Thank an Abortion Provider

March 10th was the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers. All month on our myspace page, PPRSR has been raising awareness about the important and brave work done by abortion providers.

Why say thanks? There are a lot of reasons, and you can read about them at our myspace blog -- from anti-choice violence to the persistent decline in the number of providers.

But here's the big one: because without abortion providers, there would be no "choice." The law is important, and legal battles are fought everyday. But none of it makes any difference if doctors are not willing to provide abortions to women who need them. Anti-choices know this, and that's why they often choose to target providers specifically for harassment or even violence. It's also why they use strategies designed to shut down clinics, prevent them from opening, or control them with ridiculous and discriminatory regulations. The tactics are ugly, but they make a lot of sense: without availability, the legality of abortion is a mere technicality. And women left without access would risk their lives on unsafe and illegal procedures.

So take a moment to say thanks to those abortion providers who stay above the fray and continue to provide compassionate, quality medical care to women. You can leave us a comment on this blog post, or email us at sharewithus@pprsr.org. Your message can be long or short, generic or personal. All messages will be shared confidentially with our clinic staff.

You can also make a donation to PPRSR in honor of an abortion provider. Just click the badge below. And if you have friends who might also like to express their gratitude, make sure to pass this blog post along!

In Teen Relationships, Communication is Safest

An interesting new study has been released on the sexual habits of (heterosexual) teenagers. The results show that sexually active teens in trusting relationships are more likely to use contraception than those having more casual sex. The study involved 4,500 teens in grades 7 through 12.

An analysis of national data conducted by Child Trends, a research center that focuses on children and youth, found that sexually active teens who identify their relationships with a partner as romantic and who go out socially with that person are more likely to use contraceptives than similar teens in more casual relationships. This may be because they feel more comfortable talking about contraception with a partner they know and trust, said Jennifer Manlove, a scientist at Child Trends and one of the study's authors. Among girls, good communication and the quality of the relationship play a role in decision-making.
It's an educated guess to say that those in a trusting relationship are more likely to communicate about contraception. Research does indeed show that those couples who talk about contraception are more likely to use it.

Though the news is reassuring for parents whose teenage children are in committed relationships, there is cause for concern. Pregnancy is always a risk for teens having vaginal intercourse, but despite being less likely to use protection, teens having sex casually or with multiple partners are at a higher risk for STDs. And using contraception in one relationship does not necessarily determine whether or not a teen will use contraception in a future relationship:

The analysis, taken from information on more than 4,500 unmarried, sexually experienced young people, also found that girls were more likely to use contraception with boys their age than with older males. The teens were, on average, 16 years old when they first had sex. A fact sheet released by Child Trends contained some sobering news drawn from the study. For example, a teen's contraceptive use may change from partner to partner. Using birth control consistently in one relationship doesn't necessarily mean that a young person will do the same with another partner.

Use of contraception, in fact, is not as regular as health officials might hope. Four out of 10 sexually active students reported not using contraceptives at all or using them infrequently.

The news is certainly troubling, particularly in light of recent information showing that one in four teenage girls has an STD. But there is a bright side. In facing such a widespread STD problem, knowing what may lead teens to use or not use protection is absolutely vital to finding a solution.

One of the study's authors gives some good, practical advice:

Manlove said, it's not enough for parents to focus on whether their kids are having sex. They should engage their kids in conversations about what healthy relationships look like, pay attention to the power dynamics of any relationship and stress the importance of contraception.

Of course, having a single committed partner is important to STD prevention, and also to building trust in sexual relationships. But though ideal, it's not practical to assume that everyone will have only one partner, or one serious partner, at all times. Instead, the study's results support sending a slightly different but universal message: communication is sexual relationships is a must. We need to teach teens that if they trust a person enough for sex, they also need to trust that person enough to talk about contraception.

New Hampshire Rejects Dangerous Abortion Restrictions

Last week, the New Hampshire House struck down four separate bills that would have required parental consent or notification for a minor's abortion.

Two of the bills would mandate that parents be informed before a minor daughter's abortion, while another would require that parents consent to the procedure. A fourth would require abortion providers to check the residency of teens before performing the procedure to be sure their clients aren't evading laws of their home states. All four bills failed by wide margins.

The parental notification debate has become a perennial one in New Hampshire. In 2003, the state passed a parental notification law that never took effect due to court challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law must contain a health exception; last year, the Legislature repealed the law rather than rewrite it.

[. . .]

"Mandating parental notification for all young women seeking an abortion will not protect the teens who live in family situations that are troubled at best," said Bette Lasky, a Nashua Democrat.

The parental notification bill failed, 190-128. A broader bill that would require medical professionals to notify parents when treating a minor fell 207-111. The parental consent bill also failed, 211-109.

Out-of-state minors were the focus of another bill, which would have required abortion providers to look up and follow the laws of the girls' home states.

Most other states have either parental notification or parental consent laws - by Wendelboe's tally, 82 percent do - and Republicans argued that New Hampshire should honor those. "New Hampshire is in danger of becoming an abortion destination state," said Rep. Gregory Sorg, an Easton Republican.

But Democrats argued that the bill would force abortion providers to have encyclopedic knowledge of other states' laws and that the law could affect the rights of college students, among others. The bill failed, 210-106.

Parental notification and consent laws are some of the most popular kinds of restrictive abortion measures. Even many people who consider themselves pro-choice see parental notification as entirely proper. It's an issue that can feel very personal; of course, all parents would want to know about their daughter's abortion.

Unfortunately, this mindset misses the fact that not all families are as happy as their own. Many teens live in abusive households, or risk a parent refusing the abortion all together. Even laws that simply call for notification could easily result in a parent preventing the abortion, despite their daughter's legal right to one. For most people, it is unthinkable that a parent might force his or her daughter to give birth against her will, or turn violent against her upon hearing about a pregnancy. But sadly, situations like these are a reality.

And yet, 35 states have parental notification or consent laws in effect (NY is not one of them). In 2003, the New Hampshire parental notification law was struck down because it did not include a health exception -- meaning that an underage girl in need of an emergency abortion or abortion for health reasons would have still needed to notify a parent. In a situation like this, lives are placed at risk. The overruling of the law was great news, but there are more reasons to oppose parental notification and consent laws than potential emergency situations.

As it turns out, in states where there are no parental notification or consent laws, 61% of teen girls who had abortions informed at least one parent. Thirty-percent of those who did not cited a history of violence, fear of violence, or fear of being kicked out of the house and left homeless. All teens who did not inform a parent did discuss the decision with another trusted person, and teens who did not inform a parent were generally significantly older than teens that did. Furthermore, of teens having abortions after 16 weeks gestation, a shocking 63% said that the delay was due to fear over telling their parents.

Fear of notification isn't the only obstacle. Some laws take things a step further by requiring parental consent -- meaning that a parent can legally prevent his or her daughter from having an abortion. By many, this is considered the point. Other laws require the consent or notification of both parents, creating legal troubles for those whose parents are estranged or in unknown whereabouts. Though obtaining a judge's permission to waive the notification or consent requirement is possible, it's also time-consuming and burdensome. And it's worth noting that these attempts can fail.

Most ridiculous of all, the consent and notification requirements are not consistent with other laws regarding medical care for minors. Thirty-two states allow at least some minors to obtain contraceptive services without parental notification. All 50 states allow teens to be tested for STDs without parental consent. Amazingly, 34 states allow teens to obtain prenatal and birth services without parental notification. Many of these states are the same ones that require notification or consent for abortion! This is despite the fact that legal abortion is statistically safer than giving birth. Clearly, these laws are far more ideological than medically reasonable.

A big thanks to New Hampshire lawmakers for doing the right thing and standing up for the health of all women.

One in Four Teen Girls Has an STD

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has just released an alarming study which shows that one in four teenage girls between the ages of 14 and 19 have a sexually transmitted infection. The disturbing news continues, though: among those who admitted to having sex, the rate of infection was a staggering 40%. Worse yet, the study only tested for four common STDs, which means that total rates are most likely higher. Among the infected patients, 15% had more than one of the diseases.

The four STDs that patients were tested for are HPV, chlamydia, trichomoniasis and genital herpes. HPV had the highest rate of infection, with 18% of participants testing positive. While HPV often shows no symptoms, is can cause genital warts and cervical cancer. Chlamydia, which 4% of patients had, also generally has no symptoms but can lead to infertility. Two and a half percent of patients had trichomonisasis and 2% had genital herpes.

As Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards says, this is yet more evidence that abstinence-only education programs don't work and endanger youth. It also provides more reason for girls to get the HPV vaccine -- though many worry (without any proven reason) that giving the vaccine would encourage promiscuity, this study reinforces that we're dealing with an issue of health.

