If you are against abortion, you should be for sex education, birth control pills, free child care. Right?

 

Kansas is voting on a bill that will ban any book that talks about sex from public schools

Because knowledge about sex is dangerous... but owning guns is not?

A little of this, a bit of that

Laser pointers and cat variations

Bed bugs and the psychological effects of coping with them.  And ways to get rid of them.

Protecting our drinking water.  Cleaning plastic from our oceans.

Monsanto working hard to discredit scientists.

Mark Ruffalo, a true hulk.  Fear of powerful women.

Dutch sexuality education.

Interesting question and intriguing answers:  What has the internet made obsolete?

The awfulness of the 2000 presidential election revisited.

How can you tell if rocks were tools in prehistoric times?

The dangers of coal to our climate.  Ocean conservationist sounds a warning to Canada.

Eggs, chickens, and turkeys are going to become more expensive.

Wendell Potter explains the machinations of the health insurance companies.

Pesticides killing off the Monarch butterfly.

Ten poverty myths disproved.

New Bush, new lies about the Iraq War.

Why are the Dark Ages so attractive to some?

Entering into the era of stupid.

Here we go round the mulberry bush....

Teaching good sex. Will no one think of the children?!1!??

Speaking of children. Taking them to Occupy Los Angeles. But in Portland, watch out for the police.

The next financial crisis. Or signs of hope.

San Francisco

Canada's money has gone plastic.

Might as well declare game over. Goldman Sachs has won the Capitalism Game. Can we start a different game now?

Making money by making more prisoners fills the coffers of private prisons, our very own concentration camps.

Fair is fair

We need to demand every elected official who votes to negate the women's right to control their reproductive processes must first issue a sworn statement that his wife (or husband) has never had an abortion, used birth control, or jerked off and destroyed sacred sperm. We need to know how many children they have, and if they are old enough, what their sex lives are like as well.

Um... NO.

Abstinence-only programs might work, study says. (This is saying that kids who have been told not to have sex don't have sex for two years after the program):

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

The findings are the first clear evidence that an abstinence program could work.

"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study.

Riiiiggghhhtttt. So there may be a slight delay in sexual activity. But when they DO start, those abstinence trained kids who have not been given specifics on how things work.....

Teen pregnancy rate up after 10-year decline

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. teen pregnancy rate rose in 2006 for the first time in more than a decade, reversing a long slide, a U.S. think tank reported on Tuesday.

The overall teen pregnancy rate was up 3 percent in 2006, with a 4 percent rise in the rate of births and a 1 percent rise in the rate of abortions, according to the report by the Guttmacher Institute.

[snip]

"It's interesting to note that this flattening out of the rate and the increase in the rate is happening at the same time that we've seen substantial increases in funding for abstinence-only programs," Finer said.

We can't even get elected Republicans to behave themselves, how on earth do you think we could control hormonally challenged teenagers? We need to tell them EVERYTHING: give them contraceptives, books, parental interest and advice, and sex education from when they were very little.

It's that simple and that necessary.

Gee... imagine that!

Teen pregnancy rate up after 10-year decline

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. teen pregnancy rate rose in 2006 for the first time in more than a decade, reversing a long slide, a U.S. think tank reported on Tuesday.

The overall teen pregnancy rate was up 3 percent in 2006, with a 4 percent rise in the rate of births and a 1 percent rise in the rate of abortions, according to the report by the Guttmacher Institute.

[snip]

"It's interesting to note that this flattening out of the rate and the increase in the rate is happening at the same time that we've seen substantial increases in funding for abstinence-only programs," Finer said.

"We do know that when we saw the big decline in the '90s, that a lot of that decline was due to improved contraceptive use among teens."

The abstinence-only programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in U.S. schools, received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s.

The Obama administration's 2010 budget eliminated spending for abstinence-only, shifting funds to pregnancy prevention education that include abstinence along with "medically accurate and age-appropriate" information.

Can we please now admit that abstinence only education doesn't work and be done with it?

Abstinence only

Will clearly work for this guy.

Compare and contrast

To this one:



I thought that they insisted the abstinence classes worked?

McCain's indifference to women is obvious

Example A:

"The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Governor Sarah Palin.

Why does the religious right want to take away a woman's right to control her own body?

They've apparently decided that the birth control pill causes abortions (which it most clearly does not). (Hat tip to SteveAudio).

Christina Page at RH Reality Check: (my bold)

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services.

[snip] The definitions are explained. Page goes on:

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a woman's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS' new science.

The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40% of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion." Even the "pro-life" movement's most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims. In 1999, the physicians--who, like the movement at large, define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization-- released an open letter to community stating: "Recently, some special interest groups have claimed, without providing any scientific rationale, that some methods of contraception may have an abortifacient effect...The 'hormonal contraception is abortifacient' theory is not established fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error...if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."

So... in the end it comes down to someone else deciding whether or not I or any other woman can use a particular kind of birth control because they find it offensive to their religion? What does their religion have to do with me?

Because they have decided to use fuzzy logic and inaccurate 'science', does that exclude me using clear logic and real science to make my decisions? Even their own 'doctors' have told them birth control pills don't cause abortions. Why are they ignoring this? Why is the anti-abortion movement trying to stop the prevention of pregnancies... which PREVENTS abortions?

So... what is it exactly that they want to accomplish by taking away the woman's right to control her own body? Could it possibly be more about the sex and less about the fetus?

They want to take away sex education and offer idiotic abstinence programs which offers no way to .. grapple with the onslaught of normal human biology. They want to take away birth control pills, condoms, anything that prevents pregnancy. They also want to take away the woman's right to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. It's almost as if they want to bring back the scarlet letter and use the baby as punishment.

They are disturbed that somewhere someone is having fun while having sex. They obsess about sex, premarital sex, gay sex, pleasurable wanton lustful hedonistic sweaty... *ahem*... yet proclaim that sex is only for married people. They are horrified at gay marriage, but have yet to explain exactly how it would threaten or harm anyone. (And the elected officials who yell the loudest about legislating sexual morality are so often the ones caught in bathroom stalls, with a boy page or a prostitute, wearing diapers or offering blow jobs.) They frown on childless couples, calling them selfish and negligent in their duty. They offer no help to the single mother (the slut!) nor the impoverished family that can afford neither birth control nor another child. No free childcare. No welfare. No education. No sex education....

All because their religion said so? That's one weird loving God if I may say so. Not the God I know.

So, in this happy future world, would they want to dictate what sexual positions were sinful, too? Maybe only the missionary position is the 'correct' one? Maybe the woman would need to cover herself modestly, to show how obedient and submissive she was? Maybe she should not show too much skin or laugh too loud because it would be indecent? She should defer to men at all times with all important decisions? Is this where they want to go?

Because this religious society has existed in the past (like the Puritans who burned uppity women) and exists now (the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia, the weird Mormon sect out in Texas) and has been suggested for the future (A Handmaid's Tale).

If this is the kind of society they want to have, let them have at it, if they can find a country to do it in. Just don't force anyone who doesn't want to, to participate.

I sure won't and I don't know anyone anywhere who would.

Update 7/20: Slightly to the subject, John McCain:



Update 7/21: I asked the question here about whether or not GOP women use any kind of birth control.