new prez + change = science/politics*

Last night, I was delighted to read that a federal judge ruled that the Bush administration was wrong and determined that Plan B (emergency contraception) should be available without a prescription to girls as young as 17. Ok, so the previous age was 18, but still! This is a big step in the right direction. Now, if we can just get Plan B to be truly available over the counter, as opposed to behind the counter and under the judgmental eyes of a pharmacy tech, everything would be awesome!

If you recall, Plan B was held up for OTC approval in the FDA by many Bush cronies who did not want this pill to be available to teens because of the potential for the creation of teen sex cults!!! No, seriously. That was one of the reasons. Their line of reasoning was that, with increased availability to Plan B, teens would not be able to control their raging hormones any longer and engage in wanton (unprotected) group sex and then pop Plan B pills like candy afterwards. This wasn't based on actual facts (naturally, this was the Bush Administration after all) or anything. In fact, studies showed that teens didn't engage necessarily in careless sex if Plan B was available to them. In fact, their sexual habits showed no change.

But we all know that the Bush administration was averse to science and research and facts (global warming is another great example).

After 8 years of anti-science crap, we now have a president who does not place politics over science. Last month, the new administration worked to remove one of Bush's last acts known as the Provider Refusal Rule. Essentially, the Provider Refusal Rule or "Conscience Clause" (was written to be incredibly ambiguous and open to interpretation on purpose) allowed for religious ideology in the clinical setting. Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

For example, if a clinician felt uncomfortable providing birth control or a Plan B prescription or the HPV vaccine, it was within his/her right to refuse to provide it to their patients. The thing is that judgment has NO place in health care, especially religious judgment. If you have a problem dispensing birth control (but not Viagra), then don't be a pharmacist. Don't want to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger? Well, then maybe you shouldn't be an OBGYN.

It's the same thing outside of health care. Do you hate Latinos and think gays should burn in hell? Then you wouldn't want my job. So why was the health care field specifically targeted in the Conscience Clause? Because of abortion, of course!

As a public health geek, it is so refreshing to have a president who thinks sound science should be the basis for policy as opposed to religious ideology. The NY Times piece above quoted Dr. Susan Wood, former director of the Office of Women's Health at the FDA who resigned because she didn't want to be part of Bush's morality militia. She commented, "There is a new chance to restore the scientific integrity of the F.D.A.”

Oh God I hope so.

*the title should be read as: new president plus change equals science over politics.

really, your kids are having sex. like seriously.

Before school let out for the summer, I was doing some HIV outreach near a DC high school which I've heard has the highest graduation rate in the entire city. It also has a day care for the students with babies.

Getting to work as early as I do, I often see these girls with their babies on their way to school. They all look so young. It makes me incredibly sad that children are having children. I'm very aware of the fact that kids that age are having sex. But I'm not desensitized to the point where I don't feel bad when seeing a kid with a baby in her arms.

Still, kudos to the school for allowing those girls to continue their education.

Obviously those kids are sexually active. However, I am forbidden from doing outreach at the school or handing out condoms to anyone under 18. So, when I passed by the school a few weeks ago and saw what I saw, I seriously considered breaking the law.

There are windows in the school's stairwells and I saw two kids going at it. Clearly, they should've been in class. And I could've sworn this school had security guards or maybe some scary looking hall monitors. I grabbed one of my condom kits and when the two finally came up for air, they looked out the window and saw me waving the condoms at them. My aide and outreach partner laughed at me. "What are you doing?" she asked. "Clearing these kids are doing it. Hopefully not now, but later, I'm sure. They better use a condom, damn it," I replied. If they're going to have sex, they might as well protect themselves, right?

With school out for the summer, I've been seeing more and more kids out during the day when I do outreach. Since I'm not on school grounds, I'm tempted to talk to them. However, the grant that funds my program forbids us from reaching out to anyone under 18. So, when a 13 year old came up to me and asked for some condoms, my immediate reaction was to tell him, "No, sorry, you're not old enough." His reply: "I'm old enough to have sex."

Touché, little punk. Touché.

The activist in me said, Hey, these kids are having sex. You have an obligation to give them the tools they need to protect themselves. The goody-two-shoes in me said, The agency funding your program doesn't want you reaching out to youngsters. In addition, the goody-two-shoes in me shook her head at me and looked at me with disappointment.

With school out, I know I'll be encountering kids like these more and more. I need to come up with a solution that I can live with.

The activist in me is winning the battle inside my head to determine what is the 'right' thing to do.

on pigs, sex, and prophylactics

What Jesse knows about reproductive health policy and whatever sexual health issues are being debated this week comes from me. I relish this role primarily because, when it comes to my soapboxing, Jesse represents the Average Joe. He is the ideal audience member because his mind hasn’t been made up yet until all the facts are presented to him. Unfortunately for me, this makes him a swing voter, so this means I have to really poke and prod come election time to convince Jesse to go Dem all the way.

But I digress. Last night, Jesse and I were eating dinner and the TV was on. It’s almost always on while we eat dinner but that’s because there’s often something worthwhile on TV (read: a Law & Order episode) during supper time. That was NOT the case last night. Instead, MTV provided the background noise to our dinner conversation. That is, until the new Trojan condoms commercial came on. We both stopped talking/eating and turned to the boob tube.

Last week, Fox and CBS refused to air this commercial. Their reasoning? According to the New York Times story, Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, “Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy.” Oh really, Fox? Since when did you become the paragon of virtue? This from the network that brought us “Temptation Island.” I suppose this means that CBS and Fox will be pulling those Viagra and Cialis ads then.

Yeah, right.

For those of you not familiar with the commercial, the ad takes place in a bar with normal looking women surrounded by pigs (presumably men), moving around the bar as bipeds. At the actual bar, a pig is approaching a woman who looks entirely uninterested. So, the pig takes a bathroom break and outside the bathroom door is a condom dispenser. He takes a condom and immediately turns into a ‘hot, sexy’ guy. This time, when the guy gives the uninterested woman another shot, she actually pays attention. The screen turns black and the words, “Evolve. Use a condom every time” appear.

After watching the commercial, I asked Jesse if he had seen it before. When he told me that he hadn’t, I asked him if he had heard about all the controversy with Fox and CBS. He asked, “What controversy?” So I explained to him why Fox and CBS refuse to air the ad. And Jesse’s response was, “But there’s nothing in the commercial about preventing pregnancy. They’re just telling you to use a condom every time you have sex. That could mean anything, like preventing STDs.” Yup, I know.

So when an Everyman (with no agenda) like Jesse gets it, I’m curious as to why CBS and Fox don’t.

See for yourself…

too many boobs and va-jay-jays for one weekend

So I’m back from my weekend work trip to Chi-town and, boy, was it eventful! I was there to attend an event as a representative of the non-profit I work for—a conference about nurses in reproductive health. Trust me, there is never a dull moment when the topic is sex.

Unfortunately, I was working in the expo hall next to a group that was promoting a certain method of birthing—water births. Apparently, this entails giving birth in a shallow tub of water, often while naked and most often, in the presence of your husband/baby daddy and other kids (and sometimes, they’re naked too). Oh and did I mention that no epidural is involved in this method? I suppose it’s to have the full experience of giving birth. If you ask me (not like I would know since I’m currently childless), I think I might enjoy the experience of birth better if it were relatively painless.

The actual reps from the organization were really cool and very pleasant. But they aired this video and slide show simultaneously and on repeat EVERY DAY. The video contained shots of actual water births…women in all of their birthing glory (naked, mind you). The slide show contained still shots from water births. All day for 3 days I saw this video continuously. Did I mention that the video’s sound was on? There I was networking or promoting my org and our programs and I would occasionally be interrupted by the screams of a woman in the throes of birth. It was distracting to say the least.

And someone should’ve told these women that if their births were going to be captured on camera, they should probably groom themselves down there. At least, that’s what I would do (not like I would ever want the birth of my children to be filmed for strangers to see). I would want my va-jay-jay to be camera-ready.

