Strollerderby : birth control

Twins Have One Mom, Two Different Dads

JeanneSager — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:33:00 GMT

Anyone who has operated on the premise that you can't get any MORE pregnant listen up.

A Texas mom has given birth to two babies at the same time, with two different dads. Technically, the little boys are twins, but their features were so dissimilar their mom became suspicious and went to lab to check the boys' paternity.

The tests showed a .001 chance that the boys shared a father. Which medical experts means mom Mia Washington had sex with two different guys within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of each other. And unprotected sex we'd imagine.

There is a happy ending for Washington and her twins - she's apparently made up with partner James Harrison, he's forgiven her infidelity and agreed to raise both boys as his own. They're now expecting their third child (well, his second) together.

And the experts weighing in on this case are all pointing to the statistical impossibility of this happening - one doc told the NY Daily News that without fertility drugs, the chances are one in one hundred of a double pregnancy in this manner.

Still, one in one hundred? With the amount of baby making sex some couples have when they're desperately trying, I wonder how many fraternal twins out there were conceived in a similar manner, only with the same father. Without that major difference in features, and without the difference in paternity, I guess there's no way we'll ever know.

Image: Daily Mail

Levi Calls BS on Bristol’s Abstinence-Only Message

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:30:00 GMT

I don’t whether to be disturbed or relieved that Levi Johnston has emerged as the voice of the reason in the ongoing Palin family drama.

After Bristol Palin assumed a (paid) role as the new face of abstinence-only sex education, Johnston decided to speak out about his, ah, more nuanced view of teen sexuality.

In this clip of his appearance on the Early Show yesterday, he is refreshingly frank about the problems with simply telling teenagers, “Don’t have sex! Don’t have sex!”

One great quote not included in the clip: “It's [abstinence] a great idea and a great message she's trying to send out to the world and all the young kids. It's not easy raising a baby. But I do think there's more things to it than just not having sex."

Johnston probably doesn’t know this, but the numbers support his view that it’s just not “realistic” to believe you can stop teen pregnancy with an abstinence-only message. Family planning services substantially reduce the number of abortions and unplanned pregnancies, particularly among poor women—who are certainly not getting paid to fly to New York and preach about how difficult it is to be a teen mom.

Photo: threebrain.blogspot.com

Bristol Palin Campaigning for Abstinence Only

King of the Deadbeat Dads?

Amy Kuras — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:29:00 GMT

Back off laydeees – Thomas Frazier may be a reasonably good looking fellow, but he’d be a bad bet.

Why? He’s allegedly fathered 14 children by 13 different women, and paid not a dime in child support for any of them. According to the Genesee County Friend of the Court here in Michigan, he owes $500,000-plus in child support. Yep, half a million bucks.

But poor Thomas – he’s just looking for love. He calls himself just a victim -- of a system that slammed him with debt for some kids he claims are not his and “the victim of a poor upbringing that he said caused him to seek affection from older women.”

"I tried to find someone who would love me for me," Frazier told the Flint Journal.

Awww. Poor baby. Wonder what kind of quality upbringing the kids he’s brought into the world are getting with no child support at all?

To be fair, he claims that only three of the 14 children the courts have him down as fathering are actually his. As for the others, he claims that women who he dated tagged him falsely as the father and then gave a false address for him so he never was notified to challenge paternity. Yes, somehow a dozen or so women all had the exact same idea. And I haven’t been in this situation, but I believe there’s no statute of limitations on challenging paternity.

Better yet? When he was picked up in Iowa he was driving a Mercedes and had $5,000 and plane tickets to Florida in his pocket – and yet is allegedly unemployed.

At this point he’s facing 90 days in jail or he’s got to come up with almost $30,000 as a down payment on the half-million he owes.

Lovely. Mothers of boys, share this story with your sons when it’s time to have the condom conversation.

School Expels Teen for Birth Control Pill

JeanneSager — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:32:00 GMT

A teenager who popped her birth control pill during her lunch period at a Virginia school is spending her spring break fighting the district not to be expelled.

The problem? That she did so during school hours. . . specifically, that she took a pill without supervision of the school nurse.

Her mother says she's aware the girl violated school rules, but she's questioning just how far a school should go with its punishment. Two weeks suspension and recommended expulsion for taking a legally prescribed drug? Does that sound fair?

It's a problem for plenty of parents in America - not birth control per se - but medicine. Kids take a lot of it - just this week, a study showed the precipitous rise in the number of kids who require medication to control their blood pressure and diabetes. And those are just two diseases. What about asthma, allergies, ADHD? Not to mention your standard headache or menstral cramps which could use an over-the-counter fix. All legal drugs, and not always feasible to take at home. Some medicines require several dosages in a day, for example, spaced out over time. Others require kids take them at the same time of day, every day. And a headache doesn't come on to suit the school schedule.

Meanwhile, schools are steadily trying to fight the tide of youthful prescription drug abusers in the America - a number that's up fivefold in the twelve-to-seventeen bracket in the past decade and a half. They call for students to take all medicines to the nurse's office, where the school health official is charged with handing out the prescription drugs to the students at the appropriate time in the appropriate dose.

It's what the girl in Fairfax should have done, what even her mom admits she should have done. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for every kid. In part because some school districts refuse to condone over-the-counter medications because they do not come with a doctor's note that can be kept in the nurse's office. And in part because kids need medicines at different times during the day; times when the nurse's office isn't always open. Some schools have cut back on the availability of nursing staff too, sharing one nurse for several buildings - so kids end up handing their medicines over to office staff, who parents argue are often even less informed about the proper use of the medication than the kids themselves, who have been taking the drugs for years.

And school districts have gone overboard. The Washington Post article that shares the Fairfax family's story cites a since-overturned law from Maryland that required a doctor's note for kids to put on sunscreen. Really? Because we'd rather the kids all end up with skin cancer over a legal substance that's available over the counter in any Wal-Mart in the country, for sale to anyone of any age?

With birth control too there's the worry that being so strict on teens dulls the efficacy of the fight against teen pregnancy. Wouldn't we rather our teens were taking the pill than skipping it? And despite the school's claims that this wasn't about what kind of drug but the fact that it was a drug, period, I can't help but wondering if they would have threatened explusion over, I don't know, aspirin? I'm not defending the girl in Virginia for her actions - birth control pills are to be taken at the same time every day, but there's no reason she couldn't have been on a schedule of taking them in the morning before school or at night.

She was wrong and deserved to be punished, but isn't expulsion for a LEGAL drug a little much? Do you feel the schools have gone too far in reaching into our medicine cabinets?

Image: AC

Why Teen Girls are Taking Drugs Meant for Cows

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:01:00 GMT

It's rumor and conjecture at this point, but Wisconsin health officials are taking seriously claims that a rash of teenage girls have taking drugs commonly used on cows to force their bodies to abort babies.

The kids allegedly got hold of prostaglandins, drugs used by farmers to regulate cows' heat cycles for breeding, and ingested them as "a cheap and easy way to end their pregnancies without their parents finding out."

According to officials, as many as ten girls ages fourteen to eighteen have owned up to the home abortion practice, and the American Veterinary Medical Association has gotten pro-active, sending warnings to practitioners about the usage and storage of the drug to discourage the practice from spreading.

Though the numbers are still small, that it's happening at all is clearly indicative of the fact that these kids are just that - kids. Shannon reported on the alarming spike in teenage pregnancies recently, pointing to the fact that at least half of American teens are having sex. Throw in kids' fear of being proactive with pregnancy preventions, and it's not hard to imagine how kids end up in this predicament.

They're having sex like adults. But they're still kids. And at the end of the day, they are afraid of how to properly deal with the consequences of their actions. They're afraid of owning up to their parents that they've made a mistake.

What should happen? It's really up to the kids and their families. Whether it's a baby given up for adoption, a baby kept or an abortion (pro-life groups are naturally using the news to once again decry legalized abortions, somehow arguing that legalizing abortions has actually encouraged these types of home abortions despite the fact that the legalized abortions means kids have much better options) is dependent on the family and their situation, but what's important is that these kids get the support of adults, adults who have the good sense not to feed their kids dangerous drugs meant for massive animals with drastically different genetic make-up.

But as Shannon pointed out recently, with abstinence-only education comes a lack of discussion about what happens when. . . and if . . . And pregnancies are happening, have always happened. Shrouding sex in mystery is not stopping it, but it is still putting our kids at risk.

Image: SFGate.com

School Assignment Forces Kids to Buy Birth Control

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:23:00 GMT

What would you do if your kid was sent out to buy condoms . . . on a school assignment?

If you're Linda Strobl, you take it to the Canadian newspapers in outrage.

The irony? Strobl is a public health nurse, who says it's OK to teach kids about sexually transmitted diseases. She's horrified, however, that her fourteen-year-old was directed by his class to A. buy condoms and B. participate in a contest to see who can put a condom on a wooden phallus.

Strobl told the National Post that her son came home complaining that he didn't want to do his health homework, embarrassed by the assignment.

Part of me is thanking my lucky stars, once again, that my daughter is still a pre-schooler, and I don't have to deal with this. HOWEVER, I'm still shocked that parents will profess how open-minded they are - hey, it's OK to teach about STDs - but in the end how impractical they are. Essentially, Strobl is saying they can teach kids about STDS but not actually help kids prevent them.

It's embarrassing to buy condoms for kids. I get that. Researching a post about actor Zac Efron's mom buying his condoms, I found surveys showing thirty percent of sexually active teens are too embarrassed to actually condoms. But with condoms still leading the pack in prevention of STDs (not to mention pregnancy), that's a hurdle every kid has to cross if they're going to have sex. And if they're not sexually active, I'd like to think that they're figuring out how to properly use a condom before they end up in the dark in the backseat of a car, fumbling with this thing and eventually tearing it because they just don't get it . . . and go ahead and have sex anyway because, hey, they're teens and they're infallible.

Is making a fourteen-year-old buy condoms really that bad? Is making a fourteen-year-old practice putting a condom on a fake penis really something to be horrified about? These are life skills, and skills that most teens still have a harder time taking a lesson on from Mom and Dad than they do an unrelated adult (like a health teacher).

There are a lot of occasions where embarrassing kids is potentially harmful to their psyches, but people get embarrassed. It happens. Sometimes, it's necessary. And until you practice something you're uncomfortable with, you're always going to be embarrassed.

In this case, an ounce of embarrassment is worth the pound of prevention.

Image: The Sun

Teen Pregnancy on the Rise. I Say, Prevention Starts NOW.

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:11:00 GMT

Teen pregnancy has risen for the second time in two years, after a fourteen year decline, according to new statistics available from the National Center for Health Statistics. After a low in 2005 of less than 40 births per thousand girls aged 15-19, the number had climbed by 2007 to 42.5 births per 1000 teen girls. To put it another, rather stunning way, in a high school with 500 girls, that's 21 babies each year.

Statisticians aren't willing to call this two-year rise a "trend" yet. Apparently, the rule of thumb is that it takes three years to make a trend. But many are speculating that it will prove to be one and many are pointing fingers about the cause. Suspect number one? Abstinence-only education.

I freely admit to being very persuaded by that hypothesis. Let's face it, whether they ought to or not, whether we want them to or not, whether we tell them not to or not, roughly half of teens are having sex. That's a lot of kids playing Russian roulette with their health and with pregnancy if we don't also provide them with plenty of education about sex, health and reproduction, and offer them bushels of free and easy condoms.

When I read or hear stories about teen sexuality and pregnancy, my automatic response is to dig up It's Not the Stork and read it again to my four-year old daughter. Four may seem for some to be too early for sex ed, but my philosophy is that if we start now, when the topic does not include my volatile anxiety about actual romantic partners and possible sexual activity, talking about it later (and probably sooner than I think) will be all that much more natural when the subject is fraught with immediate practical importance.

What's your theory about the rising teen birth rate? And what, if anything, do you do to prepare your children for the world of sexuality in their tender years, before they really enter it?

Do We All Have a Right to Procreate?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:48:00 GMT

Though we would rarely admit it, most of us, upon hearing about some abusive situation, have muttered about requiring a license to parent or "fixing" the offenders so at least no child will have to go through that again. But when push comes to shove would we really think either was a good idea?

Carter Dillard, writing in the Georgia Law Review, is not exactly recommending either (in fact, he speaks, rightly, of parental licensing schemes as "comical"). But he is, very seriously, arguing that there should be no fundamental right to procreate, that there is a duty on prospective parents to be "fit," and that courts should have the right to issue no-procreation orders in certain limited circumstances.

In the narrowest case that Dillard focuses on, it's hard to argue: If, due to egregious harm to previous children, a no-custody order has already been issued, such that any child born is immediately taken into state custody, wouldn't it be better for all to prevent such a pregnancy in the first place with a "no-procreate" order?

Trouble is, this seems to me almost as rife with problems as parental licensing. Much as Dillard wants to separate out the principle from how it would be implemented, I can't.

Dillard never manages to acknowledge that the state does a pretty awful job in most cases of determining "fitness" now, and often gets it wrong (in both directions). Some of that can't be avoided: We need to be able to take kids out of danger, even if we suck at it. But I heard in Dillard's writing a disturbing willingness to expand the definition of "fitness" tests to include finances (how much money is "enough"? does it matter how you spend it?), "pending neglect cases" (and if they were ruled to be unfounded, as many are?). It just seems like a clear slippery slope to pre-emptive sterilization of people who are different, poor, etc.

But even if we do set aside implementation for a moment, Dillard's argument that his "no-procreate" orders could be good for everyone by shifting resources from helping kids who have already been harmed to prevention rings a bit hollow.

For that to work, the no-procreate orders would actually have to substantially reduce the number of children born into abusive situations. But only a tiny fraction of the worst cases already have no-custody orders. And even then, how to ensure the order works? Foricble abortion? Sterilization? (Long sordid history of that already) Court-ordered Norplant (serious side effects for many people)? Criminalizing sex? Imprisoning people? Sending them to a convent?

The answer, of course, is you don't. You just say it, and if it's violated, it changes to a "no-custody" order and unspecified penalties are applied after the fact. Could that have a deterrant effect? Unlikely. At least for women, if carrying a pregnancy you know you're going to have to give up isn't a deterrant, it's hard to know what would work better. And most men in this situation are unable to pay the child support they already owe and any other penalties may suck for them, but it'll make it even less likely that they end up paying. Pregnancies are not always preventable, and in stressed families like this, are also rarely planned.

Would the orders make a point? Perhaps. But they're not going to make some huge difference in the number of kids who are born to "unfit" parents or who end up abused.

Here's what might work better:

If you want to put resources into prevention—of unwise pregnancies and of abuse—do it. Don't wait for some neat legal principle to make you feel better about it. Fund health care, birth control, abortion, good sex ed, parenting education, respite services, and domestic violence response, etc. and improve access to them. There's plenty of info out there about how to do these things well.
If you want to ensure that babies born to parents with a history of serious enough abuse that they already have a no-custody order in place aren't bounced around from foster home to foster home and maybe-maybe-not back to birth parents sometime (which I agree is not a good plan), make no-custody orders include automatic termination of parental rights for any child conceived after they are issued and allow the kid a permanent adoptive home from day one. It's still subject to errors in judgment, but at least you know it'll have real results. (And, frankly, it might be more of a deterrant than some random legal penalty.) (Note: This suggestion works when both bio parents have the no-custody order. What is the proper response when it's only one of them who is subject to such? I don't know.)

Ick.

Photo by walknboston.

More by this author:

Mom Buys High School Musical Star's Condoms: Would You?

JeanneSager — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:16:00 GMT

If your first reaction to news that High School Musical star Zac Efron's mom buys his condoms is a grimace, don't worry. I don't like thinking of my three-year-old one day having sex either.

But Efron is twenty, and his mom wants him to be safe. Wouldn't you?

When photos of Efron and girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens surfaced, showing them at what appeared to be a sex shop, Efron says his mom confronted him. But she admitted she knew already that he was sexually active - and she showed it by stocking his Christmas stocking with an economy-sized box of condoms.

I don't know that I'd be quite that showy. A box slipped under the pillow or left on the bedroom desk, maybe. Shoved in the Christmas stocking? Er, reserve that for socks and underwear Ma!

But it's nice to see a mother who understands you need to set the squeamishness aside if you want to protect your kids. Remember - I'm not talking about a three-year-old, but if a teen is having sex, and you know it, ignoring it is not going to make it go away. Neither is screaming, yelling or riding them about it. Once it's happened, you have to get cracking.

The problem? A 2000 survey by the Kaiser Foundation showed thirty percent of sexually active teens are too embarrassed to actually condoms (although eighty-seven percent said they believed they were somewhat or very effective at preventing pregnancy, followed by eighty-four who believe they can protect against HIV/AIDS and seventy-two percent against STDs). That's nearly a third of all sexually active kids.

Would you really want to run the risk that your kid is one of the three in ten who won't buy them? Is it worth saving yourself the embarrassment to have to have someone call you Grandma?

So would you follow Mrs. Efron's lead? If you already knew your child was sexually active, would you buy them birth control?

Image: LA Times

Family Planning Services Save Taxpayers Billions of Dollars

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:25:00 GMT

You might be shocked to learn that family planning makes much more sense than telling unmarried poor women not to have sex. A new report from the well-respected Guttmacher Institute has discovered that publicly funded family planning services save the government billions of dollars a year. According to a report co-author, “every dollar spent on [family planning] saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.”

Apparently, this is old news to the majority of policymakers, since 27 states have already opted to extend family planning services to low-income women who don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

Unfortunately, Democrats stripped the stimulus bill of a section that would have expanded family planning services to poor women, caving to Republican opposition. Anti-abortion activist Troy Newman of Operation Rescue called the proposal a "shameful population control program that targeted low-income families." How exactly does giving women the option of choosing when to have kids constitute population control?

This guy might have a point if the program was going to make abortions for poor women mandatory. Actually, government-funded family planning programs substantially (and entirely predictably) reduce the number of abortions. According to MSNBC, “Without publicly funded family planning, it [the report] said, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher, and nearly twice as high among poor women.”

Apparently, taxpayers like Newman would prefer to pay for abortions than to allow a young woman the option of waiting until she's ready for kids before becoming pregnant. No doubt Newman would argue that women should not be having sex until they are ready for kids. But considering that evangelical teens have far more unsafe sex than the rest of their peers, it’s clear that abstinence-only sexual education is no match for the innate biological impulse to have sex.

Photo: Jezebel

Obama to Overturn "Conscience" Rule for Medical Providers

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:30:00 GMT

A "midnight rule" declared in GW Bush's final days in office, disallowing federal discrimination in funding to medical providers who refuse otherwise legal reproductive health treatment on the basis of religious belief will probably end in about a month.

The rule, which allows individuals employed by institutions receiving federal money to refuse services like abortion, permanent birth control (like a tubal ligation), morning after pills for rape victims and even routine dispensing of birth control pills, was established by Bush in December of 2008 and took 30 days to go into effect. Obama plans to unestablish it, which would kill it after 30 days of public review.

Supporters of overturning the rule point out that employers must already make provisions for employees' religious beliefs and there is no need for this rule which could jeoporadize the health and safety of patients in crisis. Health facilities affiliated with a religious organization already refuse certain services, but aren't allowed most federal funding. (There are loopholes even then.)

Supporters of the rule don't care what's already in place, and insist they need this to maintain religious freedom.

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

In the latest salvo against abortion rights, North Dakota's house of representatives this week passed a law defining a fertilized egg as having all the rights of a human being. The bil, which passed with a 51-41 vote, will now move to the state's senate for its consideration. If it is approved, legal challenges are expected that could end up in the United States Supreme Court -- a body that is now widely seen as having a five-justice majority willing to restrict abortion rights first enumerated in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Dan Ruby, the Republican state congressman who sponsored the bill, says it's not intended to ban abortion, simply to define when life begins -- a question that has mystified thinkers for centuries, but apparently is obvious to the North Dakota Republican Party -- and to give that life "some protections under our Constitution."

This is hardly the first or the only legislative assault on Roe, and it certainly won't be the last. It is, however, part of an interesting new political/religious movement that uses the term "personhood" to attempt to define not only fetuses, but blastocytes (what's next, follicles?) as fully-fledged human beings deserving of all the legal status of a baby, child, or adult. The so-called "personhood movement" aims to roll back abortion rights by means of state legislative action, primarily working in states that outlawed or restricted abortion in the days pre-Roe, when each state had its own laws regarding reproductive rights. In defining even a fertilized egg as human, backers are not only taking aim at abortion but also at many forms of birth control, which operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the woman's uterus. It could also result in pregnant women being prosecuted for behavior said to endanger their fetuses.

I'm interested in this movement, and wonder when they will turn their attention to granting "personhood" rights to children who have already been born. One group of persons whose rights need protecting is children who are US citizens but whose parents are not -- an estimated 100,000 parents were deported over the past decade whose children, having been born here, should be enjoying all the rights of other US citizens, rather than left behind by their parents or forced to return to countries with fewer opportunities for them. And how about extending "personhood" rights to gay Americans who would like to marry and raise their children together, just as their straight friends and relatives do?

The religious right's emphasis on what happens before birth and after death is mystifying to me at times. I'd like to remind them that there's life after birth, and protecting those lives seems a much better use of everyone's time, energy, and attention.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

Birth Control Best For Families in This Economy?

JeanneSager — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:33:00 GMT

The economy's in the toilet, but guess what's still flying off the shelves?

Let's just say Valentine's Day conceptions are expected to be more of a sigh than a boom this year.

Sales of condoms rose five percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 over the same period the previous year. The hike was six percent in January '09 over the frosty first month of 2008.

A spokesman for the ad agency that represents Durex condoms told USA Today that condoms are "recession resistant." Still, to boost the figures, they've been stocking newspaper circulars with coupons - another nod to the downturn in the economy. Clipping coupons might have been reserved to suburban housewives in the nineties, but it's back in full force in '09.

Ironically, some of the other condom makers are talking about a focus on "nesting" in their advertising campaigns. Maybe it's just me - a mom - but I thought nesting-focused advertising always showed a mom, dad, dog and the requisite two point four kids? You know, the whole ideal that birth control is just kinda, sorta, designed to prevent?

Then again, if we're talking families who have to cut back, with all of the entertainment options outside of the home cost-prohibitive because they require paying for entrance for the whole family, maybe the answer to saving money is making fun for just Mom and Dad.

Image: More4Kids

Anti-Abortion Nurse Works to Increase Abortions

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:30:00 GMT

A New Mexico woman has filed an action in federal court claiming that when she asked nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona to shorten the string on her IUD, Olona instead pulled it out (a painful procedure), and then told her it that was a good thing because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."

So the way she's against abortion is to screw up people's birth control, making it more likely they need an abortion? Swift one there.

(Current medical findings show, by the way, that IUDs prevent pregnancy primarily by creating an environment hostile to sperm and impeding their movement, not by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. Not that the previous understanding would have excused Olona's behavior, but it's useful to know.)

Olona, of course, is claiming it was an accident, and that the IUD must not have been in right, but get this: She admitted these "accidents" happen to her a lot. "Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug."

That sounds to me about as believable as "I accidently climbed on the counter and ate all the cookies." And a hell of a lot creepier.

Is physical violation, direct contradiction of patients' wishes, and ideological lectures what Rio Rancho Medical Center means by "a healing environment that takes care of the body, mind, and soul of patients and their families"? And if not, why does this woman still have a job?

Photo by Liz Henry.

More by this author:

Tell Obama to Overturn the Global Gag Rule Sooner Rather Than Later

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:34:00 GMT

The Global Gag Rule, originally put in place by Ronald Reagan, makes U.S. aid dollars available only to health clinics that refuse to discuss abortion with their patients, regardless of the abortion law in their countries. As a result, helath clinics that provide basic services to poor people with little to no other options for health care have been closed due to lack of funding. Will Barack Obama overturn this rule (as Bill Clinton did during his years as president before GW Bush reinstated it)? Sure, he probably will. But let's be sure he knows that health care for poor women and children around the globe is a priority for us. This video from Engender Health tells you how to help:

Teen Mom Must Visit Cemetery for Abandoning Baby

JeanneSager — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:33:00 GMT

The sixteen-year-old mother of a baby abandoned at a South Carolina fire department has to visit a cemetery, mortuary and a maternity ward, get her GED and a long list of other requirements. The baby's father, a twenty-one-year-old who graduated from high school, has a shorter list - but he'll have to make the rounds with his girlfriend.

The couple, who have an eleven-month-old baby and a two-year-old toddler at home, apparently left their newborn at a firehouse because they knew they couldn't care for the six-hour-old baby. Firehouses meet safe haven criteria under South Carolina law, but the couple failed to give the baby to an actual person at the firehouse - which means they've been facing felony charges for leaving the child on the doorstep in the cold weather.

The mother is being charged as a juvenile - she turned seventeen just days after the incident - and the father as an adult. She reportedly hasn't gone past the ninth grade in high school, and part of the suggestions from Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy as part of her juvenile arbitration is a requirement that the girl return to school to get a diploma or at least pass the GED exam.

Gowdy says the couple did at least make an attempt to abandon the baby properly, which takes them out of the realm of parents who shake their babies to death or simply abandon the baby in garbage can. But he wants them to see what could have happened if the baby hadn't been found on that doorstep: hence the visits to the mortuary and cemetery. His list also includes parenting classes (phewww), reproductive counseling (considering she would have been what, fourteen when she first got pregnant, and he was nineteen - three kids ago?), and meetings with the representative who pushed for the South Carolina safe haven law and an adoption law specialist.

Here's hoping the judge in the case takes Gowdy up on the suggestions - there's an obvious lack of common sense between these two, but at the very least, they tried to do the right thing. What they need now isn't a ten-year sentence behind bars, but some smartening up and some birth control.

Source: WYFF

Image: Safe Haven Maternity

Kids: The World's Best Form of Birth Control

One in Five Teens Having Tech Sex

Teen Girl's Mom Throws Prostitution Party

They Say: Forward-Facing Stroller's Bad for Baby

Kids: The World's Best Form of Birth Control

JeanneSager — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:29:00 GMT

You've got to laugh when someone tries convincing a childfree-by-choice non-breeder that parenting is wonderful while her two-year-old runs around her feet screaming. I'd give them half a Popsicle for trying. Yes, parenting is wonderful, but boy our kids do a lot to convince people otherwise.

This week's Babble feature Non-Breeder: A Preschool Teacher's Confession drives home a theory I've always had. Kids make great birth control.

Lauren Johnson loves, loves, loves the adorable tots who take up her business hours, but her home life is her escape. Come on, who hasn't wanted to escape their kids? Come on . . . get the snoot out of the air; it's OK to admit it. When they're chucking banana at you. When they're lying on the floor at Toys R Us, beating their fists on the tile because they neeeeeed a T-Rex with mechanized arms, head and feet at $59.99.

