Trojan Condoms launched a Evolve America tour last year to encourage Americans to have safer sex since 65 million Americans have an incurable STD and teen pregnancy is on the rise.
Tag Archive for 'comprehensive sex education'
photo by goldendragon613
Hmm. . . does anyone else find it absolutely amazing that the conservative powers that be are fighting the federal funding of comprehensive sex education and access to affordable contraception at the same time they’re flashing pictures of aborted fetuses to children. There seems to be some imbalance in the world.
The 7-by-20-foot truck with photos of first-term fetuses on three sides appeared near Dodson Middle School around 7:30 a.m. March 24, 2003, as students arrived. Several stopped to stare at the photos, which showed fetuses with small hands and feet and the word “choice” in quotation marks and big block letters, according to court documents.
Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw several children who appeared to be angered by the images and that he had to discourage a group of boys from throwing rocks at the truck.
If high school students aren’t mature enough to have a frank discussion of the facts and biology of human sexuality, can we expect 10 year-olds to be able to process the images of aborted fetuses in their appropriate context? Just watching a video of a woman giving birth tramautized me at 12.
“There are some realities which can not be adequately communicated with words alone,” he said. “Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion.”
But they’re not old enough to be told how to prevent pregnancy, so that facing an abortion is a limited possibility. You can’t have it both ways.
Relevant Previous Posts:
Years ago, I read parts of Susan Faludi’s Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women for a paper I wrote in a high school history class. The roots of the pro-life movement are rooted not just in religion, but in a feminist backlash. Several leading pro-life groups in the 80s had great disdain for pro-choice sentiment because it implied that women have a right to make to reproductive decisions without consulting their boyfriends or husbands. A pro-choice sentiment gives women more control over their lives as autonomous sexual beings, than a pro-life one that demands that a woman’s freedoms are secondary to the fetus that has taken hold inside her.
Throughout the 90s, abortion clinic attacks became the focus of the most extreme pro-lifers. Accordingly, the pro-life movement defined itself as a cause meant to prevent baby murder.
Seems as though PREVENTING unwanted pregnancy would be a great way to bridge the gap between the pro-choice and pro-life crowd. If both sides worked to ensure women had access to adequate birth control, there would be fewer abortions. The Pro-choice side wants women to have control over their own family planning, and since abortion is that last stop on the unwanted baby train, it would seem access to birth control would be a logical point of cooperation.
But the American Life League is upping the ante this summer and on June 7th, it would like you join them in protesting the birth control pill because it kills babies. Yes, making it more difficult for a sperm and egg to collide, as well as preventing a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall, is now also deemed murder. Preventing a pregnancy that could end in abortion is now equally wrong. My favorite parts of their talking points (I italize points of interests for my own emphasis):
Q: How does the pill work?
A: The birth control pill and similar birth control products work in a woman’s body in one of three ways: It can prevent ovulation and it can obstruct sperm from reaching the egg (prevent fertilization) by thickening the cervical mucus. However, if both of these methods fail and a new human person is created, the pill and other contraceptives can stop a tiny child’s implantation in his/her mother’s womb because the pill irritates the lining of the uterus so that the tiny baby boy or baby girl cannot attach to the lining of the uterus and the newly formed human person is aborted and dies.
Here’s what that “tiny person” looks like. It’s actually zygote, not remotely like a fetus, which would grow to resemble a “tiny person.”
But the real mission of this new campaign is left bare.
Q: Isn’t it better to be on the pill when you
are sexually active?
A: Better for whom? The pill does not prevent you from getting a sexually transmitted disease . . . Moreover, sexual activity outside of marriage is seriously wrong.Q: I’m for reducing the number of abortions, but isn’t using the birth control pill the only way to do that?
A: . . .If you’re single, abstinence is always your best choice. It isn’t always easy, but it always works. By abstaining from sex, you eliminate the possibility of pregnancy and catching a sexually transmitted disease.
At least the ALL is being honest about judging women for having active sex lives, even if it is completely unrealistic. Though a late 1990s survey showing that 1 in 3 thinks sex should be confined to marriage, about 95% of Americans have/had premarital sex, including those born all the way back in the 1940s. Another study found that 93 percent of men and 79 percent of women report having premarital sex.
Women are consistently demonized in the media for so-called immoral behavior. Despite women’s lib and 5 years of Samantha Jones getting laid like a man on Sex & the City, women are not on equal societal footing when it comes to embracing their sexuality. For some reason, a segment of American cannot accept a woman as a sentient, sexual being.
Case in point. Consider the trial of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the DC Madam who committed suicide to avoid her prison sentence. Of the 15000 clients she had amassed in her prostitution ring, just three men were outed. On the other hand, 15 of Palrey’s 100+ sex workers were put on the stand and asked to describe in painstaking detail what acts they engaged in with their unnamed johns. The prosecutor is adamant that the names of all 132 women involved be released.
From the audience, it appears that prosecutors have presented a solid case that the alleged Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, did indeed run a prostitution ring. A better question, however, is why they bothered. Prosecutors say the prostitution ring generated all of $2 million over 13 years — small potatoes for a federal racketeering and money-laundering case that could ruin the lives of 132 women.
It’s a question that evidently has occurred to the judge. Yesterday, prosecutors unpacked eight binders full of money-order receipts that reveal the identity of most, if not all, of the Madam’s escorts. “You want to make public the names of all the employees?” Robertson asked prosecutor Catherine Connelly. “Is there no limit to the collateral damage?”
Evidently not. Connelly said the names had to be released. “Unfortunately.”
(Note to whoever has custody of that little black book: wikileaks.org would be a prime place to upload a pdf copy of Palfrey’s client list, especially in an election year).
15,000 men and none face legal consequences for their repetitive, illegal actions, while the women are targets of what Vanessa at Feministing dubbed a “slut-shaming witch hunt“.
The American Life League is going to continue encouraging the sexual witch hunt this summer. Because unless you’re ready to birth babies, sex shouldn’t be an optional activity.
Pissed off? Me too. NARAL Pro-Choice America is taking donations.
PS. I do acknowledge that for some, religious and ethical boundaries are the reason for their pro-life stance. I respect an individual’s religious choices, though I disagree with those that expect the government to extend one’s religious beliefs to an entire nation regardless of every other citizen’s personal religious and ethical proclivities.
PPS. While we’re talking about the sexuality police, let’s also consider those die-hard, abstinence-only education supporters. Study after study is showing that abstinence-only education is ineffective and pales in comparison to comprehensive sex education. This week author Cristina Page took the time to cross reference teen pregnancy and sexual activity rates with the type sex education available in each state. Her findings?
Turns out pro-life states, those that are prone to tell kids that abstinence is the only proven contraception, and discourage use of actual contraception, then wag their finger at the less “morally superior” states, are where high schoolers are:
· more sexually active
· more likely to have had sex before the age of 13
· more likely to have four or more sexual partners.
Turns out that to be “pro-life” is to be pro-your-young-teen-having-a-risky-sex-life. In addition, the states that are witnessing the most dramatic drop in teen pregnancies are the most solidly pro-choice ones (CA, VT, HI, AK) while the ones where teen pregnancy rates are declining most slowly are anti-choice (NE, MS, WY, OK).
MTV knows how to get your attention.
A few weeks ago I wrote about the major press regarding teen sexual activity and the recent studies noting the failures of abstinence-only education. Consider the finding that 1 in 4 teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease (it would be reasonable then to assume similar statistics in teen boys, given only about 5% of the population identifies as LGBT and the girls needed to be exposed to the virus by someone). Toss in the news that neither abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education effectively curtailed the likelihood of teens contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
Then note that HIV/AIDS is currently the leading killer among 25-44 year olds (“Other causes” is a combination of a variety of unrelated causes of death).
Should we be expecting a strong increase in the rate of infection in teens and twenty somethings over the next decade as a result of those recent study findings? Per the statistic at the end of the PSA above, the fastest growing rate of HIV and AIDS infection is in heterosexual females under the age of 30.
Will PSAs like the one from MTV above make a difference? How shocking do health campaigns need to be to catch the attention of young adults?
Iowa recently became the 17th state to turn down federal funding for abstinence-only education, so that it can more universally provide comprehensive sex education to its youth. (Other states that have opted out: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin. A list of states that have opted out is hard to find, my googling shows that Pennsylvania might belong on that list, which means I could be wrong about one of the states listed above.)
Even better, yesterday 76 Congresspersons sent a letter requesting that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey cut funding for abstinence-only education in the coming fiscal year (2009) because study after study shows that the programming is ineffective. After ten year of federal funding for abstinence-only programming, costing tax payers $1.5 billion, they stated
numerous reports have found that the “abstinence-only” approach simply does not work. For example, in April 2007, the independent research firm Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. [Abstract or full PDF] – commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – concluding that students in “abstinence-only” programs are no more likely to abstain from sex, delay initiation of sex, or have fewer sexual partners than students who did not participate. Moreover, 13 states have evaluated their federally funded “abstinence-only” programs and not a single one found positive, long-term impact. In fact, in some cases young people who participated in the programs actually increased their sexual activity. (letter)
With the Bush administration’s ideology (not science) based governing winding down, it looks as though the science behind education youth is gaining traction. A recent University of Washington study supports the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education.
When differences in race, age, gender and family makeup were taken into account, students who’d had comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report a pregnancy than those without any sex education and 50 percent less likely than the abstinence-only group. (Seattle Times, 3/20/08)
After last week’s announcement that 1 in 4 teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease, the study disappoints a bit by finding that
Neither comprehensive nor abstinence-only education appeared to affect the odds that a teen would contract a sexually transmitted disease. (Seattle Times, 3/20/08)
Public health officials have their work cut out for them over the next decade. Now that there’s hope that comprehensive sex education is back on track, researchers need to figure out what the missing element is in preventing widespread STD infection rates in youth.
![]()










Recent Comments