The funny part was the slide show. The slide show not only detailed the procedure and described the ideal candidates for this, but also provided still photographs of water births. So in one slide you would see a shot of a picture of a woman, mouth agape (probably screaming) and about to give birth. And then the next shot would be of a visibly exhausted mother cradling her child with all of her family members celebrating around the mother, often with champagne or party favors. If I had just given birth, I think I would be too tired to party. But since those family members didn’t actually go through many hours of labor, they had plenty of energy to celebrate. I felt bad for those mothers (especially because I would need a drink after all of that work).

After being subjected to this for 3 days, I now have these images of babies popping out of hairy va-jay-jays seared into my brain. The graphic images and constant screaming is almost enough for me to consider permanent sterilization.

I left the conference with a new appreciation for birth control.

no period no problem, right?

If you are a male reader of this blog, proceed at your own risk...

Having fewer periods seems to be all the rage right now. I know you all have seen the ads for all the birth control pills that reduce the number of periods you have (Loestrin FE, Seasonale, and soon you'll find out everything you need to know about Lybrel). But the truth is that any hormonal birth control (HBC) can be used to reduce the number of periods you have. Basically, just take/use your current form of HBC continuously. This method is called menstrual suppression. Female physicians have been practicing this for years (seriously, ask your gynecologist).

I don't have a problem with my current HBC, but when I saw my doctor for my annual female check up last year, I was curious to know what my life would be like with fewer periods. I really couldn't think of any thing wrong with not having a period (current research shows that continuous use of HBC has no bad long term health effects). And my doctor was encouraging. So, I said, what the hell? Let's do it!

Because I didn't want my body to go through the changes of trying another HBC (I get moody and emotional and it's not pretty), I asked my doctor to let me stay on my current HBC and I could just take that continuously until I give my body a 'break' from the hormones (i.e. allow Aunt Flo to visit). At the time, it felt like a weight had been lifted. Yay! No more monthly cramps and bloating. No more once-a-month emotional breakdowns. I was free!

Well, I've been suppressing for quite a few months now and I've noticed something about my rare Aunt Flo visits. They hurt like hell. The only comfortable position for my body during that time is the fetal position. The cramps are like nothing I've ever experienced in my many years of 'womanhood'. They are debilitatingly painful.

But they're short. Just two days of pain...and hell.

Maybe...just maybe...two days of hell every few months is better than a monthly inconvenience.

If you too are curious about menstrual suppresion, I encourage you to check this out to learn more. Also, if you want to know the difference between a Pill Period and a regular period, check this out.

the war on birth control

Back in July, I wrote a little post on the war against contraception. It was a reaction to the lawsuit brought on by the Center for Reproductive Rights against the Food and Drug Administration to force them to make Plan B (aka “emergency contraception) available over the counter for women of all ages. Even though Plan B has already been made available “behind the counter” without a prescription, it is not available to teens without a prescription. Teens have a much higher rate of unplanned pregnancy than adults.

I’m reposting because a war against all contraception is being waged and the time to fight back is next Tuesday at the polls. I understand that there are other pressing issues to think about when voting—illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, gas prices, gay marriage. But as a female voter, I am compelled to think about just how much power the government has over me and what I choose to do in the privacy of my bedroom.

the fight against birth control is a fight against women

Just a warning, I’m feeling a soapbox moment coming on. Yesterday, a co-worker passed along an editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine--Plan B, Reproductive Rights, and Physician Activism by Rebekah E. Gee, MD, MPH. The author is one of two people who brought on the lawsuit against Wal-Mart in Massachusetts for refusing to fill a prescription for Plan B (the morning-after pill which is 75% effective in preventing pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of having sex). The article details her story and we all know how it ends. Wal-Mart is now stocking all of their pharmacies with Plan B (or so they say). Currently, there is a case up in New York against the Food and Drug Administration, who has unreasonably blocked Plan B’s over-the-counter status. The article also mentions a growing anti-contraception movement in the United States (which is definitely felt here in my office). My question is why? Why is this country so against contraception?

