a load of et cetera.

anyway, while we pave the way for our already-maybe-increasing teen pregs rate to toss that 'maybe' by the wayside, britain proposed legislation last week to make sex education compulsory [every time I read that, a little part of my brain has an orgasm]. not only that, but they're making multiple age-appropriate curricula for kids as young as 11, and on through high school. see, britain has a pretty high teen pregs rate, kind of like another country I could mention. the only difference is that instead of basing their $50 million a year federally funded program on fear, shame, and misinformation, britain has taken a different tactic: they did some research, found that teen pregs was up, chlamydia was up, and [surprise!] kids want to know about sex. so what are they planning to do about it? ignore it and continue to cram dogma down the throats of their youth?

no.

"we must have consensus that good sex and relationships education is essential if we want our young people to live free of disease, have reduced pregnancy and abortion rates, and experience fulfilled sexual lives as adults."

imagine that.

like everyone else ever, I will also point you to violet blue's post at RH reality check on the five things the next president needs to do about sex ed. it is sheer brilliance.

in other news, the guttmacher institute recently released a fact sheet on young men's sexual and reproductive health. it looks at a variety of factors from 1991 to 2007. surprise surprise! the downward trend in high school boys' sexual experience that we'd had going [57% in 1991 to 49% in 2001] is no more [50% in 2007]. could this have anything to do with how badly we're failing them on sex ed? there's no longer a gender disparity in the receipt of sex ed, but there's been a sharp decline in the percentage of students who receive information about contraceptives and proper condom methods. even talk about HIV/AIDS is showing a slight decrease. what the fuck is wrong with these people? and we're showing quite a racial disparity in our already-shoddy birth control instruction - 33% of blacks and 45% of hispanic young men receive it, compared to 66% of white males.

boo.

and finally, from the purity files, two quotes from a couple of stories I kept unread in my google reader for 10 days just so I could make everyone else lose their appetite. time magazine ran a glowing review of a purity ball last week, and the author lovingly recounted this charming anecdote:

"They gave her a charm for her bracelet--a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. 'On my wedding day, he'll give it to my husband,' she explains. 'It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I'm supposed to be loved.'"

gross. and this quote care of Janice Turner, who teaches "power of purity" classes in Alabama [thanks, feministing]:

"girls give in to sex not because they want sex - it's like a hug. if they can get that from their fathers, they won't need it from a boyfriend."

you love it.

nothing gets me going like bullshitting about abortion.

after having been absent for quite some time due to the internship from hell, I am pleased to say that I’m back, and better than ever, given the abundance of news about adolescent sexuality, reproductive rights, and sex education lately. actually, it's not the news itself that's better, it's just that there's a lot of it, and it's kind of like crack for me. that said, let's dive in.

I really hope I'm not anyone's primary news source on this stuff [links on the right do a much better and more timely job], but just in case I am, there's been quite a to-do in the department of health and human services lately. you've got hella thorough coverage on RH reality check, and a good overview on NYT , but in short, the HHS has leaked an unabashedly pro-christian, anti-choice, anti-science piece of proposed legislation that would require all federally-funded health programs to say that they won't refuse to hire providers based on their opposition to abortion. why, you ask? well, gosh darn it, they're concerned about doctors' and nurses' and pharmacists' itty-bitty feelings, and they think these 'conscientious objectors' deserve some protection. now, I could get into how little this has to do with conscience and how much it has to do with turning every woman who doesn't agree with you, who doesn't want to bear children for the fatherland, into a second-class citizen. I could get into how ridiculous it is that the government is asking health programs to set aside ideology for the sake of non-discrimination on this end when it simultaneously supports individual pharmacists who refuse to provide emergency contraception based on their personal ideas about right and wrong. the point is, HHS doesn't give a shit about being sane. the authors seem to think they make perfect sense and mention derisively that some states have passed laws requiring pharmacists to fill scripts for plan B, AND I QUOTE, "despite religious organizations' objections to the abortifacient nature of the drug." can anyone see where this pseudo-science bullshit is going?

it beings us to the second part, the less obvious, more sinister part, the part of the proposal where the HHS basically says, 'conception? implantation? we can't seem to get a straight answer from those pesky scientists! so, we don't care about where the majority of americans stand on this issue], we're going to let THE PEOPLE decide what an abortion is.' I am not lying. page 17, line 5 says, "the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason." like the kind of reason this crazy train's been running on so far? according to the proposal, the kinds of 'abortion' these stellar potential women's health employees can object to includes "any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." for now, that includes all pills [especially POPs], IUDs, and of course, EC. but if this became law, how long until someone declared that they would no longer contribute to mass genocide by handing out condoms, thus preventing the union of spermatozoon and oocyte as god himself intended?

as a side note, RH reality check claims [though I couldn't find the language in the proposal, but I still have some catching up to do] that this proposed regulation would remove all federal funding from subsidized birth control. as if the DRA didn't fuck teens, college students, and low-income women over enough, this is just icing on the 'family values' cake.

my favorite part, though has to be this little winner, which comes near the conclusion of this little slice of women's rights hell: "an underlying assumption of this regulation is that the health care industry, including entities receiving [HHS] funds, will benefit from more diverse and inclusive workforces." because you know what a woman seeking birth control really, really wants? someone telling her she's going to hell. what do you mean you disagree? why can't you respect diversity?

good times on that front.

the only sane thing i've ever read in the WSJ

most of my "readers" [aka, my boyfriend and like, two other people] aren't regular readers of blogs about reproductive health [even though you should be], so i'm just going to assume you haven't seen this video. relish those eight awkward, awkward seconds of silence, one and all.

but my favorite part about this isn't even in the video - it's this interaction between mccain and a WSJ reporter about his votes on requiring insurance companies to cover birth control [props to RHrealitycheck for contextualizing the madness]:

When McCain was asked for his position on the issue, he said--with a nervous laugh-"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue."

The reporter pressed. "But apparently you've voted against--"

"I don't know what I voted," McCain said.

The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. "Is that still your position?" she persisted.

During the awkward exchange, with several lengthy pauses, McCain said he had no immediate knowledge of the vote. "I've
cast thousands of votes in the Senate," McCain said, then continued: "I will respond to--it's a, it's a..."

"Delicate issue," the reporter offered, to a relieved laugh from McCain.

"I don't usually duck an issue, but I'm--I'll try to get back to you," he explained.

i guess he just couldn't decide whom to pander to this time. anyway, there's a load of crap in the comments about how obama never gets asked any hard questions about this kind of stuff, which i guess is why obama is still fielding complaints from all sides and issuing press release after press release about his response to question about late-term abortion.

and then i remembered that i was reading the comments page on the WSJ. right.