's health.

"No women has these procedures for frivolous reasons," says Stella. "They have them because it's their only choice."

[...]

Watts, Stella and Wilson note that late-term abortions are sanctioned by many medical professional groups. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, D.C., calls intact D and X--a commonly used late-term procedure--"the most appropriate and safest" option in some cases. The American Nurses Association, Silver Spring, Md., and the American Medical Women's Association, Alexandria, Va., also approve the practice.

Pro-choice advocates also note that despite all the political hoopla, intact D and X procedures are very rare, accounting for only 2,200 of the 1 million U.S. abortions performed each year.

Sorry to quote such a huge portion, but after reading about this case now up before the Supreme Court, I'm really interested in how the term "partial birth abortion" has been invented (it's not a medical term). Shakespeare's Sister had a write up of this, too. I just don't see why politicians feel the need to get involved in a rare procedure, that women are obviously choosing in extreme circumstances. Why is anyone trying to protect the "life" of a fetus that won't survive outside the womb? Or that's already dying/dead in the womb?

Because I'm way proud of my Mum's post!:


"I applaud the Onward Oregon site. I’m a newbie (1 month) I’m a native Hood Riverite (53 years) and have seen many changes here, needless to say. Measure 37 will impact this valley with multi-acre fertile farmlands divided into subdivisions for housing. And adding insult to injury, now President Bush wants to sell public lands for yet even more private ownership.

I grew up hiking with my mother and her friends. We hiked all seasons in all types of weather. It is in my blood, and it is in our wild lands that many other people such as myself connect and renew ourselves in this hectic world.

I have not read the book but saw a discussion group on OPB on Robert Kennedy Jr.’s book “Crimes Against Nature”. It was very disturbing the list of atrocities Bush is committing against OUR lands.

I have sent personalized letters to my 4 representatives and congressmen, and the regional forester with the Columbia Gorge to voice my dissatisfaction with the proposed land sales.

I urge all readers to do the same.

Selling our public lands is a shortsighted quick fix to help Bush gain back war money that should’ve stayed stateside to begin with." - Ricki Duckwall

And before I eat my leftover mango fried rice (which I think turned out well, except for the fact that my skillet apparently cannot hold 2 cups of rice, a mango, an onion, a bar of tofu, and a tomato at the same time), I must post this now thrice mediated warning for the frequent flyers:

AIM IM with Andrew:
9:53 PM
this women's figure skater is on, and the nbc guy was like 'you know how the flight attendant says to be careful opening the overhead compartment? well got a concussion back in 2002 when luggage fell on her head'

Ha! So now we all kind of know someone that this has happened to. Slippery old overhead compartments. Contents really do shift during flight.

It's official. If I were in South Dakota, I'd be packing my bags.

"The bill passed by a vote of 23 to 12 after opponents tried unsuccessfully to attach amendments that would have created exceptions for cases of rape and incest and that would have blocked spending of state money to defend against the court challenge that is sure to come."

As Bitch PhD points out, it seems incredibly problematic to have the taxpayers paying for the legal fees in this concocted bill/ anticipated court case. South Dakota, wouldn't you rather that the money were being put toward preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place? Or helping support low-income women who would continue their pregnancies, if they had the money to support another child?

Save the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area!!!

730 acres of our beautiful, undeveloped, public lands are being offered up to the highest bidder if the US Forest Service has its way (read: the Bush administration). Let's save these public lands for public enjoyment (hiking!), environmental preservation, & wildlife. We all know what the alternative is -- more sprawling suburbia, houses defacing the hills, "no trespassing" signs, and the chipping away of what makes the Gorge a sought after destination.

Thanks to Mum for the link.

It's a bad time to be in South Dakota (if you're a woman who claims control over her uterus, that is).

Jill of Feministe wrote a great piece on the South Dakota bill that's going through right now, attempting to make abortion in *all* cases except where the woman's life is in immediate danger. Yep, that means no exceptions for other serious health risks, rape, incest, extreme birth defects that mean the infant will likely die during/immediately after pregnancy, etc.

I'm just gonna say: If you're a woman in South Dakota, and you don't want to have a child, you might want to think about moving. Because even refusing to have sex doesn't matter -- if someone rapes you, the possible contents of your uterus are under state protection for the next 9 months.

This article just made my night. Thanks to Andrew for keeping up with his alma mater! Amherst College's new president is tackling the very real problem of elitism in our top colleges. And I love that his name is Tony Marx.

" As it turned out, Marx's radical message was just what Amherst trustees wanted to hear. Over the past two decades the college had committed to increasing minorities to a third of the 1,650-student campus, up from 13% in 1985. But while this brought in more low-income students, Amherst remains an incubator of the elite. More than half its students come from families prosperous enough to pay the full $42,000 annual tab out of their own pockets. Many shell out thousands more for cars, meals out, and other extras. (One student showed up recently with two BMWs -- one a convertible for sunny days.) "We were blown away" by Marx's passion and commitment, recalls Jide Zeitlin, a partner at Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS ) who has since become chair of Amherst's board. [...]

Boosting socioeconomic diversity is already a front-burner issue on the campuses of elite colleges. Everyone from Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers to William G. Bowen, ex-president of Princeton University, is grappling with a deeply troubling fact of American life: that 30 years of inequality have all but shut off top colleges to the poor.

Kids from the lowest socioeconomic quartile represent a mere 3% of students at the 146 most selective U.S. universities, vs. 74% from the top quartile, according to the Century Foundation, a New York think tank. It's not just a problem at elite schools, either. By age 24 only 8% of these bottom-quarter students have earned a BA from any U.S. college, vs. 46% of those from top-quarter families, according to Stephen Rose, co-author of the Century study. As educated baby boomers retire over the next 15 years, they will be followed in the workforce by more minority youth who are poor and less likely to have a degree. Says Harvard's Summers: "Social mobility is a central challenge for our country." "

From Business Week, no less!

I think this is such an interesting turn, especially as so many of these elite campuses are incredibly liberal, while maintaining this status quo. I love that class is being addressed, especially as it seemed like a complete non issue when I was applying to MHC. I remember calling the admissions office to ask if they had any assistance to fly low-income students out for their preview weekend, and was treated as if I were asking for the moon. Later, I found that it was standard procedure at MHC to offer to fly out ALANA students (African American, Latina American, Asian American, Native American). Of course, this is a great program, and important for addressing ethnic & race inequity on campuses, but it completely ignores the fact that many white students are coming from low-income families, and might see choosing and going to college as a disorienting experience. Basically, it'll be wonderful to see at least some elite colleges addressing both race & class inequities.

Eek. Luckily, Twisy has already commented on this one, but I just have to reproduce the news blurb, it's just that good:

ITALY: NONVIRGINITY LESSENS SEX ABUSE CHARGE, COURT SAYS Sexually abusing a teenager is a less serious crime if the girl is not a virgin, Italy's highest court said in a ruling. The court ruled in favor of a man who forced his 14-year-old stepdaughter to have oral sex with him and appealed a prison sentence of 40 months, arguing that the fact that the girl had had sex with other men should have been taken into consideration at his trial as a mitigating factor. The court agreed, saying that because of the victim's previous sexual experiences, her "personality, from a sexual point of view," was more developed and that therefore the damage to her was less than if she had been a virgin. The decision, which drew a barrage of criticism, opened the way for the stepfather to get a lighter sentence.
(REUTERS)

Wow. I just, can't even formulate a comment on this one. Blaming the victim has taken on a whole new meaning. I'm trying to figure out how anyone with even a half-developed sense of logic, and a rudimentary form of empathy, could ever hand down this ruling.

Not quite in time for Valentine's Day.

Have you seen this story, of a man in Iowa, Travis Frey? He's under arrest for trying to kidnap his wife (and as The Smoking Gun points out in the article above, he's also been in trouble for child porn). But it gets even better! He wrote out a 4 page marriage contract. And this is a contract like no other I've ever seen. He's outlined for his wife exactly when, and how much, she must shave; the length her skirts should be; the definition of "sex acts" that he expects, including duration; and what's expected of her during his "my time" hours. What's the equivalent "her time," and the definition of sex acts she's comfortable with performing (let alone what she actually WANTS -- that's completely fallen out of the equation)? Glad you asked! They don't seem to exist, curiously enough.

Because there's nothing more romantic for a woman in a heterosexual relationship than receiving a contract from her husband/boyfriend/whatever to outline just how closely her "role" matches up with that of a sex slave in a brothel. I'm sure my heart was all aflutter reading the oh-so-thoughtful dictates on what his wife must buy for herself for her birthday (a sex toy, which she should consider a gift from him) and for their anniversary (lingerie).

Please, please tell me he's going to a maximum security prison. And please tell me they'll release the marriage contract to all the other inmates, prior.

The answer to why people are making a big deal of the Cheney hunting accident? This blog post title pretty much sums it up: "What Happens in Texas Hunting Accidents If You're Hispanic?"

"Juan Garza Mendoza, 34, an employee of the ranch, was charged Monday with manslaughter, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison....

Mendoza had apparently hit Barrera Vasquez while shooting at a feral hog, and immediately contacted authorities after the shooting, Hurd said.

"They mistakenly shot a human being," he said. "It's reckless. It's inexcusable." "

Great blog post with comments.