The easy answer is to blame the religious right. Their claim that access to contraception promotes sexual promiscuity is baseless (where’s the research?). During the FDA’s Plan B deliberations, there was a concern being passed around that teenagers’ access to Plan B would lead to sex cults. Really? Sex Cults? Come on. In reality, the research shows that access to Plan B does not change the sex habits of teens.

So, the religious right is against contraception and abortion. If they’re against abortion, how do you prevent unplanned pregnancies (which I’m assuming is the reason why women have abortions)? What is the realistic solution to preventing an unplanned pregnancy? Contraception. Yet (according to conservatives) women are not to have access to contraception or abortion. In fact, according to our government, condoms aren’t all that effective in preventing STD’s and pregnancy either. So it would be better to bring in an unwanted child into the world (or possibly put them up for adoption in our over-crowded foster care system)? Or perhaps all women should just wait until marriage to have sex. If you never marry, then you’re shit outta luck.

What about women? It doesn’t seem fair that we let our government dictate what we should and should not do with our own bodies. There is very clear bias against women here. For example, there is no controversy over pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for Viagra. The sole purpose of Viagra is to restore men’s sexual abilities, certainly not to procreate in their old age. However, some pharmacists won’t fill prescriptions for birth control because it’s morally wrong. Really now? I don't see any moral "correctness" in Viagra. Frankly, I don’t see anyone campaigning against vasectomies either.

98% of women use contraception (according to data from Planned Parenthood). Perhaps a woman’s first consideration before voting should be her sex life. Sadly, there are people out there who are fighting to make sure we don’t have one.

the biggest secret I’ve ever kept

For my birthday, I have decided to put myself out there (even more than I usually do) and reveal a secret that I’ve had to keep for the longest time.

I’m not a virgin.

I know you’re all shocked.

Keeping with the honesty theme here, I should probably tell you that everyone in my life knows that I’m not a virgin except for one, lonely soul—my mom. My poor mom thinks I’m still as pure as freshly fallen snow. And frankly, I’m not prepared to burst her little hopeful bubble.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re wondering how it is that my mom doesn’t know I’m not a virgin despite the fact that I:

• Work in the sexual health field
• Have blogged about sex
• Have blogged about getting paid to talk about sex
• Live with my boyfriend where we presumably share a bed
  

Luckily for me, my mom doesn’t know because:

• I’ve lied to her about it
• She trusts me
• She’s computer illiterate and has only seen this blog once
  
• My brother and sister haven’t told her anything.
  

My mom is very conservative. She is extremely religious. She doesn’t question much. She has lived in this country for over 40 years and still has the thickest accent. She primarily watches Spanish-language TV. She is old-school traditional and probably will always be. I’ve come a long way in helping her come around to keep up with the changing times. I’ve informed her of many things to keep her in the know (like how AIDS isn’t a gay man’s disease, why we haven’t won the war in Iraq, how a virus causes cervical cancer, how important it is to get a mammogram, etc.). I encourage her to keep an open mind. But with some issues, I know she will not be open-minded about. And sex is definitely one of them.

I have never talked to my mom about sex. I imagine that she’ll finally tell me about it right before my wedding night. She has no idea that I’m pro-choice. She’s not quite sure what I do for a living. One day at work, I was translating into Spanish a patient ed. brochure on contraception methods. I called her because I wasn’t sure of the proper sentence structure to use. It just so happened to be the blurb about diaphragms. When I read her the sentence I came up with, her comment was, “Well, you know the best form of contraception is the rhythm method.” I smiled to myself and said teasingly, “Oh isn’t that what you were practicing when you had me?” (actually it is)

I love my mom dearly. And I am very honest with her about other aspects of my life. Despite that, I’m planning on taking this secret with me to the grave. If I told my mom that I’ve had sex, she’d be angry at first. She’d probably make some comment about all the money she spent sending me to good Catholic schools and if I had ever learned anything from that. She’d probably ask how I could possibly disrespect the Lord and my body like that especially after taking me to church every day when I was a kid. And then she’d cry and be sad.

But what’s worse is that she would be so disappointed in me that she would never look at me the same way again. The whole religious concept of being “pure” until marriage is so important to her. With her whole heart, she hopes that my sister and I will stay virginal until marriage. If I told her the truth, she would be devastated.

Sure, I could tell her someday. But what would be the point? It would be selfish of me to unload my conscience only to hurt her immensely.

So instead, I'll lie.

let's talk about sex, baby

I enjoy talking about sex. But how great is it to talk about sex and get paid for it? No, I haven’t given up my public health career for that of a phone sex operator (although I’ve been told I have a sexy voice). I just love being at this sexual health conference.

Over the last couple of days, I have heard women talk about their sex drives, grown men teasing women about the size of their vulva, older women talking about their need for more hormones, and a discussion on whether size really matters. This is awesome.

I’ve enjoyed checking out the exhibitors. Sure, a lot of them are pharmaceutical companies, but occasionally, you run into the “interesting” people. For example, a representative from the Male Contraception Project is here. How great would it be if Science develops a male contraceptive pill? That would certainly take the burden off of the woman.

Also, there are two companies here that are distributing their female sexual experience-enhancing gels. Apparently, they are made with natural ingredients and are hypoallergenic. You just put some on your clitoris before sex and then you’re on your way to multiple orgasms. Although I’m not experiencing any sexual dysfunction, I will “take one for the team” and test these out for ya (come on, ladies, you’re dying to know). Jesse, doesn’t that sound like fun?

Among the other goodies I picked up are: free pens, a letter opener, condom lollipops, and a cute pin that says, "choice on earth."

Also, Planned Parenthood is here and I bought a t-shirt from them. Although I was very tempted to purchase their “Kiss me, I’m pro-choice” t-shirt (Jesse would never let me wear it in case someone takes me up on the offer), I ended up with the "stop the war on choice" shirt (a very cute, fitted, american apparel ringer tee).

I love my job.

it's like they took the words right out of my mouth

I was going to write some more about Plan B today. Then I opened up my email today and found the electronic version of the Daily Trojan, one of the best collegiate newspapers out there. In the DT is an editorial from the editors about yesterday's FDA decision. It's short, sweet, and exactly what I wanted to say.

FDA birth pill decision doesn't go far enough

The Food and Drug Administration Thursday approved Plan B, an emergency contraceptive pill, for over-the-counter sale to adults.

Not to be confused with RU-486 - the so-called "abortion pill" that kills off embryos up to two months after conception - Plan B has proven effective in laboratory trials at preventing fertilization, provided it is taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. And what's more, it's proven to be extremely safe.

So it's logical to assume that the decision-making process regarding its sale without a doctor's prescription was open-and-shut.

Wrong. Instead, Plan B's manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals, unwittingly found itself at the epicenter of an intense, three-year ideological mud-slinging contest, with the Bush administration's conservative base arguing that the drug's free sale would encourage further the dreaded American promiscuity.

When these old-fashioned moral arguments didn't make much of an impact, conservative political action groups quickly produced "research" of their own illustrating the drug's alleged medical danger - though neither legitimate researchers nor the FDA's extensive review process could turn up similar results.

So while the eventual, common-sense decision to approve its free sale should be applauded, it's unacceptable that minors will still be required to get a doctor's prescription to buy the drug.

Indeed, the age restriction, an obvious peace offering to the Christian right, might seem harmless, but will in practice prevent many women under 18 - arguably the group most susceptible to the negative effects of unsafe intercourse, particularly given the state of sex education in America's public schools - from getting help when they need it most.

America long ago strayed from its Puritan roots. And while the morality of teenage sex is still up for debate, that it's occurring in massive numbers is no longer a question.

