U.S. Senate Votes to Restore Affordable Contraception

Last Thursday, the Senate passed a funding bill that includes a provision which would close a loophole responsible for dramatically driving up birth control prices.

The Senate on Thursday passed a supplemental war funding bill that includes a provision that removes a disincentive to pharmaceutical companies to offer deeply discounted birth control to college health centers and certain non-profit family planning clinics, CQ Today reports. The bill also includes provisions preventing seven new Medicaid regulations from taking effect until April 1, 2009.

The drug pricing change is modeled after legislation (S 2347) introduced by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in November 2007. The cost of birth control at college clinics as well as about 400 community-based family planning clinics increased last year as the result of a change included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

According to CQ Today, all Democrats present, as well as two independent and 25 Republican senators, voted in favor of the bill. The Senate passed a domestic spending amendment, which includes the Medicaid and birth control discount provisions, by a 75-22 vote.

So what was going on that required a fix in the law? This Opinion piece, written before this bill was passed, offers a concise explanation:

For nearly 30 years, federal laws have been in place to help safety net providers, including college health clinics, buy birth control at affordable prices, then pass on their savings to college and low-income women. But in 2006, Congress changed this long-standing law - putting affordable contraception out of reach for millions of women. For example, women on college campuses typically pay between $5 and $10 a month for birth control. Now, because of the change in the law, college women are paying upwards of $40 and $50 a month. That translates into an additional $500 out of their pockets each year, a costly expense for women already on tight budgets.

How did this happen? The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), passed by Congress in 2006 included a provision that adversely affects the ability of university health centers and other safety net family planning providers to purchase contraceptives at a discounted or nominal price. By most accounts, it was an inadvertent outcome of a complicated change in the law. However, nothing has been done to fix it, and millions of college women and low-income are being penalized.
Congress has known about this pricing change and its devastating effects all year, yet has dragged its feet on fixing it. The solution will cost taxpayers nothing, and would simply clarify that college health clinics and other safety net providers are eligible to purchase nominally priced birth control.

Planned Parenthood has been doing a lot of work on this issue, both at federal and local levels, as have many other organizations that support accessible contraception. So it's exciting to see action being taken.

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, though it's seemingly for reasons that do not include the birth control pricing fix. However, it has been indicated that the Senate may be able to override a veto. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out: the bill goes back to the House next week, for approval of changes made by the Senate. Hopefully, Congress will do the right thing by low-income women and college students and restore their access to vital, affordable reproductive health care. You can ask your legislator to support this provision here.

Federal Court Rules Virginia Abortion Law Unconstitutional

A federal court has declared Virginia's late-term abortion ban unconstitutional due to its being too restrictive to comply with Supreme Court Decisions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has never allowed Virginia's Partial Birth Infanticide Act of 2003 to take effect, but the Supreme Court ordered it last year to reexamine the law in light of the high court's decision upholding the federal ban.

Since that April 2007 ruling, federal appeals courts have struck down abortion laws in Michigan and Virginia, saying they go beyond what the Supreme Court approved.

In Richmond, the three-judge panel that overturned the law in 2005 repeated its 2 to 1 decision yesterday, saying that the only way doctors could be certain they would not be prosecuted under the law would be to stop performing abortions.

"The Virginia Act imposes an undue burden upon a woman's right to choose a previability second trimester abortion," Judge M. Blane Michael wrote. He was joined by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz.

The Virginia law is even stricter than the controversial Federal Abortion Ban, which outlaws a specific abortion procedure, and which Planned Parenthood opposes.

The Virginia law bans the medical procedure "intact dilation and extraction" (D&E), which along with a standard dilation and extraction is used to terminate pregnancies after about 12 weeks. Up to 90 percent of abortions occur before then.

In a standard dilation and extraction, which remains legal, the fetus is dismembered in the womb; in an intact procedure, the fetus is partially delivered and the skull is crushed to make removal easier.

Abortion rights supporters and many doctors said the latter procedure is sometimes needed to preserve a woman's health, while abortion opponents -- and Congress, in passing the ban -- said it is not.

What concerned the judges about the Virginia law is something the state acknowledged was possible: An "accidental" intact dilation and extraction can occur when a doctor is performing a standard procedure.

Michael wrote that although the federal law protects a doctor who did not set out to perform an intact dilation and extraction, the Virginia statute does not.

"A doctor attempting in good faith to comply with the Virginia Act will accidentally violate the Act in a small fraction of cases," Michael wrote. "But the doctor never knows prior to embarking on any standard D&E procedure whether a violation will occur. Thus, every time a doctor sets out to perform a standard D&E, he faces the unavoidable risk of criminal prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment."

