www.aclu.org JOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTION DONATE ABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office

 

Join Us At:

May 31st, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

Abstinence and Kansas

Check out a segment that ran on NPR this weekend about the Kansas school board. The piece talks about evolution and the ab-only debate in the state.

Also Feministing writes that the Abstinence Clearinghouse is hosting its leadership conference in Kansas next week.




May 31st, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

HPV Vaccine Examined in the Boston Globe

The Boston Globe ran a story on the HPV vaccine on Monday. If you’ve been following the HPV debate you’ll already know that critics think the vaccine (which can protect against some strains of HPV and in turn protect against contracting cervical cancer) will make teens more promiscuous. But as one of the doctor’s interviewed for the article says, “If we have a safe and effective way to prevent a particularly prevalent form of cancer, then why wouldn’t we do that?”

Highlights after the jump.

“What I will probably do is point out that last year alone, more people died of cervical cancer, which was pretty much directly produced by Human Papillomavirus, than were killed in 9/11,” said Watson, president of Pediatrics West, a private practice with offices in Concord, Westwood, and Groton.

“I’ll probably focus on the fact that the vaccine prevents cervical cancer in my sell, and not on the fact that this prevents a sexually transmitted disease,” said Dr. Joseph Hagan, a Burlington, Vt., pediatrician active in the American Academy of Pediatrics. “You know why? Because my Dad sold insurance, and I know what to emphasize and what not to emphasize.”

Parents, too, say they might not get into awkward questions of sexuality. In general, said Lynn Randall of Concord, whose daughters are 12 and 15, when one of her girls gets a shot, “We’re not telling her what she’s being vaccinated against; usually it’s just a shot to her — one of many shots she gets in her pediatrician’s visits.”

Irene Freidel , of Littleton said that if her 11-year-old daughter, Claire, were vaccinated tomorrow, she would most likely tell the girl only that “it was something that was going to protect her, like any other vaccination, and is good for her health.”

“I adore my daughter more than anything in the world,” she said, “and I can’t predict what she’s going to do as a teenager, what risks she’s going to be exposed to. To me, this is just extra protection.”

“Most parents will be eager to have their daughters vaccinated against HPV as long as they know they’re sending the right preventive messages: that they still need to practice safe sexual behaviors, postpone sexual initiation as long as possible,” and the like, Kahn said.

Nonwhites and those with poor access to healthcare stand to benefit the most from the vaccine because they are the least likely to get annual Pap smears and follow-up care after a problematic test, said Dr. Elizabeth Garner, a gynecological oncologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.Yet they are precisely the people who will have the hardest time getting access to the vaccine and getting the full dosage, she said.




May 30th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

Holistic approaches to teen pregnancy

The Washington Times published a piece last week about “holistic” approaches to teen pregnancy. If you’re like me and immediately thought that teens were going to get instruction on the rhythm method, have no fear — no one is suggesting to replace condoms with thermometers.

Highlights from the article after the jump.

Sex education “has always taught [teens] what to avoid — and we need to continue that — but it’s not enough,” said Marline Pearson, co-author of a report for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. “[W]e need to look beyond the goal of managing the health risks of sex to the goal of building healthy relationships,” said Mrs. Pearson, who wrote the report with Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

I was just talking with a friend about this very thing.  How we need to do more than teach kids how to protect themselves, we need to give them guidance on what a healthy relationship looks like. 

Information about developing healthy relationships “has been the missing ingredient” in teen pregnancy prevention programs, they wrote in the report’s introduction. “Teens hear about biology and body parts,” but are “hardly ever told how to achieve responsible and respectful relationships.”

Especially for young women I would add that self-esteem needs to be an essential part of the mix.  It’s not enough to say “this is how you protect yourself from pregnancy and STDs” and “this is what a healthy respectful relationship should look like” without teaching self-worth. 

With the CAS-Carrera model, the goal is to create a long-term environment to give young people the tools and the motivation to make wise choices for themselves, such as avoiding parenthood until they are at least in their 20s, Mr. Carrera said.

Wouldn’t we be so much better off is ab-only programs focused on avoiding parenthood instead of delaying sex until marriage?  Parenthood doesn’t just happen inside of marriage.

The CAS-Carrera program doesn’t teach sex apart from life, but as a part of life, Mr. Carrera said. If the children are well-educated, in good health, are prepped for college and the job market, understand banking and have “sexual literacy,” they’ll choose good paths for themselves “because there’s something at stake here,” he said.

I’m sure the term “sexual literacy” scares a lot of people but I think this last point makes a lot of sense. 




May 19th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

Should junior know?

Article in the Anchorage Daily News re The Naked Truth About Sex. Worth a read.




May 18th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning?

Today’s hearing was perhaps the shortest of the military commission proceedings since they started in August 2004. Mr. Abdul Zahir (pronounced Thaher), a 34-year-old native of Hasarak, Afghanistan, and father of three sons, appeared for less than five minutes before the presiding officer, Marine Col. Robert Chester. After receiving “satisfying answers” from the detaining authorities in Guantánamo, Mr. Abdul Zahir’s military defense attorney, Army Lt. Col. Thomas Bogar, withdrew a motion he had filed to protest Mr. Abdul Zahir’s conditions of confinement.

Lt. Col. Bogar explained after the adjournment that he was trying to improve Mr. Abdul’s Zahir’s conditions of confinement which worsened as a result of his transfer last march from camp 4 to camp 5. For Mr. Abdul Zahir, the transfer to camp 5 meant being held in a single cell in an austere steel and cement block facility that houses all 10 Guantánamo detainees who face charges before military commissions. In camp 4, Mr. Abdul Zahir enjoyed less restrictive conditions and shared a communal facility with other detainees from Afghanistan. Unlike some of the detainees in camp 5, Mr. Abdul Zahir has not threatened to boycott the proceedings and, according to his lawyer, he is still keen to cooperate and prove his innocence before the commission. His lawyer is therefore concerned that the worsening conditions might affect the relationship with his client and ultimately the ability to prepare a proper defense before the military commission. Lt. Col. Bogar stressed that although Mr. Abdul Zahir is still not happy, they decided not to argue the motion and wait until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Hamdan v. Rumselfed.

Apparently, “Abdul Zahir” is the prisoner’s first name. This name appears on the official charge sheet and on the general list of Guantánamo detainees that was released by the Pentagon on Monday. His full name, in case someone at the military commission will bother to know, is: Abdul Zahir Abed al Kader Mohammad. But what difference does it make? He is, after all, another “enemy combatant” facing war crime charges before a military commission, that even if one day will find him not guilty, it would not guarantee his release and freedom since the President can continue to indefinitely detain him as an “enemy combatant.”

Once again, we heard today about the hurdles that impede defense attorneys’ ability to freely access and communicate with their clients and prepare their defense. Lt. Col. Bogar, who is working on Mr. Abdul Zahir’s defense alone, mentioned as an example that a letter that he sent to Mr. Abdul Zahir more than two weeks ago has not yet been handed to him. When I later asked the Military Commission Chief Prosecutor, Air Force Col. Moe Davis, about what his office is doing in this regard he said that they are now working on new operating procedures that will improve mail delivery and will improve telephone access.

Anywhere you go in Guantánamo — and you can’t really go that far! — the talk of the day is how the Supreme Court will decide, in less than two months, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. While military commission officials are trying to project business as usual by scheduling three weeks of commission hearings in June and emphasizing that between 70 and 100 detainees will be charged before the military commission, you can’t escape the question: Is it the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

While it’s hard to predict the outcome of the Hamdan decision, one can at least hope for guidance to end the ordeal of the military commission. The Hamdan decision will also determine the future of hundreds of habeas corpus challenges filed in federal courts over the past couple of years by Guantánamo detainees challenging the legality and conditions of their detention.

The next military commission hearing is scheduled in mid June.

Tags: , , ,




May 16th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

Is Teen Sex Bad?

The Washington Post as a special feature on teen sex in today’s issue. Here are some highlights:

U.S. teens also have a higher rate of infection and STDs — due to lower condom use, according to the report.

The U.S. teen pregnancy rate (84 out of every 1,000 girls age 15 to 19 become pregnant each year) is higher than that that of Denmark (23), Finland (21), Germany (16) and Sweden (25), found a 2000 report in Family Planning Perspectives. (Differences in birth rates are also striking: Roughly six out of every 1,000 teen girls have babies every year in Switzerland, eight per 1,000 in Sweden, 10 per 1,000 in France, and 28 per 1,000 in England and Wales, according to the report, compared to about 54 per 1,000 in the United States. The U.S. abortion rate (then 29 per 1,000) was higher than that in Sweden (17), France (10), Finland (10) and the Netherlands (4), found the report.

Many abstinence programs have embraced the concept of virginity pledges, encouraging children as young as 9 to promise to wait until marriage to have sex.

So how reliable are reports of sexual activity by teenagers who took such a pledge?

Not very, according to a study by Harvard doctoral candidate Janet Rosenbaum published in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health. Rosenbaum found that 53 percent of adolescents in a large, federally funded study who said they made a virginity pledge denied doing so a year later, often after they had become sexually active.

Leslee Uhruh, president of the nonprofit National Abstinence Clearinghouse in Sioux Falls, S.D., called Rosenbaum’s study &”junk science.&”

I love the quote from Uhruh. Click here to see why she is qualified to rate a Harvard study as junk science.

I love the quote from Uhruh.  Click here to see why she is qualified to rate a Harvard study as junk science.




May 16th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

Are Our Schools Flunking Sex Ed?

Great article on sex-ed in the April issue of Diablo. Renee Walker, an amazing activist out of CA was interviewed for the piece.

Buoyed by this victory and incensed to find that more abstinence-only programs were operating in area schools, Walker in 2003 founded Bay Area Communities for Health Education (BACHE), which is dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex education, encompassing both abstinence and contraceptives. She spends at least two hours a day on BACHE-related activities, much of it poring over literature used in abstinence-only sex education classes looking for inaccurate or misleading material.

And will your child pay the price
By Jonathan Kaminsky

It was an overcast afternoon, and San Ramon Valley High School had just let out. The nearby Starbucks was teeming with energetic teenagers. Boys and girls shuffled from table to table, talking, laughing, and exchanging glances. An anthropologist observing the scene would probably have labeled it a complex mating ritual.

One girl in her early teens, wearing a tight-fitting polo shirt and eyeliner, sat at a table next to the window with two girlfriends, recounting an earlier conversation. “She called me a whore,” the girl told her friends, referring to an exchange she’d had with another friend. Without a trace of irony in her chipper voice, she gave a quick glimpse into her adolescent persona: “I said, ‘Thanks. I take that as a compliment.’ “

A few minutes later, a smartly dressed middle-aged woman with shoulder-length brown hair and a cross hanging around her neck entered the coffee shop. By the time Linda Turnbull arrived, the crowd of young people had thinned. Those remaining were engaged in more subdued conversations.

Turnbull had come to talk to a Diablo reporter about Teen Esteem, an organization she founded more than a decade ago to keep teens from having sex. As she will tell you, if it’s a weekday during the school year, there’s a good chance she’s in a public school classroom somewhere in the Tri-Valley or Lamorinda explaining to teenagers why holding off for a few years is a good idea.

It’s what she’s not doing—giving equal time to discussing the benefits of condoms and other contraceptives—that state authorities say puts schools she visits in violation of California law. It also leaves more than 60 percent of the young people she comes into contact with—the percentage who are likely to become sexually active by age 18—more vulnerable to pregnancy and disease, health experts say.

Turnbull’s involvement with teen abstinence was sparked by two and a half years of volunteering at the Valley Crisis Pregnancy Center (since renamed Valley Pregnancy Center), a Christian clinic in Dublin where she advised young, pregnant women on alternatives to abortion. She encountered so many heartbreaking cases there, she says, that one day, after a particularly terrible counseling session, she told the clinic director that they had to do something to stop women from coming to them in such a state.

“Do something about it,” the director told her. Shortly thereafter, in 1994, the self-described stay-at-home mom, whose younger daughter graduated from San Ramon Valley High School last spring, got her start in what she calls “the prevention side” of teen sex. After getting permission from the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, she started talking to students about what she terms the emotional and physical consequences of sexual activity and the value of committed, monogamous relationships.

“Our agenda is the health and well-being of teenagers,” Turnbull says.

Over time, her organization has grown. Teen Esteem is now in 25 middle and high schools in five districts: San Ramon, Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Acalanes. And while she’d love to reach more young minds, she says, “we can’t keep up with the districts we’re in.”

Every year, Turnbull and her twenty or so volunteers talk to between 10,000 and 13,000 students, either in two-day classroom presentations or in all-school assemblies. Their message, provided free of charge, is clear: Sex now can lead to emotional distress, unwanted pregnancy, and diseases that can impact you for a lifetime; condoms aren’t as effective as most people have been led to believe and are in some cases completely ineffective; the only sure way around all this is to avoid sexual activity until you’re in a committed, monogamous relationship that for most people will be marriage.

“We don’t tell the kids what to do,” she says. “We give them information. What they do with it is their choice.”

It goes without saying that any parent would prefer that his or her teenager or preteenager put off having sex—and not risk pregnancy or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases. However, with studies showing that well over half of all teenagers have sex before finishing high school, the question becomes whether that parent would want to limit the information about condoms and contraceptives available to a young person who becomes sexually active.

Sex education experts say that a full and frank discussion about condoms and other contraceptives helps prevent sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. Moreover, research also shows that such a message doesn’t get in the way of encouraging abstinence.

Douglas Kirby, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at ETR Associates in Scotts Valley who is generally cited as the leading expert on evaluating sex education programs, says that the dozens of studies he has reviewed show that promoting teen abstinence and encouraging condom and contraceptive use are “not inconsistent goals.” The dual message, he says, is “something that young people can understand.”

This refutes Turnbull’s contention that encouraging abstinence while also promoting condoms and other contraceptives sends teenagers a confusing mixed message.

But although these findings don’t help Turnbull’s cause, Teen Esteem may face a more immediate threat: a 45-year-old mother of two teenage boys who lives in Concord.

Renee Walker is trim, with green eyes and short blond hair. She looks like a gymnastics instructor, which, in fact, she is, when she’s not working from the office in her garage to put Turnbull and others like her out of business.

Walker’s engagement with sex education arose from parental experience. Nearly four years ago, the Walker family was having dinner when her younger son, then 11, said something startling. The wet, crumpled paper straw wrapper on the table, he said, reminded him of the seaweed a doctor inserts into a woman’s cervix to soften it before an abortion.

Upon discovering that her son had learned this in school, from a presentation made by an outside group that was supposed to be talking about abstaining from sex, Walker set out to do something.

She complained to the school, then to the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. Both told her the program, called CryBabies and run by a Christian pregnancy center called First Resort, was popular and posed no problem. Then she went to the state’s Department of Education.

The state referred the matter to the California Healthy Kids Resource Center. After a thorough review, the center released a 22-page report stating that the CryBabies program was “designed to frighten adolescents into abstinence” and that it had a “generally one-sided approach” to teen parenting, adoption, abortion, and STDs. The schools using CryBabies, the center found, were in violation of state law. Although the center can’t tell districts what to do, the black mark on CryBabies, which was being used in about two dozen schools in the Bay Area, was enough to shut the program down.

Buoyed by this victory and incensed to find that more abstinence-only programs were operating in area schools, Walker in 2003 founded Bay Area Communities for Health Education (BACHE), which is dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex education, encompassing both abstinence and contraceptives. She spends at least two hours a day on BACHE-related activities, much of it poring over literature used in abstinence-only sex education classes looking for inaccurate or misleading material.

“If someone says, ‘We’re going to teach your kids how to abstain from drinking alcohol,’ you’re going to go, ‘Absolutely,’ ” she says. “But if they tell kids that drinking will make their tongues fall out, parents are going to oppose that.”

When asked if her actions are motivated by politics, she is quick to respond. “I’m a swim-team mom. I work with little kids. What’s my agenda?”

Indeed, she says, getting teenagers to abstain from sex is a noble goal. When her son came home with a permission slip to take the abstinence course back in 2002, she happily signed it. She assumed it would be age appropriate and based in science. However, she says, it turned out to be something different. He was compelled to take a virginity-until-marriage pledge and was told that abortion is bad because “it kills babies,” tearing off their arms and legs.

“Somebody miseducated my kid,” she says. “These are Christian evangelical missionaries passing themselves off as educators.”

After vanquishing CryBabies, Walker turned her attention to Teen Esteem. She handed out flyers at a Teen Esteem meeting for parents that questioned the program’s compliance with state law and pointed out Turnbull’s ties to the overtly Christian pregnancy center.

Turnbull, in an e-mail response to Walker, said that while Teen Esteem was born out of the pregnancy center, it had become its own nonprofit organization.

“We do not promote contraceptives and have never represented that we do,” she wrote in the e-mail. “We do not support condoms because there is still a great risk involved.”

