Blogs Comment On Abstinence, Cost Of Contraception, Dickey Amendment, Other Topics

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Pediatrics / Children's Health;  Abortion
Article Date: 18 Mar 2009 - 2:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Anti-Abortion or Anti-Sex?" Cindy Handler, Huffington Post blogs: Recent news reports indicate that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) 18-year-old daughter Bristol, who gave birth in December 2008 after an unintended pregnancy, does not plan to marry Levi Johnson, the teenage father of her child; however, there has been no "conservative outrage directed at this very public unwed mother who chose to bring a child into the world without the benefit of heterosexual marriage," Handler writes in a blog entry. She continues that conservatives have not spoken out about Bristol Palin "because to the base of her mother's party, it's not important whether she gets married or not." Handler writes, "To the far right, the error she made was not that she had unprotected sex, but that she was unmarried and had sex at all." Handler writes that "observers on the left, who have long labored to find middle ground with adamant pro-lifers," have difficulty understanding these points of view. She continues, "Progressives look at a teenage girl who gets knocked up by her teenage boyfriend and think, 'This is sad, as well as further proof that, as the girl admitted herself, abstinence alone isn't realistic.'" In addition, liberals might suggest that teenage mothers and their children face considerable challenges, Handler writes. She adds, "To people who focus on the quality of an individual's life, it makes sense to focus on prevention." According to Handler, several recent studies have demonstrated that abstinence-only education "doesn't decrease the likelihood that teens will have sex before marriage." However, "to right wing ideologues, the debate begins and ends with the sinful act of sex outside of marriage, which can only lead to one outcome: punishment," Handler writes. She continues that for people with this view, "the whole concept of prevention is irrelevant. You play, you pay." Handler writes that "it's important for progressives to keep their eyes and minds open when they argue with their ideological opponents." She continues that if abortion-rights opponents "won't even consider the option of educating kids on how to avoid pregnancy, it's possible that they're just paying lip service to wanting to stop 'the life of an innocent baby (from) being taken.'" Handler concludes that what conservatives "really want is to return to the lily-white, less-complicated 'Leave it to Beaver' world they feel our culture left behind -- a world that, just like the promise of a long, happy future for the Palin-Johnson family, never really existed in the first place" (Handler, Huffington Post blogs, 3/16).

~ "Inconvenient Contraception," Beth Schwartzapfel, American Prospect blogs: Even when birth control becomes less expensive, it will "continue to be two things: inconvenient and thoroughly tied up with the medical system," Schwartzapfel writes in a blog entry. She adds, "A trip to the doctor. Time off from work. A waiting room. A pap smear. A co-pay (assuming you're insured, of course.) A trip to the pharmacy. Another co-pay. Then, finally, your birth control;" however, "[i]t may not have to be this way." She notes an announcement by England's National Health Service that it plans to launch a pilot program that will allow young women in London to obtain birth control over the counter after consulting with a pharmacist. Schwartzapfel explains that a "working group" of doctors, pharmacists and researchers funded by a Hewlett Foundation grant plans to study the "feasibility of making oral contraceptives available over the counter: as easy to purchase as aspirin." She notes that some have raised safety as a concern while others worry about access for low-income women. Schwartzapfel quotes Sharon Camp, a member of the working group and president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute: "'For most of the people in the reproductive health field, the issue of safety is probably not the biggest one. It really is: Will an over-the-counter product be affordable for women who now get low-cost or reimbursed drugs?" She notes that some have raised safety as a concern while others worry about access for low-income women. Schwartzapfel quotes Sharon Camp, a member of the working group and president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute: "For most of the people in the reproductive health field, the issue of safety is probably not the biggest one. It really is: Will an over-the-counter product be affordable for women who now get low-cost or reimbursed drugs?" Schwartzapfel writes that the "Obama administration's proposed overhaul of the health care system might make for an entirely new playing field," concluding, "Perhaps, in 10 years, poor women will have affordable and accessible access to health care, leaving working group members and other reproductive health advocates to weigh the proposal on its merits alone" (Schwartzapfel, American Prospect blogs, 3/17).

~ "End Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding," Vania Leveille, American Civil Liberties Union blog: Leveille writes that $99 million in funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education program is "[b]uried" in the 2009 omnibus spending bill that President Obama recently signed into law, as well as the "media blizzard about earmarks." She continues that "it absolutely boggles the mind that this program still receives any funding at all," adding that "$162 million remains in the budget for abstinence-only-until-marriage funding" and that Congress has allotted "more than a billion taxpayer dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs despite busloads of evidence that they don't work and pleas from the scientific and public health community to stop, stop, stop!" According to Leveille, "We know that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs censor information that can help young people make responsible, healthy and safe decisions about relationships and sexual activity;" however, "the money keeps flowing." She continues, "It's time to put scientific integrity and the real needs of teenagers ahead of narrow, ideological agendas," and a "big leap" will be made if Obama gives "zero dollars for abstinence-only programs in his 2010 fiscal year budget recommendation to Congress," as ACLU has requested. "We may lose tremendous momentum in the fight against abstinence-only programs if President Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget includes funds for these programs," Leveille writes. She concludes, "We need to let President Obama know that it's enough already" (Leveille, ACLU blog, 3/13).

~ "A Radical Vision for the Council on Girls and Women," Courtney Martin, American Prospect blogs: "Sometimes you fight so long and hard for something that it's hard to believe you've actually won," Martin writes in a blog entry, adding, "There was a bit of that sentiment among the feminist community following President Obama's announcement last week that he would create a White House Council on Women and Girls." Although some people were "quick to insert cynicism into the celebration before it had even begun," Martin writes that she "imagine[s] the truth is somewhere in between. Obama is a savvy politician who understands the importance of attracting and sustaining support from female voters (and often-overlooked male voters who care about injustices facing women and girls)." Martin writes, "We need to shift our priorities, and the White House Council on Women and Girls can be the catalyst," adding, "There are some long-neglected issues that I'd like to challenge the council to take on, namely domestic sex trafficking, the HIV/AIDS infection rate among black women, and a federally funded, comprehensive sexual-education policy." According to Martin, what will "make this proposed White House Council truly radical is if it doesn't just serve the self-interest of the women with a seat at the table but the young women and struggling mothers who have been given the scraps of governmental goodwill for far too long." She adds, "With these women as a top priority rather than an afterthought, this council could demonstrate effective cooperation among departments and agencies, acknowledge that you can't look at gender without also considering class and race (and vice versa) and connect with grassroots groups doing work on the ground, within their own communities. In short, it could be that transformative" (Martin, American Prospect blogs, 3/16).

Antiabortion Blog

~ What Is the Dickey Amendment and Why Should I Care?" ProLifeBlogs: There is "a lot of work to do getting the word out about" the Dickey Amendment, which "prohibits federal funds to be used to create or destroy human embryos for research purposes," according to the blog entry. It adds that Obama's executive order overturning some restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009 still do not allow federal funding for "research that creates or destroys human embryos thanks to the Dickey Amendment." Therefore, it is "important to understand that this fight to protect human embryos is far from over," the blog says, adding that those opposed to stem cell research should contact their "representatives in Congress and President Obama and ask them to uphold the Dickey Amendment. Tell them you do not want your money to fund the creation and destruction of nascent human life" (ProLifeBlogs, 3/13).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations