Looks like Verizon may have (finally!) woken up to the first amendment, a small victory for reproductive rights. Though it took embarrassment on the front page of the New York Times to get it done, a frightening idea since political speech seems to be under attack - subtly and not-so-subtly - on multiple fronts.

Verizon's saga started yesterday when the New York Times reported that the mammoth phone company, Verizon, had muzzled political speech by rejecting Naral Pro-Choice America's request to send text alerts on reproductive rights.

Verizon, in its first shuffling response, explained that it had decided the entire issue was somehow off limits - too "controversial" and "unsavory."

Initially, a Verizon spokesperson explained that the company wasn't taking sides in the abortion wars but rather wanted to silence all political speech related to the issue of reproductive rights, including both for and against. The Times reports,

"A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral’s position on abortion. “Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position,” said the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson. “It is the topic itself” — abortion — “that has been on our list.”

The reaction to this bizarre carve-out of the first amendment was not shuffling. Indeed, a small irony, the pro-choice pro-free speech forces turned its own text messaging service against it. In just two hours, the company received more than 20,000 text messages protesting its decision.

By mid-day Verizon had regrouped. A new message emerged. Turned out - what do you know? - that, said the CEO, the company's initial decision was “an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy.” (listen to a short interview with NYT journalist Adam Liptak about Verizon's reversal here.) Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, soon had a fax on her desk from the Verizon CEO to that effect.

If only we could get the journalistic watchdogs on every pullback of political speech these days. The problem is that under the cover of "too controversial" or "not entertaining" or any number of silly categories talk about reproductive rights is moved to the margins. The fact is, when it comes to the issues of abortion and family planning these days, those doing much of the censoring aren't choosing one side over another--they just are shutting down the whole debate. The Jon Stewart Show, hallmark of liberal programming these days, wants to steer clear apparently. (It also apparently wants to steer clear of women, and women intellectuals in particular. So far this year, Jon has had ten women guests; eight were actresses.) The line from the Daily Show show is apparently that abortion isn't funny, as one producer put it. (And Iraq is, by contrast, hilarious!)

We may have a common ground issue here: the anti-abortion and pro-choice sides could unite in a effort to not be shut up by the mainstream media companies. I recently had a brush with political censorship by, of all groups, the American Political Science Association. The American Political Science Association, a membership organization of college professors of political science, rejected my request to rent their mailing list. I simply wanted to make political science professors aware of my book, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, and see if they might like to engage the debate by inviting me speak. The denial went like this:

"APSA policy states that "materials cannot be used
for politically or ideologically partisan purposes, and are subject to
the approval of the executive director. The material in question here
stretches the bounds of advocacy versus contribution to teaching and
research."

I couldn't help but think that the author of a political book on any other subject would get a different reception from the American Political Science Association.

Silencing both sides of a debate is as insidious as silencing just one. It's not freedom of speech if whole issue categories are eliminated from the public discourse. The "controversial" and "unsavory" are the very subjects that, when spoken about, serve to remind us that freedom of speech still exists. At this most critical juncture in history for reproductive rights, you'd be surprised who is pressing the mute button on you.

In the last few weeks, Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, has reserved much of her signature wrath just for me. I'd be honored by her op-eds and blogs devoted to me if it all weren't so disturbing (and to be honest, threatening). She has called me "wicked," an "architect of death," for nothing other than supporting a different (and mind you, proven effective) approach to preventing abortion. Her actions are, to put it mildly, grossly disproportionate and irresponsible. And provide a sad insight into her brand of pro-life argument, to wit: when you can't win with facts attack your opponent with Biblical rage.

Having followed Judie's work and writing for several years now, I know sanctimony is her pornography. Nothing turns her on more than her own piety. It would be great for everyone if Judie's sanctimony prevented abortion but sadly, her approach leads to more of them. With abortion, the devil is in the details and we have enough details available to us now to know that Judie's approach is far more demonic than mine.

Given this, I could attack Judie as she has me and label her an "agent of deception", an "ideologue" and conclude by saying of her that "we must call evil by its proper name." But, my catholic upbringing has taught me better. (I also recognize such hate speech—let's call it what it is-- is intended to rile the dangerous to act. As a mother of a young child, Judie's remarks are received with an added degree of alarm.)

Instead of slinging slurs and stooping to hate speech, I have instead tried to open up the national discussion about abortion. Yes, I have referred to pro-lifers as the "God Squad" but its a title I'm pretty sure they embrace. And, yes, I did write a provocatively titled book, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, though I consider it a book for reasonable pro-life as well as pro-choice thinkers. (I wanted it subtitled, "a book for pro-life people." My editors opted for another subtitle which was their right.) The fact is, pro-lifers who have actually read the book (most of my critics have not) have thanked me. And there's a reason. My book shows the difference, based on results, between being pro-life and pro-lie. Many results-oriented pro-lifers appreciate the distinction. Genuine pro-life people want fewer abortions. Real pro-life people want to see abortion unnecessary. Honest pro-life people don't try to conflate abortion and contraception in a bizarre effort to change American's sex lives, as Judie Brown does, even if it results in higher abortion rates.

It is my firm belief that Judie's main mission is not to stop abortion. If it were, she would not spearhead campaigns against contraception (the only proven way to prevent abortion) but would instead send her staff off to study the policies of the countries that have achieved the lowest abortion rates in the world. (Hint: they are the ones with the greatest contraceptive access.) If making abortion unnecessary were what Judie was truly after, she'd first admit that the countries that have the highest abortion rates in the world (often twice our national average) are those that have adopted her full agenda. These are places where she would proudly fly an American Life League banner. They are places where contraception is hard to come by; where only abstinence is taught to sexually active people; where abortion is outlawed.

It goes without saying that Judie didn't send a letter of thanks to Bill Clinton, our first pro-choice president, when he presided over the most dramatic decline in abortion rates ever recorded in our country. But she's also not moved that Bush, the "pro-lifer" in the oval office who has fulfilled much of the anti-contraception movement's agenda, has seen to it that abortion rates are now on the rise. How about that devilish detail?

In her op-ed, "Anti-Life Nonsense," Judie writes,

"[Page] denies that a human being's life begins when the human sperm and human egg unite. She cites an official bit of gobbledygook that says pregnancy does not begin until around eight days later, at implantation. In doing so she is carrying on the long, disastrous folly the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology foisted upon women more than 40 years ago. In 1965 this august body of physicians, on the brink of making a whole lot of money by selling birth control pills, chose to redefine the start of pregnancy so they could deny to their patients that the pill can kill a preborn child."

Setting aside Judie's simplistic and paranoid views of the medical establishment, it's important to understand that on the issue of whether contraception can ever act as an abortifacient the most respected pro-life doctors agree with me. Twenty-two of them, including Dr. David Hager, Dr. Susan Crockett, and Dr. Joe McIlhaney, wrote an open statement imploring the pro-life movement to stop campaigns, like Judie's, against birth control mainly because there is absolutely no evidence that any contraceptive device does what Judie et. al. say it does. Turns out, not surprisingly, its Judie's citations that the pro-life medical experts consider gobbledygook. The pro-life Ob/Gyns write:

"In this discussion we accept the time-honored definition that conception occurs when a sperm penetrates an egg. Disruption of the fertilized egg after this point represents abortion. We consider fertilization … to be the beginning of human life… Currently the claim that hormonal contraceptives [birth control pills, implants (norplant), injectables (depo-provera)] include an abortifacient mechanism of action is being widely disseminated in the pro-life community. This theory is emerging with the assumed status of "scientific fact," and is causing significant confusion among both lay and medical pro-life people. The "hormonal contraception is abortifacient" theory is not established scientific fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error...We know of no existing scientific studies that validate the 'hostile endometrium is abortifacient' theory… If a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."

Possibly, to Judie, these pro-life doctors too are "ideologues", "agents of deception," "architects of the culture of death," and "wicked." After all, they have made precisely the same argument I do.

When I have proven her campaigns against contraception distort science, Judie resorts to desperate tactics. Suddenly, I'm anti-God. She writes, "As if [Page's] disdain for all things holy was not bad enough, she has made a profession out of betraying her fellow women by repeating the lie that chemical birth control agents such as the morning-after pill can not cause an abortion." And "[Page] continues to insist that anything of God must be very wrong and anything resulting from sinful sexual activity must be very good indeed."

I recognize that in Judie's world, one cannot have both a close relationship with God and a close relationship with the facts. Judie believes that to love God you can't love sex for pleasure either. But the majority of Catholics, like the majority of pro-lifers--when asked to chose sides on the issue of contraception and sex—side with little old "anti-God", "evil" me. Eighty percent of self-described pro-lifers support access to contraception and, according to the National Survey of family Growth, 96% of Catholic women have used artificial birth control. So, does Judie extend the anti-God label to the majority of Catholics and pro-lifers too?

There is a devil is these details and it should make any thoughtful pro-lifer wonder why Judie doesn't want you to know about them but instead retreats behind the iron gate of her holiness. Judie's arguments offer to readers no information, only judgments. That's always a suspicious tactic. It's not just what's missing from Judie's arguments that's cause for concern, it's what she chooses to include. A true leader does not make veiled threats, resort to hate speech, label anyone who questions her approach "wicked," or call those who look for reasoned and peaceful solutions in this most acrimonious conflict "evil." That's not leadership. Pro-lifers not only deserve the facts, they deserve better.

Editor's note:

Welcome to the new and improved version of Cristina Page's Blog on BirthControlWatch.org. There are several new features which should make it easier to keep up with the latest news and opinions on contraception.

• Easier-to-remember URL: The blog is now located at http://www.birthcontrolwatch.org/blog.
• RSS feed: Subscribe to the blog and read all the new posts without having to come back to the Web page. Click on the orange icon to the right to subscribe. (Click here to learn more about RSS feeds.)
• E-mail subscriptions: You can also sign up to receive new posts by e-mail. Just enter your e-mail address in the box on the right.
• Sharing: There are now easy links at the end of each post to share them on the Web's most popular sites.

If you have any questions about the changes, please feel free to contact us.

n recent weeks, newspapers around the country have reported on the surge in birth control costs college women must now pay, placing routine prevention out of reach for many of those already most at risk of unintended pregnancy. The price spike was caused by changes implemented through Bush's Federal Deficit Reduction Act that eliminated incentives for pharmaceutical companies to sell contraceptives at discount to college health centers. With college students now returned to campus, the scope of the problem is more fully realized prompting many editorials pages to call for immediate action from Congress to find a remedy.

The Chicago Sun Times last month reported on a college student who could no longer afford birth control as a result of the change and got pregnant. Of course, the religious right's brightest came up short in sympathy for the student. Dennis Burne at Human Events wrote,

"So, it has come to this: A 20-year-old Illinois college student is whining because she won’t be able to vacation in Costa Rica, because she got pregnant, because she couldn’t get birth control anymore, because it cost $20-a-month more at the university clinic, because its federal funding was cut, because President George Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act.

Boy, doesn’t that beat all. Bush lied to us, got us into an unnecessary war and now he got a 20-year-old pregnant and denied her the entitlement of drinking mai tais on a tropical beach."

If you ever wondered how the rabid right would respond to women suffering unintended pregnancy as a result of their campaigns to scale back access to birth control, Burne offers a great example. He continues,

"The story obviously is an attempt to depict Harris as a victim and a thinly disguised case for more federal funding for birth control. No one was quoted in the story who defended the funding cuts or bemoaned Harris’ appalling irresponsibility. But that’s not surprising.

Rather, the story said: “Harris, coming from a low-income home, said she cannot afford to pay so much more for birth control." Sure. And what is the cost of the cell phone she was shown holding in the newspaper photo? Maybe if she can’t afford to protect herself, she should -- perish the thought -- abstain from sex."

Of course! Funny that no one thought about this up until now. College students should just abstain or forgo other modern life necessities like a cell phones (no matter that their increasingly used to alert students to emergencies on campus) in order to afford unnecessarily high prices for protection. Great to have finally solved that problem.

When the rabid right had their guy, Phil Kline, as attorney general of Kansas they dreamt big. The vestiges of that dream were laid to rest today as the ninth circuit court of appeals dismissed the government's appeals in Aid for Women v. Foulston.

When Kline took office in 2003, the right's whole agenda was mapped out on a state level. The right to privacy was the first to go. Kline seized the medical records of abortion patients and handed them over to Fox television personality, Bill O'Reilly, to discuss on his most watched program in country. Kline claimed this was all in the service of trying to unearth evidence of wrongdoing by doctors but every one saw it for what it was: the most public way to intimate women from having and doctors from providing abortion care.

Kline then attempted to intimidate teenagers from seeking any sexual health services, like contraception. Kline interpreted the state's child abuse reporting law so that health professionals who provide counseling about sex, STD testing or contraception to teenagers under the age of 16 would first be required to report the teen to police as a victim of sexual abuse. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged Kline's interpretation.

According to the Center, under Kline's broadly written interpretation, a school nurse would have to report her 15-year-old student who disclosed that she was "making out" with her 15-year-old boyfriend.

The Center for Reproductive Rights press release issued today explains:

"The Center filed the case challenging the policy and succeeded in permanently blocking it in 2006. Kline and the defendant prosecutors appealed. The case, Aid for Women v. Foulston, was dismissed because the Kansas state legislature recently revised the state’s child abuse reporting law in a way that makes clear that the law does not require blanket reporting of all adolescent sexual contact. In April 2006, the U.S. District Court of the District of Kansas permanently blocked enforcement of Kline’s legal opinion, declaring it irreparably harmful and recognizing that minors have a right to informational privacy concerning sexual activity."

Today, the ninth court of appeals up held that decision. At least Kline didn't come away empty handed. The district court did give him a perfect name for an autobiography, "Irreparably Harmful: the Career of Phil Kline."

"Sex Causes Babies" is one of the t-shirt slogans of the group proknowledge.org (the newest entry point onto the anti-sex movement's misinformation highway). Is Ralph Wiggum their communications director? But they're serious. The site offers other man-repellent clothing selections for when you and your girlfriends go clubbing, including "Herpes Kills Dates" and "Guys Don't Get Pregnant". (No possibility of wearing these shirts ironically.) Here's their mission statement:

Proknowledge was created to give women of all ages a place to go for straight facts about sex, choices, and where to go for support. Free from lectures, social scrutiny and judgments. Proknowledge is designed to empower women with the knowledge they need to take control of their lives and to make informed, intelligent choices."

If by 'facts' they mean ideology it begins to make a lot more sense.

The site's areas of advice for "women of all ages" includes a section on relationships where you learn this, "When you were little, boys were stupid. Now, thanks to hormones they don't seem so "stupid". Because they're guys. And guys can be cool. Guys can be cute. And what used to be gross doesn't seem that way anymore." (I know what you're thinking. I've already emailed the group to alert them: procondescension.org is available.)

Of course, no anti-sex site would be complete without the anti-contraception section. At proknowledge.org they've devoted two areas to the topic: There's the chemical or medical abortion section under which emergency contraception is listed. Then there's the 5 facts about contraception. They are, to summarize: 1. Contraception fails. 2. Contraception fails 3. Contraception fails 4. Use contraception and you'll get an STD and finally 5. Use contraception and you'll get an STD.

Thanks to Jessica at feministing for alerting us all to this helpful new resource.

Panic has been unleashed on campuses nationwide as a result of escalating prices of birth control at college health centers. The price spike, which I wrote about back in August, was "unintentionally" triggered by Bush's Federal Deficit Reduction Act. College health centers had previously bought contraceptives and other drugs at reduced prices from pharmaceutical companies. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which took effecting January 2007, eliminated the incentive for companies to sell discounted drugs to colleges.

As a result, college women, those at highest risk of unintended pregnancy and with little access to disposable cash, are now expected to shell out four, sometimes even six, times as much for prescription contraception. In Massachusetts, where full-time college students are required to have health insurance, public health officials are hoping women students will be able to get generic contraception at a reduced rate through insurance. But The Boston Globe today reports that this solution presents lots of barriers too,

Health advocates say that some students will not want to switch to generic birth control because of the potential for side effects. Another concern is that students may be allowed to buy only one month's supply of birth control pills at a time, rather than stocking up with several months' worth as they formerly could. "The likelihood of there being some gaps in usage will increase," said Karen Engall, director of Mount Holyoke's health services. Health officials also worry that some students will not use insurance to buy contraception because their parents see the pharmacy bills.

Another example of Bush's if-it-ain't-broke-then-break-it approach. The trend this year in college? Freshman fifteen and morning sickness.

The American public has no patience for self-proclaimed anti-abortion crusaders who only push policies that lead to more abortions. And so these crusaders, who have had their way under the reign George Bush, have cleverly cloaked their agenda. Particularly, they've hidden the fact they oppose birth control, the most effective way to fight unintended pregnancies. But yesterday, they were outed. And then the anti-birth control activists were delivered a left hook in the form of a Boxer Snowe amendment to the foreign aid bill that repeals of the Global Gag Rule.

The Senate approved it 53 to 41. The Boxer Snowe amendment (which Bush promises to veto) exposes the true purpose of the Global Gag Rule: to limit access to family planning for the poorest people on earth. The gag rule prohibits US funding for any service anywhere in the world that refers women for abortion services. They can't, under the gag rule, even discuss the abortion option. This blow was followed by another. The house had already come up with its own attack on the anti-contraceptors. In June it voted to supply reproductive health organizations around the world with contraceptives, a way to sidestep the ban on funding. The Boxer Snowe amendment went further, lifting the ban altogether.

This development ought to be something that those who claim to oppose abortion advocate. At least logic dictates that they should join in the campaign to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But that's not going to happen. Anti-contraception activists, like presidential candidate Senator Brownback, have already started the righteous grandstanding. He's started the usual misinformation campaign, trying to pretend that support for contraception is tantamount to funding for abortion.

Of course, Brownback et. al., never mention that because of the Helms amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill no taxpayer dollars have been spent to provide or "promote" abortion services overseas since 1973,( i.e. since abortion was legalized in our country.)

The Global Gag Rule has been an anti-contraception success story and with Bush's promised veto it will remain that way.

_{Photo by Meredith Farmer}

A comedian friend of mine once explained the two simple reasons why teens are likely to have sex: It's free and it's fun. It's those two qualities, interestingly, that also describe the best ways to prevent teens from having sex too early. Of course, "too early" is a moving target but whatever your view on the appropriate age for sex, it's worth discussing with the teens. Since it's not only free and fun but, also, can have real world consequences.

One of the places online I like to check in on every once and a while is stayteen.org. It's sometimes hilarious, always charming, and dedicated to celebrating the greatest things about being a teenager while encouraging kids to delay sex. It's worth visiting if only to see the teen-produced winning campaign ad "Stay Chicken". But once you're there you begin to unearth a treasure chest of facts about teen sexual behavior, including studies that show what really works to prevent teens from having sex.

For example, two third of teens who have had sex report the location was in their family home, their partner's family home or a friends house. 70% had sex in the evening or the night, not directly after school as one would guess. The researchers of that study conclude that supervised activities like dances, sporting events and game nights may be a powerful tool for preventing teen pregnancy. Parents could even just make their presence a little more obvious when 'the crush' is around. June was the month that the greatest number of teens reported first having sex (13.7%), but for the most part there was no real difference between school months and summer months for the onset of sexual activity. Most teens describe their first sexual partner as a friend who they've met through school, friends or their place of worship. Two-thirds of teens also report "couple-like" behavior before the first time they had sex including going out together alone, meeting their partner's parents, thinking of themselves as a couple, spending less time with friends and more time with each other, exchanging presents, saying "I love you." Public and observable behaviors that offer obvious clues to parents to have an honest and open discussion with their teen about the relationship, the consequences of sex, the benefits of delaying sex, and protection. There's also some real eye-openers for parents relying on the abstinence-until-marriage approach. One in five teens preserving their virginity was having oral sex. So abstinence should probably be discussed in detail.

So it turns out parents can help teens delay sexual initiation in simple and straightforward ways. Plan group activities that are fun in the evening, notice when things are starting to get serious with 'the crush', talk about sex with your teen and check to see that parents are around when they're together. Funny thing is that doing all these things will be rewarding for parents too.