Your tax dollars promoting "absitence until marriage"

This just in from Feminist Daily News Wire:

"Healthy Marriage" Funds Improperly Used to Promote Abstinence

A report issued on October 27 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that some recipients of grants from the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative—run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—have used the funds impermissibly for abstinence-only education.

"HHS officials told us that abstinence education was not allowable under the Healthy Marriage program," reads the report, "but we observed during our site visits and review of grantee data several Healthy Marriage grantees operating programs that focused on abstinence education."

The study, which was requested by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), also found that HHS—operating under a shortened deadline process—"did not fully examine grantee's programs as described in their applications."

Both programs are designed to serve low-income and minority groups. The Healthy Marriage programs, targeting teenaged youth primarily, are supposed to promote marriage and relationship activities; the Responsible Fatherhood programs, targeted at incarcerated parents, are designed to provide parenting skills. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 appropriated $150 million in grants each year from 2006 through 2010 to implement the Initiative. But it diverted funds from programs designed to support those living in poverty, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), to programs promoting marriage.

.

Vote!

Hey Jacksonites! Maybe you knew this already but we can vote early in Wyoming. We don't have to wait for next Tuesday. So if for any reason you think your Tuesday schedule will be too busy or hectic to make it to your polling station, stop by the County Courthouse today and vote!
.

To Scan or not to Scan

I'm linking to this new article on The Slate by William Saletan talking about ultrasounds, birth defects and abortion. In the article, he discusses the conundrum facing pro-lifers regarding the increasing sophistication of ultrasound technology. Pro-lifers, particularly through their sham Crisis Pregnancy Centers, have long championed the ultrasound based on the presumption that a woman who sees the fetus on a screen will be less likely to terminate the pregnancy. However, ultrasounds also have the potential to reveal possible birth defects which might lead a woman who wanted to bring the pregnancy to term to consider abortion. Pro-lifers say they want the pregnant woman to have all the information. Does that include information that the child might be born with a fatal condition that would result in a short, painful life?

Moreover, the "improvement" in ultrasound technology has resulted in many more false alarms and false positives that can scare the wits out of expecting mothers. My sister's first ultrasound revealed a cyst in the fetus's brain that was "indicative" of a certain birth defect. After a week of panic (she had already had one miscarriage), the second ultrasound showed that the cyst had disappeared. It is possible that these scans are now showing normal development processes that earlier scans did not.

.

Sarah Palin: the anti-intellectual boor

Can I just say how tired I am of her? The more we learn the more frightening she is. Recently she criticized government funding for fruit fly research as wasteful and went on to comment that some fruit fly research actually takes place in Paris, France. If she took a moment to read a paper or ask someone with some knowledge on the issue, she would learn that the study of fruit flies had led to important advancement in the study of genetic disorders and defects, including those that have impacted her own family. Of course, when you don't believe in science or evolution I suppose the study of DNA sounds like a bunch of elitist, liberal, Parisian mumbo jumbo, gosh darn it.

.

Have you seen this yet?

The Vet Who Did Not Vet.

A ramble after a long absence

Hi everyone. It's Mary W. aka Meg D. writing here. Sorry for my embarrassingly long absence from blogging. Life has been chaotic, but I won't bore you with details. Besides, what's far more interesting is what's going on in the country right now with the election just around the corner! Here in little liberal-outpost Jackson, I see more Obama bumper stickers than McCains... but I have noticed a flurry of McCain/Palin lawn signs sprouting up the past few days. Having lived in Portland, Ore. and San Francisco in recent years, I'm still not used to working and socializing with people of varying political stripes. Thing is, I'm not really down on Republicans per se, I just cannot understand how anyone could have ever supported Bush/Cheney, and I understand even less (if that's possible) support for McCain/Palin. On this note, I've been enjoying NY Times conservative commentator David Brooks' analysis of what's gone wrong with the GOP.

And don't get me started on She of the Taxpayer-Supported 100K Wardrobe. If you haven't yet seen Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey doing her rendition of Sarah Palin, go to the SNL site immediately and check it out!

Speaking of mixing it up with people with different viewpoints here in Wyoming - which I get the opportunity to do far more often than I did on the Left Coast - I had an illuminating talk the other day with a Pro-Life friend. Because we are already friends, we both approached the subject of abortion rights with respect for one another's perspective. She talked to me about her Catholic faith and how it informs her views on life being sacred. I talked about my own ethical perspective on abortion as a complex component of ensuring lives with positive futures. I was surprised and delighted that my friend and I ended up agreeing on key issues like focusing on preventing unplanned pregnancies as well as not restricting legal access to abortion. I learned a good lesson about listening and respect - it is these sorts of conversations that I think our country needs more of. I encourage you to take a chance and talk with someone you know thinks differently than you do about an important issue. See if you can discover any areas of agreement. Your incentive? You'll be well-prepared for the kind of unity and change President Obama will usher in next year!
.

Deconstructing Elaine

Planet Jackson Hole, Oct 8, 2008.

"Interruption during the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation..."
Well, yeah.
If a pregnancy ends, the body will respond accordingly and stop performing functions that go with pregnancy, such as changes in breast tissue, whether the interruption is spontaneous or induced.

"...which may result in a subsequent increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues."
Hmm. Really? I see the word "may" there as well as no quantification of the amount of risk.
According to Elaine's ad, this was found on the Planned Parenthood website on Sept. 5 1997. A quick search of PubMed finds some interesting results. Several articles concerning a link between abortion and breast cancer came out in the late 90s, a majority of which reported a link.
5 or so years later, a new round of articles came out, pointing out biases in previous papers and/or correcting poor experimental design. It is tricky to ensure that you don't bias your results, and multiple areas of concern must be addressed (are you comparing spontaneous abortions to induced abortions? women who have birthed to those that haven't? were these first pregnancies and abortions or were there completed pregnancies before the abortion? etc.)
I was intrigued to find that political bias is allowed to shine through your "journal." I hadn't encountered it so directly before, but my previous searches on this website were for work and didn't address this issue or similarly political issues. There's a pro-life journal (I see you and your bias, Issues in Law and Medicine) that regularly publishes papers and submits them to PubMed. Hope my taxes aren't funding that research!
Anyway, the latest papers (2007, 2008) seem to still have some mixed results on this issue. Those that found a strong link usually have authors that always find a strong link but most papers conclude there is very little to no increased risk of breast cancer linked to abortion.

Women in Politics

The best leader does not ask people to serve him, but the common end. The best leader has not followers, but men and women working with him.
- Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933)

As we prepare to watch this evening's vice presidential debate, let's reflect on the insight provided by an American social worker, consultant, and author of books on democracy, human relations, and management. She coined phrases like "conflict resolution" and advocated the principle of power "with" instead of power "over".