The only way to avoid the risk, Michael continued, is to avoid performing second-trimester abortions, and that would impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

The problem with the "undue burden" standard created by the Supreme Court in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling is that it's is highly subjective. Anti-choicers often have a very different idea of what constitutes an "undue burden" for a woman seeking an abortion compared to what doctors, pro-choice groups and women themselves think. The standard has been used to uphold all kind of restrictions that make abortions more difficult to obtain, particularly for women who are low-income or living in rural areas.

The burden that would have been imposed by the Virginia law is even more drastic, as it creates a situation where a doctor could not perform an abortion procedure that is legal by federal law without the risk of breaking state law in the event of an unavoidable complication. When doctors are too afraid to perform a legal medical procedure because there's a small chance that a complication could land them in jail, it seems that there absolutely is an undue burden, and women's lives are put at risk.

Anti-choice supporters of the Virginia law claim that it is "nearly identical" to the Federal Abortion Ban, and therefore the Court of Appeals has overstepped its bounds.

Niemeyer accused the majority of "ignoring explicit language and undertaking its course to find ambiguity in the Virginia Act so as to be able to strike it down."

He said that the potential problem would occur in a tiny percentage of cases and that doctors who did not intend to violate the law would be protected under a "rule of lenity."

[. . .]

Niemeyer said the decision represented "nothing less than a strong judicial will to overturn what the Virginia legislature has enacted for the benefit of Virginia's citizens and what, in materially undistinguishable terms, the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional."

The question they seem to avoid is why, if the law is materially the same as the federal ban and therefore constitutional, they don't simply amend the law to protect doctors in the event of complications. In fact, they fail to explain why the law might be needed at all, if it is merely redundant to federal statues already in place.

If this law were the same as the federal ban, there would still be reasons to oppose it. But the fact remains that there is a significant material difference -- and thankfully, the courts have picked up on it.

Most Teens Not Having Oral or Anal Sex as a Substitute for Vaginal Intercourse

A new study by the Guttmacher Institute has debunked the myth that heterosexual teens have increasingly engaged in oral and anal sex as a way to "technically" remain virgins. In fact, straight teens are much more likely to engage in oral and anal sex after they've had vaginal intercourse.

The analysis of a federal survey of more than 2,200 males and females aged 15 to 19, released yesterday, found that more than half reported having had oral sex. But those who described themselves as virgins were far less likely to say they had tried it than those who had had intercourse.

"There's a popular perception that teens are engaging in serial oral sex as a strategy to avoid vaginal intercourse," said Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, a private, nonprofit research organization based in New York, who helped do the study. "Our research suggests that's a misperception."

Instead, the study found that teens tend to become sexually active in many ways at about the same time. For example, although only one in four teenage virgins had engaged in oral sex, within six months after their first intercourse more than four out of five adolescents reported having oral sex.

"That suggests that oral and vaginal sex are closely linked," said Jones, whose findings will be published in the July issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. "Most teens don't have oral sex until they have had vaginal sex."

A criticism of abstinence-only sex education has been that it defines virginity as having abstained from vaginal intercourse, and therefore may lead teens to engage in other sexual activity that puts them at risk for STDs. But there are in fact many other criticisms of abstinence-only education -- and as supporters of comprehensive sex ed have noted, oral and anal sex do carry a risk of STD transmission, and the study shows that teens are engaging in these acts at high rates. So the findings actually further prove that the need for proper education about safer sex is increasing.

"More than half of our teens are having sex -- vaginal and oral," said James Wagoner, president of the group Advocates for Youth. "We can't afford the luxury of denial. Abstinence-only programs are the embodiment of denial. They have been proven not to work, and it's time to invest in real sex education, including condoms."

[. . .]

"More than half of our teens are having sex -- vaginal and oral," said James Wagoner, president of the group Advocates for Youth. "We can't afford the luxury of denial. Abstinence-only programs are the embodiment of denial. They have been proven not to work, and it's time to invest in real sex education, including condoms."

There definitely are teens engaging in oral and anal sex before having had vaginal sex. Twenty-three percent of straight teens who did not report having vaginal intercourse did report having oral sex, and one percent reported having anal sex. But those numbers are very drastically lower than among those who have engaged in vaginal intercourse.

The study had other important and interesting findings. Researchers found that the longer the amount of time since a teen had first engaged in vaginal intercourse, the more likely he or she was to report having had oral or anal sex. They also found that many more teens of both sexes reported receiving oral sex than giving it, with male and female teens reporting having receievd oral sex at similar rates, but with more females having reported giving oral sex. This indicates that performing heterosexual oral sex is seen as more taboo than receiving it, particularly when it comes to oral sex performed on female partners. Differences in willingness to report having given oral sex also fall along racial lines.

