Today, in the "Conservative Voice," Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, has written an attempt to defend herself, as well as her war on contraception and sex. It seems she's chosen me to be her main foil. Her diatribe takes aim at me alone. As anyone who has read anything I've written knows I always provide ample citations for key points -- that's because there is ample proof to back up my claims. This isn't Judie's style. It's a treat to see how much Judie can try to spin using the Pope as her only reference. I'll be responding to her tirade after I finish packing and moving this weekend. I'll post that response here and on the Conservative Voice in the middle of next week. So stay tuned. In the meantime, here's Judie's attempt at a rebuttal to my recent op-ed in the Baltimore Sun examining the anti-family planning positions of many presidential candidates.

Banned or Planned? Vatican Wants Abortion Laws to Apply to Contraception While Planned Parenthood Offers a More Scientifically Accurate Demonstration of How EC Works...

Two videos were released on YouTube this week offering very different perspectives on the same subject. It's hard to choose which one's funnier.

NARAL Pro-Choice America and its Massachusetts affiliate today tried to draw attention to Gov. Mitt Romney's opposition to birth control. Below is the organization's press release (not yet up on their website). Hopefully NARAL will continue this campaign and will examine other candidates' stances since Romney is for sure not the only one. McCain, Brownback, and Tancredo have taken steps to scale back access to birth control or reclassify popular methods as abortion. The latter technique is, one would presume, in order to add many forms of birth control to the list of reproductive rights they'd like to ban. The next natural step is to ask each of the Presidential contenders to answer these 7 Questions. That way, once and for all, the American public will have no confusion about each candidate's position on birth control. NARAL press release here:

Friends of NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts,

We're commemorating the first anniversary of FDA finally making the Plan B emergency contraceptive available over the counter (after three years of politically motivated delays by the Bush administration). And, yes, there is a presidential angle...courtesy of former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney. Please read the following statement from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 23, 2007

Romney's Veto of Birth-Control Bill Becomes Campaign Issue

One-year anniversary of FDA decision on Plan B(r) reminds voters of Romney's flip-flop on emergency contraception

Boston, MA - Kelly O'Bryan, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said that the one-year anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of over-the-counter sales of Plan B(r) is a reminder of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's veto of a bill that would have increased women's access to Plan B(r), especially for rape survivors in the emergency room.

In a 2002 questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Romney pledged to support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception (EC), yet vetoed an EC access bill three years later. O'Bryan called attention to the hypocrisy of Romney's 2005 veto, which predated the FDA decision on Plan B (r), of measures that would have ensured timely access to emergency contraception (EC) for sexual assault survivors in the emergency room and for all women by allowing pharmacists to dispense EC directly. Ultimately, the Massachusetts legislature overrode the veto.

"The question is, 'Would Romney obstruct women's access to birth control as president in the same way he did as governor?'" O'Bryan said. "Contraception is basic health care for women. By vetoing the EC bill, Romney put himself outside the mainstream. He not only wants to block women's access to safe, legal abortion, but he has opposed commonsense efforts to improve women's health options, even for rape survivors."

The Massachusetts legislature overwhelmingly overrode Romney's veto, but his action underscored the hypocrisy of an elected official who not only wants to outlaw abortion, but also block a woman's access to contraception.

ince the FDA's decision in August 2006, lawmakers at the federal and state level are considering ways to improve women's access to Plan B(r). Five states, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Oregon, enacted such laws this year - two of which, Connecticut and Minnesota, were signed into law by Republican governors.

Emergency contraception contains the same hormones found in ordinary birth control pills and can dramatically reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant if taken soon after sex. EC does not cause abortion nor will it harm an existing pregnancy; it is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy. The Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales for adults on August 24, 2006.

Contact: Kelly O'Bryan, 617-556-8800 x 16

Feeling frisky? Or friskier than a year ago? According to Concerned Women for America and company, you ought to be. And acting out your promiscuous fantasies as well. This week marks the one-year anniversary of the FDA decision to allow emergency contraception to be sold over-the-counter. That decision was touted by conservatives as a kind of policy aphrodisiac that would lead Americans to lose complete control over their sexual drive and judgment. The logic apparently was that the availability of this additional pregnancy prevention method would loosen the sexual chains that otherwise keep society marching in place. (One specific result of EC availability, the religious right suggested, would be to help sexual predators more easily prey upon their victims free of consequence.)

Fortunately, pro-contraception forces eventually prevailed in that battle, but not without a struggle. The anti-choice movement warned of dire consequences for our country if the FDA gave into the advice of every professional medical association in the field of reproductive health – all supported the change to over-the-counter availability. They got their man on the inside, Dr. David Hager (who refuses to prescribe contraception to unmarried women). Bush appointed him to the FDA advisory board reviewing the application. That helped drag out the review process. They lobbied the president to intervene to make sure the FDA made a political decision rather than a medical one. (At the same time, they encouraged pharmacists nationwide to deny women prescriptions to contraception of any type.)

Most of their arguments against EC were easily dismissible—at least scientifically and morally. After all, it was one of the safest drugs the panel had ever considered. Claiming it was unsafe didn't pass the laugh test, not that they didn't try ad nauseum.

While folks like Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, were angling at getting the FDA to ban EC entirely (along with every other form of contraception), the God Squad failed to convince the FDA staff reviewers. They were thrown a bone by the administration --teens would not have the same chance to prevent pregnancy as others. (In case you were wondering, there's been no discernible uptick in orgiastic activity.)

Eternally the sore losers, the anti-choice brigade has since sued the FDA with the intent to reverse its decision to allow American women what women in countries such as India, Thailand, England, France, Canada, Finland and the Netherlands have had for years: the right to purchase EC without a prescription.

On the year anniversary of the FDA's righteous decision, here's a retrospective of the arguments and forebodings the religious right made to influence the FDA's decision and mislead the public. Enjoy.

"America's women and girls are, once again, subjected to medical experimentation at the urging of those who want to be free of the consequences from sexually promiscuity regardless of the cost to their own or other women's health and well-being." Janice Crouse, Concerned Women for America

"What's to prevent the pill from getting into the hands of the woman's impressionable 13-year-old daughter, who sees the pill as a good excuse to "hook up" with a boy she barely knows? Will ACOG pay for the girl's counseling when she discovers that the boy who took away her virginity is a stalker or 40 years old?" Human Events

"The authors mislead readers regarding sexually-transmitted diseases (STD). The studies they relied on, which claim that the morning-after pill does not impact STDs, included only women who were sexually active." Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America

"The best thing the FDA can do now for the American women and their progeny is to take the next logical step and remove these pills from the market altogether." Judy Brown, American Life League

"You can say, O, I got drunk; I didn't know this person that I slept with. I can undo it all with a pill." Moira Sheridan, president of Delaware Right to Life

"Making EC available would be a welcome tool for adult sexual predators who molest family members, children of friends or students. They could keep a stash in their bedroom drawer or their pocket to give their victims after committing each rape." Jill Stanek, Concerned Women for America

And less you think the next generation of anti-contraception activists aren't in place and ready to carry on the torch, here was sweet Andy Yerbey's, president of University of Alabama College Republicans, take on it:

"Girls should worry about how they're going to feel once they realize they've killed a child... [The morning-after pill] is the same thing as putting a gun to a child's head."

Right. Same thing.

Weekly Round-Up: What's a Confession if No One is Listening?; Menage a HA!: French Women Prove Us Right; Formerly Not Sponge-Worthy Men Rejoice!; Birth Control Can Save Your Life

Eighty six anti-abortion groups have committed to opposing all forms of contraception. Among the groups are Right to Life of Kansas, Pro-Life Ohio, the Life League of New Mexico, North Dakota Right to Life, Connecticut Right to Life, California Right to Life, and the Delaware Pro-life Coalition. However, few of these state's media outlets are covering the groups' opposition to contraception--no matter how eager the groups are to display their extreme agenda. Thus the public doesn't know that their elected officials are pandering to anti-birth control forces in order to secure these groups' support. Yet these groups and their unpopular and dangerous agenda escape notice. Because of this, we'll wake up one day to discover that almost half the candidates running for president are opposed to contraception. Maybe tomorrow?

A study out of France shows once again that the religious right is wrong in its dire warnings of the impact emergency contraception will have on women's sexual choices. Instead of the free-for-all sexapalooza we've been told to brace ourselves for, researchers have discovered the over-the-counter access to EC in France has not had much impact on the amount of sex women have or the number of partners they've have it with. STDs haven't surged to alarming rates either. The only change was a dip in unintended pregnancy rates. Alors, Christian conservatives, time to come to your senses?

A new Zogby poll revealed that 83% of Americans want scientists to continue researching for more birth control methods. Although the same poll found that Americans are satisfied with the birth control choices they have currently, clearly the vast majority of Americans want more birth control access and options. These Americans will be happy to know then that the popular "Sponge," contraceptive was reintroduced to the market this week. It offers women a highly effective over-the-counter birth control option other than the condom. The Sponge was discontinued in 1995 when the manufacturer did not wish to upgrade its factory equipment to satisfy FDA requirements. Synova Healthcare Group secured the rights to the Sponge early this year and, in the process, gave formerly not "sponge-worthy" men new hope.

But don't forget about the pill! We've long known that the birth control pill protects against ovarian cancer, but new research published in International Family Planning Perspectives shows that pills with the lowest hormonal content offer the greatest protection. In fact, depending on the oral contraceptive formulation, the odds of ovarian cancer were reduced by up to 80% among pill users compared to those not on the pill. The lower the dose of one particular progestin, the lower the risk of ovarian cancer. If all women had used some type of birth control pill the study found an estimated four in 10 malignancies might have been avoided; if all had used low-dose pills, that proportion would have been almost three-quarters. Many women believe that if there is no reason to be on the pill other than pregnancy prevention. Not true. And there's no excuse for not making this information widely known now.

This Week: A Tale of Two States; Seniors in Need a Sex-Ed Refresher; US slashes foreign aid for family planning leaving some nations to learn the rhythm method

The two states may nuzzle up against one another geographically, but Minnesota and Wisconsin couldn’t be further apart on common sense issues like preventing unintended pregnancy. This week, they displayed entirely different approaches to the same problem. A Minnesota state law that went into effect this week will lower costs and improve access to birth control. The legislation permits family-planning clinics to buy contraceptives through cooperative purchasing agreements that will lower the cost. Previously, each clinic negotiated with pharmaceutical companies separately thereby placing orders too small to receive big discounts. The new cost savings will get passed along to women of Minnesota, expanding access for many.

Compare that pro-active, pro-prevention approach to Wisconsin's strategy. Wisconsin legislators know that nearly half of all new mothers in the state are poor and so rely on Medicaid to cover their pregnancy and delivery care (a 26% increase since 2000). And so they are considering eliminating family planning clinics throughout the state. The Wisconsin state Assembly proposed to ban state money from going to any entity that provides abortion counseling and/or services. If this becomes law, thirty-five clinics will shut their doors and almost 35,000 low-income women and families in the state will lose access to contraception. The unintended irony is that for every dollar Wisconsin withholds from family planning, it will spend three in costs related to unintended pregnancy. Who knew Wisconsin voters were such spendthrifts!

This week's edition of US News and World Reports discusses a small survey conducted by University of Chicago researchers that found nearly 60 percent of unmarried women ages 58 to 93 said they didn't use a condom the last time they had sex. And while pregnancy may no longer be a concern, many seniors are learning the hard way that disease still is. Fifteen percent of new HIV infections occur in this age group, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other STDs, including herpes, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus, which is linked to cervical cancer, are also on the rise. Maybe its time to get comprehensive (age-appropriate) sex-ed messages out to our silvered singles. Or else the abstinence crowd may take its virginity pledges to assisted living communities.

Anti-contraception activists must be rejoicing at a major change underway in the Philippines as a result of their efforts. Because of the drastic funding cuts to the US foreign aid for contraceptives program, USAID, it was reported this week that The Population Commission of the Philippines "has shifted its population campaign from scientific way to natural family planning after the United States government stopped the supply of contraceptives, including pills and condoms." The Philippines has already banned abortion. (Although the country has now has higher rates of abortion than the US, which is consistent with the pro-life-approach-leads-to-more-abortions-trend mentioned in previous posts.) Now, since 40% of its population live below the poverty line and can't afford to purchase contraception, effectively contraception is banned for much of the population too. High unintended pregnancy and abortion rates and no access to contraception? For the religious right that's a mission accomplished!

This Week: Researchers discover HPV not a "moral" issue; Ivy Leaguers asked to be Virgin Pledgers; House to Abstinence-Only-- no money unless medically accurate (but it can't be done!)

It was a bad week for those, like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, who have been leading campaigns to discourage parents from vaccinating their daughters against the HPV virus, the sole source of cervical cancer. Epidemiologists have now discovered the HPV virus present "under fingernails" indicating the sexual activity may not be its only, or even primary, path of transmission. According to the researchers, the results could help explain why HPV infection has been found in infants and young girls who had not become sexually active. Lead author of the study, Laura Koutsky of University of Washington, explains that this finding should "give pause to those arguing" against an HPV vaccine from a "moral" perspective. "Basically, it's not just about sex," Koutsky said, "You have to know how people [contract HPV] in order to prevent it." With this continued opposition to the HPV vaccine, the Christian Right is really staking out the pro-cancer territory all for itself.

In other news, The New York Times reports on when abstinence-only goes to college. Apparently, a group call the Ansombe Society (named after Elizabeth Anscombe, a British analytic philosopher who argued for chastity outside of marriage) has founded chapters at MIT, Princeton and soon Yale. The group's aim is to encourage abstinence among the college-aged and discourage contraceptive use. I've never quite figured out why abstinence cheerleaders feel compelled to argue against contraception. If they fail to convince someone to abstain their alternative is to propose risky sex? Seems like bad advice from beginning to end.

And while we're on abstinence, this week the House passed HR 3162 which, according to Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Briefing, would allow states to "have the option to accept funds for abstinence-only sex education programs or for programs that promote abstinence and also teach those who are currently sexually active or at risk of sexual activity about additional methods to prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce health risks." The bill requires all programs that receive funding to provide medically accurate information (that should unnerve the abstinence-only crowd sufficiently). While the bill routes funds to failed abstinence-only programs at a price tag of $50 million annually, it also allows states to provide family planning services without receiving federal approval. Bush promised to veto it, natch.

Also this week, I blogged for the Huffington Post for the first time. My piece about many of the Presidential candidates' extreme views on contraception teased out some great comments from readers too.

That's it for this week, peace out girl scouts!

At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders that he would, if elected, walk lock step with them. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To layman's ears, it all sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade. He supports only teaching abstinence to teens. But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Romney was admitting to his anti-abortion brethren something more. He wanted them to know he was opposed to the birth control pill and would be a willing partner in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are key phrases, codes, to listen for--and for those keeping score Romney nailed each one.

One code was "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The pregnancy specialists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, define pregnancy as starting at implantation. This makes sense, given implantation is the first moment a pregnancy can be known. The anti-abortion movement would like a pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet, fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. Romney's statement, to the anti-abortion movement, is code for "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions." In fact, he told the crowd, he already had some practice redefining contraception, stating, "I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent."

No matter that emergency contraception has the same mode of action as the birth control pill, and every other hormonal method of birth control, scientific truths factor little when courting a right wing constituency. To the anti-abortion movement contraception is the ultimate corruptor. And this year the unspoken rule for candidates who want an endorsement from anti-abortion groups is that they must offer proof they're anti-contraception too.

Even before they announce, anti-abortion candidates preen their credentials by ridding themselves of any association with pregnancy prevention policies. Senator Fred Thompson, for example, is now denying that he was a lobbyist for the contraception advocacy group the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. He admits to his lobbying involvement in the national nightmare of the savings and loan crisis and his work to reduce the size of settlements for victims of asbestos exposure. But his work to expand access to contraception? He somehow has "no recollection of it."

Presidential hopeful Senator Sam Brownback, like Romney, offers the same nod to the anti-contraception wing of the Republican party. "Life is worthy of respect and protection from the moment of conception," he says. He beefed up his anti-contraception resume by co-sponsoring a bill to de-fund the nation's largest contraception provider, Planned Parenthood, by excluding it from the Title X family planning for the poor. Senator John McCain's campaign officials boast that their candidate has "consistently voted against taxpayer funded contraception programs." And McCain reports his advisor on sexual health matters is Senator Tom Coburn who is famous for leading campaigns claiming the condom is unsafe and opposing expanded access to emergency contraception. Another presidential candidate, Congressman Tom Tancredo, like Romney, has ventured far into the "contraception is abortion" territory. According to Tancredo, emergency contraception "cheapens human life, and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor." By the same logic, so do the birth control pill, the patch, the IUD, the ring, and the shot which, it’s worth noting, comprise 40% of the birth control American women use.

The American public is unaware of the new wave of anti-contraception activism by opponents of abortion. Possibly they are unwilling to believe something so wacky and ironic. Whatever the reason, it has made it easier for politicians to appease the anti-contraception base. For example, while Bush has delivered some big victories for the anti-abortion movement in the last seven years (Roberts, Alito, Federal Abortion Ban), the anti-contraception work has taken up more of his time (attempting to strip contraceptive coverage for federal employees, appointing anti-contraception leaders to critical posts including as contraception advisory panel of the FDA and to oversee nation's contraception program for the poor, de-funding international family planning programs, investing unprecedented sums into sex-ed programs that prohibit mention of contraception except for failure rates.)

For now the candidates vying for the Right to Life endorsement are doing their best to avoid directly answering the question: Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception?” Considering that even 80% of self-described "pro-life" voters strongly support contraception, it's no wonder why.