Product (RED), an initiative conceived by Bono to get international brands to market and support the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, & Malaria, officially hit American shores Friday.I have a feeling that many readers are wondering what on earth it is and that most readers cock their heads when they hear “Bono” and “Global Fund” in the same sentence (albeit for dramatically different reasons, depending on what you think of Bono).Regardless, you won’t be wondering for much longer.But the question I have to ask is, “Why didn’t you know in the first place?”
1976 was the “Year of the Evangelical,” with the election of President Jimmy Carter and the emergence of this “new” (at least to the American public) Christian movement onto the political scene.1980 heralded the year of the New Right, which essentially gutted Jimmy Carter of his presidency, elected Ronald Reagan, and solidified the entrance of conservative evangelicals into American public life.(There are some liberal and moderate evangelicals by the way, Carter being only one of them.)They played a big part in the new Congress of 1994, and they have risen to a place of power, perhaps hubris, that led them to claim that they essentially single-handedly re-elected George W. Bush to the presidency in 2004.The past 25 years have in many ways belonged to that group, but there are signs of a change coming – 2006 could very well be remembered as the year that group lost its dominance in American politics.
Moderate Democrats are rising to the top in Congressional races across the nation over their radically conservative peers.As if that alone weren’t a sign of this change, a book that is hitting the shelves today could very well help to seal the coffin for the Religious Right.David Kuo, the former “#2” staffer in the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, has published Tempting Faith, a scathing indictment of the religious compromise and political manipulations that have characterized this movement and, according to him, the Bush White House.
By now, I'm sure most of you have heard about the role that my state, South Dakota, is playing in the most recent attack on reproductive freedom and privacy. With Referred Law 6, the voters of South Dakota will have a chance to repeal a ban on nearly all abortions- including in cases of rape and incest. Early polling shows most South Dakotans are ready to repeal the ban, so the ban's supporters are launching a deceptive ad campaign.
While there are many different misleading statements in this ad, I'd like to focus on what I see as one of the worst, and try to dispel this deceptive message. The ad claims, "Victims of rape and incest can still access the best options for medical care, compassion and justice and this can include the morning after pill."
Dr. Mitchell H. Katz is the Director of Health for the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH).
In her recent column Debra Saunders says that those of us who oppose Proposition 85 "argue that teenagers will tell good parents...if they are pregnant. But if pregnant teenagers don't talk to their parents, it probably is for a good reason."
While Ms. Saunders is correct in this narrow observation, the Chronicle's editorial board better understood the entire issue and recommended its readers reject Prop 85.
No law, including Prop 85, can create good family communication. Prop 85 has the added disadvantage that it will put teens in real danger. Teens "not talking to their parents for good reason" is more than just a "nifty-sounding sentence," as Ms Saunders describes it... it's reality.
Amidst the media hysteria about the U.S. population reaching 300 million this month, it seems an opportune moment to reflect on the deeply subjective nature of the concept of "overpopulation." One example: how is it that Europe's low birth rate is a population "crisis," whereas Africa's high birth rate is also a population "crisis"? Three guesses.
Bill Smith of SIECUS opened the 4th Annual "Back to School" briefing last week by saying, "Abstinence is a great thing, a wonderful choice - but it shouldn't be the only thing being taught." This is the major disconnect between advocates for comprehensive sex ed and abstinence-only sex ed: the latter group thinks that the former one does not value or teach abstinence. To the contrary, we gladly support abstinence as it delays sexual behavior and decreases the risk of pregnancy and disease. And comprehensive sex ed programs do stress the importance of abstinence, as well as providing vital knowledge about how to prevent sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy. However, what abstinence-only advocates ignore is that not everyone chooses abstinence -- regardless of their education -- and even those who do will most likely become sexually active at some point outside of marriage.
This critical lack of information is not the only problem with abstinence-only programs. Ab-only advocates also blame comprehensive sex ed for all sorts of irresponsible behavior, including an outrageous link to pedophilia (see the video below of Wendy Wright's offensive comments). Add the fact that many abstinence-only programs rely on shame and fear to try to manipulate adolescents into abstaining from sex and, well, we've got a serious problem with sex ed in our nation's schools.
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.
If Prop 85 passes, teens in California will be forced to wait until their parents are notified before having an abortion. The more I think about the impact this initiative could have on young women in my state, the more I've found myself contemplating what passing this law would mean in real life. Just how long will a pregnant young woman have to wait before she can have an abortion?
Former Republican Congressman Mark Foley brings up many issues for people. You can compound that by a factor of ten, at least, if you are gay. He also represents a teachable moment, albeit a negative lesson, about the consequences of denial, repression, and stigma. Unfortunately, Wendy Wright of the Concerned Women for America is missing the lesson and continues a pattern of generalization trying to link healthy gay people with unhealthy predatory behavior.
If you understand repression, of anything, you understand pressure makes people do some strange things. One can empathize with Foley's alleged substance abuse, the numbing that denial might seem to require in moments of despair. One can even understand the notion of "arrested development" with respect to sexuality. As we witnessed in the Roman Catholic priest scandal, people who choose to sacrifice some part of themselves to pursue or accentuate another, or who suffer trauma like molestation, can create "age inappropriate" behavior.
Greetings from Nicaragua, where abortion is about to be made even more illegal than it already is. On the eve of a heated presidential election, the executive committee of the Nicaraguan National Assembly is poised to accept a proposal that would remove the 130-year-old therapeutic abortion provision from Nicaragua's penal code. Their action would make abortion illegal in Nicaragua without exception - including, that is, in cases where a pregnant woman's life was at risk, or in case of rape, incest, or fetal malformation. If the proposal is accepted, Nicaragua will join El Salvador and Chile as one of the few countries in the Western Hemisphere where abortion is totally illegal. For a thoroughly chilling portrait of how this will affect Nicaraguan women's lives, read Jack Hitt's "Pro-Life Nation."
