Posts Tagged ‘Women’s Rights’

More Data Regarding Teen Pregnancy Rates

February 1, 2010

This editorial in the New York Times discusses a recent study done by the Guttmacher Institute about how teenage pregnancy and abortion rates have increased recently (2005-2006) and suggests a possible correlation with the Bush administration’s abstinence-only education policies. The New York Times piece is pretty short, so give it a look-see.

The association is really only a suggestion, but it’s still exciting to have emerging information about reproductive health. Here’s the full report if you’re interested.


UK Pilot Program Provides Over-The-Counter Oral Contraception

December 15, 2009

A pilot program to give teenage girls OTC birth control pills is being launched in London.

Pharmacists have been trained to do general checks and provide oral contraception in two inner-city London areas, both with high teenage pregnancy rates (one, Southwark, has twice the national average). I am sooooo interested to see the findings.

Apparently the UK government’s goal to reduce teenage pregnancy by 50% by 2010 is not even close to being reached. Thus the program. Of course opponents go with the old stand-by: promiscuity.

What are your thoughts? Possible increases in promiscuity? OTC birth control for teens a good idea? I’m personally pretty jazzed, but we’ll see how things proceed.

And Another Thing

December 1, 2009

Today is World AIDS Day. I hope everyone’s wearing red and considering the impact AIDS has had on the world. And figuring out ways to stop it.

Birth Control Through History

November 2, 2009

You have to check out this slideshow from It’s a look back at the history of birth control. Just a few minutes long and very informational. Plus it’s funny! They definitely use the word “womanizer”. Genius.

House Still Arguing Over Abortion

October 29, 2009

The House of Representatives is on the cusp of unveiling their health reform bill and they’re still going back and forth about abortion. There are a million reasons why leaving “no federal funds for abortion” language out of the bill is important. For one, it’s assumed in the legislation because of the laws we already have. It’s redundant.

I’ll let Rep. Yarmuth (D-KY) make the second point for me:

…consensus that we are not going to use taxpayer funds. The question is how you define it. … what [Stupak] wants to do is go a lot further than the status quo … And a woman under his amendment, as I understand it, shopping in the exchange for insurance would not be able to buy coverage for insurance, even with her own money. She would have to actually buy a separate rider, which means she would have to plan for an unplanned event, which I think is illogical.

But the part that makes me the most crazy: there are several groups (Catholic Bishops, moderate Democrats) who acknowledge that health is a human right, who support health reform legislation, but who will withdraw their support if the federal funding wording isn’t included. So basically they’ll pull legislation for a basic human right because their stance is implied instead of explicitly stated.

Make sure to check out the rest of the quotes from Stupak, he makes some great points. And if you want to hear more about this, I wrote a paper on the topic. Since everyone who reads this blog knows me personally, just shoot me an email. *Hehe, internet self-deprecation.*


October 10, 2009

You would think that the law that is to take effect November 1st in Oklahoma would be unconstitutional and a violation of HIPAA, but so far things are set to go ahead. Starting November 1st, any woman who receives an abortion in the state of Oklahoma will be required to fill out a questionnaire of around thirty questions and then these details will POSTED ON THE INTERNET on a public website. Questions include: date of abortion, county in which abortion performed, age of mother, mother’s race, marital status of mother, reason given for the abortion (check box options such as “mother cannot afford the child” and “mother is having relationships problems” are provided).

Lawmakers believe that since the woman’s name and address will not be posted, that they are not violating anyone’s right, but what is really the point of this law? As a public healthist, I’m all for data collection to expand our body of knowledge, but that’s not the point of this law. The point is to scare woman and to frighten them into not getting abortions because in a small town you could still figure out who had an abortion from the information that will be posted. Oddly though, the law is not being contested on privacy/ HIPPA issues, but rather procedural constitutionality, although the lawsuit is still coming from the Center For Reproductive Rights. Oklahoma seems to be the depot for the crazy train when it comes to extreme anti-choice legislation. I guess they figure that if they keep putting these type of laws through, eventually one will be able to hold water in court. Ugh.

To read the whole law, click here.