Naina Dhingra is the Director of International Policy at Advocates for Youth and serves on the Developed Country NGO Board Delegation of the Global Fund.
What do the President of MTV International, the former Norwegian Minister of International Development, and a senior Republican Congressman from Arizona have in common? They all are candidates for the top job at the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. As I wrote in my last blog, it truly is election season this November.
The 14th Board meeting of the Global Fund starts this week in Guatemala City and the most important decision Board members will make is the selection of who will take the reigns and lead this start-up development institution to maturity. The Global Fund was born just five years ago as an experiment in development and health financing. At the outset, the vision of the Global Fund was to serve as financing mechanism rather than an implementing agency by putting countries in the driver's seat to develop programs to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. History has proven that the experiment and the vision worked.
We have the power. We can make a difference. On issues like reproductive health - contraception, abortion, sexuality education, HIV & STI prevention, access to healthcare... the list goes on and on. Voting is important. But for some reason, 20 million women choose not to exercise that power. They don't act to make a difference.
The ad below is one in a series of Public Service Announcements by "Women's Voices. Women Vote." designed to reach these 20 million women, in the hope that in this critical upcoming election they will get out and vote.
Dr. Connie Mitchell is a nationally recognized expert on the health care of victims of violence and abuse. She serves on the AMA National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse and is a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
I believe that the people who have financed and supported Proposition 85 are sincere, so I must ask: what do they really want? Decreased teenage abortion rates? More parental involvement with teens? Time to explore all the pros and cons of a decision regarding abortion? Whatever the real goals of Prop. 85, as Senator Clinton said in a recent phone message about this initiative: "We can do better."
If the goal of Prop. 85 is to reduce teenage abortion rates, we can do this a better way. Teen pregnancy and abortion rates are already declining in California. California was one of the first states to refuse federal funding for sex education, because educators wanted to ensure that young men and women in our state get complete information about their sexual health. If the backers of Prop. 85 really want to reduce teen pregnancy rates, they should help support legislation that requires and funds comprehensive sexuality education. We must also ensure that teens who do become sexually active - despite our concerns that their minds are not as mature as their bodies - have access to contraception. If they're not ready for sex, then by all means, they're not ready for a baby.
Arizona Senator John Kyl has been attempting to hide his extreme views recently, but his anti-choice record is undeniable. According to Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America:
“Jon Kyl is one of the most rigid anti-choice senators in Washington and his actions have real consequences for women’s everyday lives. Arizona women need to know Kyl’s anti-choice record before they vote in November.”
A new study released this week suggests that there is a link, (a fairly significant-sounding link actually), between breast cancer and oral contraceptives. What the study has going for it is that it was published in the very legitimate, peer-reviewed journal Mayo Proceedings, from the Mayo Clinic. But while we are not inclined to question the integrity of the Mayo Clinic, we do think there are some serious questions to be considered about the report.
Yesterday morning in Nicaragua, at the urging of the Church, the State turned its back on women. The National Assembly voted 52-0 to remove the 130-year-old therapeutic abortion exception from the Penal Code - meaning that Nicaraguan women with life-threatening pregnancies now face a death sentence. That includes women with ectopic pregnancies. That includes pregnant women who develop or discover that they have cancer or sexually transmitted infections. That includes nine-year-old girls who have been raped. Not one single legislator stood up for these women's right to life.
[img_assist|nid=1279|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=86|height=100]The recent decision by the Food and Drug Administration to allow women 18 and older to buy the emergency contraceptive Plan B at pharmacies without a prescription is very welcome news. But Plan B alone will not be enough to overcome our nation's stalled progress in reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.
The latest data on abortion, published by the Guttmacher Institute in early August, should make no one happy - not the anti-abortion activists who have successfully lobbied for a raft of new abortion restrictions (and who opposed over-the-counter sales of Plan B) and not those of us who want to keep abortion safe, legal and available.
The new numbers strongly suggest that a decades-long decline in U.S. abortion rates is stalling out. In each year from 2000 to 2003, the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age) barely budged. There is no reason to expect 2004, 2005 or 2006 will look any better. Indeed, they might look a good deal worse.
Rumor Mill understands that USAID circulated a memo to its contractors working in reproductive health telling them not to use the term "unwanted pregnancy," because our government doesn't think there is any such thing. The instructions explain that "none of God's children is unwanted." No, but a pregnancy at the wrong time might be. Imagine a woman in Uganda struggling to feed six kids and pregnant with her seventh because she couldn't get access to contraceptives. How can we prevent abortion if the Bush Administration won’t even acknowledge unintended pregnancy?
The "marble ceiling" that has kept women and people of color out of the highest offices of leadership in the land is crumbling, at long last. Much of the 2008 speculation has centered on Sen. Hillary Clinton and wondering if America is ready for a woman to be elected President. But long before 2008, Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi will ascend to third in line of succession to the Presidency. If conservatives are going to use the potential of Speaker Pelosi as a scare tactic to rally their base, then they will have to accept her election as an undeniable statement by "The People's House," that we are ready.
Breaking the marble ceiling may be about more than just women in 2008. Since most marble (in DC at least) is white, this historic moment now has pundits offering an arcane and false choice between America being ready for Madame President or a President of Color? Why not both?
Illinois Senator Barack Obama is one reason Democrats will regain the majority this midterm election, his pitch perfect message and American Dream story is one of healing, intelligence, faith and grace at a time of GOP dissembling, war, and vulgarity.
As a former and future New Yorker, I was thrilled to read about the New York State Court of Appeals' unanimous decision to uphold the Women's Health and Wellness Act, handed down last week. The Act, which requires insurance companies to cover reproductive health services for women and prohibits insurance plans from excluding contraception from their prescription drug coverage, had been challenged in the courts by eight Catholic and two Baptist organizations (for the second time). Are these the same people who complain about judicial activism on reproductive rights and condemn advocacy organizations' undemocractic use of the courts to resolve issues best left to representative legislative processes? Just curious. Regardless, their challenge kind of reminds me of the gentleman's agreement currently passing for a democratic process here in Nicaragua, aimed at outlawing therapeutic abortions - though with a happier ending for those of us who remain quirkily attached to the notion that we live in participatory, equitable democracies grounded in respect for the separation of church and state.
Church, the State turned its back on women. The National Assembly voted 52-0 to remove the 130-year-old therapeutic abortion exception from the Penal Code - meaning that Nicaraguan women with life-threatening pregnancies now face a death sentence. That includes women with