And another thing....

To follow up on Chris's post from yesterday, national ACLU has an excellent "Freedom Alert" video from Matt Coles, the director of the ACLU's LGBT Project. Here it is.



And there's another ballot initiative out there that attacks civil liberties- Measure 11 in South Dakota. This is yet another attempt to enact a law that can ultimately challenge Roe v. Wade. Check out national's blog for info about what's happening in SD, including a Freedom Alert video.

Andy in Harrisburg

No condom = trust and commitment?

And so ends the What's the New What segment, "Sex Without Condoms is the New Engagement Ring", aired July 24th:

"I'm sure you have something to say about Pendarvis' new What. Don't be shy. Get it all out by e-mailing us"

And oh, oh boy, how the responses flooded discussion boards and blogs across the web.

The segment, which features Youth Radio's Pendarvis Harshaw, discusses how some youth who find themselves in committed, monogamous relationships are intentionally having sex without condoms after being clinically screened for sexually transmitted diseases and infections (including HIV)and receiving a negative from both partners.

NPR Listeners did NOT want to hear this. They threatened to revoke their NPR contributions and even their listenership, and commented:

"I am absolutely disgusted by your program"

"Pendarvis Harshaw's essay should be on the WTF program."

Some argue that these youth are acting irresponsibly by intentionally engaging in unprotected sex while others argue that actually having conversations about sex and behavior and even taking the step to be tested is responsible behavior.

RH Reality check picked up and reports on the controversy (the segment on What's the New What begins at 16:15--I apologize for not editing) and discusses the piece's significance with its creator. Amanda Marcotte points out that this piece brings into question HOW we address youth and how we interact with youth.

Apparently, youths' choices are overshadowed with how every and anyone else thinks youth should be behaving. Well, if we are unwilling to even hear the reality of the experience of youth, how can we expect to connect with them or teach them about anything, including safer sex?

Additionally, if listeners are so opposed to youth sharing their stories (about sex) and realities (about sex) with other youth, going as far to say that NPR should not tolerate stories such as Harshaw's and should not broadcast it, what forms of censorship are they imposing?

The controversy does not stop here, however. Oh, no. The author's style, speech patterns and music choices are all brought into question. I wonder how the piece would have been received if any one of these factors were altered, even slightly. Many of these factors, including thoughts on race, class, gender and sexuality are all addressed through blogs such as feministing.com (where I originally found the piece), jezebel and boinboing.

Ellen at Duvall

Still clearly about power and control

The ACLU is working hard to keep prison officials in check in Arizona.

Read more about it here!

Ellen at Duvall

Saying 'no' to...federal funding

Refusing government funding--it's an illogical idea, no? Not when the money is mandated for ineffective programs that are rich in censorship, misinformation and cross the line of the separation of church and state. So it goes with Title V funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programming.

Last Wednesday the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published this article on the state's refusal to accept Title V funding.

So far, two letters to the editor, "Sensible Rejection" and "Teach What Works" have appeared in support of the article (and the refusal).

Pennsylvania is just one of the many states to refuse the funding.

Perhaps we're heading in a direction that champions access to comprehensive information and knowledge?

Ellen at Duvall

Pregnancy Discrimination Act Includes Abortion

On May 30th a unanimous decision was returned by the three Judges of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals which effectively overruled the lower court decision that granted summary judgment for the defendant C.A.R.S. Protection Plus Inc.; Fred Kohl and disagreed with the lower courts finding that the defendant, identified as “Jane Doe,” failed to show that her firing was connected to her decision to have an abortion.

In May of 2000 Jane Doe learned she was pregnant and promptly told her boss Mr. Kohl, the Vice-President of C.A.R.S. Protection Plus Inc. On August 7, 2000 Doe’s doctor called to tell Doe that problems were detected in a recent blood test and an amniocentesis was scheduled for the next day. Notification was given that Doe would not be in the office for the next two days while tests were performed. Kohl approved these absences. The fetus was found to have had severe deformities and Doe chose to terminate the pregnancy and the procedure was scheduled. Doe’s husband again telephoned requesting a week’s vacation and Doe’s husband testified that Kohl approved the vacation. The pregnancy was terminated on August 11th and a funeral for Doe’s baby was on Wednesday August 16th. Kohl gave Leona Dunnett, the office manager and the baby’s aunt permission to take an hour off work to attend the funeral and as she was preparing to leave for the funeral she noticed someone packing up Doe’s personal belongings from her desk. Leona told Doe what she had seen after the funeral. Doe called Kohl who told her she had been discharged. Kohl also remarked that Doe “did not want to take responsibility,” allowing the court to infer that Kohl was referring to Doe’s choice to terminate her pregnancy.

In the written decision released by the 3rd Circuit Judge Nygaard found that the written language of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, along with previous court decisions, supports a persons right to freely express support of a women’s right to choose as well as supports a woman’s right to receive an abortion without fear of discrimination, reprimand or termination in the work place. Judge Nygaard further writes that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act extends to women who have elected to terminate their pregnancies and applies to all situations in which women are “affected by pregnancy, child birth and related medical conditions.” Judge Nygaard holds that the term “other medical conditions” includes abortion.


Jennie, Duvall Intern


Click on link to read about a Republican hypocrite in Oregon:

Pride, marriage and much, much more...

Hooray! The recent decision in California that guarantees the right to marry for two individuals of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation, gives many reason to celebrate. In light of pride month (and in conjunction with the decision) the ACLU is hosting an online symposium on LGBT pride this week.

It is important to remember, however, that marriage is but one forum where discrimination must end. Here's an interview from Here and Now on WBUR--NPR Boston that highlights the importance of equal access and the long road that is still ahead.

Ellen, Duvall Intern

Government Accountability? What a novel idea.

Accountability. Now this a word I have heard time and again. I know the concept mostly in reference to law enforcement, particularly their response to sexual assault and intimate partner abuse. So, why hasn't it surfaced in other contexts of reproductive health, specifically abortion, contraception and sex education? In her latest blog post, Cristina Page suggests that politicians should hold the "pro-life" and "right to life" movements accountable. Accountable for what? For their failure to reduce the high rates of unintended pregnancy and reported abortion. The movements have successfully campaigned against access to safe abortion procedures while also decreasing access to contraceptives and accurate, life-saving information. Page suggests the upcoming election will provide a national forum where candidates can bring light to the contradictions of these policies.

Why wait until the election to ensure accountability? In truth, I don't think we have waited. A variety of initiatives are percolating across the states that ensure accurate information be provided in sexual health education classes, for example, the Responsible Education About life Act. In 2004, the March for Women's Lives brought together thousands who marched in Washington DC to demand political and social justice for women and girls. This brought us from the concept of "choice" that has been a myth due to the cut of federal funding for abortions, government bans placed on a variety of abortion procedures and the fact that nearly 87% of US counties lack an abortion provider, to the recognition of bodily integrity and the need to restore rights in order to stay healthy.

Activists know that those working in favor of reproductive justice do more in one day to prevent unplanned pregnancies than the "pro-life" movement has done in a generation. This includes dispensing birth control, condoms and emergency contraception and providing people with accurate information about biology and reproduction. However, the messages sent by those in opposition to these methods have been extremely successful in overshadowing these successes and restricting rights.

Page points out that under the current administration we have more than enough reason to demand accountability. However, we don't seem to be too enthusiastic about it. We have continued to let the government lie to us about the reality of the war in Iraq while simultaneously allowing them to strip us of our civil liberties.

Demanding the right to health is something that clearly goes past the lines of pro-choice, pro-life and anti-abortion (to name a few). It simply comes down to justice and human rights, which are not up for debate.


Ellen is an intern at the Duvall Project

Mixed messages

While I adamantly believe it is the sole right of a woman to make the choices about her body, I have also always been able to understand how a reasonable person might object to abortion.

But the problem is there seem to be so few reasonable people whose objection is just about abortion. All too often, these are the same folks who take ridiculously strident views (One really has to wonder what's really going on in their heads) about women's sexuality.

For instance, often they're the ones behind the drug counter who want to be able to deny a woman access to her birth control - Bill Maher calls them "activist pharmacists" - due to their own personal religious objections.

And since we're already quoting Bill Maher, here's his response to those people who would deny their daughters vaccinations that could prevent a deadly form of cervical cancer because they fear it would lead to sexual promiscuity.



And of course, let's not forget those esteemed Pennsylvania lawmakers who last fall tried to stand in the way of regulations that would have guaranteed rape victims (rape victims!) access to emergency contraception at hospitals across the state.

Sigh.

So, it is refreshing and perhaps worth celebrating the fact that our freshman U.S. Senator supports a bill that would restore college student access to low-cost birth control.

From a Planned Parenthood news item:

After months of lobbying by Planned Parenthood staff, and a groundswell of grassroots support for affordable birth control, Senator Bob Casey, Jr. has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act (S. 2347). Since January 2007, college health centers and safety net providers lost their ability to purchase low cost birth control as a result of a legislative oversight. This has caused birth control prices to skyrocket to up to 900% for some women! A no-cost legislative fix has been introduced in both the House and Senate to combat the problem, and there is hope that these vehicles will move in the coming weeks.

The news item encourages people to write Sen. Casey a letter of support.

Hooray for the sanity in this measure. As has been shown time after time, improved access to birth control means fewer unwanted pregnancies, which means fewer (Say it with me) abortions. After all, that's supposed to be what they're fighting for.

Lauri in York

Citizens in Houston are reeling from the new of two teen pregnancies ending horribly in public restrooms.

The Houston Chronicle first reported on this story, about an eighth grader who didn’t know she was pregnant until she miscarried in an airplane, an event so frightening and horrible to consider, a sympathetic reader can understand the frightened child’s silence.

Yet in the same week, an even more chilling story made headlines: another fourteen-year-old girl gave birth, this time full-term, and allegedly tried to flush it down the toilet.

These events, so tragic and following so quickly, led to a rash of op-eds and discussion. The Houston Chronicle used the stories as a chance to call for comprehensive sex ed, and to bemoan a school district where students can escape never having learned about contraceptives.

These op-eds, however, were not always met with warm response, and one gets the feeling that people were sloughing off society’s responsibility for these events. To the conculsion that “we need to see the next one coming,” someone posted in response: “What's this ‘WE’ stuff? …. This is not society's fault. It is the fault of the girl… the male who impregnated her, and the parents who were not supervising her. That's all there is to it.”

Yet how can we say it is not society’s fault, when society ignores those maligned and mistreated? If we remove societal blame from the picture, we are saying that the happenstance of birth, the accident of parentage, will be the deciding factor in the girl’s life. If we remove societal responsibility, we continue to abandon these children, just like we abandoned these teenage girls.

Furthermore, we (yes, back to “this ‘WE’ stuff”), cannot pretend that sexual activity begins in high school. Students are getting pregnant and getting STD’s earlier and earlier, and we have two responses: plug our ears, insist that it is the fault of the parent/child/rap lyrics/degrading morality of our times, or we can admit that washing our hands of our nation’s children and their well-being is perhaps the greatest immorality of all.

Marshall, Duvall Project

“America’s Toughest Sheriff” Meets His Match - U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Allows Prisoners the Right to Choose Abortion

     Prisoners in the United States prison system must relinquish certain rights as they enter jail. Yet I fear any country that will force a prisoner to give up not just personal freedoms but basic human rights. Such may be the case in many U.S. prisons, both here and on foreign soil, but one prison found itself in the spotlight for its denial of human rights to one of its prisoners.


     The ACLU recently championed the case of an Arizona inmate seeking a first-trimester abortion. Learning she was pregnant just before entering prison, Jane Doe asked the prosecutor to allow her to begin her sentence after obtaining an abortion. Her request was denied. Unfortunately, she was entering a prison in which it was unwritten law that no inmate seeking an abortion would be granted one. Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in charge of Maricopa County Jail, has "maintained the policy throughout his tenure, consistent with his well-publicized stance against abortion and his ‘America’s toughest sheriff’ persona." Arpaio himself has admitted that under this policy, "The gal may have the baby by the time it gets through the court system."


     With the help of the ACLU, Jane Doe challenged this unwritten policy. The court ruled in her favor, granting inmates the right to obtain an abortion despite being in the prison system. The sheriff has repeatedly appealed the decision. This week the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the latest challenge and by doing so (or not doing so) affirmed the right of a prisoner to obtain an abortion. In its highly readable brief, the ACLU enumerates the many injustices faced by this prisoner including the fact that when the guards learned she was pregnant and wanted an abortion, she was transferred to a part of the prison with limited phone access.


     The fact that the United States Supreme Court has decided to protect an inmate’s rights is a significant one, but prisoner’s rights are still in danger in the United States every day. The ACLU has represented many prisoners being treated unjustly, and has long championed a woman’s right to have -- or not have -- a child in prison. This fact sheet speaks specifically to the ACLU’s championing of reproductive rights in prison. If you know of someone in prison who is being denied abortion care or prenatal care, you or the inmate can either contact the nearest ACLU or call the national Reproductive Freedom Project collect 212-549-2633 (Monday-Friday 9:30 am to 5 pm eastern time).

Marshall, Duvall Project

Pittsburgh Seniors Graduating Without Sex Ed

Right now, senioritis is gripping students across the nation. From California to Maine, students are exhibiting the signs of a second-semester high school senior, namely, more play and less work. To these teens, this grace period between high school and The Real World is a well-deserved break. They have spent the past four years conjugating verbs and learning algebra. In addition to reading and writing and arithmetic, however, teens are also learning how to become adults, as they gain more responsibility as they age and grow.

Yet, in the Pittsburgh school system, students are graduating without vital skills required of adults. These students, preparing to enter college or the work force, many planning to move away from home, have received no sex ed. They have not even heard the word “condom” mentioned in a classroom.

And these Pittsburgh seniors are not alone. Across the country, students are becoming citizens, turned out into the world shamefully ignorant of how to make safe and smart choices. Instead, these students are treated as children as their sexual and intellectual maturity is ignored.

In Pittsburgh, this idea disturbed a group of fifteen parents and teens who approached their school board, demanding better education. The school board said they would look into it.

More than a year later, they haven’t. Pittsburgh has failed another year of seniors, allowed them to pass through the system unarmed with vital information. The parents of the Pittsburgh school district are tired of waiting.

Terri Klein and Ilene Schwartz, with the support of the ACLU and other programs, have begun circulating an internet petition to parents and concerned community members of Pittsburgh, outlining their complaints with the current abstinence-only program being implemented in their schools.

The textbook for the current program, Totally Awesome Health, not only urges only sexual abstinence as the “right choice,” but doesn’t even define what sexual activity is. Furthermore, it acknowledges only heterosexual, married families. Apparently the curriculum makes up for lack of information by saturating it with prejudice.

The petition has currently collected over 350 signatures and growing, and the issue is getting press coverage from several news sources, a refreshing fact when we consider that often it is the screeching, braying and sensationalist voice of the minority that oppose sex ed that gets heard. The story was even featured on Fox National News this Wednesday morning.

The school board is being forced to pay more attention to the issue, and it comes not a moment too soon. A recent study found that 1 in 4 girls has a STD, a frightening fact that is getting much media coverage.

Hopefully, these numbers will only further galvanize the movement to push abstinence-only until marriage out of schools before Pittsburgh and other school districts fail another graduating class.

It’s either that, or their students will continue to graduate with diseases far worse than Senioritis.

Marshall, Duvall Project

Pennsylvania’s New EC Regulations Leave Advocates with Too Many Questions

On January 25th, the Pennsylvania Department of Health published their Sexual Assault Victim Emergency Services Regulations online in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. According to ye olde Secretary of Health, this means that the regulations are now in effect, but what will that mean for rape victims?

Here’s the rundown: Hospitals that refuse to supply emergency contraception to rape victims due to their “stated religious or moral beliefs” (but we haven’t quite figured out yet where these beliefs must be stated) must notify the Department of Health “within 30 days of the hospital’s decision not to provide emergency contraception.” The hospital must also notify local law enforcement agencies and ambulance and emergency medical care and transport services. It is also required that the hospital notify the victim via oral and written notice of this decision, but what happens when the victim requests EC?

If the victim requests it, the hospital must “arrange for immediate transportation for the victim, at no cost to the victim, to the closest hospital where a victim could obtain emergency contraception.” However, “if the victim’s medical condition does not require further inpatient hospital services, the hospital may arrange to transport the victim to a rural health clinic, Federally-qualified health center, pharmacy or other similar location where a victim could obtain emergency contraception.” And this is where things get especially hairy for the victim…

Although the transportation is to be provided free of charge to the victim, what about EC? Maybe it’s just me, but after being raped, it seems almost inhuman to transport a woman to a pharmacy where she might have to pay as much as $45 out-of-pocket for medication that she should be able to receive at a hospital. Also, what happens if she is a minor? Young women under that age of 18 still need a prescription for EC, and if the hospital refuses to provide EC, can they refuse to provide a prescription for the same drug? Are they then obligated to send her to another medical facility where a doctor can give her the prescription? And the list of concerns goes on and on and on…

While we are actively trying to get answers to these and many other questions, it appears as though rape victims will still have difficulty accessing compassionate, comprehensive healthcare when they are most vulnerable.

Stephanie, Duvall Project

Across the Nation, Parents and Teens are Taking Action

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported on a high school in Mullica Hill, NJ, that is drawing criticism from concerned parents over their peer-education sex ed program. These parents have organized and even created a Web site for parents to sign a petition and get a look at the “very graphic” curriculum their teens are being subjected to. Some of the “disturbing” material chosen for its particularly lurid content, includes information on things that kids don’t know about (masturbation), things they should never know exist (condoms) and things they should never consider (tolerance of the LGBT community).

Depressing and intolerant as that may seem, students and parents in other communities are taking positive steps toward education, such as a group of teens in Utah who lobbied their senators for full disclosure in sex ed.

In addition, not all parents are as reactionary as those few in Mullica Hill, NJ. In fact, some open-minded and involved parents are becoming advocates themselves, such as a group of parents in Pittsburgh who have started a petition for comprehensive sex ed. They are supported in their efforts by the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

In a warmer part of the country, Palm Beach County, FL, has realized that abstinence-only programming won’t help their state’s teen pregnancy woes; they are set to enact in April a sex-ed curriculum that teaches sixth graders about STD’s and seventh graders about condoms.

Peer education is taking off on the West Coast as well. In the San Fernando Valley, one program, Promoting Alternatives for Teen Health, is a peer-to-peer curriculum aimed mainly at poor Latinos. I wonder if the concerned New Jersey parents could look at the grim statistics on HIV infections and pregnancy rates amongst these teens and still insist they shouldn’t learn about condoms.

Another grim reason for increased sex education: unprotected oral sex may be more dangerous than originally thought. A recent study links unprotected oral sex to certain dangerous side-effects, including some rare throat and mouth cancers that previously were seen mainly in older heavy smokers. We can therefore expect to see such anomalous cancers in youth become more common if abstinence-only programs continue to preach a message where sex is shrouded in mystery and protection is never discussed.

Marshall at Duvall

Oral Sex: The New Frontier

Although arguably more intimate than vaginal or anal intercourse, oral sex is the new third and a half base. To put off taking their relationship to the next level and all of its risky consequences – including pregnancy and STDs – teens are giving their male partners blow jobs and eating out their female partners like it’s no big deal. Unfortunately, they do not realize that these behaviors can also lead to some unwanted party favors.

Between 1973 and 2004, the rate of HPV-related oral cancers among people in their 40s has almost doubled, according to researchers from Johns Hopkins. By “bathing [their throats] with HPV-infected fluid” – possibly THE BEST description of oral sex, I might add – Dr. Bernadine Healy implies that teens are significantly increasing their chances of developing cancer in their tonsils and at the base of their tongues. This is based on the idea that the number of teens engaging in oral sex has significantly increased in recent years. However, sexperts at Guttmacher and SIECUS argue that this might be a misconception: it’s possible that this much oral masturbation has been around for a long time, but teens have just kept it to themselves. Regardless, it is known that rates of STDs are on the rise, and we must protect our youth.

According to Dr. Healy, the solution is simple: scare the beep out of them. In a recent U.S. News and World Report posting, Dr. Healy states that “providing our young people with graphic medical information and stern parental and medical guidance is long overdue.” That’s right, show them gruesome pictures of the worst cases of pharyngeal gonorrhea and oropharyngeal cancer ever documented and then try to convince them that this could happen to them. On top of that, have their parents remind them to abstain from any and all sexual activity, including oral sex, every time they leave their house. Right, that should totally work…

Wrong. As we all know, the scare tactics used by abstinence programs don’t work. Teens look at pictures of mouths, eyes, vaginas and penises with hideous blisters, patches of irritated skin, enflamed lumps, leaky pustules – well, you get the picture – and cannot conceive of the fact that their bodies would ever look like that after a few hookups. Although they need to be aware of the risks, it is more important to empower children to practice safe sex.

Also, what kid listens to everything their parents say? I mean, how many of you did things just because your parents told you not to, especially when their only explanation for not taking part in something seemingly fun was “Because it’s dangerous.” Does not the term adolescent refer to a developmental stage during which humans engage in rebellious acts? All hope it not lost, however; children do listen to their parents, but only when parents are truly willing to talk to them about things. Healy’s “stern guidance” is not the answer.

While Dr. Healy acknowledges that teaching safe sex is important, the doctor fails to recognize some of the less obvious downfalls of close-but-not-quite comprehensive sexuality education. The answer truly is a combination of comprehensive sexuality education for both parents and teens, including how to engage in open conversations regarding sexuality. Although some adults in positions of power do not know this, teens everywhere are beginning to fight the good fight. Just this week, junior high school students in Utah were lobbying lawmakers for better sex education. Because their parents know so little, they need teachers to tell them “how to have protected sex.” If children can understand that they will at some point need to know how to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy, why can’t lawmakers?

Stephanie at Duvall

Making Condoms Cool

Do you ever think, “Wow, I wish I was that cool in middle school”? Usually, I get that feeling when watching something like Hannah Montana on the Disney Channel. I mean, have you seen that girl’s closet?

No, for me, middle school was a lot of time spent in Dr. Watlington’s office having my braces tightened (torture chamber for teeth) and a lot time spent hiding in bathrooms during “dances” (torture chambers for hormones). In few words, I was not very cool.

So I experienced an immediate sense of jealousy when I read about two teenagers - nay, middle schoolers- who were suspended for protesting their school’s abstinence-only “sex ed” program. And while my middle school protest against horrible abstinence-only programming was to swipe a bunch of virginity pledge cards from the classroom, these girls had the courage to put themselves in the direct line of fire.

Earlier this week, Tori Shoemaker and Cheyenne Byrd donned home-made shirts that read “Safe Sex or No Sex” and went into school, teaching their classmates more about safe sex than their school’s curriculum. And, naturally, they were suspended, because, as one school official said, the shirts were a “distraction.”

Teaching safe sex practices to middle schoolers is a testy subject. After all, Middle School is split between the girls who can and can’t wear denim miniskirts. I was not a girl who owned a denim miniskirt, but there were plenty of them in my class – and the boys noticed them. As unpleasant as it is, middle schoolers, yes, those youth who only a year ago professed their undying love for Hannah Montana, are having sex.

But what do you do? This problem confronted my alma mater, an all-girls school grades 6-12 when I was a student there. When they were redesigning (thank goodness) the horrible sex-“ed” curriculum I endured, they ran into the problem of explaining sex to those less mature girls in the class, for whom those lessons are not yet applicable.

Simple. Herd all the eighth graders in a room, weed them out by skirt length, and send the girls like me away, clutching our copies of Harry Potter under our arms, then keep everyone else there for a sex lesson. No, that’s a horrible idea.

Sex ed in Middle Schools isn’t just for the kids who need it now. It’s for the kids who will need it later. A study by the Guttmacher Institute states that many teens receiving sex education are getting it too late. WE HAVE TO CATCH THESE KIDS EARLY.
The Guttmacher Institute figured it out. Two eighth graders figured it out. You can’t just slide sex-ed into a high school curriculum midway through the year and hope you only missed a few. Sex ed has to start early. Because the kids who don’t need it in middle school become the kids who learn about it too late in high school, or not at all.

Marshall Bright is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and an intern at the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Roe v. Wade: Celebrating 35 Years and Counting…

Today we honor the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but we hope that the commemoration continues throughout the year. The Duvall Project will take its show on the road today as we travel to Muhlenberg College to celebrate.

Now, some antis and even advocates might find it twisted to use the term “celebrate” when referring to the anniversary of legalizing abortions. However, it is only fitting to utilize such ecstatic verbiage as this anniversary marks “not only 35 years of reproductive freedom, but 35 years of impressive gains in the fight for women’s equality.”

All across the United States today, protestors will be getting their boxers and panties in an uproar talking about the need to “stop the baby-killing.” Meanwhile, abortion rates are at their lowest since 1976. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the total number of abortions among women ages 15 to 44 declined from 1.3 million in 2000 to 1.2 million in 2005, an 8 percent drop that continued a trend that began in 1990, when the number of abortions peaked at more than 1.6 million, the survey found. The last time the number of abortions was that low was 1976, when slightly fewer than 1.2 million abortions were performed.

All we can do is speculate as to why the rates have declined, but I would like to point out that the “sharp fall came despite a comparatively tiny decline in the number of abortion providers.” While researchers at Guttmacher cannot identify the causes, the pro-choice community would like to contribute the change to the following factors: the widespread use of RU-486 (the abortion pill), the availability of emergency contraception over-the-counter, increasing use of comprehensive sexuality education programs in public schools, and an increasing number of young women and men using contraception to prevent pregnancy.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the pregnancy rate among U.S. women aged 15–19 has declined steadily from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women in 1990 to 75 per 1,000 women in 2002. While antis may naively attribute this triumph to widespread abstinence among teenagers, Guttmacher researchers found that only 14% of the decline in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 was due to teens’ delaying sex or having sex less often, while 86% was due to an increase in sexually experienced teens’ contraceptive use.

While this might sound super, we still have a lot of work to do. Despite the decline in teenage pregnancies, the United States continues to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world. We also have an access problem: While abortion may be legal it is out of reach for most as the majority of women aged 15 to 44, live in the 87 percent of U.S. counties without an abortion provider. Finally, it may come as no surprise to most that we are the only nation in the world that uses federal monies for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

In light of both our triumphs and our challenges, we celebrate the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and vow to not take for granted this immensely important court decision. While we have come so far, we must not forget what life was like before Roe v. Wade, and to be sure to make the connection between gender equality and reproductive rights. In celebrating, we must remember why this decision is important and how we can carry on in the fight towards reproductive freedom.

Stephanie, Duvall Project

Rising Teen Birth Rates Reveal Complicated Issues

Last week the CDC reported a rise in the national teen birth rate for the first time in 14 years. The percent of births to teenagers nationally rose by 3% overall – the first increase in the teen birth rate since 1991.

Statistically, that’s pretty significant.

The US has the highest teen birth rate in the developed world. However, for more than a decade the U.S. was able to proudly tout the fact that the teenage birth rate was steadily declining. We can’t guarantee access to healthcare but we’ve been successfully working on preventing young women from becoming young mothers. Right?

Wrong.

So what changed?

I think it’s a fundamental lack of access that’s the problem. It’s not just the 46 million uninsured Americans that our nation should be hanging its head at - most Americans can’t go to the doctor. And most teens can’t get straight answers or medically-accurate information about contraceptives because of abstinence-only education, and access to abortion is eroding at an alarming rate with restrictive laws like the Hyde Amendment.

The problem with abstinence-only education isn't the abstinence, it's the only. A government sponsored study released earlier this year, not the first of its kind, found federally-funded abstinence-only programs are ineffective and provide teens with exaggerated failure-rate statistics if they do discuss contraceptives. Why would a young person use a condom if they think it’s not going to work? And where else are they going to get that information? I only graduated from high school six years ago and I heard more buzz about birth control and condoms in junior high than I have at any point since. Aside from seeking out specific news sources or occasionally coming across an ad in a magazine, I rarely hear about ways I can protect myself during sex. Where is the discussion? Where is the information? Has the AIDS scare died? Has it become a problem we’ve moved to other nations, neglecting to recognize that American youth are still vulnerable, are still going to have sex, and are still at risk for pregnancy and STIs, including HIV and AIDS?

I’m getting a little tangential. Condom use is on the rise. But I still worry that the CDC’s announcement will only be repeated year after year, for years to come.

There’s a stigma surrounding abortion and if teens don’t even have access to those services – clinics are closing, and teens rights are being restricted – than what are they to do if they do find themselves pregnant?

Because there’s no easy answer we need to be teaching teens how to protect themselves, we need to be providing them with easy access to all available options with regard to their reproductive health, and we need to be providing young parents with the tools they need to succeed. It’s a little overwhelming to see how multi-faceted the problem is, but hopefully with all the buzz the CDC announcement has created we will see that this is not a hopeless problem but one with many different solutions and a lot of areas and avenues for people to involve themselves and their communities in creating positive change.

Sarah, Project Coordinator of the Duvall Project

The Gym Class Heroes said, “We have to take our clothes off to have a good time,” but my teacher keeps pushing this abstinence thing?

While hip activists listen to WHYY traveling in their cars, my dirty little secret is that I enjoy singing along to the music of the masses on WPST. This week, my unhealthy obsession with pop music paid off, as I became inspired by the ordinarily obnoxious Gym Class Heroes…

“So here’s the thing,” apparently today, “we have to take our clothes off to have a good time,” according to the Gym Class Heroes. “Oh no,” but I thought Jermaine Stewart said that “we don't have to take our clothes off” in the mid-80s. Two decades ago, “we could dance and party all night” and “get to know each other better, slow & easily.” In the light of the AIDS epidemic, even pop artists were preaching about having sex only within the context of a committed relationship. Now, musicians (if we can even call them that) are singing about “good clean fun” in the form of one night stands at clubs.

Now, I know the Gym Class Heroes aren’t beckoning to their steady girlfriend or wife when they say, “What do you say let's exit stage left so me and you can possibly reconvene and play some naked peekaboo?” Through such songs as these, young males are learning how to sweet talk a woman out of her pants for some backroom, uncomplicated fun. But things can get pretty complicated when you don’t know how to protect yourself…

Today, millions of federal dollars are being spent on abstinence-only education annually. In public schools everywhere, kids are being taught to feel guilty about sex and to not use condoms because they “don’t work.” But I thought condoms were highly effective, even as high as 98%, if used consistently and correctly… Unfortunately, it’s a vicious cycle: Abstinence-only programs teach that condoms are ineffective, they don’t show kids how to properly use a condom, improper use of condoms or lack of condom use can’t protect youth, and then the abstinence-only advocates get the condom failure rates they’re looking for and come out on top (no pun intended).

Listen up: Kids are taking their clothes off and partying all night to have a good time. It is absolutely irresponsible to preach abstinence-only. Adolescents need adults to give them the tools needed to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Although AIDS is no longer the death sentence it once was, even the writers of Boston Legal know that “one time unprotected sex can kill you” and “a condom can save you.” Why isn’t every child in the world taught this?

Stephanie Chando, Duvall Project Intern

Passing judgment on the victim

Is it just me? Really, it must be. But I just don't see it any other way.

Pennsylvania House Bill 288 is reasonable legislation that would see to it that emergency contraception, commonly known as the morning-after pill, is available to any rape victim who wanted it, no matter what hospital she was in. It would provide a guarantee that all rape victims have information and access to emergency contraception in every Pennsylvania emergency room.

Unfortunately, even something as straightforward as guaranteeing rape victims access to pregnancy prevention may be too moderate a concept for our esteemed House members to embrace.

A vote on this bill is expected on Monday.

As initially presented, House Bill 288 proposed sane much-needed guarantees to rape victims, offering assurances that they would be treated humanely when seeking medical help from any of Pennsylvania's hospitals.

But the "McCall amendment" to the proposed law, to also be presented Monday, would permit faith-based hospitals to exempt themselves from the bill's requirement for religious or moral reasons – gutting the very guarantees the legislation would provide.

So what can't I help but assuming about any lawmaker who votes in favor of the exemption? That he is a Neanderthal less concerned with defending the rights of a rape victim and more concerned that some sanctimonious jerk in a lab coat has the right to impose his personal moral views on brutalized women.

I mean, what else is a person to conclude about these guys?

Well, I guess we could also conclude that they think Pennsylvania voters are a bunch of religious extremists who want women, even rape victims, not to have access to birth control. And, they are so cynical that they are willing to sell their votes to what they assume is a majority of Pennsylvanians for the assurance of continued support for a cushy job and a nice fat pension.

Scary thoughts indeed.

Let us go over it again: Emergency contraception is not abortion (pdf). When used soon after unprotected sex, it can prevent pregnancy.

A Philadelphia Inquirer opinion piece, written by two members of the Womens Donor Network, sums up the issue quite nicely. The article is here. It points out:

On Oct. 18, Pennsylvania's Independent Regulatory Review Commission approved regulations that would allow health-care facilities with religious affiliations or moral objections to claim an exemption from a laudable new rule that requires hospitals to inform rape victims of their right to emergency contraception, and to provide the contraceptive pills to the raped woman if she wants them. The regulation was handed down just as legislators were scheduled to take up a bill that would have required Pennsylvania hospitals and health-care facilities essentially to offer the rule without a so-called conscience clause.

With the clause, state regulators have apparently appeased opponents to the proposed legislation who want to allow facilities to withhold birth control - even from rape victims - based on theological or moral grounds. Others seek to muddy the waters by claiming that emergency birth control is something it's not. (Emergency birth control is nothing more than two birth-control pills combined. It does not terminate a pregnancy; it prevents one from happening.)

Readers in Pennsylvania should call their elected representatives, urging them to support House Bill 288 as it stands and to oppose this mean-spirited Amendment.

Lauri in York

Simply Atrocious

Saturday was my first day as a Patient Escort at the Philadelphia Women's Center, and it is a day I will never forget. I approached Appletree Street from 8th Avenue expecting a large crowd of anti-abortion protestors, but I was not prepared for what was to come next.

Nervous and fearful I would recognized as the opposition, I quickly walked through the crowd. Approaching the clinic door at 6:35 am, I noticed a group of people sitting on the entrance steps. At first, the thought of a blockade did not register... I had learned that this was illegal... and could not believe that this could happen... but there they were.

Confused and disturbed, I frantically searched for escorts in yellow pinnies. I crossed the police line and tried to make sense of the situation. I soon learned that the Operation Rescue protestors had trapped some employees and patients inside and were barring entrance to anyone who attempted to pass.

While trying to make sense of this unbelievable situation, I repeatedly asked, "Isn't this illegal? How can the police allow the protestors to do this? Shouldn't they all be arrested for blocking the entrance? What about the safety of the patients, the staff and the volunteers?" My mind was spinning while I did my best to act as a visual barrier between the patients and anti's.

For what seemed like hours, the police allowed the protestors to block the entrance while the patients either stood out in the cold or waited in nearby cars. The anti's got really close to the patients, their family and friends. They used scare tactics and offered fake money in an attempt to change their minds. They insulted the escorts by insinuating that we are "not pro-choice" and that we are "harming women." While the patients were free to speak with the anti's, to us, they only expressed anger or fear in regards to their presence.

Even though this happened more than 3 days ago, my mind has not yet processed these events and it is still difficult for me to find the words. It is absolutely unbelievable that something like this can happen in light of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which forbids the use of "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" to prevent someone from providing or receiving reproductive health services. Is this not clear enough? I just don't understand.

Stephanie Chando, Duvall Project Intern