Turnbull also distances herself from CryBabies.

“I was very disappointed when I heard what they were doing,” she said during the Starbucks interview. “We sort of got lumped together. But we’re not doing the same thing they were doing.” Unlike CryBabies, Teen Esteem doesn’t address abortion except to say that it is one legal option for a pregnant woman, and it doesn’t have kids take virginity pledges.

And despite the strong moral beliefs of many of her volunteers, Turnbull says, she makes sure that “we don’t cross any lines” by discussing religion when speaking in public schools.In her e-mail to Walker, Turnbull was explicit: “We do fulfill the state requirements regarding sex education.”

That is just not so, says Sharla Smith, the State Department of Education’s HIV/STDs prevention education consultant. California law requires that sex education, when taught in public schools, include medically accurate information about condoms and other contraceptives. Programs like Teen Esteem must discuss the benefits of contraceptives as well as abstinence, she says, even if kids are getting information about contraceptives elsewhere. Failing to do so, she says, “places undue emphasis” on one over the other.

This said, Smith has no plans to audit districts that use Teen Esteem in her annual on-site appraisal of HIV and sex education this spring. Audits can force districts to change their curricula and, by extension, could compel Teen Esteem to change its message or stop going into public schools entirely. Resources are limited, however, Smith says, and the state typically focuses on schools with higher rates of teen pregnancy, which tend to be in poorer districts.

With the state on the sidelines, administrators whose districts use Teen Esteem have not voiced concern about the program. San Ramon administrator Scott Gerbert, for one, welcomes it with open arms.

“I feel very lucky” to be working with Turnbull, says Gerbert, who oversees sex and HIV education for the San Ramon Valley Unified School District’s 23,000 students. “She’s got a lot of good information, and she’s very passionate about what she does.”

However, he acknowledges, “there are parts of what she says in her presentations that are in compliance with state education codes, and there are parts of it that the education code says something a little different.” For instance, he says, Teen Esteem “glosses over birth control.”

Despite that, Gerbert does not intend to ask Turnbull to alter what TeenEsteem does.

“From a district perspective, we don’t expect [Teen Esteem] to change their message to say, ‘Here’s 50 percent on abstinence and 50 percent on birth control.’ That is not their focus,” he explains.

Gerbert sees Teen Esteem as one component of the district’s sex education curriculum. The teachers in charge of sex education, he says, have up-to-date information about the efficacy of different forms of birth control, and they share that information with the students to supplement what Teen Esteem teaches them.

However, at least three such teachers in the San Ramon district who have Teen Esteem come into their classrooms say they don’t significantly add to its message. Randy Cahn, who teaches ninth grade health at California High School, says that he mentions that condoms can be purchased at the supermarket, but little else. In the classroom, he says, “abstinence is our focus.”

Tavie Knapp, who teaches eighth grade science at Charlotte Wood Middle School, says that she doesn’t talk to her students about contraceptives at all. The same goes for Laura Finco, an eighth grade science teacher at Stone Valley Middle School, who says that time constraints keep her from doing so.

“There are times when I feel like I’m shortchanging my students,” Finco says.

Gerbert, though, is so impressed with Turnbull that he asked her to help him review textbooks for inclusion in the district’s health education curriculum.

Phyllida Burlingame, a leading consultant and advocate for comprehensive sex education, says that such a relationship between Turnbull and the district is inappropriate.

Says Burlingame: “It’s like the fox guarding the henhouse.”

Debates over what to teach kids about sex have raged ever since Chicago schools, back in 1913, responded to a surge in venereal disease by instituting the country’s first sex hygiene curriculum. They did so over loud protests by local politicians.

The current row began in earnest when Congress, in a rider to the welfare reform bill of 1996, earmarked $50 million a year for the states to preach abstinence. California, with its comprehensive sex education requirement, isthe only state never to have taken the money. Now other states, including Pennsylvania and Maine, are turning down the federal funding.

In 2000, another federal program started doling out money directly to private organizations that strictly adhere to an abstinence-only message. The Community-Based Abstinence Education program will pay out more than $140 million nationwide this year. Among the groups that have received this funding is Teen Esteem; Turnbull declined to say how much money her organization has received. Another pro-abstinence organization called Await & Find has also used the money to run a sex education program, Peer CHAOS, throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Teen Esteem and Await & Find have worked together on a series of television ads in those counties targeting parents and teens with an abstinence message.

According to the state’s Department of Education, organizations that receive the federal money shouldn’t be talking to kids about sex in public schools.

“Groups in California get direct funding from the federal government to pursue abstinence-only education,” says the education department’s Smith. “And that’s fine, as long as they don’t do it in the public schools.”

Federal backing has given courage to those who object to teaching teenagers about contraceptives and safe sex measures. The evidence, however, indicates that this approach is misguided. In the last decade, teen pregnancy both in theUnited States and in California has declined sharply. According to scientific studies, this is chiefly due to the increased use of condoms and other contraceptives, rather than to decreased sexual activity.

In a report published in January, the Journal of Adolescent Health strongly criticized the abstinence-only approach to sex education, calling it prone to “withholding information needed to make informed choices.” Groups includingthe American Medical Association,the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Institute of Medicine have also come out in favor of comprehensive sex education.

Moreover, the citizens who pay for California’s public schools favor it. Apoll of Californians conducted in December by the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan San Francisco think tank, found that 78 percent of respondents favored kids being taught about both abstinence and contraceptives and said that the federal government should help foot the bill for it. These numbers cut across racial, ethnic, and regional lines.

Meanwhile, Teen Esteem has relied on an organization called the Medical Institute as one of its official sources of information. A conservative, abstinence-based organization, its materials have been removed from the Mt. Diablo Unified School District’s resource library. One Medical Institute handout provided by Teen Esteem says that because condoms are often used incorrectly, and as they can fail even when used properly, they are not adequate for those “who truly wish to avoid getting STDs.”

Cynthia Harper, Ph.D., of the Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy at UCSF, says that dismissing condoms as not safe enough to be worth using is bad for public health.

“No one ever thought the condom protected against every disease possible,” she says. “But it’s a very useful way to prevent a lot of common diseases,” including chlamydia and HIV, as well as unwanted pregnancy.

One of Turnbull’s key criticisms of condoms is that they do nothing to prevent the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV), more commonly referred to as genital warts, which can lead to cervical cancer.

“That’s a red herring,” says Thomas Broker, Ph.D., president of the International Papillomavirus Society. Because nearly 90 percent of American adults are infected with some form of HPV, he says, the medical community focuses not on preventing infection but on controlling any damage it can cause. Condom use, he says, “has been demonstrated to reduce disease progression.” Annual Pap smears, he adds, can detect precancerous cell changes caused by HPV before cervical cancer develops.

Despite all this, with the support of local school districts, the financial and moral backing of the federal government, and the state staying out of it, Teen Esteem and other organizations like it will most likely continue to spread their well-meaning but flawed message to teenagers in public school classrooms. Turnbull says that in 10 years she hopes to be doing the same work as today. “Teenagers,” she says, “are my passion.”




May 16th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

“The Mouth That Prohibits Is the Mouth That Permits”

Guantanamo military commission proceedings will resume tomorrow in the case of U.S. v. Abdul Zahir. It’s very hot and humid down here in Guantanamo and the heat is only expected to exacerbate by the end of June and early July when the Supreme Court delivers its decision with respect to the legality of the military commissions.

Last Friday, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the D.C. District Court ordered a stay in another case that was scheduled for this week, U.S. v. Ghassan al Sharbi. Judge Sullivan wrote in his decision that “[al Sharbi] faces proceedings before a commission that may be deemed illegal within a month.” It’s interesting that although al Sharbi and Zahir are part of a group of only 10 Guantanamo detainees who have been charged before a military commission, the government argued that a brief delay would imperil the war effort. This has apparently not impressed Judge Sullivan who stated that the government failed to explain “why the Court must adhere to the laws of war now, rather than wait a few weeks so that it may follow the rule of law, as it will be determined by the Supreme Court.”

Indeed, here in Guantanamo, it’s all about respecting the basic concept of the rule of law. The President, through his military subordinates, has created Guantanamo detention camps, asserted his inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief to set up a military commission for which he defined the crimes, choose the prosecutors and the presiding officers and yet stated last week he would like to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling. Well, as the dictum in the Talmud says “the mouth that prohibits is the mouth that permits.” President Bush does not need the Court’s approval to close down the camps or to order fair trials for the close to 500 Guantanamo detainees. He is the one who authorized Guantanamo and he is the one who has the power to bring this sad chapter of American history to an end.

