For reproductive rights advocates, and for all Americans distressed with the rise in teenage pregnancy, Barack Obama arrives just in the nick of time. We can now get back on track, pushing toward the common ground goals Americans seek, namely, the goal of preventing unwanted pregnancies.
To signal the seriousness with which Obama and the new Congress take this mission, last week, on the first day the Senate returned to session, Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act. This legislation is designed to increase access to both contraception and comprehensive sex education, as well as reduce unwanted pregnancies in the United States. On Tuesday, House Democrats Louise Slaughter and Diana Degette introduced it in the House.
This legislation will hopefully end the reckless Bush years which pushed ideology over tried and true methods to address the problem. If any further proof is needed of the Bush failure, some timely data is at hand. Indeed the Bush era ends with a couple of poetic, sad, but predictable footnotes. The CDC just released new data showing that teen birth rates rose in more than half the states in the country in 2006 hitting hardest the South-the region most loyal to Bush and his abstinence-only mission. (The pro-choice, comprehensive sex ed supporting Northeastern states had the lowest teen birth rates.) Another CDC study released days ago discovered STDs are on the rise also. Medical experts continually sounded the alarm during the Bush years, warning that the abstinence-only approach would sow the seeds of ignorance in teenagers. Those seeds are finally bearing fruit. In the South, where abstinence-only was promoted as the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, it has yielded bitter fruit.
When Bush took office he was handed the lowest unintended pregnancy and abortion rates in decades. During the Clinton years, a woman's right to make important life decisions, like when to become a mother, was respected. But at the behest of his fervent base, Bush discarded the policies that led to those universally desired results. Sex education was replaced with abstinence-only, which dismissed actual knowledge as a corrupting force, indeed, as an inducement to experiment. (Teens it turns out need no inducement on that score.) Bush filled contraceptive posts with anti-contraceptive ideologues. Instead of increasing access to contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy, Bush's HHS tried to redefine contraception as abortion. Bush promised that we'd arrive at the same sought-after destination, reduced unwanted pregnancy. Now, at the end of this harrowing roadtrip we discover that in addition to gutting our 401Ks, he's knocked up our daughters and given them the clap.
Prevention First contains an array of remedies and undoes some of the damage to women's reproductive health. For example, one solution addresses the skyrocketing prices of birth control on college campuses. In his Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Bush removed college health centers from the discount drug pricing program causing birth control prices to escalate, in some cases by 900%. College-aged women are the demographic at greatest risk of unwanted pregnancy and have higher abortion rates than any other group. Prevention First puts college health centers back into the discounting program. It is a cost neutral way to improve contraceptive access for the group of women in greatest need of it.
In 2000, as the Bush reign was gearing up, fully half of all women of reproductive age -- 34 million women -- lacked contraceptive services and supplies. Half of those women could not afford to buy such care on their own and needed public support. Between 2000 and 2004, the number of U.S. women in need of publicly funded contraceptive services and supplies increased by 6%-more than one million women. That was when the economy was great. Now, things are exponentially worse. Americans are not only losing their jobs, but along with them, their health insurance and contraceptive coverage.
Prevention First expands the safety net by funding Title X, the nation's contraceptive program for the poor, at a level more appropriate to the swelling need. The program has been under-funded for years. Had Title X funding kept pace with medical inflation since FY 1980, it would now be funded at more than $725 million instead of the FY 2007 level of $283 million. Prevention First would fund Title X just under that--it requests a $700 million budget. As Congresswoman Slaughter explained when introducing the bill, ""For every dollar spent on family planning services, it is estimated that almost four dollars is saved in public health spending." Prevention First is sound fiscal policy as well as the right public health policy.
