Happy Anniversary, Roe v. Wade!

On the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I want to remind everyone that there's a reason we pro-choicers use the word "choice." And that reason is what (I hope) we're fighting for.

It's not about abortion. It was never about abortion. Find me someone who actually LIKES abortion. We're not for more abortions, we're for freedom. For trust. For choice. For autonomy.

The moment abortion becomes illegal, that freedom, that choice has been taken away. The nation is effectively saying, "Women shouldn't be trusted to make this decision for themselves."

When pro-lifers frame the argument around the potential for life, they de-rail the focus. We're not automatically on opposite sides of the argument, because they're arguing apples and I'm arguing squares. It's not an either-or argument. It's this-and-that. And this is why we all end up nowhere. Pretty soon, the argument becomes about pinpointing where life begins, and we're in a hamster wheel of cyclical arguments where no one trusts anyone with any decision and both abortion and masturbation end up illegal.

I'm firmly pro-masturbation, for the record.

But back to my point. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. If you're pro-choice, you're most likely for any method that WORKS (I'm looking at you, abstinence-only education) to decrease the number of abortions. Like almost everything else in this world, it starts with education, continues with availability of resources to enable women and men to make smart decisions, and ends (in my dream world, anyway) with a world full of WANTED children and happy people, both pregnant and non-pregnant.

For this world to become a reality, abortion needs to exist. It needs to be accessible and safe, because accidents happen. Stupid decisions happen. And that's what makes abortion a necessity.

I've met people who can't quite bring themselves to accept the "pro-choice" label. I get it. Labels suck. But sometimes, like abortion, they're necessary. We're in a fight, and we need you. You may be morally opposed to abortion for yourself, but if you believe people should maintain control over their bodies, you're on this side of the line, I'm afraid. Come join the picket line.

Moving the abortion conversation

Lately, I've noticed a lot of Democrats slipping out of the abortion question. They steer the conversation to "unwanted pregnancy."

I believe that's because the pro-life camp is really good at what they do. They successfully labeled us pro-choicers as pro-abortion. Lots of abortions for everyone! We love abortions!

No one likes abortions. But pro-choice people think women should have the option NOT to deal with the product of a rape...NOT to raise a child they don't want...NOT to carry a child they aren't ready for.

I'm glad Bristol Palin had that choice. I'm assuming Sarah Palin isn't lying about Bristol's "decision." Big assumption...I know.

But I wish she had that choice. I DON'T wish she had an abortion. I just wish she could have had one...if she wanted it.

But back to the "unwanted pregnancy" point. Democrats are trying to bring the conversation back to its essence. Here's Barack Obama on This Week, trying to reframe his abortion answer at Saddleback:

“What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.

We're talking about the best way to reduce abortions now. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Would Bristol Palin have gotten pregnant if she had better sex education? The plague of teen pregnancy isn't the "Juno effect," and it isn't a fad, it's a startling example of what happens when kids don't know how to have safe sex. So are the troubling new AIDS stats. I hope this is all the proof we need that abstinence-only education is a crock.

I'm okay with the new conversation. It's about safe sex, and keeping options open when condoms break, birth control fails, or women can't get emergency contraception when they need it. It's not about your religion, it's about my freedom. It's not about killing "babies," it's about making sure every child in this world is wanted and cared for. Sounds good to me.

STDs for Everyone!

A recent study from the CDC shows that ONE IN FOUR American teenage girls (age 14-19) have STDs, reports the BBC News.

Nearly half of black teens surveyed had at least one STD, while only 20% of white and Mexican-American teens tested positive. This is from a "representative" sample.

The most "popular" STD? HPV. Hmmm...maybe we should get a vaccine for that and make it available to poor people.

I couldn't find the study on the CDC, which worries me. I don't like to just take other people's words for it.

But this is just another sign that we need to teach sex ed in high schools. Abstinence-only education OBVIOUSLY doesn't work. These girls are going to have sex no matter what. Teach them how to protect themselves. We're leaving them defenseless because our president is an Evangelical, and it pisses me off.

According to the BBC, the CDC is recommending mandatory screening and an HPV vaccine. Okay, fine. But why don't we try to solve the problem before it starts? Hand out condoms in the streets, lower the cost of birth control, and TEACH these girls how to keep themselves safe.

ARGH!

Gift-wrapped Virginity

Via Feministing:

CoolVirginity.com wants you to be a virgin.Of course, that virginity isn't for yourself, it's for your husband. Don't stay a virgin because you're not ready for sex, do it because it makes such a great gift.

Ugh.

Facts are Good

This is an interesting article from Our Bodies Our Blog about two recent studies.

Here are some highlights.

Published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the authors report that the prevalence of low birth weight, term low birth weight, and premature birth was higher in black women, those under 20 or over 40 years of age, less educated, and unmarried, women, among other things. They also reported that the prevalence of all of these things increased with an increasing number of previous abortions. Predictably, some anti-choice outlets jumped on this news.

The problem? The study did not distinguish between spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced abortion. It was also conducted via a survey of women between 1959 and 1966, when abortion was still illegal in America, making it difficult both to assess the possible health effects of the black market procedures and to understand the level to which women were honest about what was then a criminal act.

It also ignores how women's health status and access to healthcare may be different in the study population than in today's women. In fact, anyone reading the full text of the article would find these limitations quite clearly spelled out in the Discussion portion. Ultimately, then, this single study cannot serve as a definitive statement on today's risks of induced abortion.

And more people without all the facts:

Following a study published in the Journal of Adolescent health concluding that formal sex education delays teen initiation of sex, there was no shortage of commentary suggesting that this proves the failure of abstinence-only sex ed. Regardless of the other evidence on comprehensive vs. abstinence-only sex education, this study does not make a conclusion on the issue, because it simply can't.

The researchers looked at any formal sex education conducted by a school, church, or community organization, but did not separate the programs by the type of content delivered. As in the earlier study, the authors make this quite clear in their Discussion section, stating, "No conclusions about type of sex education (i.e., comprehensive sex education vs. focus on abstinence-only) can be drawn from this analysis."

Just want to help get the facts straight.

Gross. This article from Our Bodies Our Blog makes me want to throw up. Sorry...give me a minute.

Okay, I'm back.

The article covers a Chicago Tribune article about so-called purity balls. The link will take you to a better video than this one:


Yikes!

Nothing like giving up your body and choice to a male power. A sign of things to come?