As the youngest and only girl in my family, I was the epitome of a daddy’s girl.At 3, I loved pretending to be a princess.At 13, however, I would have rather died than share intimate details of my teenage world with either of my parents – and they were totally open.I can only imagine the mortification I would have felt if my father stood up at my Bat Mitzvah pledging to protect me and my precious virginity until the day he passed me off through marriage – not to mention had he asked me to make the same promise in front of all those people. Oy.
But that is exactly what Focus on the Family and other organizations are promoting with Daddy-Daughter Purity Balls, complete with pledges of chastity, promises to guard virginity, and vows to oppose abortion.Even more disturbing about this practice is that rather than opening lines of communication about sex, these symbolic promises are meant to be sufficient.
Today a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee is reviewing an amazing advancement in women’s health – a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.While there was some grumbling from the fringe when Merck first announced this medical advancement, we want to give a tip of the hat to those conservative groups now supporting it.
Dr. Gary Rose of the conservative Medical Institute for Sexual Health said, "We believe this is going to be very important in terms of prevention." Almost unbelievably, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America said, “We welcome the vaccine." And even the Family Research Council is now supporting it.
If you miss the patterns, in science or in politics, you miss the point, and right now there are patterns a plenty in the forces attempting to shape reproductive health. Yesterday’s hearings by Rep. Mark Souder in the deaths of several women, all linked to certain bacteria, and a few as to whether or not the bacteria has to do with variations on the approved protocol of Mifepristone (RU-486), the prescribed abortion medicine, demonstrate an effort to use tragedy for political gain as opposed to advancing medical, scientific or public health understanding and awareness.
New White House spokesman Tony Snow held his first briefing May 16, just over a year after the first time the press corps asked a very simple question: Does the President support contraception?
Tuesday, talk show host Les Kinsolving asked, “Congresswoman Maloney of New York and 43 others in the House have written the President, and this is the fourth time with no response from him, to ask, is the President opposed to contraception or not?” The new spokesperson did not have a new response—once again the question was avoided.
The White House, through former spokesman Scott McClellan, has been asked this question on May 26, July 18, October 25 in 2005 and then on January 24, 2006. A clear answer has never been heard—even though Members of Congress have written to ask four more times after the first letter.
With 8 in 10 self-identified “pro lifers” supporting access to contraception for women, why is Bush afraid to speak up in support of it?
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Congresswoman Nita Lowey have introduced the Resolution to Strengthen Family Planning Services for Women. From their letter asking for co-sponsors:
There's a quiet war going on in America – against the most basic rights of Americans to make their own personal decisions about family planning. Dozens of state and federal reproductive health programs have been cut or restricted in recent years. The so-called "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005" actually stripped away the promise to cover family planning for all Medicaid enrollees, further reducing access for those who need it. Low-income women, denied access to contraception, are having more unwanted pregnancies -- four times as many as those for higher income women. And almost half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions. It's time to find out if Congress is serious about reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Our resolution will ask Congress to go on record for programs and policies that make it easier for women of all incomes to obtain contraceptives and use them correctly.
You can express your opinion on these issues by contacting your senator or representative here.
While the news about this may have gone without notice, the lack of women to be found in Saudi news won’t.
Yesterday, the King of Saudi Arabia “… asked newspaper editors to cease publishing pictures of women because such photos could 'lead men astray'.”
The state-owned media recently began including pictures of women as they relate to stories, but “always wearing the traditional Muslim headscarf.”
Taking women out of the picture, so to speak, seems a rather backwards step for a country that is attempting to address such fundamental women’s rights, like the right to vote and the right to an education without a man's permission.
Rather ironically, the country has delayed “plans to replace male sales assistants in lingerie shops.”
The current Administration has given us more than enough cause for concern that they consider science to be simply another opinion. From global warming to emergency contraception, the views of those who know best have been tossed aside to placate the warped and self-serving appetites of constituencies that wield power, money, and votes. In fact, in Washington these days, public health doesn’t just take a back seat to this reality—it is gagged, hog tied, and tossed in the trunk. Think about promoting marriage as a means of HIV prevention in places where marriage is actually a risk factor for acquiring HIV and you’ll understand the mindset. Don’t try to be reasoned and logical, just go with it….
Today we feature our “Tribute to Rep. Mark Souder” with a blog from recently ousted CDC panelist and SIECUS VP William Smith, and we note that the Congressman is holding a hearing on Mifeprex (RU-486), the prescribed abortion medicine. The medicine has been linked by opponents and in the media to the deaths of seven women, though recent information indicates that two bacteria have caused similar deaths in several women who have not taken the medicine.
The Washington Post quotes former FDA official Susan Wood, who will testify at the hearing, "The deaths are clearly serious and tragic, but the overall rate of adverse reactions is actually low," said Wood, who is to testify at today's hearing. She said that although serious side effects are often underreported with many drugs, strict reporting requirements required for RU-486 resulted in a full accounting.
A minor note to add to previousposts: Jackie Jadrnak’s blog for the Albuquerque Journal included an interesting bit of news today.You’ll recall that recently politicians overrode the scientific peer-review process and censored a panel on abstinence-only education at a conference focused on sexually transmitted infections.Supposedly, Centers for Disease Control spokesperson Mark Skinner told Jackie that in light of the “conflict”, the CDC would revisit its policy of using a peer-review process to accept papers and panelists for future conferences.
If scientists and doctors are no longer qualified to formulate discussions on science and medicine, who is?The politicians who censored this most recent panel?Could the CDC be serious?
Considering that the heat has been on CDC for bowing to political pressure and failing to be faithful to its medical mission, one would think they’d be affirming the peer-review process as the best way to avoid such conflict in the future.Apparently not.
