Pendragons Princess

Normally I don’t even read the Daily Kos but this is worth bringing up because It has been mentioned by me elsewhere:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/30/748518/-Its-ALWAYS-been-about-Sex,-NOT-the-Fetus

It’s ALWAYS been about Sex, NOT the Fetus
by thereisnospoon
June 30, 2009

As Matt Yglesias at Think Progress noted today, it is becoming difficult to take the pro-life movement seriously about its position on abortion. When the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest U.S. religious organization by numbers and political influence) and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops takes a strong stand not only on abortion, but also on contraception, it is abundantly clear that there is more to the pro-life position than mere concern for the welfare of a fetus. To quote Markos today:

A big chunk of the anti-abortion movement isn’t motivated by fetuses, but by sex.

But Markos actually understates the case. It’s not just a big chunk obsessed with sex rather than the fetus; it is the vast majority.

……………………………………………………………………………

It’s worth reading the rest of the article. It really isn’t that unusual for Christians, who make up a substantial portion of the anti-abortion, pro-life population, to have this attitude about sex. Of course they want the government to step into the bedroom, tell the people how to do it, when to do it (missionary position only on the full moon of every month), and not to use contraception of any kind. Well, the Roman Catholics and Quiverfull agree on that, anyways. Mainstream Protestants, especially the non-fundamentalist, non-evangelical ones, still hold to the “It’s between the believer and God” theory, which is true. They believe the government has no business getting involved in the sex lives of others. So many pro-lifers are men but of course, they can be. if men were able to get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/opinion/110195.php

Our Opinion: Reproductive health choice in Arizona at risk

February 16, 2009

A woman in remote rural Arizona could have to travel far to fill a doctor’s prescription if state Rep. Nancy Barto has her way.

Under Barto’s HB 2564, Arizona pharmacists could cite a “moral objection” and refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions.

They could decline to provide such time-sensitive drugs - required within 72 hours - without any medical or professional justification; the pharmacist could just say “no.”

Such refusals pose serious problems for rural and low-income women, who can’t always get to another pharmacy quickly or easily.

“Certainly, people in rural areas are accustomed to traveling long distances for services,” Barto says cavalierly. “This isn’t going to keep women from receiving these prescriptions.”

But it may - in which case Arizona’s pro-life politicians would be limiting women’s pharmaceutical choices yet encouraging abortion, the next logical choice for many women blocked from procuring emergency contraceptives.

Also troublesome is the erosion of professional standards if pharmacists can pick and choose which prescriptions to fill.

It is the physician, not the pharmacist, who is trained to decide which medications are best for a particular patient in a certain situation.

That’s common sense, and 51 percent of Republicans and Independents polled nationally in October strongly favor legislation to ensure patients get contraception at their pharmacy of choice.

Only four states allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription: Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota.

Yet pharmacist refusals have been documented in 22 states, including Arizona, says Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Project.

By contrast, 14 states have taken steps - through legislation, Pharmacy Board rules or other means - to ensure women can fill prescriptions at their drugstore of choice.

The bill by Barto, a Phoenix Republican who lists her occupation as homemaker, will find support in the conservative Republican Legislature and from Gov. Jan Brewer.

Yet its pharmacist provision is only one of many troubling features. It also would require adult women seeking abortion to first undergo 24 hours of “reflection,” be informed of alternatives to abortion, be briefed on available pre- and post-natal medical benefits and government assistance, and be told the probable gestational age and physiological features of the fetus.

In other words, patronizing state law would try to dissuade women from their own very personal choice.

This is bad legislation but likely will become law. If it does, only election of pro-choice candidates in 2010 will provide Arizona women with hope.

……………………………………………………………………………………

Yes, you read correct, Arizona State Representative Nancy Barto is a homemaker by profession. That figures. There is something definitely wrong with prohibiting prescription birth control on “moral grounds.” Pharmacists who do that maybe should not be in that profession - perhaps they should have become teachers instead. At any rate, given the latest on fertility clinics and Nadia Suleman, this obscene legislative motion should be thrown at the window. Hopefully Barto will not get her way so that poor women can easily have access to prescriptive contraceptions. In my opinion, she should move to east Africa or India where women live in squalor, and preach her pro-life plans there.