Ask a grandparent which stage of their life they like the best - and I bet you you'll get a dentist-like ratio. Nine out of ten will probably agree, grandparenting rocks. Parenting . . . eh . . . it was good then, but this is better. They can send them home with us.

I've heard people whine that their kid's teacher isn't very understanding; she doesn't even have kids. It's true, kid-free folks very often don't get us. The ones who really don't want kids just plain think we're crazy. Because our kids have convinced them - hell no, I won't go . . . there.

Think your friend has the making of a really great parent but they're still on the fence? A few suggestions:

Don't send your child over there when he's snotty; if tissues are necesary, cancel any interaction between the two parties post haste.
Keep all snack baggies of food well hidden to enhance the chances of a jam hands-free "five."
A napping child is a peaceful child. They always look sweeter when they're asleep.
Don't . . . ever, ever, ever . . . ask them to baby-sit. There should be a parent shield present at all times.

Finally? If they work with kids all day, don't tell them how much different it is when it's their own. I think they can figure that out; it doesn't mean it's going to change their mind.

Booty Caller Texts When You're Ovulating

Husband's Genitals Lit on Fire For Cheating

Nintendo Scrabble Game Drops the F-Bomb

Man Forced to Pay Child Support for Another Man's Child

Bus Driver Spanks 6 Year Old For Not Sitting Down

Last Gasp of a Dying Patriarchy?

Kate Tuttle — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:01:00 GMT

As the inauguration countdown enters its last 60 days, the Bush administration is doing what any of us do when we're about to leave a job -- no, not downloading company secrets and stealing all the good pens -- they're tidying up, finishing those outstanding tasks that they just won't feel right if they leave undone. You know, like limiting women's access to reproductive healthcare! This story came up while talking about a battle over contraception in the Philippines: for the past several months, the administration has pushed for new rules requiring any healthcare organization that receives federal funding to "protect" workers who had "conscience"-based objections to performing or assisting in abortion or sterilizatin-related activity. The rule's definition of abortion, as many have pointed out, would also apply to hormonal birth control devices such as the pill or Nuva ring.

Leaving aside the objections of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the attorneys general of 13 states, and about a third of the congress (so far), the rule is rejected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as totally unnecessary, despite the adminstration's stance that it's merely seeking to protect workers from being discriminated against for their convictions. It's unclear whether the administration, or anyone else, has ever met anyone whose job was put in jeopardy for such actions (and it's kind of hard for me to understand why someone who has religious objections to providing healthcare would work in the field, but maybe that's just me). So who's for the new rule? The Catholic Health Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, among other religious groups.

Perhaps the most hypocritical part of the proposal is that it violates the Bush adminstration's own rules about this kind of last-minute action. According to the New York Times, "the White House said in May that new regulations should be proposed by June 1 and issued by Nov. 1. The “provider conscience” rule missed both deadlines."

Speaking of deadlines: if the rule is put into place, it would be overturned by a new President Obama as soon as he takes office, but even then it will take three to six months (and a lot of wasted taxpayer money) for the reversal to be complete. I propose, then, that any unwanted children resulting from this rule -- let's say, born to a woman who was raped and denied the morning-after pill by her friendly local conscience-driven pharmacist -- be named George and immediately sent down to Crawford, Texas. I hear there's a retiree and his wife who will raise them up to be good Christians.

In the Philippines, a Battle Over Contraception

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:29:00 GMT

Reason #1,0001 to be grateful for the election results earlier this month: the near-theocracy we in the U.S. have, at least for the moment, escaped. Lawmakers in the Philippines are currently debating a bill that would require the government to not only provide but promote the use of contraception for people wising to avoid pregnancy, and while most Filipinos seem to support the measure, the country's powerful Catholic church is bringing out the big guns in opposition. Bishops are lobbying legislators and on the ground, local churches are posting anti-contraception petititions for parishioners to sign.

The Catholic church in the Philippines has long sought to block divorce and abortion in that country, and its anti-family planning advocacy goes way back too, despite food shortages that will only get worse as its population continues to explode. From the Reuters article:

While a relatively small middle class in the Philippines can easily afford contraceptives, millions of poor women cannot. A month's supply of the pill costs 39 pesos or around $0.86, around half the average daily salary of almost half the population.

Without an effective birth control policy, the Philippines, already the world's 12th most populous country with 90 million people, is projected to have a population of over 140 million by 2040. This will put a huge strain on its creaking health system, schools and other services, and its ability to feed itself.

Couldn't happen here? Well, it nearly has. According to a New York Times article last summer, the Bush adminstration was proposing to cut off federal funding to all agencies that provided abortion services or abortion counseling, then tried to redefine abortion:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception."

Such efforts won't entirely die under an Obama administration, but without the bully pulpit at least they won't have an advocate-in-chief.

Woman on Pill Conceives Identical Triplets

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:05:00 GMT

The chances of getting pregnant while on the birth control pill are about 1 to 2 percent—this is actually not an insignificant percentage, when you consider that about 2 women out of 100 on the pill will get pregnant. But the chances of having identical triplets are laughably minuscule: 200 million to one.

So, the odds of having both of these things happen simultaneously are, well, too tiny for me to wrap my mind around. But that is exactly what happened to 22-year-old Kirsty Hale. Though they profess to be still in shock, Hale and her fiancé, 28-year-old Toby Wilson, quickly adjusted to the idea of becoming an “instant family.” Lily, Gabriella, and Alicia were born by emergency C-section a few days ago, and are all in good health.

Photo: The Daily Mail

What's Worse, Getting Fat or Getting Pregnant?

JeanneSager — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:08:00 GMT

Been on a diet lately? If pregnancy's in your future, you might find the scale climbing a lot higher than you thought. A study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association this month shows women with a history of dieting are more likely to gain weight.

Following 1,200 expectant moms, researchers from the University of North Carolina determined it doesn't matter what you weigh when the sperm meets the egg. It's your history that counts. Ironically, in the same month, the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care claims women are more afraid of gaining weight than they are of getting pregnant. That's what's driving their birth control decisions. It was what they call a "snapshot" study with just 55 women, but together the two offer a look at the delicate balance too many of us are trying to strike in our lives.

Excuse the woman who was once pregnant and is still showing a bit of that state around her mid-section for thinking, but when you get pregnant, AHEM, you gain weight. Well, unless you're pregorexic, but that's another post. Going into pregnancy, I think every woman knows in her head that she's supposed to grow, that watching the numbers on the scale rise is normal. But women who struggle with their weight often have a disconnect between what the brain knows and what the brain sees on the scale or in the mirror. It's the difference between plain old smarts and emotional intelligence.

And so I've wondered if we don't over-compensate when we get pregnant. Knowing our tendency to eat poorly, to make an issue of our weight, we fight the urge to diet to the point where we overeat. I've always been pretty open about my bulimic past. When I was diagnosed with the severe morning sickness they call hyperemesis gravidarum during pregnancy, a small part of me was grateful. I had to smack myself back into reality when I realized that despite the misery, I was happy knowing I wasn't gaining weight. Then I started to feel like this was punishment for years of making myself throw up. Now I literally couldn't help myself.

When the medicines prescribed to chemotherapy patients to help them battle nausea finally took hold, and I began to eat again, I did so with a vengeance. When I swallowed pints of Ben & Jerry's to soothe the heartburn in my throat, I told myself I was doing my baby a favor. I wasn't taking more medicine, and I wasn't denying our two bodies what I would have denied my one. It's no wonder I found myself, B&J in hand, devouring Greek Tragedy blogger Stephanie Klein's new book, Moose, through tears. The book follows her from the day the doctor orders her to pack on 50 pounds to feed the twins growing inside her straight back to fat camp. How could it not? After years of being told NOT to eat, Klein wasn't just being told to eat, she was ordered. And when the order comes from a doctor, when you know you have life inside of you, you do it. And, yes, sometimes you do it to excess.

Because fat or thin at the beginning of pregnancy, the acceptance of "fat" on a pregnant woman brings out what we once were in ways nothing ever will. We will always be the fat girl. As Klein says in one of her blog posts about the book, "While you might be tempted to say when I realize I've outgrown that puffy girl, then I'll be real, you're wrong. Realizing that Moose is who I was, and who I will always fear being again, is who I really am."

So women fear being fat more than they fear getting pregnant. Women who fear getting fat get fatter when they're pregnant. Yes, it all makes sense when you're the fat girl.

Image: Stephanie Klein

Mother's Milk - Good Enough for Ben, but What About Jerry?

Are More Pregnant Women Suddenly Starving Themselves?

Government Seizes Newborn from Mentally Disabled Mom 22 Hours After Birth

Let Them Eat Cake, But Not At School

New Coke: The New Birth Control?

They Say: It Really Is Mom's Fault - But That's Not Always Bad

New Coke: The New Birth Control?

JeanneSager — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:51:00 GMT

High school seniors everywhere are counting on too much Mountain Dew to help them practice safe sex. Who knew they'd be better off with Diet Coke?

Turns out doin' the Dew isn't going to destroy his sperm count (you'll just have to trust me on this one . . . she's running around the living room right now). But a 23-year-old study by researchers at Boston University's School of Medicine that found Coca-Cola has the makings of a good spermicide resurfaced this week to win an Ig Nobel Award - the prize handed out by Harvard University for "research that makes people laugh and then think."

The study, published in the 1985 New England Journal of Medicine, found Diet Coke was the best beverage to pour on your lower parts to kill off little swimmers. Brings a whole new meaning to bringing a little bubbly to bed to celebrate your consumation. It also sounds messy . . . and more than a little kinky.

But before you try it, you might want to read up on the other Ig Nobel Chemistry Prize Winner this year: a group of Taiwanese scientists who found sperm retained up to 70 percent mobility despite the extra fizz in the bedroom.

Image: ABC News

La. Legislator Says: Let's Pay the Poor to Stop Making Babies

Mom Finds New Use For Sippy Cup: Beer Holder

La. Legislator Says: Let's Pay the Poor to Stop Making Babies

JeanneSager — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:34:00 GMT

Think you're done having kids? How about moving down to the Big Easy - where they're considering a plan to make it a little easier to really put a stop to childbearing.

A Republican (natch) State Legislator in Louisiana is mullling a move to offer $1,000 to every woman who will tie her tubes or to men who will undergo a vasectomy. His reason? The economy. "We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out, " Rep. John LaBruzzo told the Times Picayune. Excuse this liberal mama her line crossing moment, but some of his ideas for a "bridge to somewhere" (sorry, I just had to) have merit.

No really. We constantly kvetch about poor people popping out babies that then live off the system (us), but has anyone offered up a means for them to STOP? Tubal ligations, vasectomies . . .they don't come cheap. Even those of us who have health insurance often end up paying a few hundred dollars between the co-pay for ambulatory surgery, the pain pills, the co-pays for the before and after visits with the doctor.

