[Crossposted to Official Shrub.com Blog.]
Just when I was starting to feel like I was getting old, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services comes through and treats me like a kid again:
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
Up to 29? Heck, even if we don't take the usual tactic here of focusing on the endpoint, the average age of the cohort they're including is 24. Most unmarried 24-year-olds are going to be either in the workforce or higher education - presumably at that point they've merited a little autonomy?
For twenty-somethings, it's not really an abstinence only program any more, because as far as I'm aware there's no centralized, government-funded source of sex education for us. There is not as yet any law against turning on my TV and watching Sue Johansson on cable, or going to the library and checking out books on the subject, or going online and (unless I'm on Buffalo's heavily filtered municipal wireless, where I can't read half my usual blogs because they're afraid someone's going to lure a kid into an unmarked van with promises of Pandagon posts) reading about any imaginable variation.
In addition, many of the abstinence arguments for teenagers simply don't apply in the same way. Telling a 15-year-old that he or she should wait to have sex is very different from telling a 25-year-old to wait. The message to the kid is more "wait until you're older" than "wait until you're married," although the assumption is that they will follow the approved life script and marry in their late teens or twenties. For the adult, it's all about marriage - nobody has a problem with his or her married peers being sexually active - and an adult has a better idea of the likelihood of their getting married at some point than a teenager does.
So I suspect "abstinence only" isn't really aimed at gutting sex ed like it is for the kids; it's about funding a propaganda campaign.
But Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.
Wait, I thought that women were supposed to have children in their twenties. Isn't that what the panic about career women who wait until later in life to have kids is about? Oh, right, we're talking about unmarried women here. (I suspect we're also talking about women of color here when we mention "identifying groups" at risk.)
"The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."
This is flatly untrue. Given that (as of now) abortion and contraception are both legal, for folks with access to them (which sadly isn't universal), that's pretty much a 100% effective way of not bearing children you don't want. Ironically, the statement is a lot more true for men, given that they have to abide by their partner's decision. So why does "abstinence only" ignore contraception for does every form of abstinence only treat men's behavior as an afterthought?
Furthermore, I'm not sure how my marrying someone would make either them or me a better parent. The only thing I can think of is that they could get the benefit of my health insurance. It's not going to make us better off financially or make me want children.
I think this shows what the "abstinence only" movement is really about: it's less about helping people than social control. (I suppose that when enough arguments get leveled at the pregnancy rationale, they'll switch over to STDs as the reason.) Abstinence-only education, the ire over gay marriage, it all boils down to the idea that we should all be good little Christians and adhere to the script; if we're not good little Christians, we should at least have the decency to hide it.
More at Pandagon.
Previously on Heroes: cool stuff.
Mohintro channels Rand.
"I had a sword!"
I <3 Hiro.
Claire's mom needs to be more than comic relief.
Ew.
Niki, whom the episode title's presumably about.
Is she gonna get a real power?
D.L.'s not a bad guy. He was framed.
I called it earlier.
Aww.
Coming out? Heh. But she's a cheerleader!
Hiro!
Dark Niki's gonna call the cops.
"It is how we roll."
Was that Niki at the poker game?
Guess so.
Aww.
9th Wonder - what was on the cover?
Does D.L. have a phasing power or is that a false lead?
Claire's parents. I suspect they're fakes.
Whoa.
What if Niki has super strength and MPD?
Mirror conversation a la Green Goblin.
Do-over. Rift?
So fake.
D.L.'s power coming up?
So is Niki dead?
Previously: Sawyer and Kate make out. Sun opens fire.
Desmond!
Battle of the accents.
Is there any hidden meaning to the cartoons?
Why *are* they here? Just to keep them out of the way.
It didn't work that way for the Losties, and yet there were leaders.
The sub is back? The one from the season 2 finale? (Alternately, who's the dom?)
Oh, it's the woman Sun shot. How'd they get her back, and what happened to Sun?
Sawyer sets a trap. Would the water actually make any difference?
Nonsubtle use of the episode title.
Oh, they're so good cop/bad cop.
What do you weigh? What are they planning now?
Heh. Don't fuck with the Benry.
This makes no sense. Why are the injecting into the heart?
Back on the beach.
New Lostie?
8-Bun.
Oh, bullshit. Easier to just slap on a band-aid and tell him there's a pacemaker. Sawyer's a con artist, he should want more confirmation.
Oh god, it's the "no peeking" scene.
That's still no proof. A shallow cut can do that.
Gratuitous back shot.
Does cold water lower your pulse? I don't remember that from swimming.
Back in the jail. Yeah, that's totally a con.
Sawyer's got a kid. Or it's another setup.
How old would she be now?
Time for Dr. Jack. Is that why they got Michael to bring him here?
Whose X-rays are they, then? And what's that spot, an implant?
Ew.
It's broken and Jack can't MacGyver something up?
Sucks to be you, Jack.
Almost as much as it sucks to be Sawyer.
God, talk about forcing the UST.
That's a setup.
Oh, just make out already.
C'mon, this is such a con. He always does the walk away to establish cred thing.
This is a very manufactured drama.
Oh, please.
Now she knows she can get out any time.
Three times in one episode?
And a gratuitous earlier title.
The Others make no sense.
What's in the center of Juliet's Dharma logo? The Hydra?
About 40? Sawyer at 35? Ben?
Desmond did travel through time, didn't he?
Wrapping up the flashback plot.
I totally called it.
Clementine Phillips? It's another scam, I bet.
"You're a free man." How cliche.
I totally called it again.
Oh, so now he's skeptical.
It's a second island? How come they never spotted it before?
Heh. Caged mice.
Looking up info on Heroes, I discover that I actually went to school with Masi Oka (Hiro). He was a couple years ahead of me and in the CS department, which I dropped out of freshman year, so unless he worked as a TA for the intro classes I probably never met him, but I'll take a couple degrees of separation.
Previously: bombs go off. People have drama, especially redheads.
Long previouslies, because nobody watches this show but me.
Fighter planes. That means we're at war? They flew overhead plenty in California. But I guess Kansas isn't California.
"I'm compromised"? Is it supposed to be a mystery who he's working for?
EMP? And they all know this how, because the power went out? And how did the "end transmission" work if all the electronics are fried?
"2 weeks later"? WTF? Nothing happened of note? Or is this told backward?
The mayor still has the flu?
How long until they become a Heinleinian survivalist community?
And so the gangs and bullies are taking over already?
I don't care about these people's love lives!
Yeah, because she is totally authorized to do that.
Can we *not* rely on the stereotype of the useless government worker?
Horse thieves. It's a western now?
They really need to show how they got here from last episode.
So the economy's on barter now?
With a name like Mitch Cafferty, of course he's a thief.
More pointless love triangle drama.
Whiny Mayor Simon.
So more economic issues. This could be interesting, but would be better as a book.
So the kid's in with the horse thieves?
Backstory.
Not in a position to make threats now, are you?
Lame-ass fight.
Nice Vulcan Neck Pinch.
But you have to take a credit card? Yeah, because I have so much faith in the First Bank of Radioactive Crater.
Like that's a scary cliffhanger. He'll just explain what it is, we won't hear the explanation, and that'll be that.
A little explanation, but not much.
He's totally the Heinleinian ubermensch here.
Gah. The IRS agent is so obviously meant to be annoying, it's ... well, annoying in a different way.
Lame-ass confrontation.
Awful acting.
Shooting Vanilla Ice is a nice touch.
Oh, just make out.
Here to help. It's easier with a montage (Wallflowers?)
So are they burning the corn or harvesting the part soaked in gasoline?
Still don't care about these people, even if Dr. Redhead is kinda cute.
Photoshopping memories.
I freeze framed just for "Screw this town"? Not that I disagree.
How sad is it that, upon receiving an email about flu shots, my first thought was "Who'd want to drink that?"
Mohintro - doesn't make much sense but I like his accent.
Scar? Rift?
Save the cheerleader, save the world.
Whoa, nice flight effect.
Montage-cut - have we seen that before?
Still very Strangers in Paradise.
How'd Parkman get home?
Hiro! Waffles! Flying politicians!
Boring marriage on the rocks plot.
They're so cute!
Creepy dad.
Love triangle drama.
So cute!
Is there an actual power in this whole mirror thing?
Parkman in What Women Want.
Hi.
Don't mess with Creepy Dad and his brainsucking pal.
More creepy effects.
This isn't good.
She totally framed him.
Ando!
It's the Flying Republican!
Do something with this plot already!
Earshot.
Telepath's curse, a la The Demolished Man.
How'd they meet up again?
Hiro left himself a message?
Next week - mirror powers?
[Crossposted to Official Shrub.com Blog.]
It's been a while since I've heard good news on the reproductive rights front - it's been abortion bans and "conscience clauses" for so long.
Yesterday the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision in Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio upholding a provision of the Women's Health and Wellness Act which requires all but a narrowly defined category of religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception if they provide prescription drug coverage.
It should be noted that some religious entities can exempt themselves from this requirement, if they meet the following criteria:
(a) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(b) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(c) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in Section 6033 (a) (2) (A) i or iii, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(That last provision means that the entity qualifies as a church or religious order under the federal tax code.)
What the WHWA does not exempt are religious organizations engaging in fundamentally non-religious activities that wish to use their clout to deny contraception to nonreligious employees:
It is also important, in our view, that many of plaintiffs' employees do not share their religious beliefs. (Most of the plaintiffs allege that they hire many people of other faiths; no plaintiff has presented evidence that it does not do so.) The employment relationship is a frequent subject of legislation, and when a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit.
They actually recognize that everyone has beliefs, not just the anti-choicers!
Finally, we must weigh against plaintiffs' interest in adhering to the tenets of their faith the State's substantial interest in fostering equality between the sexes, and in providing women with better health care. The Legislature had extensive evidence before it that the absence of contraceptive coverage for many women was seriously interfering with both of these important goals. The Legislature decided that to grant the broad religious exemption that plaintiffs seek would leave too many women outside the statute, a decision entitled to deference from the courts.
Finally, this shouldn't need pointing out, but even if you take the idea of "judicial activism" as a bad thing seriously, this is not a case of "judicial activism," but of enforcement of legislation. It is the religious organizations who wish to deny contraception coverage to their employees who are petitioning for a duly enacted law to be overturned.
My hair is now "brown-black" rather than just brown. It's a little bit more contrast in time for Halloween (even if I don't have a costume planned).
Cheapo dye isn't quite as even as some of the other times I've done it (this may be because I didn't wash my hair beforehand, per the directions, or it may be because it's been a few years and there's a little bit of gray that wasn't there before), but it actually looks slightly more natural this way, so I don't feel bad about spending less.