Tomorrow will be Mr. Zahir’s second appearance before the military commission. Last month, his military defense counsel started a voir dire inquiry — a process which allows the defense to question the impartiality of the presiding officer. The general allegation against Mr. Zahir is conspiracy to commit war crimes which appear almost in all the ten charge sheets filed against the prisoners facing military commission proceedings. Mr. Zahir is also charged with aiding the enemy (al Qaida and the Taliban) between 1997 and July 2002, and, with others, throwing a grenade on a civilian car in Gardez, Afghanistan, and injuring a Toronto Star reporter who was in the vehicle.

In comparison to previous hearings, only a handful of persistent reporters are here to cover Mr. Zahir’s hearing, and the ACLU is the only organization this week monitoring the hearings. But as we witnessed in earlier hearings, a day of hearing could shed more light on Guantanamo detainees and their living conditions and attitudes toward this process, which largely remains in the dark and far from public attention and scrutiny.

Yesterday, the Pentagon released a long-awaited list of Guantanamo detainees in response to an ongoing Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Associated Press.

The list includes information on 759 detainees by name, citizenship, place of birth, date of birth and an internment identification number. It is interesting to note that according to Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, the list includes “every single individual detained under Department of Defense control,” which leaves us with the impression that other detainees may still have not been accounted for and who might have been held in Guantanamo under the custody of other government agencies.

Tags: , ,




May 15th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

Virginia is for lovers.

Feministing connects the dots when it comes to Petersburg and Hopewell ranking in the top 10 cites in Virginia with the highest teen pregnancy rate.

Any guesses?




May 10th, 2006 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg!RedditDeliciousFacebook

Science v. Ideology

Posted by Beatrice Alvarez and Silvia Henriquez

When it comes to family planning and reproductive choice, conservatives and progressives alike find agreement on a common objective: more pregnancies in the United States should be wanted, and far fewer should be unwanted. Wanted pregnancies result in better life opportunities for women, their children, and their families.

But when does an unwanted pregnancy become a barrier to opportunity? When reproductive health is politicized and science takes a backseat to ideology. A recent study from the Guttmacher Institute describes just one result of such policies — an increase in unplanned pregnancies, with disproportionate negative consequences for low-income women, immigrant women and women of color.

Guttmacher found that half of unplanned pregnancies are carried to term, and are associated with negative health and social impacts for both mother and child. Guttmacher also found that low-income women and women of color have higher rates of unintended pregnancy than their wealthier and white counterparts. From 1994 to 2001 low-income women’s rate of unintended pregnancies increased by 29%, while the rate for women at or twice the poverty level declined by 20%. As a consequence poor women had unintended births at five times the rate of their counterparts in the highest income category in 2001.

The Bush administration has slashed funding for the family planning programs, like Title X, that can help these very women take control of their lives. Those same political views have also touched the Centers for Disease Control, most recently in the form of a deal to promote ideology among foremost scientific research at the upcoming National STD Prevention Conference. The abstinence-only programs that have taken the place of comprehensive education fail to give women the tools necessary to achieve their maximum potential. In fact, they have been shown to give false information and distort medical research. Comprehensive sex education empowers young women by allowing them to decide for themselves if and when to have a child.

In other words, the administration continues to trap low-income women and women of color into unplanned motherhood, poverty, and insecurity.

As a woman, determining her reproductive destiny is critical if she is to be an active and full participant in society, care for her family, and make informed decisions about her future. Yet for many women, particularly women of color, low-income women, and immigrant women, the lack of access to basic family planning services is only part of the struggle. The political body presents a new struggle for broader women’s health. Turning women’s bodies and women’s lives into ideological battlegrounds creates obstacles to opportunity for women.

Read the Guttmacher Study here.
For a concise summary, read The Opportunity Agenda Fact Sheet on unintended pregnancies.

Beatrice Alvarez is a Research Associate for The Opportunity Agenda, a communications, research and advocacy organization with the mission of building the national will to expand opportunity in America.

Silvia Henriquez is Executive Director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, a national policy and advocacy organization that advances the reproductive health and rights of all Latinas, their families and communities.

The views and opinions expressed in this communication do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the staff, management and directors of the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, its affiliates, or its chapters.






© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map