Over the last eight years the anti-choice movement has revealed its bold anti-contraception agenda and found a willing partner in the Bush administration. Anti-contraceptive operatives have fought every attempt to expand access to family planning. Each time contraceptive coverage legislation was introduced the anti-choice movement was there to beat it back. They shamelessly fought legislation to provide sexual assault victims with the ability to prevent a pregnancy as a result of the rape. They worked to confuse the public about the mode of action of contraceptive methods, claiming all hormonal methods of birth control can cause abortion. Through abstinence-only programs they denied sexually active teens information about contraception and filled their heads with inaccuracies and fears about the safety of condoms.
Prevention First would begin to undue these damages. It would ensure that contraceptives are included in all health plans that cover prescription drugs and that no matter what hospital a rape victim is brought to she can get emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy. It re-establishes science and medicine as the sources of policy, and in particular, on what contraception really is as well as its effectiveness. It will reestablish comprehensive sex education programs as the standard, those subjected to "rigorous scientific research" that show, quantitatively, to lower teen pregnancy and STD rates.
The anti-contraception forces, standing on the wreckage that has resulted from their policies, vow to continue obstructing and confusing. Upon the introduction of Prevention First in the Senate, the Family Research Council warned that the bill would "direct hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry," "use taxpayer funds to mislead people about the potential of the "morning after pill" (known as Plan B) to act as an abortifacient," and "target teens' with "comprehensive" sex education; and spread emergency contraception." I say, if they oppose it, we're on the right track.
To keep up to date on progress with the Prevention First Act, access to contraception, and opposition activities visit www.birthcontrolwatch.org
However, the abortion rate is at its lowest rate since the 1970s. Lower than when Clinton was in office.
I can be virtually certain he will not appoint, as Bush did, a doctor of veterinary medicine to head the Federal Health Agency's Women's Department.
Bush apparently equated women with animals. I believe Obama does not.
Other misconceptions used to sell "pro-life":
* Abortion is a dangerous procedure. Wrong. ABORTION is a safe procedure with LESS risk than a full-term pregnancy.
* An Abortion will bring a life of regret. WRONG. I've had several abortions and am left with RELIEF, not regret. (I also have 3 fantastic kids--all adults now, who would have an abortion if necessary--and guess who would decides if its "necessary" --they would).
I believe a good parent is one who brings a wanted child who she is capable of caring for into the world.
Anyone interested in reading a reasoned discourse on abortion should read Carl Sagan's thoughtful essay: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
http://www.l4l.org/index.html
If many of us agree that there are too many abortions and that it would be a good thing to try to make them rare and even uncessary,
I don't know why you have a problem?
This might just be the most perfect single sentence ever written on this particular subject. :-)
1. That the only safe sex is no sex.
2. That safer sexual practices are infinitely better than unsafe sex. AND
3 Whatever you say must be accurate.
Without fail, my students handled the topic with a degree of maturity, professionalism and intelligence that would shame all of the abstinence only crowd. Teenagers need to be armed with knowledge, and they need to be nurtured with honesty, love, and understanding. Put that combination together, and trust me, with few exceptions, teenagers will do the right thing.
As an aside, I've no idea what you do with these girls I see on television who WANT to get pregnant in their early teens and even try to do so. The best program I've heard of is the one where these girls and their "boyfriends" have to carry around a ten pound sack of flour 24/7 for two weeks, as well as care for it in every way. The success rate of this program is unusually high. Once these kids get a taste of being saddled with a ten pound "being" 24/7, they changed their attitudes about how "neat" it would be to have a baby!
Because the fundies really would rather that a teen girl get pregnant, than they do anything (such as handing out condoms) that can be seen as "condoning" her "sin."
I wonder if they are aware of how many sperm are released at each masturbation session they give themselves. MURDERERS!
MOre religiosity, an attempt to shove the parameters of fundamentalist christianity down our collective throats.
Oh well, at least Obama and his team have found something about the preceding administration that they're willing to counter head-on.
Warrantless wiretapping, reading people's mail, secret searches, extraordinary rendition -- remind me again, was it LIBERALS who set that up?
When my daughter turned 15 I took her to the doctor and got her some birth control. However, I did explain this did not mean I wanted her to go out and have sex..I was very open about sex with her..And you know what she was the only one in my family out of 3 generations that graduated high school..So proud...
On the other hand my niece who is 20 and does not want any more children cannot get a doctor to tie her tubes because she only has 1 child and they say to young...Go figure...
A heck of a lot of folks, get through their teen years and don't have sex and wait for marriage.
Some don't wait but still never get pregnant.
I was 17 once too and 25 too ok. Not every guy runs away and not every guy has to run away either.
It used to be that people were a bit more thoughtful about their actions. Engaged couples didn't have long engagements. The reason is pretty obvious.
Not a bad idea either...
Today, our society is sex saturated, many, many times that when I was in High School and College through the decade of the '70's.
Contraception is much easier and abortion is still relatively easy.
Lots of teens today still don't know much about the growing baby inside if they are pregnant.
And really, there is no excuse for the lack of knowledge here.
I am sorry that this happened to you JaidaKay.
But at some point, we all have to realize that our Parents and families are important.
If you have a supportive family, the data says it's more unlikely that you start to be sexually active early in your teen years and less likely that you will have an pregnancy.
But it still happens.
That's why a strong family, religious upbringing and moral support is very important...
I'm still trying to figure how the same minds that insist that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" can simultaneously think that arming young people with knowledge (and yes, when appropriate, birth control (just as "boys will be boys" - "kids will be kids...") anyway, the idea that education and knowledge will suddenly make kids (or anyone) become "promiscuous" is beyond me (and well below reason.)
In effect, the same mindset that says "don't blame guns for gun violence" also want to say "BUT DO blame education for people's sexual behavior..." And finally, I don't believe in war or the death penalty - is it OK for me withhold whatever portion of my taxes that go to support these (in my book) evils? If right-wing fundamentalistis should NOT have to compromise their principles, why should the rest of us?
A doctor's first duty is to the patient, not to his or her church which, incidentally, has no business prying into politics or the lives of people who do not belong to that church.
When the "religious" person is a medical professional? YOU BET YOUR FRIGGIN' ASS!
You DO know that Jesus would vote Democrat, don't you?
It's a great idea, though. I wish it was closer to Florida so I could go!
While I am all for trying to find common cause, there must be a reason FOR common cause.
A consistent Ethic of Life that champions the protection of ALL human life, from Conception to Natural Death would be a good start.
But first some folks have to get over being Anti-Christian and Anti-Catholic.
The Catholic Church also preached that spilling the seed was destroying life. Of course, more peasants meant more money in their coffers.
Make your personal religious decisions for yourself and leave those of us that have chosen some other path out of it.
BTW, when does nationalism trump faith? Why are there so many people "of faith" in the military?
Require ALL insurers to cover contraceptives as part of their prescription program. Don't say "if you cover Viagra, cover the Pill" or anything like that. Just flat out "cover all contraception".
If they whine, tell them too bad. Time to take a stand!
Ignorance is NOT bliss - it's dangerous. And nevermind the old adage, "What you don't know..." CAN hurt you.
Many Rx meds these days are priced WAY TOO HIGH..!
I don't care what you call it, Prevention First, comprehensive sexulality education, or abstinence plus -- but it needs to be enacted, and now, and in all schools K-12. By the time most parents get around to "the big talk," it's much too late. We've got be talking, and all the time -- birth to death. It's sex, and sexuality, sense and sensabiliy -- and our sexuality is a large part of who we are. It shouldn't be talked about in a whisper...like the "big C" (which also should not be discussed in a hush). It should be spoke about with care, understanding, and the information which will save our children's lives.
So... when are we going to make the same logic apply to drugs & alcohol as well?
I mean, we currently act like "abstinence only" is appropriate for drugs and alcohol, despite teens being perfectly willing to experiment on their own. When do we likewise move to harm reduction and comprehensive drug education for teens?