The results point to another problem: the likelihood of having an STD increases dramatically for black teens. A startling 50% of black teen girls were found to have an STD, compared with 20% for teens identified as white and Mexican-American. This shows yet again that there are enormous racial disparities in access to health care services and comprehensive sex education. Clearly, black communities are not receiving the resources they need to prevent sexual health related problems and to treat them once they occur.

These rates of infection are clearly not acceptable -- but the release of this study is enormously important to educate the public about the need to do better for teenagers. Abstinence is a great idea. But simply, it's one that a lot of teens just don't choose. Isn't it more important for teens to know the importance of using condoms and getting tested than it is to keep the rest of us from feeling uncomfortable? So far, we've spent $1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs -- how many STDs could have been prevented if that money had been used for sex education that actually works?

Iowa Rejects Abstinence-Only Funding

Iowa Governor Chet Culver has rejected federal funding for abstinence-only sex education. The move is the result of a law passed last year, which requires all sex education to be medically accurate.

"There's been discussion on whether or not we should be accepting these federal monies at all because the criteria for abstinence-only programs at the federal level is not medically accurate," said [Rep.] Mascher, who is sponsoring Thursday's policy briefing. "The standards that [organizations] have to abide by for the federal money do not call for scientifically-based information. In essence, [the guideline conflicts] would prevent schools from getting those monies. They could still teach abstinence-only sexual education, but they can't use the federal dollars in order to do it."

Representatives from FutureNet, the Iowa Network for adolescent pregnancy prevention, parenting and sexual health, are scheduled to speak at the briefing and to call for the complete refusal of Title V abstinence-only education funding. Iowa currently receives roughly $319,000 from the program, which is administered by the Iowa Department of Public Health. Prior to Bethany Christian Services of Northwest Iowa being awarded a $600,000 non-matching grant last September from the Administration of Children, Youth and Families (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), the Title V monies were the only such federal abstinence education funding in the state. Nationally, Title V provides more than $40 million a year in matching funds to states.

What exactly are the guidelines that Mascher refers to? In order to qualify for federal abstinence-only funding, a sex ed program must meet eight criteria:

A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;

C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and

H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Several of these required lessons are entirely inaccurate, and none of them are scientifically-based.

Saying that out-of-wedlock sex is not the "expected standard" is just plain false -- 95% of people have sex before marriage. The claim also completely ignores the existence of gay and lesbian students, who cannot legally marry a member of the same sex. Telling these students to remain celibate for their entire lives simply isn't going to work, but it will result in a lost moment to teach about reducing the risk of STDs.

The requirements impose a value judgment on sexual activity and leave no room for flexibility. Claiming that out-of-wedlock births are harmful to children and society is demeaning, incorrect, and embarrassing to students who were not born into or raised in a family with two married parents. Similarly, it's simply untrue that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to cause harmful psychological effects. The argument is a scare-tactic, without regard for the effect it will have on students. Telling teenagers that having sex at their age is not normal and will result in harmful psychological effects isn't exactly the way to win them over. This is particularly true for students who have already had sex and have not experienced these effects -- if they know that what they are being taught is untrue, how can we expect them to trust their teachers on the genuinely good reasons for abstaining from sexual activity (like pregnancy and STD prevention)?

In practice, abstinence-only programs go beyond the required rhetoric. Students are often taught that condoms don't work -- which is entirely false. Programs also tend to include language that promotes dangerous stereotypes about gender-- including the ideas that men cannot control their sexuality, a couple abstaining from sex must rely on the woman to do so, and women don't feel sexual desire based on physical attraction. A common lesson is that people who are not virgins are "used" and ruined for their future partners. They can be compared to "spoiled food," a once-beautiful rose that has lost all of its petals, and chewed candy.

On top of it all, abstinence-only curriculum doesn't even work! Students who receive abstinence-only education are just as likely to engage in sexual activity but less likely to use condoms. And most parents want their kids to be taught comprehensive sex education, including how to prevent pregnancy and STDs using contraception.

Late last year, our own Governor Spitzer made the wise decision to no longer accept abstinence-only funds from the federal government. This doesn't mean that NY teens will no longer be taught abstinence -- comprehensive sex education programs include information about abstinence, and abstinence-only programs can still exist but do not have to meet the federal criteria that includes false information. Rejecting abstinence-only education is an important move for states to make; it protects their teenagers and also encourages the federal government to reconsider setting aside so much money for programs that produce negative or no results. Iowa is the 17th state to reject abstinence-only funding. It seems like people are starting to realize the importance of quality sex education -- let's hope that federal lawmakers start to listen!