Forcing our teens - who might need Plan B the most - to jump through the same old hoops merely ensures that what could have permanently alleviated America's teenage-pregnancy problem, will instead sit on the shelf, waiting for another buyer.

cliff notes version of "small victory for Plan B"

Hey peeps,

I apologize for the technical jargon from the previous post. I just got so excited about the news that I only posted the press release without comment from me. My bad. Also, I got the impression from Washington Cube's comment that perhaps a Cliff Notes version of my previous post is needed. So here goes.

Today, the FDA has granted over-the-counter status for Plan B (aka emergency contraception, aka "the morning-after pill") provided that you're 18 years old or over. For those of you living under a rock (if you're a boy, I guess you're forgiven but you should know this anyways), Plan B, if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, has an 85% chance of preventing pregnancy.

Now for my opinion (what's that you say? you didn't ask for it? oopsies). This is a big victory for college-aged women everywhere. Back in the day when I was in school, how great would it have been to just walk into a store and pick this stuff up whenever you needed it? On the other hand, it's not technically "over the counter" if you're not letting teens to get it. This means that it will probably be under lock and key at your local CVS, or you may need to ask a pharmacist for it. Who's to say that some 16-year-old who had unprotected sex with her loser boyfriend doesn't have a cool, 19-year-old sister to get it for her? Kinda defeats the true "behind the counter" status, doesn't it? Oh well...whatever you have to do to make your conservative base happy....

What's that you say? The FDA is supposed to be a nonpartisan government agency? Hmmm...how very interesting.

small victory for Plan B

The following is from the FDA:

FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Older
Prescription Remains Required for Those 17 and Under

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

· Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;

· Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;

· Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and

· Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans.

For more information on Plan B and today's action, please see: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/default.htm.

I believe there will be a press conference at noon.

the fight against birth control is a fight against women

Just a warning, I’m feeling a soapbox moment coming on. Yesterday, a co-worker passed along an editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine--Plan B, Reproductive Rights, and Physician Activism by Rebekah E. Gee, MD, MPH. The author is one of two people who brought on the lawsuit against Wal-Mart in Massachusetts for refusing to fill a prescription for Plan B (the morning-after pill which is 75% effective in preventing pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of having sex). The article details her story and we all know how it ends. Wal-Mart is now stocking all of their pharmacies with Plan B (or so they say). Currently, there is a case up in New York against the FDA, who has unreasonably blocked Plan B’s over-the-counter status. The article also mentions a growing anti-contraception movement in the United States (which is definitely felt here in my office). My question is why? Why is this country so against contraception?

The easy answer is to blame the religious right. Their claim that access to contraception promotes sexual promiscuity is baseless (where’s the research?). During the FDA’s Plan B deliberations, there was a concern being passed around that teenagers’ access to Plan B would lead to sex cults. Really? Sex Cults? Come on. In reality, the research shows that access to Plan B does not change the sex habits of teens.

So, the religious right is against contraception and abortion. If they’re against abortion, how do you prevent unplanned pregnancies (which I’m assuming is the reason why women have abortions)? What is the realistic solution to preventing an unplanned pregnancy? Contraception. Yet (according to conservatives) women are not to have access to contraception or abortion. In fact, according to our government, condoms aren’t all that effective in preventing STD’s and pregnancy either. So it would be better to bring in an unwanted child into the world (or possibly put them up for adoption in our over-crowded foster care system)? Or perhaps all women should wait until marriage to have sex. If you never marry, then you’re shit outta luck.

What about women? It doesn’t seem fair that we let our government dictate what we should and should not do with our own bodies. There is very clear bias against women here. For example, there is no controversy over pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for Viagra. The sole purpose of Viagra is to restore men’s sexual abilities, certainly not to procreate in their old age. However, some pharmacists won’t fill prescriptions for birth control because it’s morally wrong. Really now? I don't see any moral "correctness" in Viagra. Frankly, I don’t see anyone campaigning against vasectomies either.

98% of women use contraception (according to data from Planned Parenthood). Perhaps a woman’s first consideration before voting should be her sex life. Sadly, there are people out there who are fighting to make sure we don’t have one.