Superbowl Sunday Ad: Controversial?

Pizza, football, chicken wings, beer….and anti-choice commercials? The biggest buzz about the Super Bowl this year is not the teams playing or the half time show but a 30-second ad by the anti-choice group, Focus on the Family. The ad, featuring football superstar Tim Tebow, has both anti-choice and pro-choice groups up in arms. According to Focus on the Family, the commercial will share the personal story of Pam Tebow, Tim Tebow’s mother. Mrs. Tebow has spoken in the past about her difficult decision to continue her pregnancy during a serious illness, against her doctor’s advice. Her pregnancy resulted in the birth of her son, Tim Tebow, who is now a famous football player.

As this ad shows, because of Roe v Wade, women have the legal right to make decisions about their health that are best for them and their families. This is a right that must be preserved to strengthen the health of women and their families. However, this is not an ad that has a pro-choice message. If you look at the Focus on the Family, their long-stated agenda has been to overturn Roe V. Wade. If Focus on the Family is successful in repealing a woman’s right to choose, women facing a high-risk pregnancy like Pam Tebow’s would not have the ability to make the personal health decision that is right for them. Women with high-risk pregnancies, who know that their lives or the lives of their fetuses are at risk, deserve to have every medical option available to them to consider in consultation with medical professionals. Pam Tebow made the choice to keep her child and the right to do so.

Despite the appeal of the Tebow family story, it is important to remember that Focus on the Family’s goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion. This is a position that runs counter to what the majority of Americans believe. Focus on the Family has every right to spend $3 million as it chooses, but it is surprising, at a time when so many individuals in the U.S. and around the world are in need of aid, that a Super Bowl ad is the organization’s priority. The commercial is slated to air on this Sunday’s Superbowl broadcast.

The following is a video featuring Sean James that has been put out by Planned Parenthood:

"The Pregnancy Pact"

This past Saturday night started off with the intentions of having a simple, relaxing night spent watching a movie with some girlfriends. However, it soon turned into us engaging in somewhat heated discussions over the contents of the movie we were watching. What were we watching you ask? Surprisingly, it was a Lifetime movie that got us all riled up.

Lifetime’s newest “inspired by true events” creation, “The Pregnancy Pact”, premiered last Saturday night at 9:00 pm. The movie followed four teenage girls at a high school in Gloucester, Massachusetts who all become pregnant at the age of fifteen. When the number of pregnant girls at their high school spikes to an astonishing 18, media from all over the nation start to focus on this tiny town. Even more controversy starts to arise when rumors surface that the pregnant girls made a pact to all become pregnant at the same time. Throw in the mother of the main character (pregnant 15 year old Sara’s) who believes in “abstinence-only education”, and Lifetime has quite the drama.

Most of the movie was inspired, not based-on, the 2008 events that occurred in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Though the movie portrays four of the pregnant girls making a pact, none of the real life pregnant Gloucester girls ever admitted to such a pact.

As my friends and I watched the movie, we found ourselves using each commercial break to discuss how irritated we were with the movie. The first thing that immediately got our attention was the immaturity, and seemingly-naivety of the girls who were getting pregnant. Whether this came from the abstinence-only education that their school system firmly believed in, or the way the director wanted these characters to be portrayed, we felt they had no idea how their decision to get pregnant was going to affect them and everyone around them for the rest of their lives. Though this clueless-ness continued throughout most of the movie, the last ten minutes showed the girls coming to the realization of what they had done and the consequences. Everything from the thought of adoption, financial strains, to losing a high-school love was shown as a consequence, and rightfully so.

While we could not come to a conclusion on how we exactly felt about this movie, the fact remains that it gets people to think about the topic of teen pregnancy. Overall, this movie can be used as a great tool for mothers and daughters to open the lines of communication about pregnancy, sex and birth control. I’m confident that no mother that has seen this movie wants to be put in the situation of Sara’s, who firmly believed that her daughter Sara believed in abstinence and was not having sex, only to be completely misinformed when 15 year-old Sara announces she is pregnant. After seeing that miscommunication, I think every mother with a daughter would want to sit her daughter down and watch this with her.

While the actions and thoughts of the movies’ teen girls are more than often very questionable, by the end of the movie I believe a strong message was put forth that teen pregnancy is a serious issue facing the entire nation, and is not something that should be accepted or ignored. Communication, education, and prevention were all ways the movie highlighted on how to deal with this issue, and overall, I believe Lifetime did a good job bringing teen pregnancy to the forefront of many families’ minds.

Sex Education Is Never Too Late

I'm 20 years old. I remember a few years ago, when I was 17 or so, my mom said something to me like "I'm glad you're past the point where it'd be a problem if you got pregnant." I was shocked - I didn't feel that way at all. I reminded her that I was still in high school, I was planning on college, still wasn't at a point where I'd want to have a baby - but she had just meant that I "wasn't 14" anymore, and that it wouldn't be as scandalous, as unsafe, as unexpected. I couldn't believe she had said that to me, to be honest.

I know my mom didn't mean "Relax! Now's the time to have a baby!" She still wants me on birth control, and I'm sure that if I got pregnant today, it would be a somewhat unwelcome alteration in my life and hers (among many other lives!). But new research shows that I'm still not out of the woods yet:

For parents like me, who hoped that a child's 21st birthday meant we finally could put our feet up on the coffee table, this is alarming news: New research shows that our 20somethings don't want to have a child at this time in their lives but aren't doing much to prevent it. And the result is that among unmarried women in their 20s, 7 of 10 pregnancies are unplanned. Seventy percent.

My mom's response to this article is "That's because parents don't teach their kids about birth control!" She went on to say that the message isn't clear to girls that you can get pregnant just by having sex once - and that girls aren't informed, and sex education is lacking. But she stressed that a lot of it lies with parents. The article agrees:

It turns out that the heads of our 20somethings are filling with so much myth, misinformation and magical thinking that we, their parents, should be ashamed of the job we've done on this important topic.

The article is interesting because it points out that these women aren't stupid, aren't necessarily ill-informed about contraception, and seem to know what they want, but are still having unplanned pregnancies. That confuses me - I don't want a kid today. So I use condoms and I'm on the pill - it just makes sense. But my mom and I talk openly (sometimes too openly!) about sex and protection, and I'm a huge planned parenthood advocate. Aside from being a women's studies major. Maybe I take this all this information and foresight for granted.

The disconnect between what women WANT and what women DO seems to be huge; that women might want a pregnancy at some point, but aren't taking the necessary precautions to ensure that that time isn't NOW. The writer of this article is confused, as am I. Is the answer better sex ed? More sex ed? Different sex ed? Probably. But something has gotta change.

Definitely check it out here!

Should Teen Vogue have pulled this cover?

Teen Vogue's November cover has caused quite a stir. Though it is not evident from the picture, one of the models on this cover is a teenager, and pregnant. Jourdan Dunn is not visibly pregnant on the cover, but the 19-year-old reveals this information inside the magazine.

Many parents, teens, and teen-pregnancy prevention groups were not happy that a popular publication like Teen Vogue, a magazine that many teenage girls read, had a pregnant model in the magazine, without an accompanying article that states that teen pregnancy is "not OK".

I personally think that they are blowing the issue out of proportion. The cover only shows the models from the chest up and does not show any physical evidence of Jourdan's pregnancy. While it is stated in the magazine, the article in no way advocates teen pregnancy.

Instead of reprimanding Teen Vogue, I think parents should actually use this cover as a "teachable moment" to talk to their daughters about how to prevent pregnancy until it is the right time in their lives. The average age of Teen Vogue readers is 18, so pregnancy is an applicable topic that they should be educated on and not be afraid to talk about. If parents are so afraid that the media their daughters are consuming will have an adverse affect on them, then they should intervene when they see a topic like this brought up and use it as an opportunity to open the lines of communication.

What is Sexually Explicit About this Photo?

Celebrating a woman’s body has always been a controversial thought. However, many would like to think that our world is becoming increasingly open to the human form in all of its glory, including a woman’s pregnant body. Unfortunately, the ever-evolving world of Facebook (most of whose users are of college age), does not agree.

Cary Curran, a member of a New York City based dance troupe, recently had her Facebook account deleted without her knowledge or consent by the administrators of the popular social networking site. This was due to the fact that Curran decided to upload a picture of her semi-nude pregnant body as her profile picture. Curran, who celebrates the often semi-naked body daily as part of her profession, saw nothing wrong with the picture that featured her in simply “gold pasties, a thong bikini bottom and a liberal sprinkling of gold body glitter”.

Facebook decided this picture constituted sexually explicit material, which is banned by Facebook user's Statements of Rights and Responsibilities. Though parts of Curran’s breasts are exposed in the picture, she is not fully nude. In addition to her not being fully nude in the picture, so again, the question can be posed, what is sexually explicit about her picture? Her genitalia is not exposed, and no sexual acts are being performed in the picture. Therefore, Facebook seems to be defining any form of nudity as sexually explicit, thereby further reinforcing our country’s outlook that the naked woman form is shameful and should not be exposed.

This makes me wonder if Facebook applies this view of nudity being sexually explicit material to other cultures where unlike America, nudity is embraced. Last semester as I traveled around Europe, I was time and time again exposed to nudity on numerous beaches from Spain to Italy. Women everywhere sunbathed topless and no one gave a second glance. As I pondered how everyone seemed to be so comfortable with their bodies, I realized the reason why I would never think about taking my top off was the fact that I was raised in a country where nudity and celebrating the woman’s body is looked down upon, and not talked about often. By deleting Curran’s account, Facebook is reinforcing this thought process. I would in fact like to see how European Facebook account holders would react to this profile picture of Curran. My bet is they would see nothing wrong with it, and in fact, it would not faze them in the slightest.

The fact of the matter is, we are all exposed to far more explicit material everyday on primetime television. Tune in at anytime to an episode of Grey’s Anatomy, and while body parts are not fully exposed, the actions they are portraying during sex scenes are far more sexually explicit than a picture of a semi-nude, pregnant, female body. Or, how about this weeks upcoming attraction for the latest Gossip Girl episode which apparently is featuring a threesome?! Sexually explicit material? Guess we will see.

All in all, if Facebook insists on counting Curran’s picture as sexually explicit material, they could have at least given her a warning so that she could take appropriate action such as removing the picture, instead of deleting her entire account. Really Facebook, do you know how much time it takes to accumulate all of those “friends” and upload all of those pictures? Work with us here.

In Prison for Being Pregnant

Since my last post, I've finished Jessica Valenti's Purity Myth, and it was excellent. I've been making connections left and right to lots of stuff going on in the world, and how it relates the issues raised in Valenti's book. I highly recommend it.

One of the current events that has really got me thinking is the case of Quinta Layin Tuleh, a pregnant, HIV-positive woman from the African nation of Cameroon. After being charged with having fake immigration documents, Judge John Woodcock from Maine gave her a longer-than-recommended sentence, purely because she is pregnant and HIV-positive. He cited that this would "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” or in other words, keep her from passing HIV on to her unborn child through the regular administration of anti-retroviral drugs.

It's a complex case - Tuleh didn't know she was pregnant or HIV-positive going into this, the administration of anti-retroviral drugs is something I know very little about, and that this sets a potentially dangerous precedent that it's ok to send someone to jail for being sick and pregnant. In a nutshell. There's a lot more to read on the case: this post at feministing.com, this report from rhrealitycheck.org, and this article from the Bangor Daily News, among many others.

In The Purity Myth, Valenti explores certain laws and practices that are in place because of the notion that women don't know what's best for them. The best example I can think of might be certain states requiring women to get sonograms before undergoing an abortion - doctors think women don't know there's a fetus inside them? It's based on this idea that women are frivolous and careless (hysterical!) and that they need the paternal guidance of lawmakers in order to know them what's best for them. To have a white, American judge, making decisions for this pregnant, sick, African women is exactly what Valenti is talking about.

Apparently, Tuleh had arrangements made to get anti-retroviral drugs (to try to ensure that HIV isn't passed down to her unborn child), but that wasn't enough to convince this judge she could handle the situation without his help. Also, it seems ridiculous that a judge can't just mandate a woman to get on Medicaid, or assign a nurse to make sure she takes the pills every day - how could being in JAIL really be the best option for this woman?

I'll leave you with a quote from Jess McCabe over at thefword,

Obviously, this doesn’t reflect well on the immigration system in the US, and there’s clearly a major problem if healthcare in prison is better than that available for people who are only criminals by virtue of having the audacity to try and move freely in a world that values people differently depending on where they’re born.

Related Reading: Doctor's deny tubal ligation because woman is "too young."

National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

Today, May 6, is the eighth annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy!

Though teen pregnancy is often discussed in the media in a sensationalistic manner, we rarely have a chance to sit down and have a serious discussion about the causes of teen pregnancy and how the rates of teen pregnancy can be lowered. Among comparable countries, the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate (pdf). That might be shocking to hear, but it's also important to know! Because with rates like that, it's about time to get serious about the issue.

Study after study has shown that comprehensive sex education works, and abstinence-only education fails. Teens who use condoms, of course, are less likely to become pregnant -- and in order to use condoms, teens need to know both how to put them on and how to negotiate condom use with a partner.

Read more at Stand Up South Dakota, and while you're at it, tell Congress to support comprehensive sex education. Because isn't it about time we gave all teens the information they need to keep themselves safe?

(If you're a teen looking for information on how to prevent pregnancy, head on over to Teenwire to find what you need.)

Rates of Teen Sex Are Lower Than Most Think

Parents everywhere will likely be relieved to hear this news. The idea of today's teenagers engaging in rampant, promiscuous and unprotected sex is just what many of us have been claiming all along . . . a myth.

The news is troubling, but it’s also misleading. While some young people are clearly engaging in risky sexual behavior, a vast majority are not. The reality is that in many ways, today’s teenagers are more conservative about sex than previous generations.

Today, fewer than half of all high school students have had sex: 47.8 percent as of 2007, according to the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, down from 54.1 percent in 1991.

A less recent report suggests that teenagers are also waiting longer to have sex than they did in the past. A 2002 report from the Department of Health and Human Services found that 30 percent of 15- to 17-year-old girls had experienced sex, down from 38 percent in 1995. During the same period, the percentage of sexually experienced boys in that age group dropped to 31 percent from 43 percent.

The rates also went down among younger teenagers. In 1995, about 20 percent said they had had sex before age 15, but by 2002 those numbers had dropped to 13 percent of girls and 15 percent of boys.

[. . .]

As for that supposed epidemic of oral sex, especially among younger teenagers: national statistics on the behavior have only recently been collected, and they are not as alarming as some reports would have you believe. About 16 percent of teenagers say they have had oral sex but haven’t yet had intercourse. Researchers say children’s more relaxed attitude about oral sex probably reflects a similar change among adults since the 1950s. In addition, some teenagers may view oral sex as “safer,” since unplanned pregnancy is not an issue.

In other words, the fact that teenagers are seemingly somewhat more comfortable discussing sex than their parents were doesn't necessarily mean that they're engaging in risky behaviors. Of course, proponents of comprehensive sex education have been arguing the same thing -- that being open and honest about sex isn't the same as having more of it -- for many years!

It is, however, important to note that while promiscuity among teens is not a major problem, there are other sexual issues involving teens that need addressing. The fact that the teen birth rates have risen for the first time in 15 years, as well as the high rates of STD transmission, both need our immediate attention. And as the NY Times notes, if these trends are not due to increased rates of sexual activity, they're almost certainly due to a decrease in the use of condoms and other contraception. That's something important to chew on -- and to remember when abstinence-only supporters try to take credit for this study's findings.