One day after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced
her decision to overrule the Food and Drug Administration's recommendations on emergency contraception, President Obama
addressed the matter, saying that while he had nothing to do with the decision, he fully supports it:
I will say this, as the father of two daughters. I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine. And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.
It is understandable that when he speaks about girls' sexuality, Barack Obama can't help but think of his own daughters. And feel protective of them. And want for them to never be in such a position where they require emergency contraception to prevent an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
But as president of the United States, it's not so forgivable that he would substitute his personal discomfort for good policy based on science. At Salon, Rebecca Traister wrote:
But part of what was most disturbing about Obama’s statement was his reliance on language that reveals his paternalistic approach to women and their health. [...]
The notion that in aggressively conscribing women’s abilities to protect themselves against unplanned pregnancy Obama is just laying down some Olde Fashioned Dad Sense diminishes an issue of gender equality, sexual health and medical access. Recasting this debate as an episode of “Father Knows Best” reaffirms hoary attitudes about young women and sex that had their repressive heyday in the era whence that program sprang.
Americans don't need a daddy-in-chief who turns squeamish at the thought of their sexuality. While squeamishness may be an understandable emotional reaction, it doesn't prevent pregnancy or disease. Instead, it does enforce the kind of ignorance that leads to a greater risk of pregnancy and disease.
Americans of all ages need to understand sexuality—the science, not the moralistic shaming in the name of God or decorum. The information and protection they need should be as accessible to them as possible because that's how you prevent pregnancy, disease and poor decisions.
And President Obama's squeamishness certainly has no place in a national discussion about health and human services. As Traister explains:
This discomfort might be comprehensible from an emotional, parental point of view. But these are not familial discussions; this is a public-health policy debate, and at a time when “16 and Pregnant” airs on MTV, the fact that a daddy feels funny about his little girls becoming grown-ups has no place in a discussion of healthcare options for America’s young women.
Barack Obama may cringe at the idea of his daughters sneaking off to the store to buy emergency contraception and a pack of bubble gum. But preventing his daughters from being able to purchase emergency contraception won't protect them. And it won't protect any of the other young women in America who may find themselves in the position of needing access to emergency contraception in order to prevent an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
This may be unimaginable to Barack Obama, as the father of two daughters, but as the president of the country, he should understand that not every American girl has a father or other adult in her life she can trust to help her when it comes to her sexual health, and that if a teenager has had unprotected sex and wants to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, blocking her access to emergency contraception won't prevent her from having sex. Instead, it will only increase the risk that she will become pregnant.
The only way to promote safe and healthy sexual practices and to reduce disease and unplanned pregnancy is to put squeamishness aside and ensure that every sexually active American has access to the education and contraception they need to protect themselves.
And that's something Barack Obama, as the father of two daughters and as president of the United States, should support.
_____
This week's good, bad and ugly below the fold.
- Awww. Poor forced birthers are split about the best legal tactics to seize full control of America's wombs.
- Here's a really terrible way to try to save money:
The Wisconsin Justice Department has warned organizations that help sexual assault victims to expect drastic reductions in state aid next year, a surprise move for an agency that has prided itself on capturing sexual predators.
Justice Department officials informed service providers around the state this month it plans to cut grants from its Sexual Assault Victim Services program by 42.5 percent this year. The announcement blindsided service providers who rely on the grants to pay for therapy, crisis intervention and education. They expected cuts, they said, but never thought they would be so dramatic.
(h/t eastsidekate at Shakesville)
- And it's just as bad at the federal level:
This week, Senators Leahy and Crapo introduced a bill to reauthorize and amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a federal law first enacted in 1994.
This is mostly good news. The VAWA mandates federal funding for victim assistance and transitional housing, strengthens provisions to penalize offenders, and requires states to provide a certain level of services with a view to preventing violence from occurring in the first place.
The bad news is that the proposed bill substantively slashes the funding for the implementation of the bill, reducing the authorized funds by more than $144 million (almost 20 percent) of 2005 levels over 5 years.
- Disgusting:
Rape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire. So great is the issue that a group of veterans are suing the Pentagon to force reform. The lawsuit, which includes three men and 25 women (the suit initially involved 17 plaintiffs but grew to 28) who claim to have been subjected to sexual assaults while serving in the armed forces, blames former defence secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates for a culture of punishment against the women and men who report sex crimes and a failure to prosecute the offenders. [...]
Whether or not the case goes to trial, it is still set to blow the lid on what has come to be regarded as the American military's dirty little secret. Last year 3,158 sexual crimes were reported within the US military. Of those cases, only 529 reached a court room, and only 104 convictions were made, according to a 2010 report from SAPRO (sexual assault prevention and response office, a division of the department of defence). But these figures are only a fraction of the reality. Sexual assaults are notoriously under-reported. The same report estimated that there were a further 19,000 unreported cases of sexual assault last year. The department of veterans affairs, meanwhile, released an independent study estimating that one in three women had experience of military sexual trauma while on active service. That is double the rate for civilians, which is one in six, according to the US department of justice.
This is why the Shaheen Amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act "that would lift the ban on military insurance coverage for abortions in cases of rape and incest, providing military women with reproductive health coverage that is equal in scope to that of civilians" is so important. And of course why the House and Senate have blocked its passage. And why faux feminist groups like the Concerned Women for Concern Trolls of America think those women who serve the country should be denied the same rights as civilian women. Because nothing says "Support the Troops" like forcing a woman who's been raped by a co-worker to carry her rapist's baby to term.
God Bless America.
- In other faux feminist news:
In another solid reminder that the Susan B. Anthony groups is first and foremost about ending abortion, and only nominally interested in supporting female politicians, the group has announced that they will be endorsing Iowa Rep. Steve King over Democratic challenger Christie Vilsack.
- About that "mancession":
But there's also a less talked about story about gender and the recession. Men may have fallen harder. But during the country's sluggish recovery, they bounced back faster. And in the current rickety job market, women may be facing the tougher road ahead.
- And about the "myth" of the wage gap:
Graduates owed an average $25,250 in 2010, estimates the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit research organization in Oakland, California. Women entering the workforce with that liability are at a disadvantage: They earned 81 cents for every dollar their male counterparts did, on average, in 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Oh look. It's another ideologically driven bill completely unsupported by the facts:
Florida Rep. Daniel Davis, R-Jacksonville, has introduced a bill for the upcoming legislative session that would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.
The measure is similar to a handful of bills seen last year in legislatures across the country: so-called “fetal pain” bills that have been found to be “neither scientifically nor constitutionally sound” by researchers. Current law protects a woman’s right to have an abortion up to 22-24 weeks, at least.
The most recent study on this issue, published in Current Biology, found that a fetus does not feel pain until 35 to 37 weeks of gestation.
The Florida legislature tried this one before, but forced birthers are never deterred by defeat:
The sponsor of last session’s bill, state Rep. Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami, said he filed House Bill 321 because he’s “pro-life, a devout Catholic and based on the scientific evidence,” he believes “you can have a debate on when a child can feel pain and when that fetus is viable.”
However, he did concede that that the science behind his law was “inconclusive.”
In other words, science-shmience.
- Oh, and speaking of science ... here is yet another study showing that abortion does not increase the risk of mental illness. But guess what does:
[M]ental health problems seemed to be linked specifically to unwanted pregnancies rather than abortion.
About 11 to 12 percent of women in general suffer from mental health issues like anxiety or depression, but among women with unwanted pregnancies that figure rises to about one third, he said. For women who later had an abortion, there did not appear to be any further increase in their rate of mental health problems.
Not that this will stop the forced birthers from making up and citing bogus "studies" that abortion makes you crazy and/or depressed and/or suicidal. (h/t rfall)
- In case you missed it, Meteor Blades explained why the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 is a sickening attempt to hijack the legacies of its namesakes in the name of "nondiscrimination."
- And finally, since it's been such an ugly week, let's end with a laugh, shall we? Here's a classic from The Onion: New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion.