Reproductive.rights

What else did you expect from horny teenagers?

revere — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:41:09 +0000

What else did you expect from horny teenagers?

Promises, promises. Since the New Years is a time for resolutions, we bring you news you already know about resolutions. News like this. Evolution has hard wired a drive to reproduce in young, healthy humans. That's how the species survives. Maybe you don't want them to have sex and maybe they even promise they won't, but biology is more powerful than parents or governments. A study published in the journal Pediatrics followed 289 teenagers who said in 1996 they took a virginity pledge and compared them with 645 non-pledgers, taking into account religious beliefs and attitudes to sex and birth control. This was done because previous studies didn't factor in the possibility that teens who pledge may be quite different characteristics that affect sexual behavior than those who don't. So this was an attempt to compare "like with like," the main difference being that one group had promised not to have sex while the other didn't. "Virginity pledges" are a prominent feature of the Bush administration's abstinence only sex education programs that didn't teach contraceptive practices.

Five years after taking the pledge:

82% of pledgers denied ever having taken the pledge
Pledgers and matched non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, sexually transmitted disease, and oral and anal sex behaviors
Pledgers had 0.1 fewer sexual partners in the past year but did not differ from non-pledgers in the number of lifetime sexual partners and the age of first sex (Jennifer Warner, WebMD News)

There was one significant difference between the pledge and non-pledge group, however. They were less likely to use condoms or any form of birth control when they did have sex.

You can't blame them. No one told them how.

revere Fri, 01/02/2009 - 01:41

Tags

Reproductive.rights

Abstinence-only sex education is also a big part of Rick Warren's HIV-AIDS "outreach" in Africa, which Obama praised when explaining his selection of Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

Roy Zimmerman, "Abstain with me":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPClWkEdES8

did they really expect anything different??? How many times does this need to be rehashed before these people get a clue?!?!

Don't want your kids to have sex? Feed them breakfast.

"Bristol Palin says, "Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with." So I assume she supports effective sex education and birth control.

The depth of delusion of right-wing theocratic shitbags is simply mind-blowing. The notion that these ignorant deranged pig-people can somehow be fruitfully integrated into the American polity is absolutely ridiculous.

C'mon Comrade PhysioProf. Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think!

I believe I'll get my mother-in-law to crochet that comment into a wallhanging for my office at the university.

It's not that abstinence doesn't work. It's that it has a different purpose than the stated one.

When you look at it as something that's intended to promote misogyny, male domination, and sexual self-hatred; distract rank-and-file fundamentalists from their economic woes; and funnel taxpayer money into the coffers of faux-Christian bigots and power junkies, it's a rousing success.

My resolution was not to weigh in on nonBF issues...but I can't refrain from saying, Trin hit the nail on the head.

I've said it before. We've kidded ourselves into believing taking our kids to soccer practice was all there was to parenting. There is much more to it. Setting examples, instituting and enforcing rules and the list goes on and on. And it's all about a "well rounded" upbringing. Not right...not left...but well rounded. You can't lock them in a reality free closet, but you can't let them experience everything life has to offer either. They'll get bored easily later in life.

I remember another quote I heard somewhere. I'll be my kids friend when he/she turns 18. Right now, I'm their parent.

We'll never stop kids from having sex. But I believe you can delay it a few years or perhaps give them tools to help them wrestle with difficult "sexual" decisioins by taking our responsibility as parents a bit more seriously. It may not change every kid's life, but I think it's much better than any other "touchy feely" stuff I've heard of or seen. It's hard WORK and it's not much fun. But I believe real parenting is the answer (with TWO parents who stand united in decision making). Before you envision me ruling with my conservative views, keep in mind...I said WELL ROUNDED.

You must keep your relationship with your spouse first, but you MUST balance that with making the children a priority. Too many broken homes...too many neglected kids looking for love in the wrong places.

I'm CONVINCED that "wild" girls are the product of fatherless homes (or loveless fathers). Those girls seek out the love of their father through other males. I've seen it time and time again.

Oh heck...while I'm rolling here...I might as well go all out. I'll go so far as to say this. I would much rather see a loving and disciplined WELL ROUNDED (not ultra left) gay or lesbian couple raise a child, verses a heterosexual couple that really doesn't get it. Surprised?

We've got a job to do and if we don't do it we'll pay for it in the long run. We need to be parentS (notice the emphasis on plural).

I'm CONVINCED that "wild" girls are the product of fatherless homes (or loveless fathers). Those girls seek out the love of their father through other males. I've seen it time and time again.

And what are "wild" boys the product of?

Too many slutty girls, I'm guessing? After all, if these little hussies stopped putting out, the boys would have to content themselves with circle jerks, Dungeons and Dragons, and so forth.

Kidding aside, although I agree with a certain amount of what you have to say, and accept that you mean well, your implication that this problem boils down primarily to the control of female sexuality is kind of bloodcurdling.

Also, while it's true that teens from broken homes may "look for love in the wrong places," it's also true that, as Revere points out, teens from every sort of home look for sex, because they're human beings and that's what human beings do, for better and for worse.

Downplaying this fact, in order to fixate on some sepia-toned image of tarnished angels from single-parent homes, is no way to deal with the reality of the situation. It's a shame about the number of broken homes and relationships in crisis -- and the number of stable two-parent homes in which children are abused and miseducated and denied love -- but surely the fairly common cultural beliefs you've expressed here could have as much to do with that ongoing problem as with, say, "Hollywood values"?

Or is anyone who "defends marriage" automatically that institution's benefactor, by definition and regardless of any conceivable evidence to the contrary?

if pledgers were significantly less likely to use condoms, but had the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases, then a logical conclusion is that condoms don't reduce incidence of sexually transmitted disease.

Oh heck...while I'm rolling here...I might as well go all out. I'll go so far as to say this. I would much rather see a loving and disciplined WELL ROUNDED (not ultra left) gay or lesbian couple raise a child, verses a heterosexual couple that really doesn't get it. Surprised?

Yes, I am surprised. I am not sure why you insinuate that "ultra left" parents of whatever gender mix "don't get it." And what of "ultra right" gay/lesbian parents (not all glbt are liberal, you know.)

I'll go so far as to say this. I would much rather see a loving and disciplined WELL ROUNDED (not ultra left) gay or lesbian couple raise a child, verses a heterosexual couple that really doesn't get it.

but us ultra-leftists, we'd better not dare procreate, because we're just not "well rounded" enough for your standards, right?

i could tell you where to stick that sentiment; it's a fairly well rounded place.

The goal of abstinence-only sex education is not to reduce sex, but to ensure that if the young-uns have sex, then by golly they'll *pay* for it by having a kid and having to raise it, and find out just what kind of grief us parents have had to put up with for the past 16 years.

That is: it is an act of *spite*, directed at the young by the old. It's root is that the old resent and envy the young their youth.

31 years ago, as a 17 year old, whilst still at school, we studied Sex Education, once a week, for an entire year. Our Sex Education studies were clinically delivered, and were most informative. After the initial giggling at the nude bodies and body parts that flashed before our eyes, we soon realised that what we were being taught was a life lesson in survival. As we finished our lessons into human biology, I remember my initial horror of seeing the pictorial results of gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis B and C, genital herpes, genital wars, scabies,dedculosis public (public lice) etc on STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) patients. We also discussed sexuality and all that it entails. Sexuality was a personal matter for each student. We had frank discussions on sex, sexual problems, positions, boredom and how to overcome it etc. etc..

How can teenagers be expected to make informed decisions about their OWN lives, if they are to given the tools with which to make those decisions. Sex education is now a matter of survival for teenagers - AIDS/HIV. Parents can no longer bury their heads in the sand, thinking that if they don't tell the kids won't do it. I read recently that some teenagers are so ill informed about Sex Education, that they contract gonorrhea of the throat - "It's not like we are having sex - going all the way - you know". Even informed some teenagers will make mistakes ie pregnancy, STD's etc, they will however, know how they got into the position that they are in, and they will know where to go to get the help that they need. The vast majority of informed teenagers, will make informed decisions about themselves. Informed teenagers are far less likely to make bad decsions about their OWN bodies. In this day and age it is a matter of survival.

My daughter, now 19, had a more advanced sex ed class in her 5th grade year than she did in her high school sophomore class. The difference? The Bush admin decided that kids having too much knowledge would want to have more sex and so the school was told not to teach anything about condoms, birth control, etc. Just abstinence. The birth rate in her high school jumped from maybe one teen pregnancy annually to over ten. A gigantic jump that was directly due to the ignorance being peddled by the so called moral majority.
Maybe with grown ups in charge this can be reversed.

Victoria - Not to put too fine a point on it, but since the Hep C virus was first identified in 1989, I'm doubting there was much discussion of that particular form of hepatitis in your sex-ed class 31 years ago. Having said that, I do agree that the sex-ed I got as a high school junior in the mid 60's was significantly more comprehensive that that taught today in most schools. That is not entirely (maybe even mostly) the fault of the Bush administration, but more as a result of the complaints from those promoting "family values" within the churches of our local communities. (Probably the same folks who complain that Johnny brings home too much homework and then wonders why Johnny can't read... or blames the school for it.)

You are a lot of old fashioned fuddy duddies aren't you.

This is the age of google and facebook. Just do a search "sex education" and get enough reading matter to fill a month of Sundays. (e.g. but not necessarily recommended:) http://www.scarleteen.com/

More to the point, the government should educate you oldies on search technology.

Of course it's not just a question of "information" but also of having conversations. Real conversations don't happen with scripts and censoring.

My two older daughters, now 20 and 22, had very "well rounded" sex education, including the abstinence education at the Methodist youth group meetings. Parts of abstinence education are quite useful, especially the parts that discourage dating and going steady, encourage teens to socialize in groups and to construct social events that don't rely on drugs and alcohol as icebreakers. In our community, you don't even need a date for the prom, you just go to hang out with friends.

But, their well rounded sex education also included riding in the back seat while my mother told me all about her latest adventure as a Planned Parenthood volunteer, hanging out in singles bars giving demonstrations on how to use a condom. Well rounded also included my construction worker husband giving them tips on self defense and how to handle a horny guy who claimed to be suffering from blue balls. ("Tell him to go home and jerk off!") There was a lot of frank talk about sex whenever the opportunity presented itself, everything from watching insects and farm animals mate to going to midwife appointments when I was expecting their sister.

None of this would have meant much if they weren't also given opportunities to make decisions and live with the results from an early age. Sometimes they forgot their lunch and went hungry. Sometimes they didn't get their homework done and got in trouble. Sometimes they tried to bathe cats or tease the rooster and got what was coming to them. No bailouts here.

There's nothing wrong with abstinence education. Sure, our human genes are anxious to replicate themselves. So are the genes of the 250-plus sexually transmitted infections. You gotta think about which team you're rooting for and act appropriately. My problem is with the "only" part. Kids are curious about everything, so we need to talk about everything.

Susan: Nothing at all wrong with abstinence education. Many people are fine not having sex and that's their choice. The problem is abstinence only eductation, and that's what is involved here.

For those of you who questioned me:

1. It's my opinion that girls "act out" more SEXUALLY in response to unloving or absent fathers. It may have something to do with female emotional needs or their ability to express. Boys act out in more violent ways, sometimes through deviant sexual behavior, like rape but more often in violence like fighting, gang activity and so on. I wasn't try to curdle any blood. That's simply the way I see it.

2. It's my opinion that ultra left or ultra right wing parents are not a particularly good influence on children. In fact, if I had a choice, I tend to think that ultra right wing parents are perhaps worse (if I must catagorize it), because they don't give them the autonomy that they need to "find their own way". Even the Amish allow kids to make a choice at some point. I'm keenly aware of the rebellion that can take place in very conservative homes. I saw it often in college.

3. Generally, I've found MOST (but not all) gay and lesbian couples are very left leaning. I'm sure I would be too. I didn't say ALL of them were ultra right wing, but some are. I don't think that is a good environment to raise a child any more than an ultra conservative one is.

4. I know it's a deep wound with the broken homes of today, but I stand by my belief that married, man/woman families with well rounded beliefs and values raise kids that make smarter decisions. Hormones are controlled by Bible verses and aren't stoked by thoughts of gay sex. But giving a kid solid footing can get them started down the right path as the hormone surge takes over.

I have more...but I'm really trying.

if teenaged hormone surges aren't stoked by thoughts of gay sex, then you know you're dealing with a heterosexual teenager. simple as that, babble verses have nothing to do with it.

I wish I could edit after posting..lots of mistakes in that one. I was caught between tasks when I penned that post.

In #4, I meant to say, "Hormones are NOT controlled by Bible verses and they are NOT stoked by thoughts of gay sex."

Good catch Nomen.

#3 wasn't written well either. Should be "I didn't say ALL of them were ultra left wing, but some are."

Patch, well I'm glad you re-posted the edit changes-- rather provocative don't you think in their original incorrect state!?!

Patch, "[In] response to unloving or absent fathers... Boys act out in more violent ways, sometimes through deviant sexual behavior, like rape... gang activity and so on."

I must say Patch, I was on the receiving end of "mob psychology" back in the late 90s (only a very few family members and friends will acknowledge it -- see Jim McGinty email response below --, all others exhibit "denialist behavior" acting as if I were dead and don't exist).

Try to picture a woman of Madonna's independent character being woken by two twenty-something male cops banging on her front door on New Years Eve 1997 going into 1998!?!

Okay, she walks down the hallway and opens the door to be "greeted" with skin-crawling looks from the men. Violent looks which indicate she is a truly bothersome "inferior" who will be forced to learn her place in life -- beaten down on her knees worshipping "powerful and superior" penis. In other words, two government employed sexual deviant sadists are attempting to infantalize an independent women on the doorstep of her own home.

What does a woman with Madonna's character do!?! She says, "Go away, or I'll call the real cops!" and closes the door. This strong woman (who is 100% Lesbian) then phones an independent gay and lesbian liason officer... Then, a little while later, she is sitting on the computer and hears a crash as her front door is kicked-in by a large group of cops...

Patch, were you aware Australia is the only democracy in the world without human rights protection. I viscerally know this from firsthand personal experience. For over ten years, homophobic West Australians (gay, bi, and hetero) in positions of state gov medico-legal employment have used me as a "punching bag" -- staff at WA FOI are bullies (see the Tim Kennedy 2006 email excerpt below) and yet, Jim McGinty (former WA health minister) is suggesting I again interact and engage with these West Australian government employees who do what they do because a lack of Oz human rights protection allows them to behave like vicious schoolyard tyrants (see below):

So, why not click into the GetUp Australia website via the attached link and tell the Aussie Government it's time for an Australian Human Rights Act @ http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/rights/407

Cheers Then:*) Jonathon

**************************

Excerpted email response, prior to the September 2008 West Australian state election, from former MLA ATTORNEY GENERAL, MINISTER FOR HEALTH; ELECTORAL AFFAIRS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA [OurRef: 22-015231]

28 MAY 2008

Dear Mr Singleton

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22 May 2008.

I have noted the matters in your e-mail, including your reference to our previous correspondence; namely, my e-mail to you of 18 January 2006 (Ref: 22-3366) as well as your concerns regarding the treatment of yourself and other gay men in Western Australia. In relation to those matters, the following comments are provided.

First, as I trust you will be aware, I have (both as a Minister and a parliamentarian) consistently supported endeavours to strengthen and extend the rights and protection of gay and lesbian persons in our community...

Third, your e-mail appears to indicate that you may have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For example, your e-mail states that you "used to have a home but [were] forced out of it"...

Finally, your letter appears to allege that you have also been sexually assaulted. For example, your e-mail refers to a "violent medico-legal rape" and that you were "'raped' by taxpayer funded cops". As you may be aware, such assaults may constitute serious criminal offences. If you have any supporting evidence, you should make that evidence available to the appropriate prosecution authorities, for example, the WA Police Service and the WA Director of Public Prosecutions. If the allegation concerns WA Police then you may wish to provide that evidence (including any written statement that you may have prepared outlining the relevant facts and circumstances) to the internal investigation section of the police service.

Thank you for informing me of your views and concerns and I trust that the above is of
assistance to you.

Yours sincerely, JIM McGINTY

***********************************

Subject: RE: Gloria Allred -- Your legal inquiry [Quest 4our Justice
Version]

Thursday, October 5, 2006 7:40 PM

Email From: "Tim Kennedy"

Email To: "jon singleton"

Thanks John. Good bye. You are off too my spam list.

Subject: RE: Gloria Allred -- Your legal inquiry [Quest 4our Justice
Version]

Email To: "Tim Kennedy"

Friday 6th October 2006

Howdy Tim,

You write, "Hey John, do me a favour, take me off your distribution list, please. Your email is of a personal nature which I do not wish to receive."

Actually Tim, the emails you are referring to are of a (((LEGAL))) nature, clearly demonstrating that the poverty I'm now experiencing is due to the homophobic bigotry and violence of certain Perth, WA gov and medico folk, spanning a decade...

It's now 2006 and WA FOI have (((FAILED))) to release highly relevant documentation (eg. toxicology report) and the documentation I do have has been censored to protect the identity of those police officers who acted illegally by falsifying charges and behaving in a violent, unprofessional and bigoted manner toward myself..."

You're fine Patch, there are certain commenter's that leap at any word or words to cut asunder one another. Yeah, I know, it's allowed.

Thanks Lea...I couldn't agree more. Sometimes in spite of the posts real intent.

Lets face it, we all of us have choice. It is a persons choice to choose to have sex. This should not be blamed on the school or on an administration. The fact remains abstaining from sex is the best way of protecting ones self S.T.D and pregnancy. So why not let children now this? It's not fair to say that preaching abstance only, is wrong. Come on ! every were you turn there are messages about all the differnt contraceptives there are .A teenager must be living under a rock not to know the other options to abstainance. Lets be realistic alot of these children a down right careless. Schools should not be blamed for childrens reckless behaviour!!

Apparently, another study was done where they found out that the famous pledge didn't prevent horny girls in college from having sex but instead changed what kind of sex they had. The girls who took the pledge reported no vaginal sex but they were 6 times more likely to do oral and 4 times more likely to do anal. Therefore, from the point of view of a college male such as myself, the pledge had only positive outcomes. We must verify if the above ratios hold in general and to do so, the pledge should be brought to every college, especially mine.

There's no fool like a Bush administration fool

revere — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:48:14 +0000

There's no fool like a Bush administration fool

Since this piece in Wired referenced an email with a date of April 1 I was pretty sure this was an April Fool's joke. But the joke was on me. It's was for real:

A U.S. government-funded medical information site that bills itself as the world's largest database on reproductive health has quietly begun to block searches on the word "abortion," concealing nearly 25,000 search results.
Called Popline, the search site is run by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland. It's funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, the federal office in charge of providing foreign aid, including health care funding, to developing nations.

The massive database indexes a broad range of reproductive health literature, including titles like "Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births," and "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005."

But on Thursday, a search on "abortion" was producing only the message "No records found by latest query." (Wired Blog)

The story started when a medical librarian at University of California in San Francisco tried to use the Popline database for a query involving the word "abortion". Previous searches with the database had worked properly but this time the "No records found by latest query" response came back.

Puzzled, she contacted the manager of the database, Johns Hopkins' Debbie Dickson, who replied in an April 1st e-mail that the university had recently begun blocking the search term because the database received federal funding.

"We recently made all abortion terms stop words," Dickson wrote in a note to Gloria Won, the UCSF medical center librarian making the inquiry. "As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now."

There was no notice of the change on the site.

The Hopkins reply came on April 1st. Aha, says I. April Fools joke. But then I went to Popline myself and tried it. Response? "No records found by latest query." The "About" page for Popline says this:

POPLINEÂ®(POPulation information onLINE), the world's largest database on reproductive health, containing citations with abstracts to scientific articles, reports, books, and unpublished reports in the field of population, family planning, and related health issues. POPLINE is maintained by the INFO Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development. (USAID).

And the explanation is this:

Under a Reagan-era policy revived by President Bush in 2001, USAID denies funding to non-governmental organizations that perform abortions, or that "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

We've come to expect this from the Fools in the Bush administration, but the behavior of the Popline folks was spineless and the Dean of the Hopkins School of Public Health apparently agreed:

The blocking of the keyword "is a decision that the dean does not support in any way," he added, and the administrators are unblocking the search for the term right now.

"I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the Popline administrators restore 'abortion' as a search term immediately," said Michael J. Klag, the school's dean in a statement issued on Friday. "I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction." (Wired Blog update)

USAID then tried to repair the consequences with this "explanation":

Sandra Jordan, director of communications in USAID's office of population and reproductive health, could not identify the documents that prompted her office's complaint, but said the publications were one-sided in favor of abortion rights.

"We are part of the Bush administration, so we have to make sure that all parts of the story are told," says Jordan. "The administration's policy is definitely anti-abortion, and the administration does not see abortion as a part of family planning policy."

Jordan says that the Johns Hopkins database administrators blocked the word "abortion" on their own, and had misunderstood USAID's request.

"We're glad they're restoring the search function to the site -- the studies and statistical information are certainly important information to family planning," she adds. (Wired Blog update)

It wasn't April Fools, but I was half right.

revere Sat, 04/05/2008 - 01:48

Tags

Reproductive.rights

Technology

Wingnut wrongosphere

The fuckwit behind the blocking should be exiled to the Middle East. He/she should get a taste of what it means to live in a hypocritical, holier-than-thou fucking theocracy.

Turdbrain.

how is this a Bush administration goof? Sounds like a Hopkins goof to me. My search doesn't work? it must be THAT DAMN BUSH! Sheesh.

he Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act was passed in the House as H.R. 1955 (and has been introduced in the Senate as S. 1959). It provides for:

* Creation of a ten-member national commission charged with examining the "facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States" and reporting its findings and legislative recommendations to Congress within 18 months of its creation. The commission would have the power to conduct hearings and receive evidence, but the act does not authorize it to subpoena persons or records.
* Establishment of a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States, at a university designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security "following the merit-review processes" used for similar programs in the past. The Center's purpose is to "study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalism" and methods for addressing them that can be used by federal, state, local and tribal homeland security officials.
* A survey of approaches used by other nations to address the problem, to be conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, the Attorney General and "other Federal Government entities, as appropriate." The results are to be reported to Congress and used in developing a national policy on violent radicalization, "to the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution."

What kind of merit review process will determine which university receives this honor of the establishment of a Center of Excellence? Will McCarthy like hearings be held at that university by the 10 member commission?
If you receive a subpeona to appear before that 10 member commission, perhaps at the same university, how would you feel? Will the commission that is investigating you destroy your life the way the McCarthy Hearings did in the 1950's, to those it investigated as being Communists?
Will you later be arrested under one of the anti-terrorism laws, and left to rot in a federal prison, without the right to counsel?
If you are a student at the university where this Center of Excellence is established, and you are a member of a left wing organization on campus, how will you feel? Will you worry you may be required to appear before the 10 member commission?
This law establihes thought crimes and criminalizes peaceful protest. It will soon be passed by the Senate and signed into law.
The establishment of this Center of Excellence at a university is similar to the removal of all references to abortion referred to in the post today.

Sorry, the Homegrown Terrorism Act does not allow you receive a subpeona to appear. But if you receive a letter from the government requesting you to appear, would you throw the letter in the trash, and forget it?

Sounds to me like someone is reading a bit much into this Revere. I have checked with the medial libraries of UT, Mercer, Duke, Bama, UMiss and found no restrictions. In fact, Mercer has so many pages on it that it directs you to another page to get all of the references past 100 hits. We are in the heart of the Bible Belt and we got access but not UCal at SF? This sounds a bit of a set up to me and very contrived on Wired's behalf. Time to dig deeper. The implications were that funding would be with held if someone didnt cut the references.

"Stephen Goldstein, a spokesman for Johns Hopkins, said he wasn't aware of the censorship, and couldn't immediately comment."

Might it be because set ups are just like that? Who has access to the meta-tag file list? Its obviously a new change and its not too well covered as to who did what, and when. The "We decided this was best for now" doesnt cut it. WHO are the WE?

So who the Hell made the change? It certainly wasnt the Bush administration. You are painting the Bush Administration with a broad brush and when you are right you are right. This one isnt one of them.

Here is a bit of info. I queried UT, UMiss, Mercer, Duke, UAB, Bama, and UNC's medical libraries and found hundreds of references and back links into J. Hopkins and others for abortion. Are we to believe that the ultra liberal and right across the street sort of from Berkley that UCal is the only one that had a problem? Sure you tried it. So did I but thru those other universities I got into J. Hopkins without any problem. But what the hell these Bible Belt schools didnt have any restrictions.

Turning it up a notch. Here is an interesting thought, was it blocked by the server going, or the server coming? Not specific enough. I pulled the story and it has journalistic holes in it. But thats good because if people read it they believe it. Its also good if you want to continue to smear rightly or wrongly the administration. There is no evidence of wrong doing or attempt at censorship by USAID unless you have something else.

Are you falling into a trap with the Bush bashing? Lets try to be a bit more objective about it and think along the lines of set up. Then everything falls into place.

Unless you have a letter directing that the word abortion be stricken then its more likely that. Funding is cut all the time by various universities so I always take their studies and papers with a grain of salt if its a touch button. Especially if its global warming rather than a natural cycle change. Like GW or GCC I only ask that you prove it.

Kruger, what are you talking about? revere is talking about the Popline database. The administrators of which admit that the search term "abortion" was removed. They also admit it was because of the Bush Administration's global gag rule. USAID say it was a miscommunication, but I really don't get your argument.

JimL-Lets see here.... Here is the quote from the backup article that Wired ensured by writing the first would happen.

"Jordan says that the Johns Hopkins database administrators blocked the word "abortion" on their own, and had misunderstood USAID's request."

Notice it was the DBA's who blocked it. More hype to fuel the gripes. My argument is that the assertion by Revere is that the USAID by making a complaint (dont know why they did in the first place) was USGovt censorship. Thats wrong and attempt at biasing the readers. Not unlike what Wired did to get this noise up on the net.

Randy: Since you are the main person who wants the rules to the the rules, you will see that some Randy at Hopkins took the rules literally -- just as you advise. Yes, I agree it was stupid to follow the Bush admin rules (NB pauls) and the Hopkins Dean thought it was stupid too. Dumb and dumber.

Perhaps the administrators of the database were afraid of political repercussions from keeping the term in the database. Perhaps the constant meddling in scientific research by the Bush administration made them afraid. If you can't see how the Bush administration's hostile attitude toward scientific research directly led to this inicident then you are blind.

NOW I'VE SEEN EVERYTHING! Johns Hopkins??? Oh please, let us survive until Jan 2009--and then try to repair some of the damage of the past 8 years.

AARRGGGHHH I'm blind! The only thing that Hopkins fears is losing the federal green - all you scientists can sympathize with that can't you? I will take the government spokesperson at her word, apparently they (the govt) wanted a fair and balanced database in regards to abortion and obviously felt they weren't getting it. Probably the database had entries like, 'pregnant? don't fret, just kill it'. Very family oriented, family friendly entries you know? Perhaps the govt took exception to this entry being listed under Family Planning, instead of say, for example Murder. Anyway, Hopkins fearing the loss of taxpayer dollars, jumped the gun and blocked 'abortion' from its db search engine. It was stupid on Hopkins part, I mean all they had to do was simply notify everyone that abortion has been deleted; however, Terminating Unwanted Pregancies is still a viable search option. If the Bush administration is as stupid as you people think, they would have never noticed and probably increased the dollars flowing into Hopkins in support of this noble effort in advising developing nations to kill their unborn children.

I think my jaw bounced off the table when I read this story via Google News this morning. Appalling.

Incidentally, since one synonym for human (or other mammalian) miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion", this would make the database less useful for medical and veterinary researchers. But, hey, if this leads to just one more terrified 14-year-old girl leaving a baby in a toilet rather than getting information that would have prevented the pregnancy, it's worth hobbling the scientific and social utility of the database, right?

I think my jaw bounced off the table when I read Julie S. comment. Appalling. Usually, and I mean always, when someone says abortion, and I don't mean a miscarriage here, they are not speaking to the young terrified 14 year old girl about pregnancy prevention. It might be a tad late for that. Also I am pretty darn sure, and I want you to correct me here if I am wrong, that any medical database, dictionary, or medical professional worth a damn, doesn't equate abortion with pregnancy prevention. And if they do, then it is worth hobbling the scientific and social utility of the database. Right!

US AIDS preferred method of pupulation control is sterilization

Thats because it is not reversible, and abortions will not prevent additional pregnancies, and birth control is not very reliable in 3rd world nations since people do not always have access to them. By making abortions illegal, and not funding contraceptives, this creates a demand for sterilizations.

"The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) said surgical sterilization was the Bush [Papa Bush] administrations first choice method of population reduction in the Third World. The UN Population Fund claimed that 37% of contraception users in Ibero-America and the Caribbean have already been surgically sterilized. In a 1991 report, William H. Draper IIIs agency asserted that 254 million couples would be surgically sterilized in the 1990s; and if trends continued, 80% of women in Puerto
Rico and Panama would be surgically sterilized. The U.S. government pays directly for these sterilizations.
Mexico was first among targeted nations, on a list drawn up in July 1991, at a USAID strategy session.
India and Brazil were second and third priorities, respectively."

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_26-34.pdf

Please help me here PFT, or any others, the following sentance bothers me and I need help in fully understanding
"The UN Population Fund claimed that 37% of contraception users in Ibero-America and the Caribbean have already been surgically sterilized." Don't these 37% of contraception users know they have been surgically sterilized? Was it done without their knowledge? Did they go to the dentist one day and leave there with suspicious looking stitches in their scrotum and not realize what happened and continued to buy condoms? Also, I realize for most of you people that the 8 years of the Bush administration seems like eons, but isn't 1991 longer than 8 years ago?
So does it stand to reason that the USAID prefered sterilization before Bush became president? Also, who was president for most of the 90's when all of these sterilizations supposedly took place? Clinton. So does that imply that the Clinton administration also prefered sterilization? Also, someone explain to me why sterilization is a bad thing as opposed to say abortion?

I just went there, typed in "abortion" and got a whole bunch or results. What's up with you?

Ian, they reinstituted abortion as a search word. Do try and keep up.

But as per Administration(s) policie(s) they all flip this back and forth. During the impeachment of Clinton, there was a concerted effort over at the National Archives to hide selected items. When they couldnt, they simply had Sandy B. run over and snag them into his pants..

So a letter didnt go from the USAID to JH saying that you guys had better toe the line. Nope. They did it on their own and thats not rules Revere, thats an administration making itself heard. The people spoke in two elections, might not be the way that they wanted it but thats the run of it. You get your shot in November.... Then you can have them change all the databases ...scuse me databiases back to the left.

My issue with the above is pretty plain..... I dont throw paint on my neighbors house just because I am painting my house and dont like his particular color.

USAID made the administrations policy known. But, its federally funded and well when you do that you gotta show both sides of the story. Thats their problem with the documents in JH. Revere, you are attempting to throw that paint because of the actions of someone else other than the Bush Administration. All JH had to do was include the requisite information into the same file and everything would have been find. Some low level JH admininstrator made a decision either biased or not, stupid or with an agenda and then made sure the press got hold of it.

Nice little autoslammer every couple of days on Bush. Please do everyone, notice that this comes out about once per week. I havent ever heard anything good said about the administration and isnt and cant be all bad. Revere asserts its always incompetence, stupidity, and back channel skulduggery. Sure it is, welcome to the Presidency of the United States. They all have their agendas, some its just the power, some to make others rich.

Revere is going to crap a brick when he finds out Blackwaters contract just got renewed with no fundamental changes made..........

Oh, for the record I am against abortion.

BUT, if we are going to have it then its going to be safe and a womans decision rather than a bunch of men making the decision for them. I am not the one that has to crawl up onto the table. Therefore, I think the one who has to live for the rest of their lives by making a decision should have access to all the information on it. That includes JH and anyone trying to suppress the information on it will have me on their asses too. There are several options to prevent abortion and right now we need a lot more new little taxpayers.

As best I can tell USAID simply sent a letter. JH responded incorrectly.

While I am at it, I am also dead set against the government paying for them as well.

Usually, and I mean always, when someone says abortion, and I don't mean a miscarriage here, they are not speaking to the young terrified 14 year old girl about pregnancy prevention.

Actually, I read up on abortion when I was in my mid-teens -- not from Right to Life brochures, but from articles written by medical professionals for laypeople. That knowledge was instrumental in my making very, very good decisions later -- which kept me from ever being in the situation where I had to think about abortion. (Who would want to go through a physically and emotionally unpleasant surgical procedure when it's better to prevent the situation from arising in the first place?)

And, for the record, I have always been pro-choice. Was then, still am.

It is perversely strange, I think, that one can observe outrage by conservative individuals over an abortion but then observe little outcry over the fate of the mother. Perhaps many conservative pro-life men and women view fetuses as more important than an experienced grown life?

It is also perversely strange, when the very same conservative individuals reel back in horror when anyone has the Gaul or the temerity to suggest that eduction about procreation and contraceptives should start in middle school years. The abortion rates would dramatically decrease with the correct use of contraceptives.

we just might Porter, we just might...

Victoria, don't you think parents should make the decision about when their child is ready to learn about procration and contraceptives, not some school administator, and not the government? Ask revere, the government tends to mess things up on a regular basis.

Just my view on abortion:

I know, I am a man and I will never get respect from women for my view as I can't get pregnant, however, I am a father and I do like children.

I am pro-life, so let's get that out of the way.

I consider abortion to be murder, period. I will guilt trip any lady that wants an abortion.

Why do I feel this way? When those two "alive" cells (sperm and egg) meet they specifically become a new creation, a living creation. This creation at once is a life, a baby. It may not be recognizable at first, but the moment that the two cells combine, it becomes a baby, and there is no getting around that, because if you just wait nine months, that little creation will prove itself to you that what I am saying is true.

So to just destroy that life at anytime in it's development is to destroy a baby and that is murder. Now does a woman have that right to murder her own child? The courts say she can and many women believe it is perfectly alright to "abort" the pregnancy, (because they can't use the word murder or kill the baby and they don't even consider it as a baby). So abortion is a fact of modern life and many women and their men follow this practice and millions of babies die every year in the United States because they are an inconvienence or will ruin a life as someof them say.

What do I think of the grown lady that wants an abortion? I think they are very selfish. They only think of themselves and what an inconvience the pregnancy is, how it is messing up their life, how they hate the father, and a million other reasons not to be pregnant. I say you should have kept your legs closed. Now you want to show the world how callous you really are? Promiscuous and a callous and cold killer, what a catch you'll make for some lucky guy.

So ladies, I don't score many points with the pro-choice gals and I don't care, you're not my type. Too loose.

I really would like to keep these topics less politcal and away from stuff like this, however if the moderator brings this stuff up, I will comment.

Soylent Green is BABIES!!!