You can read the full results here (pdf). One thing seems certain: teens are engaging in a wide variety of sexual activity, and that means they need more than abstinence-only education, or even pregnancy prevention education, in order to keep themselves safe and make informed choices.

National Masturbation Month

There may be some graphic images or language on the pages this post links to. PPRSR is not responsible for the content on other websites!

April was both Sexual Assault Awareness Month and STD Awareness Month -- both very important issues, but also somber ones.

This month, we've got something a lot more fun. May is National Masturbation Month! What’s not to like about that?

National Masturbation Month was started in 1995 by the adult store Good Vibrations, in protest to the firing of Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders – who lost her job simply because she said that masturbation should be taught as a part of safer sex education.

Elders was right! Masturbation is the safest sex around, and it’s a perfectly normal part of human sexuality. Almost all people masturbate or have masturbated, whether single or in a relationship, gay or straight, young or old and male or female. And why shouldn’t they? Self-pleasure is healthy, and there are no STDs or pregnancy to worry about. As teenwire points out, masturbation relieves stress, can act as a painkiller, boosts your immune system and can even reduce the risk of depression. Who knew? Most people just do it because it feels good!

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that, either. There are a lot of myths about masturbation -- that it's dirty, immoral, you shouldn't do it when you have a partner, or even that it will cause hairy palms or blindness. Girls and women especially are taught that masturbation is something that they just shouldn't do.

But there’s nothing wrong with touching your own body or wanting to feel physical pleasure. In fact, one study showed that women who masturbate have higher self-esteem. They just might have better sex with partners, too: masturbating allows people to learn what feels good, how to have orgasms, and gives them the confidence they need to point their partner(s) in the right direction. People who masturbate might even be able to learn how to speed up or slow down their orgasms!

Isn't it about time that we talk about masturbation the same way that we talk about partnered sex: as something fun and normal?

PPRSR is also running a fundraising campaign around National Masturbation Month. Click on the button below to donate, or head over to our MySpace profile for the code you'll need to post but badge on your own page or blog.




If you want to know more, Scarleteen has a great article on the basics. For the ladies, I can recommend my favorite book about sex: I Love Female Orgasm. It’ll teach you just about anything you know about going solo – and might teach you a thing or two about partnered sex, as well.

You can also just check out our MySpace blog, where we'll be writing about masturbation all month. Stay tuned, because this week we'll be talking about sex toys!

LGBT Equality and Justice Day 2008

Last Tuesday April 29 was LGBT Equality and Justice Day in Albany. Equality and Justice Day is a chance for LGBT people and allies to lobby their legislators on issues that matter to them. And a couple of us from PPRSR were lucky enough to be able to attend on our own time.


A record 1300 people turned out to rally and talk to their legislators about three main issues. The Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) would prohibit harassment of students in school (on all kinds of basises, including sexual orientation and gender identity), change school policies regarding harassment and provide the support that these schools need to live up to the requirements. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) would expand anti-discrimination legislation to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression in areas such as housing, employment and education. And last but not least, Marriage Equality is vital to ensuring that same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex couples with regards to taxes, property, medical decisions and more.

NARAL Pro-Choice NY's Kelli Conlin was among the amazing speakers at the rally in front of the legislative building. I was thrilled to see her there because LGBT issues are absolutely a reproductive justice issue. Inequality causes many gay and lesbian couples across the nation to have legal trouble getting access to fertility treatments or adoption, as well as an increased legal risk that should the relationship end, one parent may not have the right to see and/or care for his/her child(ren).

The prejudice and discrimination that many LGBT face is also largely a part of our culture's unhealthy views about sex and gender. Many want to base the law on their belief that same-sex sexual activity or having a transgender identity is morally wrong -- these are unfortunately the same voices who try to prevent women from accessing reproductive health care because of their belief that pre-marital sex is wrong. In short, we are both fighting for the freedom to live our sexual lives authentically and to make safe choices. We're also both looking to create a world where the government does not discriminate on the basis of consensual sexual activity or the choices we make with regards to having or not having families, and where we all have the right to control our bodies and act in our own best interest.

The LGBT movement and the reproductive justice movement are closely intertwined, and it's good to see that being acknowledged more and more! A reproductive justice advocate can of course be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. And those of us who aren't need to start supporting and allying with a movement that also supports human rights.

The good news is that in NY, the tides are turning. The Pride Agenda’s recent poll showed 78% of New Yorkers support GENDA. In 2006, their poll showed that 53% supported full marriage rights, and support has likely increased since then. And it's exciting to note that the day after Equality and Justice Day, GENDA was passed through the assembly’s Government Operations Committee!

For more, check out The Empire State Pride Agenda's website. They have tons of information on LGBT rights in NY -- and give you the information you need to urge your own Senators and Assembly persons to support these three important pieces of legislation.

[Photo via The Agenda blog.]