At some point in human history, the genders need to learn how to get along without acting like sex machines. Read on:

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/80619/

School for Teen Mothers Sheds Light on Young Women’s Pregnancy Choices

By Laura Tillman, The Brownsville Herald.

March 31, 2008.

Teen mothers still drop out of school at alarming rates. One school tries to fight the trend.

When the Lincoln Park School opened 18 years ago, it was an experimental answer to a district-wide problem: teen mothers would drop out of school, either during their pregnancy, or right after.

Even if they wanted to continue the school year they couldn’t, because they would amass too many absences after giving birth.

The school provides flexible schedules and alternatives for making up credit to pregnant girls and new mothers, and staff members succeed in helping more than 100 girls to graduate each year with little recognition.

The school’s nurse, Vici McClure says she realizes that the community has mixed feelings about the institution.

“I think we’re doing good work here, and they tell us that sometimes, but we don’t get much publicity,” she said.

Between 225 and 250 girls transition through the school each year. McClure says that this represents about half of the reported pregnancies in the district, and there are likely many more pregnant teens who simply drop out without disclosing this to school administrators.

Walking around the Lincoln Park School can be a strange experience.

Like any high school, the girls are equally young — each year they have at least one 12-year-old — but lined up in the cafeteria for lunch, their stomachs all protruding, it’s almost like another planet.

Down one hallway, infants wail through the glass partition, while in a neighboring room they sleep and coo peacefully.

“We’re having some relaxing time,” said a nurse as she gazed at the row of six docile babes. And then, of course, there are no boys in sight.

Though the experience of having children does seem to mature the girls rather rapidly, according to McClure, they’re still teenagers.

“A lot of guys want their girlfriends to go here so they can’t meet other guys,” said the school’s principal of seven years, Gabriel Garcia. “And some girls decide not to come here because they want to stay at their schools and make sure their boyfriends aren’t with other girls.”

Acceptance and Silence

When Garcia retired at the end of January the girls threw him a surprise assembly with a cake and balloons.

Personally, the experience has been fulfilling for Garcia. He says that the girls frequently come and talk to him about their problems and he feels that he’s had a positive impact on the lives of not only hundreds of mothers, but hundreds of young children as well.

But although he’s been glad to provide a supportive place for pregnant teenagers to complete their education, he says the fact that a school for young mothers is necessary signifies a serious problem in the district.

“Adults are not comfortable talking about sex with kids,” Garcia said. “Then it creates a liability in schools when you know that some parents just get so angry about it. Teachers are scared of what you can be accused of in the classroom. It becomes safer for them to say less.”

Cindy Davila has been working as a guidance counselor at the school for 17 years. She says she’ll never get used to the shock of seeing a pregnant 12-year-old.

“What’s she doing raising a child? She is a child,” Davila said. “So many families don’t expect anything different from them. There are some situations where a family is extremely poor and to bring a healthy baby into a filthy environment with drug use, or just not being able to buy new diapers, it’s scary.”

Davila agrees that although the school can help the girls, by the time they arrive they’ve already lost a number of opportunities without necessarily knowing what they’ve given up.

“We live in a culture that accepts unplanned pregnancy,” Davila said. “Their mothers and grandmothers might have been teens too, so where can they learn something different from?”

The Difference

Maria Guerra, who asked that her name be changed for this article, is 20 years old. She’s finishing up the last two credits to complete her GED at the Lincoln Park School after giving birth to her second daughter in December.

“The first baby I had was when I was 17 and that was planned,” she said. “When I had her I was going to a charter school and my husband had a nice job in construction so I felt ready.”

Now, after giving birth to her second daughter, Maria says she wishes she had had a bit more time to finish her education and her teenage years.

“I have two babies, I have to cook for my husband and take care of the house,” she said. “There’s a point where I feel like I wish I could be by myself. I’m going to be a mother who teaches my daughters to be different.”

Terri Lievanos, the director of Brownsville’s chapter of Planned Parenthood, says she’s glad there is community acceptance of young mothers.

But she also hopes that young people like Maria will begin to see that there is a difference between having a child at 17 and having one once they’ve completed their education, fallen in love, and established a meaningful career.

“I used to lead a class for new teen parents,” Lievanos said. “And I’d ask them the question, ‘why be a teen parent at 15?’ And they’d answer, ‘ma’am, why not? My life isn’t gonna be any different at 20 or 25.’ If they grow up surrounded by teen pregnancy and violence, they’re not going to know that it can be different.”

Lievanos says that it’s this distinction that keeps her coming to work each day, even when she feels like she’s fighting a losing battle.

“I believe in what we do,” she said. “I truly believe that men and women have a right to decide when or if they become parents.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Like my own parents used to say, “When you legally become an adult, and live in your own house, you can decide what to do.” That including human reproduction but by then they knew I was going to be childfree. At any rate, the point stands: teenagers are not legally adults, cannot make such major life decisions, and as for dropping out of school, I personally think it should be illegal. Let the parents of the teen girls take care of the babies while the girl finishes high school. Of course, I never had that problem of wondering if I’d ever drop out of high school. I liked high school, even better than grammar school and junior high, and besides, I went to a private high school, so if any female student there ever got pregnant, she woud go bye bye. Private schools can do that. Of course, a girl would always be able to finish up at a public school along with the rest of the pregnant teens.

Back to the article however. With the 225 to 250 girls who are teen mothers at Lincoln Park (New Jersey), it seems like a lot. Exactly why are so many girls getting pregnant? Exactly why were they playing with boys without using protection? Do these girls have no common sense? One does not indulge in risky sexual behavior without using protection, even if it is a condom. Obviously these kids do not think education is important and not when they can have easy access to boys (God knows how many of them in that New Jersey city were being oopsed each year). Their parents are no help, either, in failing to educate their own kids about what sort of behavior they should not be doing, and if they do engage in it, to use some form of birth control. Teenage girls should be discouraged from making babies, not encouraged to make babies. Not only that, their “parents” need to tell these girls:

“Do not be in such a hurry to grow up.”

Some good news: 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_on_re_us/abstinence_education

Future of abstinence-only funding is in limbo

By David Crary,

Sunday January 18, 2009

NEW YORK – With the exit of the Bush administration, critics of abstinence-only sex education will be making an aggressive push to cut off federal funding for what they consider an ineffective, sometimes harmful program.

How quickly and completely they reach their goal is uncertain, however, as conservative supporters of abstinence education lobby Congress and President-elect Barack Obama to preserve at least some of the funding, which now totals $176 million a year.

And even if federal funding is halted, some states — such as Georgia — are determined to keep abstinence programs going on their own, ensuring that this front in the culture wars will remain active.

Obama is considered an advocate of comprehensive sex education, which — unlike abstinence-only curriculum — includes advice to young people about using contraceptives if they do engage in sexual activity. However, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to elaborate on what the new president would propose in his own budget plan.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of American, depicted the federal abstinence-only program as “an utter failure that has wasted more than $1.5 billion” over the past decade. Like other critics, she noted that several major studies — including a federally funded review — have found no evidence that the abstinence-only approach works in deterring teen sex.

“Talking with Obama, he totally understands the need for young people to have comprehensive sex education — they need information that protects their health,” Richards said. “I hope that will be the position of the administration, but when Congress gets involved, sometimes things get more complicated.”

Even after Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections, liberals lacked the votes to end abstinence-only funding, and President George Bush stuck by his strong support for it.

But Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said the 2008 elections not only put Obama in the White House but also increased the ranks of senators and representatives who share her opposition to funding abstinence education.

“We believe the amount of money that goes into it would be so much better used on things to prevent unwanted pregnancies,” she said. “I think we’ll have enough votes to deal with it.”

Slaughter is a lead sponsor of the Prevention First Act, introduced this month in the House and Senate, that proposes multiple initiatives to reduce unintended pregnancies. One component calls for promoting “medically accurate” comprehensive sex education.

Supporters of abstinence education acknowledge the shift of political power in Washington, but they have appealed to Obama to preserve some federal funding for their programs.

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, suggested that one option would be for Congress “to allow true choice” by approving funding for both comprehensive and abstinence-focused programs.

Referring to recent data showing increases in teen births and sexually transmitted diseases among young people, she said, “Now is not the time to remove even one of the tools that can help teens.”

However, Slaughter said she would oppose any effort to fund both approaches.

“We can’t have both, because abstinence-only doesn’t work,” she said.

Among the organizations attempting to bridge the ideological divide on sex education is the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Its director, Sarah Brown, said the campaign’s approach is “science-driven” — favoring comprehensive sex education over the abstinence programs.

“In a highly constrained fiscal environment, it’s critical to focus precious dollars on programs that have evidence of good effects,” Brown said. “When you look at the best science, the abstinence-only programs come up short.”

Still, she said there could be a long-term benefit to conducting research on whatever abstinence programs do endure.

“I suspect that if research community keeps testing them, there might be a couple that do have an effect,” she said.

Georgia supplements its federal abstinence money with more than $500,000 of state funds.

“Abstinence education will remain a strategy of our youth development initiative regardless of what happens at the federal level,” said Jen Bennecke, executive director of the Governor’s Office for Children and Families.

She credited the Georgia program — which includes character-development curriculum — with contributing to a 50 percent decrease in teen pregnancies since its inception 11 years ago.

Roughly half the states receive federal abstinence funding — the others have spurned the program, under which instructors are directed to teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.

Supporters of abstinence education say it promotes the only method that’s 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Critics say the abstinence programs don’t deter teens from having sex, leave them without crucial information on avoiding pregnancy and STDs, and in some cases provide false information about condoms’ reliability.

………………………………………………………………………………………..

Sometimes harmful? They are kidding, right? It’s no secret that teens have sex, sometimes with birth control, most of the time, without using birth control. Georgia is one of the southern states that wants to keep abstinence-only sex education in the public schools. While Georgia is not Texas (Lubbock has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation), pregnancy rates started to rise immediately after they dropped:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/aug/24/georgia-paying-price-teenage-pregnancy/?local

The teen birth rate in Georgia declined 30 percent between 1991 and 2004, saving taxpayers an estimated $227 million in 2004 alone, and Walker County showed an even greater decline as the teen pregnancy rate fell 32 percent during that time.

The $2.8 million cost to taxpayers for 2004 was when the county reported 34.1 pregnancies per 1,000 teens. Pregnancies among girls ages 15 to 17 have been steadily rising since then.

The rate of pregnancies in Walker County for girls 15-17 went from 34.1 in 2004 up to 38.3 pregnancies in 2005, and to 44.3 per 1,000 teens in that age group in 2006, according to DHR reports.

……………………………………………………………………………………..

Back to the original article, if that $1.5 billion was used for comprehensive sex ed and provide kids with the information they need on preventing pregnancy, there would have been an even bigger decrease in teen pregnancies within the past decade. The other issue the article does not address is that abstinence only sex education does not go into detail on the human reproductive system, its development, and care. Abstinence, when not practiced, will have the opposite results: pregnancy. It is unrealistic to expect teenagers to practice abstinence when our media and popular culture encourages them to “just do it,” as Nike would say. Neither should the government be funding both comprehensive sex education and abstinence only education, since the two conflict in ideology, and the last thing our government needs to do is confuse American teenagers more than they need be. If our kids need to be educated in the realm of sexual behavior, they’re better off on comprehensive sex ed, which can equip them with the knowledge they need on preventing teen pregnancy.

OK, so it’s great that Bristol’s delivery went well and she is the mother of a baby boy, but her statement to the public is far wiser than that of her Mom’s:

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/117487/bristol_palin_says_to_teens%3A_don%27t_get_pregnant/

Bristol Palin Says to Teens: Don’t Get Pregnant

By Jodi Jacobson

January 6, 2009

On December 27, Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska Governor and former Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Today, Bristol, who is 18 years old and just shy of achieving her high school diploma, joined her mother in a statement on the birth of her first child, Governor Palin’s first grandchild.

Governor Palin, obviously elated with the safe delivery of her grandchild and the health of her daughter, stated;

We are over the moon with the arrival of this healthy, beautiful baby.

And, she continued:

The road ahead for this young couple will not be easy, but nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Bristol and Levi are committed to accomplish what millions of other young parents have accomplished, to provide a loving and secure environment for their child. They are both hard workers, they’re very strong, and have faith they’ve made the right decision in setting aside their own interests to make this child their highest priority.

The operative word here is “decision.” Bristol and Levi, along with their families, made a decision that was right for them. And the fact that they have this choice is instructive on many levels.

Bristol Palin said she “obviously discourages” teen pregnancy and knows that plans she previously made for herself will now forever be changed.

“Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with - this isn’t ideal. But I’m fortunate to have a supportive family which is dealing with this together. Tripp is so perfectly precious; we love him with all our hearts. I can’t imagine life without him now.”

Yet the situation is also full of irony. Bristol grew up in a family which espoused abstinence-only policies, not just as a familial choice, but also a state- and national strategy. During the Presidential campaign, MSNBC reported that in response to an Eagle Forum questionnaire during her gubernatorial race, Sarah Palin supported abstinence-only sex education.

Eagle Forum: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

Among credible researchers, there simply is no dispute: Well-designed comprehensive programs simultaneously encourage delay in sexual activity and teach adolescents how to practice safer sex thereby preventing both unintended pregnancy and infection. Abstinence-only programs leave them vulnerable.
That Bristol and Levi became sexually active, were unprotected and ended up having a child before they planned to do so is not a surprise … it is somewhat predictable given what we already know about abstinence-only in reality. That they made the choice to have their child and so quickly become adults and parents while also trying to finish high school degrees also is their basic right, and we celebrate the fact that they can exercise these choices.

Indeed, we celebrate the healthy and safe arrival of baby Tripp and wish him, his parents, grandparents, aunt, uncles, and his extended family only the very best.
But something in Bristol’s statement implies a different take on the situation … she is telling teens to prevent pregnancy in the first place, and by doing so at least implicitly suggesting that they be able to exercise responsible choices if and when they engage in sexual activity. Maybe Bristol is way ahead of her mom.

We invite those who continue to support abstinence-only programs to share their thoughts on where this situation places the debate. The evidence is clear. The Palin’s story unfolding in the national press puts the data in the context of personal history. And yet the broader implications of the dichotomy between personal experience and political philosophy remains relatively unexplored.

So we ask this: why, in the real world, does anyone still defy the evidence? In this real world in which we live, some 600,000 women die annually — and many times that number suffer illness and disablity — from complications of pregnancy and unsafe abortion. They do not have access to safe delivery services or emergency obstetric care because it is not a high priority to provide them with these services.

In many of the poorest countries of the world women continue to bear a higher number of children than they desire due in large part to lack of choice over childbearing and lack of access to contraception, because it is not a high priority to change these circumstances. They have decided they lack the means to “provide a loving and secure environment for their [next] child” and so many risk their own lives in unsafe abortions to end unintended pregnancies.
…………………………………………………………………………………………

The above excerpts hit home the hardest: why do evangelical Christians so adamantly oppose pre-marital sex, but also oppose birth control in any shape or form? (Here they are on a par with the Roman Catholic Church) They need to wake up (Sarah Palin, drink some coffee to help you wake up!) out of their La-La Christian Paradise on Earth and get with reality for a complete change. Maybe it is the delusional Christian fundamentalist belief of “Since I am now saved by the blood of Jesus I am incapable of committing sin” nonsense that causes the downfall of so many evangelicals. I don’t know. Sociologist Mark Regnerus went into detail as to why red states that have a majority of evangelical, fundamental Christians have a much higher rate of unwed teen pregnancy, versus the more liberal blue states in his book “Red Sex, Blue Sex.” The evangelicals can have all of their little “Wait Until Marriage” and “Promise Ring” groups (now this is another things that has proven to be an utter failure: saying you’ll be chaste until marriage is pretty worthless unless it is put into practice) but on the surface, habits and behaviors reveal something entirely different.