It's also one of the few measures that puts the onus on both sides of the zygote. It's all well and good to tie a woman's tubes, but if he's still got swimmers, that means babies can still be made - just not with her. It makes it harder to say that the government is being sexist when they're willing to pony up the same cash to snip him as they would to tie up her childbearing days.

And coming from a politician who is pro-life, it's a reminder that there wouldn't be nearly as many abortions if women weren't having unwanted pregnancies to begin with. An ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose, I can still acknowledge that for all the women who seek an abortion because it's the right choice for them, there are abortions done because a woman either chose not to use birth control and had an "oops" or her form of birth control failed. A tubal ligation has a pretty high success rate - one in 200 women may become pregnant after the procedure - while the vasectomy has even better numbers - 1 or 2 in 1,000 women get pregnant after having sex with a man who's gone under the scalpel. Sounds better than a thin layer of very breakable latex to me . . .

Yes, this is what they call sterilization, folks. But instead of lining people up and putting the proverbial gun to their heads, this would be for volunteers only. Which makes it hard for me to understand how this could be termed "racist," "Nazi" or any of the other epithets hurled LaBruzzo's way since he threw out the idea.

It's offering people a choice - for once.

Image: Feminist Women's Health Center

Texas Judge Orders Woman to Stop Bearing Children

Can a Mom be 'Too Dumb' to Parent?

Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

Preventing Teen Pregnancy, One Tick at a Time

Couple Sues After Failed Vasectomy

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:04:00 GMT

What would your first assumption be if your wife got pregnant after you’d had a vasectomy? Would you suspect her of being unfaithful—or your sperm of outsmarting your sterilization surgery?

Well, unless your marriage is on the rocks or you’re swingers (and, hey, I don’t judge!), the latter is the more likely. At least 1 percent of vasectomies fail to prevent pregnancy—just as condoms break and women on the pill get pregnant.

Mindy and Brady Hill of Arkansas found out what it was like to be that one percent (as, presumably, have thousands of other couples), and they didn’t like it one bit. They claim that doctors suggested that Mindy had been unfaithful, which put stress on their marriage. After Mindy miscarried, a paternity test showed that there was a 99.999 percent chance that the baby was Brady’s. No doubt this whole ordeal was highly stressful and unpleasant. Still, one would hope that Brady trusted Mindy enough that a paternity test wasn’t necessary to make him believe that the baby was his. But, of course, a paternity test will come in handy in court.

Mindy and Brady are suing for negligence and defamation. Should they win?

Photo: Shaadi Times

Should 21-Year-Olds Get Vasectomies?

Teaching Abstinence Doesn’t Work: Palin’s Preggo Kid.

Cole Gamble — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:00:00 GMT

This is a topic that’s not gonna get a lot of play from the Obama camp. People would call bringing a 17-year-old pregnant girl into a political debate just mean. I don’t care; I think it needs to be discussed because Bristol Palin’s situation launches a fiery hot cannonball right into the heart of Sarah Palin’s social policy: Abstinence training doesn’t work.

Sarah Palin will possibly be our vice president and her policy on teen sex is abstinence, which is no policy. Condoms, diaphragms and birth control pills are not the devil’s work. To not educate your kids to practice safe sex is to encourage them to have unsafe sex. That is not a message I want our second highest governing official passing to my kids.

This is the same ideological turd our current government took into the African aids crisis, suggesting Africans could cure their aids plague with some good old fashioned abstinence training. Not condoms or other safe sex devices, just sweet chaste abstinence. Thank goodness we finally bombed Africans with some rubbers or else we wouldn’t be seeing a drop in the numbers of newly infected.

But what about our children’s precious minds? If we talk frankly to them about sex and even provide them with protection they will become ruined people, sexual deviants of the highest order. They’ll transform into beings so brutally, nastily sexualized that their actions will make unicorns cry, right? Well listening to NPR the other day, I heard the words of a republican delegate praising the Palin’s composure during this delicate time for their daughter. The woman said, “I think the situation with her daughter just makes her one of us. She’s got problems like any mom: you tell your kids what to do, but kids will do what they do.” Um, thank you. Kids will do what they do and if you want to stick your head into the sand that is “abstinence only” training, then you won’t be able to see your kids running around having unprotected sex. Persistent ignorance is not good child rearing. I am not saying it is travesty that some 17-year-old got knocked up. What is a travesty is a 17-year-old running around having unprotected sex, in which there are far greater dangers than pregnancy looming, just because mommy and daddy believe teaching smart responsible sex is like offering your kid an apple from the tree of knowledge. It’s a slap in the face of human nature and responsible parenting. Please someone tell me just one instance, any instance, in which choosing to be ignorant saved the day.

Teaching abstinence is fine, if it’s a piece of the puzzle, not the only option. There must be some abstinence only proponents out there. Tell me I’m wrong. Please explain to me how abstinence only works, show me the numbers. Show me how being honest and open with your kids ruins them, because I need to know I am not just shouting into a void. So what do YOU think???

More by this author:

5 Reasons Breast Feeding Isn’t That Great (and 5 Reasons Why It Is)

My Daughter Wants A Penis

The Sh*t List: 10 Bizarre (or Terrific?) Potty Gadgets

Nipple Jewelry: 5 Products Moms DON’T Need

10 Naughty Things We Do to Our Kids (but keep doing anyway)

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever