Jennifer Roback Morse needs some help finishing an article for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs—can you pitch in? It's an unusual situation, since Morse—the author of Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work and Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World, who describes herself on her website as "your coach for the culture wars"—usually seems to have all the answers. But in her most recent article, "Taxpayers Holding the Baby," coming up with a solution to the fact that in 2004, 55% of births in the state of Oklahoma were paid for by Medicaid, seems to have her stumped. I decided to take a closer look at her argument and see, as an advocate for reproductive health and pregnant and birthing women's rights, if I couldn't help out.
You know what the problem with women is? We want to be able to do things like get pregnant and have children on our own terms, seek employment free from workplace discrimination and command a fair wage in return for that employment—you know, we want "special privileges."
Along comes our savior in the form of investment fund manager Godfrey Bloom, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) representing the UK Independent Party (UKIP). Mr. Bloom, in his first days on the EP's Women's Rights Committee, attempted to set his compatriots straight by offering this stunning slice of wisdom:
No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age.
Elisha Dunn-Georgiou is the International Policy Associate at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
You would think that this year's 51st session on the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) on Ending All Forms of Discrimination and Violence against the Girl Child would not be all that controversial compared with other themes the CSW has tackled. In past years the CSW has focused on themes like the equal participation of women in society, enhanced gender equality, or a reaffirmation of the Beijing conference—all topics that have strong opposition in countries around the world—especially those, like the United States, Sudan, and Iran that have refused to ratify the Convention to Eliminate All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). But the topic of this year's CSW should be a feel good topic that everyone—conservative or liberal—can rally around because everyone wants to get to the root causes that perpetuate violence against girls. Right? Well, maybe—it actually all depends on how you define violence and discrimination against girls.
What propels you to action? Was there one event in your life that made you sit up and take notice of injustice and inequity in the world? Maybe it was a series of events, traumatic or inspirational, prodding you to open your eyes and act.
For the girls who spoke at the United Nations in New York on Friday, March 2nd, it was lives filled with unimaginable horror and pain that pushed them to become the activists they are.
Six girls from around the world shared the distressing, sometimes harrowing, experiences of their lives with a room full of journalists, diplomats and U.N. staffers at the "Girls Speak Out" event. According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the event is part of the 51st annual meeting for the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which is focusing on discrimination and violence against girls this year.
Let's kick off 2007 with a little immigration mania, shall we?
Yuki Lin, born on the stroke of midnight this New Year's, became the winner of a random drawing for a national Toys "R" Us sweepstakes. The company had promised a $25,000 U.S. savings bond to the "first American baby born in 2007." However, Yuki lost her prize after the company learned that her mother was an undocumented U.S. resident. Instead, the bond went to a baby in Gainesville, Georgia, described by her mother as "an American all the way."
The question is unambiguously answered by the 14th Amendment, which asserts that a child born on U.S. soil is an American citizen, having equal standing with all other American citizens. Nevertheless, this incident brings to light some pretty deep-seated beliefs about who is legitimately American and who, clearly, is not.
The United States may be a major donor in the struggle against HIV/AIDS, but our money comes with so many strings attached, it's often unclear if we're more interested in solving the problem or promoting our political agenda. Last week, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a ruling that had removed one of those strings, and it's bad news for organizations working to support the health and rights of sex workers—a population that is both highly vulnerable and highly marginalized in the struggle against HIV/AIDS. The ruling, in response to a U.S. government appeal to a lawsuit it lost against DKT International (an international non-profit with family planning and HIV-prevention programs in 11 countries worldwide) last year, upheld a provision that denies U.S. HIV/AIDS money to any U.S.-based or foreign organization that does not have a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking."
Julie Davids is the Executive Director of CHAMP (Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project).
Twenty years ago, AIDS was burning through the country and decimating whole communities while Reagan fiddled away. ACT UP New York burst onto the scene with a rallying cry of "drugs into bodies," shutting down Wall Street over the price of AZT, the only treatment and the most expensive drug ever marketed.
The group grew into a powerful and innovative social force—with hundreds of independent chapters worldwide—and racked up hard-won victories from the accelerated approval of the drugs that turned around the epidemic in the U.S., to changing the very definition of AIDS, to include the conditions seen in women and injection drug users so they could access research and benefits, to the establishment of underground and legalized needle exchanges, to the vigilant defense of the civil and human rights of people living with HIV.
Mitt Romney makes me sick, and not just because he hasn't stopped hating on my home state of Massachusetts since he shed the governor's mantle in favor of a shiny new presidential hopeful suit. I'm sorry, but the man has no integrity, and if so-called "values voters" wind up voting him into office, then we will finally have definitive proof that they do not know what the word "values" means.
A quick review of the flip-flopping—more worthy of a freshly caught fish than a man who honestly believes he has the credibility to run for president—that has characterized Romney's political career. Our story begins in 1994, during an unsuccessful run for U.S. Senate. During a debate with staunchly pro-choice opponent Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Romney made the following statements on abortion:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
"We should sustain and support [Roe v. Wade] and the right of a woman to make that choice."
Almost half of the women in sub-Saharan Africa who want to delay their next pregnancy or have no more children don't have access to modern contraception or other family planning services. Some of those women want to use contraception to space or limit births, because they're too young or too old or too sick or too tired to add new members to their families. Some have other aspirations for their lives right now than childbearing. Whatever the reason, a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should be able to choose to use contraception and should have access to that contraception and to all reproductive and sexual health care services.
Some papers recently released by the Guttmacher Institute on adolescent pregnancy in Central America have got me thinking about the issue, since here in Nicaragua, it's not uncommon to begin having children in your teens. No big surprise, since sex education is basically non-existent, quality health services and complete health information are a distant dream for most of the population, and abortion is illegal without exception. In the organization where I work, the phenomenon breaks down primarily along class and educational lines: the women who clean the offices and work in the cafeteria almost all started having kids during their adolescence, whereas the women in the program staff (researchers, trainers, and writers), who generally had more resources and more schooling growing up, started having kids later in life, or don't have children at all.