What exactly is it that makes evangelical teens so, um, promiscuous, for want of a better word? Outside of not having access to birth control, can they be learning their behaviors from their parents? The word “Yes” probably carries more weight than anything else here. Think of it, Sarah Palin, mother of five children, with each successively older child having firsthand knowledge of making babies, once the child sees the mother pregnant. Of course, evangelical Christians tend to have large families for whatever reason - it certainly isn’t scriptural because I’ve read the New Testament and nowhere in there does it describe propagation of the species (Jesus spoke of a family of the spirit (Matthew 12:46-50, Matthew 22:23-33, et al but hey evangelicals aren’t into that, they want to make lots of babies as members for their church). I can’t possibly imagine that evangelical teens have more raging hormones than, say, the liberal atheist next door who doesn’t have sex for whatever reason. Abstinence is safe sex only and ONLY when it is actually practiced. When it’s not practiced, these kids should know how to use condoms, and over the counter birth control pills. The majority of doctors in the United States won’t give these children Mirena, tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and Essure because those tiny bodies are still growing - and because most doctors know they can be hit with a lawsuit by the family of the girl-child who gets these procedures. And our ex-president George W. Bush wasted too much money on abstinence-only education, along with wasting billions in Iraq.

Bristol’s openness about why abstinence education does not work will no doubt strain her relationship with her mother Sarah. Regardless, she is to be commended for her honesty about why teens should not engage in pre-marital sex without some form of protection.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090103/hl_afp/vaticanreligioncontraception_090103212901

Contraceptive pill is polluting environment: Vatican newspaper

January 3, 2009

VATICAN CITY (AFP) – The contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano said Saturday.

The pill “has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature” through female urine, said Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in the report.

“We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill,” he said, without elaborating further.

“We are faced with a clear anti-environmental effect which demands more explanation on the part of the manufacturers,” added Castellvi.

The article was promptly dismissed by several organisations.

“Once metabolised, the hormones contained in oral contraceptives no longer have any of the characteristic effects of feminine hormones,” said Gianbenedetto Melis, vice-president of a contraceptive research association, quoted by the ANSA news agency.

The hormones contained in the pill such as oestrogen “are present everywhere… in plastic, in disinfectants, in meat that we eat,” added Flavia Franconi, of the Society of Italian Pharmacology.

Pope Benedict XVI in October reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s condemnation of artificial birth control.

Contraception “means negating the intimate truth of conjugal love, with which the divine gift (of life) is communicated,” the leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Roman Catholics wrote on the 40th anniversary of a papal encyclical on the topic.

An encyclical is a letter usually treating some aspect of Catholic doctrine and issued occasionally by the pope.

The landmark document, whose title in English is “On the Regulation of Birth”, was published at a time when the development of the Pill was giving new sexual freedom to women across the world.

Millions of Catholics distanced themselves from Rome as a result.
………………………………………………………………………………

Without a doubt this study is biased towards Roman Catholic teaching on contraception - don’t expect anything else to come out of the Vatican any time soon. Anything coming from the IFCMA should be taken with a grain of salt. To date, the Roman Catholic church has not been of any help in third world nations in reducing poverty. Apparently increasing the masses is much more important than educating poor women and making contraception available to them. I suspect many Catholics will be questioning this so-called scientific study and find out the truth on their own. Regardless of any risks that come using contraception - risk taking is a part of everyday life. This is something the Roman Catholic church is unable to prevent. Moreover, it sounds like the church is trying to kiss up to the environmentalists at the same time. Whoever said normalcy prevailed in some ex cathedra statements must have been kidding himself - or herself, as the case may be. In reality, I’d expect to see a scientific study like this appear on Art Bell’s or Jeff Rense’s website. Maybe one of these guys can contact Benedict and request a collaboration on a project of some kind.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/09/16/o.trying.to.conceive/index.html

Excerpted:

Woman endures all in trying to conceive
By Cindy Chupack

This was not something the cover story recommended, by the way.

It was a reaction to something the cover story recommended, namely that you shouldn’t eat a lot of red meat if you’re trying to get pregnant.

I was trying to get pregnant. My husband and I had been trying for two and a half years. I also had a steak on the grill that was going to be my lunch before I decided to have the gingerbread house instead.

“Trying” is a good word for this process. At first, trying just meant sex without birth control, but when you marry at 40, trying quickly becomes more trying, and eventually we had the requisite army of experts, most of whom insurance doesn’t cover, but of course, you can’t put a price on a baby.

You can put a price on not having a baby. That’s running us close to $45,000 in credit card debt.

So by the time I was reading that “Newsweek” article, I’d done it all… drugs, suppositories, IUI, IVF, that test with the blue dye, acupuncture, stinky teas, hormone injections.

Once, we were driving to see a doctor in Beverly Hills, and my husband asked what kind of doctor he was, and I said, “I don’t know, but someone said to see him, so we’re seeing him!”

It was that doctor, incidentally, who told me to visualize my husband’s face on a cartoon sperm, with arms welcoming my egg to him. We decided the guy was a quack, so I only saw him twice a week for about four months.
The thing is, when you’re racing your biological clock, people can tell you pretty much anything and you’ll do it. I still worry I need to track down some saint named Amachi so I can bring her red bananas.

Recently, a friend said something about standing on your head. He wasn’t sure if you were supposed to do it before sex, during, or just in general, but this worked for two women he knew, so I guess I have to stand on my head now. I’ll probably visualize my husband’s face on a cartoon sperm while I’m at it — not because I’m onboard with that. It’s just a hard image to shake.

So it was kind of revolutionary that for the holidays we went to Jackson Hole and we didn’t even take ovulation sticks, which might not seem crazy to the average person, but when you’re in the middle of this madness, not knowing when you’re ovulating is like not knowing where your cell phone is.

We actually got pregnant on our wedding night, and for a moment we were “those people” (you know, people who got pregnant right away, maybe even accidentally, which now seems as likely to me as accidentally finding Osama bin Laden), but back then I didn’t know any better, so we were “those people” until three months later, when we found out the baby’s head was too large, and there was fluid where there shouldn’t be, and there was a malformed heart, and the baby probably wouldn’t make it to term, and, as the doctor said, we should seriously consider termination unless we were deeply religious.

That news was hard to take, but even harder because I felt guilty. The truth is, at that time, I didn’t want to be pregnant.

We’d just gotten married. I still wasn’t sure it was going to last.

I also thought a little time as a couple would be nice since it took us 40 years to find each other. But my husband was eager to start a family, so the morning after he proposed, we were walking on the beach and I threw my birth control pills into the ocean in a dramatic display of love and good faith, and it made him so happy that I had to resist the urge to run screaming into the surf to recover them.

I’d always wanted to have a baby… in five years. I’d been saying I wanted to have a baby in five years for about 20 years. I just never felt ready. But ready or not, on day seven of our honeymoon I felt nauseous, and, thinking I had a stomach bug, I stayed in our room.

We were in South Africa on a safari, and they had warned us to keep the sliding doors to our bungalow locked because of the monkeys, but I thought they meant when we were out. And I was in, curled up in bed, when all of a sudden I heard the door open.

Then I heard this thump thump thump, and I got up and looked into the living room, and there were seven monkeys throwing food around, and they froze as if I had just walked in on a teenager’s party. And the funny thing, looking back, was that this was my fear. This is what I thought it would be like to have children. This is why I never felt ready.

My plan was to lose weight until I got pregnant (it’s supposedly healthier to get pregnant at a lower weight), but since it was taking so long to get pregnant, I ate a lot of red meat, and I lost a lot of weight. Fifty pounds, to be exact.

For the first time ever, I felt like someone who belonged in L.A. I bought a pair of skinny jeans and strutted my significantly smaller stuff down Robertson Boulevard. I felt, in a word, fabulous. So fabulous, in fact, it took me a while to notice that I wasn’t getting my period. And not for the reason I’d been hoping.

I know, by the way, that once you have a baby, this all gets put behind you. I know the end of this movie. I don’t know where or when or how. We’ve discussed donor eggs, but I don’t really like guests in my house, so in my womb — I don’t know.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
This piece, from Oprah.com, reads more like satire than anything else. I’ve heard of women desperate to squeeze one out, but really, is eating the roof of a gingerbread house considered to be some sort of New Age conception drug compared to the delicious filet mignon? (hey if this woman doesn’t want the steak I will happily take it). And what is with the 45 grand comment? One has that sort of money in the bank when one does not try to spend all of one’s savings on wanting to squeeze one out. Furthermore, that money will remain in the bank if one does not give birth to a resource gobbler. The quack doctor incident sounds like something from a Jim Varney film. Even if the story is for real and I highly doubt it is, it is written by just one more woman who has babies rabies. Thank God I will never have to worry about that sort of thing.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/12/0912salazar.html

Friday, September 12, 2008

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13101

Sarah Palin’s private life has captured the nation’s attention with regard to her youngest child Trig. Several sources have disputed the rumor that Trig was really the baby of Sarah’s teenage daughter Bristol. Just recently it has been disclosed that Bristol is indeed pregnant, at the age of 17, and unmarried. So what is the problem here? Sarah Palin is a highly conservative Republican who touts traditional family values as part of her political agenda. As part of these traditional family values comes the forbidding of pre-marital sex, anti-abortion rhetoric, and of course, anti-contraceptive rhetoric. It is the latter part that scares me the most, if McCain gets elected this November, even more so than Palin’s belief in abstinence-only sex education, which has been proven to not work in public schools. Obviously it did not work with Bristol Palin, even though her mother claims that she will marry the father, Levi Johnston, a homeschooled student in Wasilla, Alaska.

Sarah Palin is a very attractive woman who is the governor of Alaska. Most of her views flaunt the secular liberal values in America. It is for this reason that the phrase “culture wars” has been used to describe McCain’s campaign. Does he plan on using her to impose the right-wing extremist values upon the nation? It would appear that way from the liberal and even moderate standpoint. Even though I consider myself a conservative, I lean towards the old conservatives, not this new group of conservatives popularly known as neocons. Sarah Palin and her family attend a number of churches, the Wasilla Bible Church, Church on the Rock, and the Juneau Christian Center located in Juneau, Alaska’s capital. Granted, all of these churches are of a fundamentalist nature, which is the obvious appeal to Palin and her family. Alaska in this sense is not too different from Arizona: it is largely conservative, Republican, and Christian. Most of the people I know here in Tucson are either Baptist, Evangelical, or Roman Catholic, and this is outside the UA community. While I have no problem with religion, I do not believe government is there to endorse a religion; that is why we have the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This goes for religious morals, too, which have no business being in government. There are many Americans, myself included, who believe that the extreme right-wing want to to establish their brand of Christianity upon the nation, something which would ultimately restrict many freedoms we now possess. In order for that to happen, however, this fringe group would have to either dispose of, or at least rephrase the First Amendment. As a religious minority and a female, I still have issues with McCain’s VP pick even though he has been known to flounder between liberal and conservative ideologies. Palin is someone who would simply alienate female voters from McCain, even though he is not my candidate for the job.

I doubt Palin will last during the next month, what with her daughter’s pregnancy, plus Trig’s special needs as a Down’s Syndrome baby. Maybe McCain had an Alzheimer’s moment when he chose Palin as his VP. He would have been better off with anyone but her.