I've just read a new article titled "Legislating Against Arousal" in the latest copy of the Guttmacher Institute's journal.
Cythnia Dailard reports that the federal government, nearly ten years since the start of the abstinence-only-until-marriage program has finally defined what they mean by abstinence. The new guidelines say that abstinence is "voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage." They define sexual activity as "any type of genital activity or sexual stimulation between two persons."Sexual stimulation? Let's see, that could include flirting, hand holding, kissing, french kissing...watching someone in tight jeans bend over and pick up a fork on the floor of the middle school cafeteria. Come on...were these people ever teenagers?
Thanks to the ever-informative blogistas at Feministing for the following newsbit: according to the Khaleej Times, the UAE's Ministry of Health and Ministry of Justice took preliminary steps last week to introduce legal abortion in the United Arab Emirates. But hold on, frivolous female subjects: don't make your appointment just yet. According to Dr. Ali bin Shukar, the UAE's Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Health, "Abortion will be allowed in the country, but under tough conditions. Applicants must have valid reasons." And who gets to decide what constitutes a valid reason? Why, Dr. Shukar, of course!
It took bad poll numbers and a Senate hold on the nomination of the FDA nominee to get Plan B approved for women over 18, but had the FDA followed the scientific evidence, it would have been approved long ago with no age restriction. The obvious reason: the Bush Administration playing politics to appease social conservatives when scientific facts did not fit their agenda.
When it comes to disease prevention, something that isn't (or shouldn't be) tainted with ideology, they wouldn't play politics, would they? I mean, who could possibly be against disease prevention, right?
Apparently it's not good enough to give out false information about abortion. Nor are they satisfied with using taxpayer money to offer religiously-motivated "counseling." No, they are taking it further. So-called pregnancy resource centers (or crisis pregnancy centers) are also targeting inner-city neighborhoods, specifically to restrict the pregnancy options of poor women & girls of color. But wait - that's not all! The Washington Post reported Saturday that these offices are adding "health" services and locating their centers as close as possible to real medical clinics (even taking over their space when clinics move) in the hope that confused patients accidentally go to the wrong office.
That's right, folks - pregnancy resource centers have adopted a business plan similar to a certain fast food giant: set up next to competitors and try to steal their business.
The GOP Senate primary in Rhode Island has taken a nasty turn with one of those untraceable sort of groups that pop up every election year and miraculously have loads of money to spend targeting candidates with negative media. The organization, "Common Sense 2006" is responsible for a push poll asking voters if they will support Lincoln Chafee as a pro-choice candidate. If they say yes they are then treated to a graphic description of an abortion, called baby killers and unpatirotic.
These are the tactics of the radical right. This is how they campaign and this is how they govern. No one who has paid attention to politics for the last 30 years is surprised. What is surprising, is that these tactics still work, that the mainstream media remains inept at exposing them, and that the media seems "shocked" when the same things happen every two years in different races, with different groups around the country. Reporting them as "dirty tricks" only reinforces the message that sponsors want to send: politics is dirty.
The Food and Drug Administration, after more than three years of unprecedented political interference, finally agreed with its medical and scientific experts to allow women to purchase the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B® over-the-counter.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, along with other women's health advocates, rightly celebrated this decision as a victory for sound science and women's health over the Bush administration's attempts to block women's access to this safe, effective form of birth control.
I was pleased that UNFPA chose to focus its annual State of the World's Population Report on women and migration this year (read Tyler's full coverage of the report here). Even though half of all international migrants are women, there's an unfortunate (but not necessarily surprising) lack of data on how women experience migration differently than their male counterparts. Another UN study released this week hones in on the phenomenon in the Dominican Republic, where remittances constitute 13 percent of the gross national product, and more than half of the money comes from women. As the study reveals, even when women's labor is keeping their families afloat economically, social problems at home are still blamed on women's absence. Sheesh.
Sex, lies, and contradictions: This could have been the subtitle of Wednesday's Congressional hearing on the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The hearing, chaired by Congressman Chris Shays (R-CT) was called to review mounting evidence against one of the key restrictions under PEPFAR-a requirement (also known as an earmark) that one third of prevention funding go to abstinence-until-marriage programs-is undermining effective prevention programs on the ground because it is, in most cases, an "abstinence-only" program.
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.
At Wednesday's government reform hearing convened by Congressman Chris Shays on the abstinence-until-marriage earmark, Ambassador Mark Dybul, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, testified that the U.S. government does not fund "abstinence-only" programs. Repeatedly, U.S. government officials have stated that PEPFAR prevention programs are not abstinence-only and follow an evidence-based ABC approach.
On Wednesday, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) held a briefing on its State of World Population 2006 report, which focuses on women and international migration. Titled "A Passage to Hope," the report highlights the role that women play in migration and its affect on their lives. The briefing featured Maria Jose Alcala (principal author of the report), Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY), Kathleen Newland (Director and co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute), and Professor Susan Forbes Martin (Georgetown University), moderated by Sarah Craven (UNPFA).
[img_assist|nid=538|title=State of the World Population Report|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=125] This articulate group of women spoke up about the benefits of migration for immigrants and their adopted countries, as well as the darker side of this issue.
Did you know that women making up half of all international immigrants in the world? This is no minority group with "special needs," as Newland pointed out. Women migrants may not be as visible as their male counterparts, but they outnumber men migrants in the United States. They typically work in less noticeable jobs - domestic and care-giving positions with private or semi-private employers instead of out in the public view. And yet they often don't have access to health services and are ignored by policy-makers.
