What Does Bush Have Against Planned Pregnancies?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:42:00 GMT

Although I am unequivocally pro-choice, I respect those who are peacefully opposed to abortion on moral grounds. But anyone who supports the Bush administration’s most recent attack on family planning is completely nuts as far as I’m concerned.

The administration has put forth a proposal to deny federal funding to any health programs, including schools and hospitals, that “discriminate against” providers who refuse to provide abortion or some types of birth control. To give you a feel for how this policy would affect women’s lives, the draft proposal, according to The New York Times, “expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.”

To that end, the Bush administration would like to make the definition of abortion much broader. According to the proposal, abortion should be redefined as anything “that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

That “before or after implantation” is crucial: it means that birth control pills and emergency contraception could be considered abortion—and that any clinic that thinks otherwise could lose federal funding.

Does anyone else feel like she’s in the Twilight Zone?

Photo: prochoice.org

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

Kelly Mills — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:33:00 GMT

Federal money for Cold Showers 101 may someday be a thing of the past. More and more states are declaring they will not apply for federal funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, and a couple others have applied but stated they will not stick with the abstinence-only curriculum, therefore rendering themselves ineligible. If you don't think this is a big deal, remember, these states are turning down MONEY--your tax dollars, in fact. That says something. Now why would states say they won't try and get the funds? "The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials reported last week that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appeared to have reversed." Great.

Oh, but I absolutely loooove the response of supporters of "just say no" sex ed. Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services says "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out." Youths who really, really need to sit in a classroom and be told all about the evils of sex without any information that could actually benefit them. Yeah, totally missing out. And Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says the abstinence programs don't just waggle fingers and tsk tsk, but "They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception." Kids, this is a condom. It might help protect you from STDs, but since you won't be having sex, you don't need to know how it works. This, however, is what syphillis looks like, and you don't want that, do you?

I must confess this is one of those issues that gets me more irate than almost anything else, so I'm giddy that states are taking a stand. Now perhaps the money I send to the federal government could be used for education programs that aren't utter crap? Really, abstinence-only policy makers who ignore research and reality can kiss my ass without protection.

Strollerderby : federal funding

What Does Bush Have Against Planned Pregnancies?

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed