First, do no harm...

Upon successfully completing their basic training, and before they take on the years of residency that will allow them to practice their science, skills and craft in a medical specialty of their choice, medical students pledge to the principals of the Hippocratic Oath*.

In Ontario, the specific application of that pledge came under scrutiny in the last year with regard to women's reproductive health rights. In its modern form, the Oath is centred upon patient care. "... Above all, I must not play at God."

DJ! has been covering this issue from the outset, here, and here. 

Ontario’s new policy is unlikely to put the discussion to rest, said Carolyn McLeod, professor of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. Patients, particularly women, will undoubtedly find it troubling if a doctor refuses their request for birth control. Doctors who object to abortion might feel uncomfortable or complicit providing patients with a referral, but setting out a clearer policy could help connect patients to care providers who can best serve their needs, Prof. McLeod said.

“To receive abortion care from somebody who is morally opposed to abortion, I think, is harmful,” she said. “I think for patients’ sake, if for no one else’s, there should be the ability for the provider to give the referral.”

Ontario’s new policy has not yet been finalized and could still be changed, depending on what the college hears during the feedback period.

Marc Gabel, former president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, said doctors could face disciplinary action if they do not comply with the new guidelines and cannot use unfounded medical reasons to withhold birth control, abortions, vasectomies, blood transfusions or other treatments.

“What we’re trying to do, I think, is set a tone to remind physicians and the public we will act professionally in ensuring their access to care and their safety,” Dr. Gabel said.

From here.

This vivid graphic

accompanied anti-Choice Pro-lies groups spin on the 'debate'.  This is their response to regulatory bodies reminding anti-Choice physicians of their professional obligations, responsibilities and duties.

No matter how the fetushists and their acolytes spin their concerns, the basis for their shrieking is fundamentally religious. Yes, a professional can abstain from engaging in activities that compromise her/his beliefs. There are nonetheless job requirements that require that she/he assist a patient in finding a practitioner who will care for, and address the needs of that patient in a timely manner. 

If Gawd-worshippy physicians won't do this, let them move on to a medical specialty or a practice where they won't be tempted to play at being Gawd.

*In my research, I came across this interesting opinion piece about the Oath. There's a relevant point about abortion.

Birth Control: Deeply Moral or Inconsequential?

You can't have it both ways.

Either birth control is a highly moral issue on which physicians must be allowed to impose their "conscience" or it is a trivial matter with negligible consequences that can be easily dealt with.


"A doctor at a Calgary walk-in clinic is refusing to prescribe birth control due to her personal beliefs."

This caused a ruckus starting on Facebook and a comment was sought from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (bold mine).

Under the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta’s policy on Moral or Religious Beliefs Affecting Medical Care, doctors can refuse to provide medical services, but must ensure the patient is offered timely access to those services from another practitioner.

Trevor Theman, registrar with the CPSA, said the policy does not require Westglen to have a doctor on hand who can prescribe the pill.

He did not specify what “timely” meant, but said a delay in receiving a birth control prescription is “not likely going to disadvantage a patient in a serious way.”

“There’s a degree of urgency but it’s not like life or death today kind of urgency,” he said, adding most women should be seeing a family doctor about their sexual health needs.

“In an ideal world, women who need birth control or are seeking birth control will have a regular doctor and won’t just be dropping into a walk-in clinic to get a prescription for birth control pills.”

Yabbut, this is not an ideal world

Pam Krause, president and CEO of the Calgary Sexual Health Centre, said she’s aware of doctors who morally object to making abortion referrals, but refusing to prescribe birth control is virtually unheard of in Alberta.
...
Personal beliefs should not interfere with a professional responsibilities, she said, adding that the birth control pill is one of the most highly demanded prescriptions.
...
In fact, one in five Calgarians ­­— 200,000 people — is without a family doctor and rely on walk-in clinics to serve their medical needs.

So, which is it? Big fucking hairy deal? Or minor matter that non-irresponsible women should sort out on their own?

And that reminded me of the messed-up recall of the birth control pill AlySena in April 2013.

“Although this recall is currently a Type 2 recall and does not require pharmacy to contact patients, due to the potential seriousness of the recall, and in an abundance of caution, care and concern for our customers, London Drugs has chosen to be proactive in advising our customers and patients of the recall,” the blog post read, linking off to the urgent notice.

Class 1 situations require “reasonable probability” that the use of the drug will cause serious health consequences or death. Class 2 could lead to “temporary adverse health consequences,” Health Canada explains on its website.

The maker, Apotex, seemed to consider the issue serious. Health Canada not so much.

The lot was identified as LF01899A and distributor Apotex issued a voluntary recall to wholesalers and retailers on April 3. The affected packages were removed from store shelves on April 5, when most pharmacies received the recall.

But patients were not required to be contacted until April 8, when Health Canada upgraded the recall to Type I, the most serious level.

Health Canada says this type of recall is reserved for “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

Again, an unintended pregnancy seems to strike some in the medical community as a mere "temporary adverse health consequence." Much like the fetus fetishists who insist pregnancy is hardly any bother at all. And women who reject it are selfish bitches.

Gawd, we women and our reproductive systems require a lot of policing, don't we?

Here's a radical idea: Why don't we leave such decisions entirely up to the person most affected? And leave the damned panty-sniffing gatekeepers -- whether MDs, pharmacists, or Health Canada -- out of it.

Let us know if a product is safe and effective, then shut the fuck up.

Reminder: In Ontario, a similar kerfuffle over the "morality" of birth control prescriptions drove the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to seek public input. Go have your say. The process is open until August 5.

Should Ontario MDs Be Allowed to Refuse Basic Healthcare to Women?

There was a spot of bother a few months back when "at least three" Ottawa family doctors refused to prescribe birth control because such an act would violate their Gord-given right to control women.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, feeling the heat, has decided to revisit its policy on human rights and is inviting public input.

The site says the questionnaire will take only a few minutes and it does, but first you should read the existing policy.

It's not all bad but does provide some pretty wide wiggle-room for anti-choicers.

After citing some "general principles" from the Ontario Human Rights Codes, all good in my opinion, the policy offers this (bold mine).

College Expectations
The College has its own expectations for physicians who limit their practice, refuse to accept individuals as patients, or end a physician-patient relationship on the basis of moral or religious belief.

In these situations, the College expects physicians to do the following:

Communicate clearly and promptly about any treatments or procedures the physician chooses not to provide because of his or her moral or religious beliefs.

Provide information about all clinical options that may be available or appropriate based on the patient’s clinical needs or concerns. Physicians must not withhold information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

Treat patients or individuals who wish to become patients with respect when they are seeking or requiring the treatment or procedure. This means that physicians should not express personal judgments about the beliefs, lifestyle, identity or characteristics of a patient or an individual who wishes to become a patient. This also means that physicians should not promote their own religious beliefs when interacting with patients, nor should they seek to convert existing patients or individuals who wish to become patients to their own religion.

Advise patients or individuals who wish to become patients that they can see another physician with whom they can discuss their situation and in some circumstances, help the patient or individual make arrangements to do so.

OK, what's with the namby-pambyness? "In some circumstances"? Should be "in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES refer a patient to a practitioner whom the referrer KNOWS will provide the needed service." They can't get away with waving their hands and saying, "See someone else."

The situation is particularly problematic in under-served areas. What if there is only one OB-GYN for a large area and he or she refuses to prescribe contraception (or some forms of it), insert IUDs, or perform abortions?

What if one or more of a small number of GPs for a region refuses to prescribe birth control or refer for abortion?

How far do they expect women to travel to get basic everyday healthcare?

I don't know how it could be implemented, but the special circumstances of under-served areas require some creative thinking on the part of the College.

In any event, referrals must be mandatory. No exceptions.

We'll say it again. Women's rights and women's healthcare are NOT fucking conscience issues.


Public Service Section
Here's the survey. If you have a few minutes and care about this issue, please give them your thoughts.

Also on its invitation page is a quick poll, one question.

Do you think a physician should be allowed to refuse to provide a patient with a treatment or procedure because it conflicts with the physician’s religious or moral beliefs?

Yes or No.

Currently there are 1090 votes, 984 of which say religion trumps patient care. That's 90%. And that's hard to believe.

LifeShite is directing readers to the survey and quick poll. Gee, do you think they're freeping it?

Since we know most casual, i.e. non-frothing, fetus fetishists have the attention span of a gnat, that's probably as much as they're going to do.

So, certainly answer the one quick question, but if you can take the time, please do the survey.

ADDED: There's also a discussion board. Some interesting stuff there, but lots of whinging from the usual suspects.

Bang for the Buck

A few days ago, there was this story about fetus fetishists being "upset" over funding of morning-after pills under the Maternal Health Initiative. (Note to editors: the word "stupid" is only one character more than "upset" and way more accurate.)

Anti-abortion activists say the federal government has broken its pledge to leave abortion out of its maternal health initiative, just as Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrapped up an international summit Friday with a fresh commitment of $3.5 billion to improve maternal health around the world.

The issue is the morning-after pill, a.k.a. emergency contraception. The morans are still claiming that it is an "abortifacient." It is not. There is no scientific controversy about this.

The morans are simply lying. Again.

But buried in the same article was this bit of info.

International Planned Parenthood notes that of $2.28 billion spent as of March 2014, only 0.55 per cent went to family planning, despite the fact that 222 million women around the world lack access to “a range of modern methods of contraception.”

Back in 2010, when Motherhood Steve was rolling out his plans for the Women of the World, there was a MASSIVE brouhaha over whether any family planning would be funded atall atall. Leave aside abortion. Motherhood Steve wouldn't touch condoms, b.c. pills, diaphragms, implants, etc. etc.

That idiocy blew up real good on him and Canada seemed to relent.

Now we find out that a measly 0.55% is being spent on family planning.

Let's consult the Steve's good buddies at the Gates Foundation, shall we?

However, more than 220 million women in developing countries who don’t want to get pregnant lack access to contraceptives and voluntary family planning information and services. Less than 20 percent of women in Sub-Saharan Africa and barely one-third of women in South Asia use modern contraceptives. In 2012, an estimated 80 million women in developing countries had an unintended pregnancy; of those women, at least one in four resorted to an unsafe abortion.

So, as always, we come back to square one of Abortion Reduction Bingo. Hate abortion? Support contraception. Support all kinds of contraception. Support as much contraception as possible.

And you don't have to hate abortion to support contraception.

Again, from the Gates Foundation, the benefits are huge.

Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.

If my math (and calculator) are correct, 0.55% of $2.28 billion is just about $12.5 million (or about six junkets to the Middle East for Motherhood Steve and his pals and lackeys).

But multiply that by 6 and we get $75 million to spend on other health needs, water, sanitation etc.

OK, stick with me here. What if we spent a whopping 1% on family planning? Or, hey, let's go crazy and spend 2% on family planning!

That would be amount to $300 million in savings to be put toward other health needs in desperately strapped countries.

That strikes me -- admittedly NOT a trained economist -- as pretty damned good bang for the buck.

Butbutbut, the base would be "upset."

So, screw you, poor women. Who the hell do you think you are, wanting to decide when and how many pregnancies you want or can handle?

Canadian fetus fetishists will decide that for you.

Get Used to It

This is what the aftermath of self-abortion looks like in Texas.

Authorities are awaiting the results of an autopsy before deciding whether to pursue criminal charges against a Houston woman who apparently induced an abortion and then discarded the 5-month-old fetus in a relative's trash can.

Bleeding heavily after delivery, the 29-year-old woman showed up at Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital on Wednesday and told an emergency-room nurse what had happened. The nurse called police, who dispatched officers to recover the fetus, which the woman said she had wrapped in a blanket.

The woman, whose name was not released, told police she had taken unidentified pills on Tuesday to prompt the abortion because she could not afford to care for a child.

They don't need an autopsy to determine gestational development. Texas has a fetal homicide law that applies to 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth'.

This is LifeShite NOT being ironic.

Legalizing abortion was supposed to rid the country of these kinds of self-abortion cases, but clearly that is not the case.

Accessible, affordable, legal abortion would, but the Fetus Lobby® has ringed the procedure with so many restrictions and barriers, including two mandatory visits, mandatory ultrasound, 24-hour waiting period, bullshit lecture, parental consent, yadayada, that 'accessible' isn't the word that springs to mind to describe abortion in Texas.

Plus, there's the small matter of paying for it.

Texas has banned using state money for abortion for a long time and is now cutting funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning.

Texas can cut off funding to Planned Parenthood's family planning programs for poor women, a state judge ruled Monday, requiring thousands to find new state-approved doctors for their annual exams, cancer screenings and birth control.

And how about this nifty bit of police-state thought-control?

Judge Gary Harger said that Texas may exclude otherwise qualified doctors and clinics from receiving state funding if they advocate for abortion rights.

Can't access affordable birth control, can't access abortion, can't pay for abortion?

You are on your fucking own in these Individual Responsibility States of America. But don't get caught taking care of business or they'll throw your ass in jail.

@kailijoy And what a creepy headline.Might as well get used to these. How sad.

— Soraya Chemaly (@schemaly) February 14, 2013

Anti-Choice Tag Team

Thar's gold in them thar uteri.

Keeping the abortion debate alive is very lucrative for a number of anti-choice entrepreneurs. Churches and 'right to life' groups are only the most obvious.

There are the born-again anti-choicers like Abby Johnson, who once were blind but now they see.

There are the 'Conceived in Rape' mongers, like Rebecca Kiessling.

And now, a new-to-me brand of huckster -- the faux women's rights defenders.

Via Kady O'Malley, we learn that sex-selective abortion promoter opponent Mark Warawa had a bunfest planned for Thursday, aka The Day Senator Brawler Brazeau Blew up the Internet.

Meanwhile, outside the Chamber, Conservative MP Mark Warawa will kick off his campaign to build support for his bid to condemn sex-selective terminations -- which, it's worth noting, is due to be added to the private members' priority list in early March -- by arranging a press conference for Reggie Littlejohn, who is, according to the advisory, a "leading expert" on China's One Child Policy.

According to the notice, Littlejohn will 'call on Canadian leaders to condemn ... gendercide," which is, of course, precisely what the Warawa motion would do.

Tonda MacCharles tweeted a bit about it, so it did occur, but it got no other coverage.

Reggie Littlejohn hath an organization called Women's Rights Without Frontiers, which claims to be a coalition dedicated to SHRIEEKING about forced abortion in China.

Under 'Team', Littlejohn herself is listed along with a board of directors, including couple of organizations like this one, concerned with 'Serving persecuted Christians worldwide'.

OK then, forced abortion and persecuted Christians go together well, I guess.

But is Littlejohn anti-choice? You betcha. She was recently awarded the 'National Pro-Life Recognition Award at the National Prayer Service preceding the Annual March for Life'.

From her acceptance speech:

My question is, where is the pro-choice movement on this?  Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, no one supports forced abortion because it is not a choice.  Why isn’t the pro-choice movement condemning forced abortion in China? Why aren’t they standing against forced sterilization? Why aren’t they crying out against the selective abortion of baby girls? Right now, as I am speaking to you, women are being dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables, and forcibly aborted and sterilized. I challenge these organizations to take a stand.

Woo. That glurge oughta open some wallets, eh?

Wait. There's more.

Also on Thursday, I ran across a press release announcing that someone named Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute would address some Kansas (where else?) legislators on sex-selective abortion.

PRI describes itself as: 'an international non-profit which works to end coercive population control, and fight the myth of overpopulation which fuels it.'

Mosher seems to do quite nicely out of the venture.

The President of PRI, Steven W. Mosher, received in 2005 the equivalent of ~13% of the entire expenses budget for the organization and roughly equivalent to the entire administrative expenses budget for 2005.

And he's 'controversial'.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied the George W. Bush administration to withhold $34 to $40 million per year for seven years from the U.N. Population Fund, the largest international donor to family planning programs.

So, Mosher works to withhold contraception while Littlejohn squeals about the results. Works good.

I'm betting the next time Warawa organizes a bunfest on M408, Mosher will be the guest.

Another Vatican Taliban FAIL

Finally. After more than fourteen fucking years, the Philippines is on the road to the 20th century in reproductive health care.

Birth control is legal and widely available in the Philippines for people who can afford it, particularly those living in cities. But condoms, birth control pills and other methods can be difficult to find in rural areas, and their cost puts them out of reach for the very poor.
. . .
The measure passed on Monday would stock government health centers, including those in remote rural areas, with free or subsidized birth control options for the poor. It would require sex education in public schools and family-planning training for community health officers. The Philippines has one of the highest birthrates in Asia, but backers of the legislation, including the Aquino administration, have said repeatedly that its purpose is not to limit to population growth. Rather, they say, the bill is meant to offer poor families the same reproductive health options that wealthier people in the country enjoy.

But the Catlick church is still lying about the bill and vowing to fight on.

In the name of economic development and safe sex, the new law would require couples to have no more than two children. It would also commit the state to promoting contraceptives, abortion pills and voluntary sterilisation. In his message to Filipino Catholics, Card Tagle described as 'tragic' this morning's vote. Still, calling for unity, he said the Church would not concede defeat in its fight against the bill.

Previous DJ! blogposts about the struggle for sanity in the Philippines here and here.

With recent events in Uruguay, Northern Ireland, and Ireland, the Vatican Taliban is getting its ass kicked all over the world.

GOOD.

More on Coercive Contraception

More details on genocide by coercive contraception.

The documentary on the situation of Ethiopian women in Israel aired last week and is causing a bit of a stir.

Israeli and Jewish aid officials are denying an Israeli TV report alleging that Ethiopian immigrant women have been coerced into taking contraceptive shots.

The aid group is the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC).

In the report, a woman identified as S. said she was told at the Jewish aid compound in Gondar, Ethiopia, “If you don’t get the shot, we won’t give you a ticket.”

She recalled, “I didn’t want to take it. They wanted me to take it. But I didn’t know it was a contraceptive,” she said. “I thought it was an immunization.”
. . .
The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which runs the health clinics in Ethiopia for prospective immigrants to Israel, says it offers contraception among its array of services but that it is purely voluntary.

It seems that JDC also offers medical care once immigrants arrive in Israel, providing another er, avenue of persuasion.

Several women interviewed by [documentary maker Gal] Gabbai said that they were told at the transit camps in Ethiopia that they had to receive the shots if they wanted to immigrate to Israel and continue receiving medical treatment from the JDC.

But lest Israeli officials try to lay all blame on the aid group, there's this.

Israeli authorities denied all of the allegations. However, Gabbai revealed an official letter that she uncovered from the Health Ministry to Dr. Rick Hodes, the director of the JDC Medical Programs in Ethiopia. The letter praised the doctor’s work, noting that whereas fewer than 5% of Ethiopians use any form of birth control, Hodes achieved a rate of 30% among the patients he treated.

I'll just let that lie there.

I wonder where the fetus fetishists are on this. Or the Israel-can-do-no-wrong gang. Or both, rolled into one. Co-blogger deBeauxOs had a suggestion.

Come on down, Babs! The logical gymnastics required to defend both Israel and the reproductive rights of all Israelis would be breathtaking, yes?

In Israel: Stringent Contraception for *Some*

A story that broke nearly three years ago is back in the news in Israel.

The birthrate among Ethiopians in Israel decreased by a dramatic 50% in the last decade, and Israeli journalist Gal Gabai wanted to know why. She investigated the issue for “Vacuum,” her documentary series on Israeli Educational Television, and she discovered some things that left her very uncomfortable — and will surely leave others equally so.

Let's go back to January 2010.

Health officials in Israel are subjecting many female Ethiopian immigrants to a controversial long-term birth control drug in what Israeli women's groups allege is a racist policy to reduce the number of black babies. The contraceptive, known as Depo Provera, which is given by injection every three months, is considered by many doctors as a birth control method of last resort because of problems treating its side effects.

Look how it came to light.

Women's groups were alerted to the widespread use of Depo Provera in the Ethiopian community in 2008 when Rachel Mangoli, who runs a day care centre for 120 Ethiopian children in Bnei Braq, a suburb of Tel Aviv, observed that she had received only one new child in the previous three years. "I started to think about how strange the situation was after I had to send back donated baby clothes because there was no one in the community to give them to," she said.

She approached a local health clinic serving the 55 Ethiopian families in Bnei Braq and was told by the clinic manager that they had been instructed to administer Depo Provera injections to the women of child-bearing age, though he refused to say who had issued the order. Ms Mangoli, who interviewed the women, said: "They had not been told about alternative forms of contraception or about the side effects or given medical follow-ups." The women complained of a wide range of side effects associated with the drug, including headaches, abdominal pain, fatigue, nausea, loss of libido and general burning sensations.

Depo Provera is controversial? Boy howdy. It causes, among other nastinesses, osteoporosis.

On the plus side, one doesn't need to remember to take it.

Back to the new documentary:

Some of the women interviewed said they were told that birth control pills were not suitable for them because they were not capable of remembering to take them daily. Video shot with a hidden camera during an Israeli health clinic visit by an Ethiopian immigrant, during which she gets a Depo-Provera shot, indeed documents healthcare providers expressing this exact opinion of Ethiopian women.

From the 2010 story:

Figures show that 57 per cent of Depo Provera users in Israel are Ethiopian, even though the community accounts for less than two per cent of the total population. About 90,000 Ethiopians have been brought to Israel under the Law of Return since the 1980s, but their Jewishness has subsequently been questioned by some rabbis and is doubted by many ordinary Israelis.

That percentage is kind of amazing, isn't it?

Health care providers were told that injectable b.c. was preferred by Ethiopian women, but a survey in Ethiopia reported that of women using b.c. there, 75% of them used oral contraception. The Pill.

Moreover, isn't Israel worried about population decline? Yes, it is.

This policy appears to conflict with the stated goals of the country's Demography Council, a group of experts charged with devising ways to persuade Jewish women to have more babies. The council was established in response to what is widely seen in Israel as a "demographic war" with Palestinians, or the need to maintain a Jewish majority in the region despite high Palestinian birth rates. In a speech marking the council's reconvening in 2002, the then social welfare minister, Shlomo Benizri, referred to "the beauty of the Jewish family that is blessed with many children".

We've blogged about Israeli pro-natalism and its desire to encourage some marriages over others.

And, it seems, there is some history to this sort of thing. From the 2010 article again:

Yali Hashash, a researcher at Haifa University, said attempts to restrict Ethiopian women's fertility echoed practices used against Jewish women who immigrated to Israel from such Arab countries as Iraq, Yemen and Morocco in the state's early years, in the 1950s and 1960s. Many, she said, had been encouraged to fit IUDs when the device was still experimental because Israel's leading gynecologists regarded Arab Jews as "primitive" and incapable of acting "responsibly".

What an ugly stew. Vulnerable women, not particularly welcomed, pressured into a dangerous regime of stringent birth control that contradicts stated population policy.

One's gotta ask: why?

Not very many credible answers, are there?

And this is Canada's great friend. You know, the one we'd apparently go to war over.

“Canada and Israel share a bond of friendship and are allies in the democratic family of countries,” International Development Minister Julian Fantino said in a statement released by Israel’s embassy in Ottawa.

Wonder if Canada also supports coerced contraception for *some* Israelis?

h/t myaguarnieri

From the Department of Duh

The US National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has released an earth-shattering survey.

Three-quarters (75%) of adults think policymakers who are opposed to abortion should be strong supporters of birth control, according to a new survey commissioned by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Regarding sex education, more than 6 in 10 adults (65%) believe federally funded programs designed to prevent teen pregnancy should provide teens with information about both postponing sex and using birth control rather than either/or.In addition, most adults believe that taxpayer supported programs should focus on results rather than ideology -- 72% say that federal funds should primarily support those programs that have been proven to change behavior related to teen pregnancy. Nearly 7 in 10 (68%) adults surveyed believe their community needs more efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.

In other words, three-quarters of USians think the Rapepublicans, now featuring VP candidate, Paul ('Rape is a Method of Conception') Ryan, are totally out to fucking lunch.

And how do we here in the lawless north compare?

American teenagers are still getting pregnant at a higher rate than in other developed countries, including Canada. While the U.S. celebrates the decline to 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 girls 15 to 19 years old in 2008, the latest Canadian statistic shows that in 2005, only 24.6 out of 1,000 girls aged 14 to 19 became pregnant.

A country with no abortion law, widespread comprehensive sex education, and a saner attitude towards sex in general has fewer than half the teen pregnancies of our christotaliban neighbour?

Huh.

Teen pregnancy rate map source.

The Giantess Has Awoken

It is very gratifying to see US women politicians pushing back against insane new abortion and contraception laws with satirical proposals of their own. See here and here.

But now the giantess has awoken and has taken to social media to vent her ire mockery.

Some are calling it #ProjectTMI and, like our Canadian #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything, women are schooling CONmen about the yuckier bits of being female and/or asking sarcastic questions of 'expert' male politicians.

US women are using the hashtag #mybodyyourchoice, which I think is brilliant, playing off the old feminist slogan while playing into what CONmen believe is their Right.

As with any of these organic thingies, it's going off in all directions. Some are using governors' and legislators' Facebook pages to ask ingenuous questions like: 'When I have a period, it's red, not blue like on tv ads. Is something wrong with me?' (Actually, I think that one came from a Canadian contributing to #TellAntiChoiceMPs.) Stuff like that.

An off-shoot I really like is Government Free VJJ with the tag line:
'If we knit you a uterus, will you stay out of ours?'

It has knitting and crocheting instructions for items like the Snatchel, Womb (fave word of TheoCons), Felt Cervix, Happy Uterus, and the Knitted Vulva, with glow-in-the-dark clitoris 'so she's always easy to find'.






The site includes suggestions on what to do with the resulting art. They're working on arranging hand-delivery to congressional offices.

These measures are desperately needed as we are discovering just how hilariously sadly ignorant the men who want to regulate our lady parts are about said bits.

Rachel Maddow makes hay with the fact that ReThugs actually don't know what's in their anti-abortion legislation.

The War on Women is raging now in the US. Here in Canada it is just warming up with Stephen Woodworth's private member's motion yet to receive its first hour of House debate in April.

But it is certainly ON.

Our evul goal here at DJ! is to have made the subject so toxic, so risible, so ridiculous to even consider in the 21st century, that only the hardest of hardcore Fetus Fetishists will have the gall to rise in the House and pretend to seriously discuss it.

To end on a hopeful/wishful note: Do we in Canada have a female pol with ovaries enough to make and hold a sign like State Senator McIntyre? Any nominations?

Contraception and the Culture War

Since Obama made his contraception rule 'adjustment' on Friday, there have been further developments.

The wannabe xian martyrs worked themselves into a righteous snit shrieking about 'war on religion', 'war on religious freedom', yadayada. Others called Obama a dictator. There were many raucous rounds of 'pregnancy isn't a disease, birth control isn't health care'. People flinging the word 'entitlement' around. Men -- presumably, some at least not 100% celibate or 100% gay -- were whining about fairness. And, of course, that old reliable saw 'Pay for your slutty sex yourselves, you slutty sluts!'

Our own Max Pointy couldn't resist. (Check the comments for a taste of the idiocy.)

In other words, the usual reaction to anything having to do with sex, women, and/or pregnancy and religion.

And then the Republicans fell into Obama's cunning trap. They doubled down in their opposition to accessible contraception.

Not only did they go there, they are now supporting an amendment that would allow women's employers to decide what kind of health care coverage they get.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is putting his weight behind Sen. Roy Blunt's amendment to the Affordable Care Act that would allow employers to deny coverage not just for contraception but for any treatment or any condition they claimed was contrary to their religious beliefs.

So, we go from a bunch of old guys in dresses, to a bunch of old guys in Washington, to one's own employer telling women what they can and can't do with their lady-parts.

Well-played, ReThugs! We now have you out in the open as anti-sex, anti-women, anti-healthcare, pro-employers' and -oldguysindresses' religious rights.

On a subject so uncontroversial even the political deadheads have woken up.

Like me, Andrew Sullivan is chortling.

As for politics, the Republican fusion with the Vatican is also, it seems to me, a terrible mistake for the party. Obama’s greatest skill is in getting his opponents to overreach and self-destruct. And this issue could not be more tailor-made to benefit the candidate with real potential pull with far-right-wing Catholics and evangelicals: Santorum. If the GOP really makes this issue central in the next month or so, Santorum (whose campaign claims to have raised $2.2 million in the two days following his victories last week) is by far the likeliest candidate to benefit. It could finally unite the Christian fundamentalist right behind him—especially since Romneycare contained exactly the same provisions on contraception that Obamacare did before last week’s compromise was announced. That’s right: Romneycare can now accurately be portrayed as falling to the left of Obamacare on the contraception issue. This could very well be the issue that finally galvanizes the religious right, especially in the South. Imagine how Santorum could use that on Super Tuesday. In fact, it could be the issue that wins him the nomination. And do you really think that would hurt Obama in the fall?

Um. I rather think not, Andrew.

And this morning, more fun stuff! Two of the five female Republican senators have broken with their party and announced that they are in favour of Obama's contraception rule.

Andrew thinks that this could be the end of the so-called culture wars. That may be waaay too much to hope for, but I think it's going to signal the end of the ReThuglican party in its current virulently misogynistic form.

Antichoice resurrects lies about Margaret Sanger.

Over four years ago, I wrote and posted this at Birth Pangs. It's still relevant.

Margaret Sanger: Saint or Fallen Angel?

AUGUST 15, 2007 BY DEBEAUXOS

As mentioned in a previous entry, Reverend Carlton Veazy‘s pictures can be found in the company of altered and faked photographs of Margaret Sanger, on certain websites. It appears that white-supremacy, fetus-fetishizing and/or fundamental religious websites incite their followers to express hatred towards specific targets: Reverend Veazy, Sanger, Archbishop Tutu, Maya Angelou and others.
Margaret Sanger is already dead, so that would make her physically immune to the violence and murderous hypocrisy of anti-choice terrorists. Nonetheless, they continue to slander and defame her legacy, and the competition to fabricate the most odious claims is ferocious.

If one were to borrow a tactic from the habitual sniveling and whining that transpires at the abortion-criminalizing blogs, the fetus-fetishizing message boards and the assorted hate-based sites whose members project themselves as modern martyrs to a holy cause, one could imagine that Margaret Sanger deserves to be canonized and elevated to sainthood, if her worthiness is measured against the egregious attacks upon her work.

An impressive number of fact-based, credible and authoritative accounts of Sanger’s accomplishments exist. Archival material is considerable, including a letter from Helen Keller which says, in part:

What a glow of gratification was kindled in my heart when Polly read last week the wonderful news that you had founded the Planned Parenthood Association in India! Not only have I continued to follow your work with loving admiration and expect ever greater results from your beneficence, I have also known of Nehru’s statesmanlike interest in birth-control, and now I behold you and him and Lady Rama Rau working together — a triple Hercules — for the deliverance of a land long cursed with excess of population. I cannot imagine anything more blessed happening on earth.

Spurious claims about Sanger’s work appear on the forementioned hate-mongers’ websites. In the spirit of fairness, equal consideration should be awarded to what critics claim about Mother Teresa and her work, since some imagine her to be a saint.

For example, Mother Teresa supported Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s suspension of civil liberties in India in 1975, and she accepted the Légion d’honneur in 1981 from Jean-Claude Duvalier, the homicidal right-wing dictator of Haiti. She received considerable donations from Charles Keating – who stole over $252 million US in a Savings & Loan scandal, and from Robert Maxwell – who embezzled £450 million UK from his employees’ pension funds. It was disclosed that she interceded on Maxwell’s behalf, wrote to the court to urge leniency and refused to return the money when requested by legal authorities, for reimbursing those who had been swindled.

Dr. Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta and described the care the patients received as “haphazard”. He observed that Mother Teresa’s order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who might have otherwise survived, were at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. Former employees claim that Mother Teresa refused to authorize the purchase of medical equipment, and that donated money was transferred to the Vatican Bank instead. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to health care in her facilities. And yet, that hasn’t stopped the Vatican from promoting the canonization of Mother Teresa.

Margaret Sanger’s detractors have attempted to draw a fallacious connection between her statements on negative eugenics in the 1920′s US and the barbaric genocidal policies of Third Reich Germany. Thus it might be astute to note that Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI was a member of the Hitler Youth, in the interest of maintaining balance and perspective.

Those who might object to Margaret Sanger’s candidacy for sainthood should consider the question of whether allegations about her work are contrived, or as legitimate as the many concerns raised about Mother Teresa’s actions.

What distinguishes the sacredness of Margaret Sanger’s work from that of Mother Teresa’s mission is likely to be their respective motivations. Sanger stated:

Woman must have her freedom, the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she will be a mother and how many children she will have. … Regardless of what man’s attitude may be, that problem is hers — and before it can be his, it is hers alone. She goes through the vale of death alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it.

Loyal supporters of Mother Teresa affirm that missionary activity was the central part of her calling, and that she perceived evangelisation as her ultimate objective; providing shelter and health care were merely instruments that she exploited to achieve her stated goal of converting impoverished and vulnerable people of Hindu faith to Catholicism.

Margaret Sanger left behind a powerful legacy that is carried on by her grandson, Alexander Sanger. The photograph of his grandmother and Avabai Wadia is taken from his website.

Disclaimer: Of course we know that Margaret Sanger was an atheist and a humanitarian. She would not want to be canonized, though she was demonized enough during her lifetime by Conservative Christians who tried to discredit her work. She persevered, inspired by the memory of her own mother who died from the cumulated physical damage suffered during multiple pregnancies and the birthing of eleven children.

War on Women: Next Phase

Our Canadian -- and non-Merkin, for that matter -- readers may not be aware of the latest misogynist insanity roiling in the Excited States.

Having crapped all over abortion rights, the Thugs are taking the next logical step. They are going after birth control.

Last year was not a great one for abortion rights. First, congressional Republicans attempted to deny statutory rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions (twice). Then GOP-dominated state legislatures pushed record numbers of laws limiting abortion rights, including proposals that could have treated killing abortion providers as "justifiable homicide."

Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.

"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."

The current issue is whether employers, including Catlick universities and hospitals, must include prescription birth control in employees' health insurance without a co-pay. It's a matter of religious freedom, you see, despite the fact that 99% of Merkin women -- and 98% of Merkin Catlick women use contraception.

Amanda Marcotte nails it:

No matter what, this fight needs to be rubbed in anti-choice noses. They revealed that they're anti-sex, not pro-fetus. #neverforget

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) February 10, 2012

Make no mistake, Canadians, if we give the misogynists a centimetre on abortion rights, this is the metre they'll claim next.

UPDATE: Obama did not cave to foot-stamping bishops and misogynist thugs. White House officials are not calling this a compromise, but rather an 'accommodation'.

Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage. Administration officials stated that a woman's insurance company "will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it."

Immediate reaction on Twitter: relief, disappointment that treating contraception separately is stigmatizing, and in this tweep's view well-played by Obama.

Basically, Obama got the GOP to come out hard against birth control, then yanked the rug out from under them.

As commenter k'in says: PUNKED!

By the way, the average Merkin woman will save about $600 a year under this plan.

Two Population Problems. . .

. . . same solution. Heed the patriarchal church and control the women.

In Russia.

MOSCOW -- Russia's Orthodox Church teamed with Conservative parliamentarians Monday to push legislation that would radically restrict abortions in a nation struggling to cope with one of the world's lowest birthrates.

The legislation would ban free abortions at government-run clinics and prohibit the sale of the morning-after pill without a prescription, said Yelena Mizulina, who heads a parliamentary committee on families, women and children.

She added that abortion for a married woman would also require the permission of her spouse, while teenage girls would need their parents' consent. If the legislation is passed, a week's waiting period would also be introduced so women could consider their decision to terminate their pregnancy, Mizulina said.

In the Philippines.

MANILA, Philippines - The Senate is expected to start plenary debates on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill next week.

Senate committee on health and demography chair Pia Cayetano said that she is now fine-tuning the committee report and would have it ready for debates by next week.

A separate bill on the protection of the unborn child filed by a number of senators, including those who are against the RH bill, is seen by some quarters as counterweight to the controversial measure.

The committee on youth, women and family relations, also chaired by Cayetano, conducted a public hearing on the protection of the unborn child bill yesterday.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, a staunch critic of the RH bill and one of the authors of the protection of the unborn child bill, argued that the RH bill should remove the provisions on the promotion and distribution of contraceptives by the government.

“It was revealed that a significant number of these contraceptives are abortifacients,” Sotto said after yesterday’s hearing.

He noted that even the so-called morning after pill, considered by many as abortifacient, may be purchased over-the-counter in spite of the claims of authorities to the contrary. Sotto reiterated that abortion is unconstitutional.

The Philippines has a serious population and poverty problem.

With an estimated population of about 94 million people, the Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country. An additional 11 million Filipinos live overseas.

The government has been wrangling over a reproductive health policy for nine years. But the Catlick Church has been stomping its tiny feet and nixing all attempts at rationality. It is opposed to all contraception, despite the people's overwhelming support for it.

But, hey, that's what patriarchal religion does.

Abortion Funding Push-Back

As we sane people recover from the annual March for Feti bunfest, let's look south where fetus fetishists are revelling in a frenzied war on women. In April alone, 33 anti-abortion bills were enacted in various states.

Thirty-three. In one month. More than one per day.

Of course, the biggest (so far) battle lost to the zygote zealots was the Democrats' shameful abandonment of women in what they straightfacedly call healthcare reform in 2009. Abortion would not be funded. No way, no how, not in any shape or form. (Not that the virulent nutjobs actually believe that.)

See, that's the Wedge. Funding.

The terrific facty-sciency organization, Guttmacher Institute, is tracking the progress of various reproductive rights bills in the US on a monthly and state-by-state basis. It makes for dreary reading.

Again, in April alone, there were 23 pending or passed bills on abortion funding in state legislatures.

And while Stephen the Bald-Faced Liar (income trusts, anyone?) swears he will not open the abortion so-called debate, the same tactic can be deployed here. A fetish fetishist said so right out loud.

And Georges Buscemi, president of Campagne Québec-Vie, said abortion services can be scaled back without a new law making the procedure illegal.

For instance, federal funding to family-planning organizations "can be diverted to other groups that are more open to life."

"There could be some behind-the-scenes work done," Buscemi said at news conference.

"Different things, subsidies to different organizations, policies on health, policies on education. There are a lot of things that can be done behind the scenes to prepare for the future."

Here's why the Wedge can work here too.

When Canadian fetus fetishists do their polling, they consistently get results that must depress the hell out of them. Canada remains stoutly pro-choice.

But the answer that comes closest to what they want to hear is on the funding issue. In a 2008 poll, responders were most closely split on taxpayer funding: 49% in favour, 47% opposed.

I went looking for more recent polls and found three from Angus Reid summed up here.

Polls from July 2009 to July 2010 showed a stable level of support for funding for all abortions no matter the reason (43-44%).

Similarly, support for funding only in the event of medical emergencies has slipped from 44% in 2009 to 39% in 2010.

But here's a potentially worrying trend. Those who believe the healthcare system should fund NO abortions has grown from 4% in 2009, to 7% in January 2010, to 10% in July 1010.

So, when the Austerity Boogeyman is rolled out in all its horrifying opportunism menace, who's going to be 'behind the scenes' whispering about a good place to start in healthcare cost-control?

Yes, yes, I know. As was repeatedly pointed out to me on Twitter during the bunfest, healthcare is PROVINCIAL, not federal. But transfer payments come from the feds.

We need to start pushing back on this one.

Here's an interesting idea.

A group in BC, Options for Sexual Health (Opt), is lobbying the province to provide free contraception. It is making the usual arguments about sex ed, STDs, responsibility, yadayada, but what I find potentially useful is the economic argument.

According to Opt medical director Dr. Unjalli Malhotra, Opt’s proposal would save the Province $95 million in health and social expenditures, freeing up health-care resources and services for other needs. Figures are based on international experience and Health Canada data on the impact of sexual health programming collected over 20 years.

“The economic aspects are probably one of the most important as there is an up-front cost to a program like this,” said Malhotra, who is also a clinical associate professor at University of British Columbia.

“But when we look at other programs globally such as the U.K., Sweden, in fact most Scandinavian countries and many European nations, we’ve actually found that for every dollar spent on contraception, anywhere from $2 to $11 has actually been saved to the system.”

Malhotra explained the costs of having 300,000 unplanned pregnancies per year across the country.

“When we look at the number of unplanned pregnancies in a country like Canada, we find that there are approximately 300,000 or more per year and approximately 100,000 of those lead to abortion,” she said.

“Contraception is about $100 a year per woman, which is $3,000 for 30 years.”

She said that for one unplanned pregnancy, the cost of a spontaneous vaginal delivery with no complications is actually the same as giving someone contraception for 33 years.

“The cost of one abortion is equivalent to the cost of two years of contraception and the cost of one no-complications delivery is equivalent to 33 years of contraception,” she said.

Of course, free contraception for all is not going to eliminate the need for abortion services. But stated like that -- 1 abortion = 2 years of contraception -- it could be an important talking point.

Here's our reasonable response to 'reopening the debate' on the funding issue: 'Fine, we'll talk about funding only if free contraception for all is also on the table.'

Imagine the SHRIEEEEKING.

Fun, innit?

When the Christian Taliban loses Ireland

. . . you know it's in beeeeg trouble.

First, this:

Ireland's longstanding abortion legislation could change due to a ruling expected to be handed down by the European Court of Human Rights next week.

When two Irish women and one Lithuanian woman who were forced to travel to Britain for abortions they took the action against the Irish state five years ago.

Yay, EU!

But, but, but. . . (emphasis mine)

When Pope Benedict XVI departed from previous Church doctrine two weeks ago by saying condoms are acceptable in certain cases, Catholic-dominated Ireland was so distracted by news it might need an economic bailout that it barely noticed. There was a time, though, when a Vatican softening on the contraception veto would have made the top headline in Irish newspapers. A time when, in Ireland, things like condoms, pills and diaphragms were not just taboo, but outright illegal, according to a 1935 law forbidding the import and sale of contraceptives. In the 1970s, Irish feminists would challenge their government’s anti-birth control policies by staging protests like massive condom-buying expeditions to Northern Ireland, where contraception devices were legal. But this was still an Ireland where taking on the Catholic Church was socially daring and politically suicidal.

But the Ireland of today has the world’s largest percentage of married women under 49 using contraception, according to the United Nation’s 2010 Human Development Index. The UN figure of 89 per cent of women using birth control includes those who resort to so-called natural contraceptive methods, with which the Church has no moral qualms, but Irish studies looking exclusively at artificial contraception show use among 18- to 24-year-old girls is well over 90 per cent. It’s a startling change of social attitudes, some 30 years after the government lifted the birth-control ban in 1979, and one that illustrates how much the Church’s influence has waned in a country that was once a stronghold of Catholicism in Europe.

Among the Irish clergy, there is a sense “the battle has been lost” on birth control, said Garry O’Sullivan, editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper. In a historic upset, contraceptives, it seems, have gone from being social taboos to no longer being a topic for Sunday sermons. “The bishops have stopped pushing the issue,” said O’Sullivan. “People have moved on.”

Sanity busting out all over.

Take that, Pope Maledict!

h/t for the abortion law link to Sister Sage

Barbara Kay would like to remind you she's not getting any.

This post was originally titled: "Why does Barbara Kay hate women's freedoms?" Then I took another look at the churlish, sour puss decorating her column and reconsidered. Because there's really no other reason for writing such a resentful, gynophobic screed.

It's a bizarre spin about a relatively reliable contraception. Does she really believe that contemporary women are so shallow that their 'happiness' rests on medication? Clearly Babs misses the pharmaceutical fog that Valium gave her peers, back then.

Instead of putting the focus on the fact it allows women to plan when to be pregnant (or not to be, ever) and couples to control their reproductive abilities so they can parent the children they want as best as they can, Kay quotes skewed research from the obscure Timothy Reichert - you could at least spell his name correctly, toots. As you can well imagine, Reichert's bloviations have become akin to the New Testament, over at LifeShite.

But in the final analysis, Babs is shrieeekkking at all those selfish, selfish, selfish!!! young women who turned down her son's Jonathan's invitation to be his baby mama, and to give her the grandchildren she wants, dammit!

No-Fun Pharmacy Fails

And they had such a great business plan too.

No contraception of any kind dispensed. No porn. No candy. No pop. No cosmetics.

But they did have Catlicks, lots of Catlicks in the nabe. It was located right beside a Catlick bookstore and within shouting distance of two big churches. But, oddly, they didn't flock to the no-fun pharmacy.

DMC Pharmacy, a pro-life Catholic pharmacy that opened with much fanfare in Chantilly, Va., in October 2008, closed last month because of lack of funds.

"We could not make it work financially," said Robert Laird, executive director for the pharmacy, whose letters stood for Divine Mercy Care. "We could never get that big push to make it viable and finally the board of directors said enough was enough."

By the time the store closed March 4, it was losing in the tens of thousands of dollars per month. When it opened 18 months ago at a cost of $350,000 just as the national economy was in a free fall, the 1,500-square-foot store on Metrotech Drive did not stock birth control pills, condoms, cigarettes or pornographic magazines.

It did have booklets on natural family planning below a picture of St. John Leonardi, the patron saint of pharmacists.

Sad, innit? Old St. John Leonardi just doesn't pull the crowds he used to.

What Do (Third World) Women Want? Part 2

Let's do some more listening to what women in the Third World want.

In Burkina Faso, there is new commitment to improving obstetric care and family planning.

As many as six women die every day in the West African country Burkina Faso as a result of pregnancy or childbirth. Burkina Faso is one of the poorest countries in the world, and human rights group, Amnesty International, says it is the country's poor, rural women whose lives are most in danger.

Amnesty International issued a report last month that pointed to poverty and shortages of supplies and trained medical staff as well as corruption and gender discrimination as the underlying causes for high rates of maternal death in Burkina Faso.

A 2005 law gives Burkinabé women the right to choose how many children they will have and when they will have them, and government subsidies introduced in 2006 sharply reduced the cost of childbirth.

But Amnesty International found that many women do not know about their right to family planning and that poorly paid medical personnel continue to ask for informal payments with impunity.

(snip)

The Burkinabé government also committed Friday to lifting financial barriers to family planning services, which Amnesty International says can save lives by preventing unwanted pregnancies, pregnancies that are too close together and unsafe, illegal abortions.

Wiki says it is 60% Muslim but calls it 'ethnically integrated, secular'. So, at least they don't have civil war and ethnic strife to deal with.

They're trying to raise the status of women there, but still need help.

Amnesty International has also encouraged international donors to continue their support of the Burkinabé government in ensuring the availability and accessibility of adequate reproductive care for women in Burkina Faso.

Now, let's go to Afghanistan where Motherhood Steve's government is more anti-choice than the mullahs.

Some mullahs in Afghanistan are distributing condoms. Others are quoting the Quran to encourage longer breaks between births. Health experts say contraception is starting to catch on in a country where one in eight women dies during pregnancy.

Afghanistan has one of the world's highest fertility rates, averaging more than six babies per woman despite years of war and a severe lack of medical care. Awareness of, and access to, contraceptives remains low among many couples, with UNICEF estimating 10 percent of women using some form of birth control.

But use of the pill, condoms and injected forms of birth control rose to 27 percent over eight months in three rural areas — up to half the woman in one area — once the benefits were explained one-on-one by health workers, according to the report published Monday in Bulletin, the World Health Organization's journal.

Canada's goal in Afghanistan is allll about the girls and women, right?

Just not the contraception, family planning, and access to safe abortion parts that saves women's lives, eh, Steve?

BONUS: Antonia Z has some choice (hee) words for Motherhood Steve's policy.