For anyone seeking advice about an important decision, a google search is often the gateway to frustration and confusion. That's why allexperts.com would seem like a great idea. Allexperts.com was founded on the idea that mixing good intentions and expertise could help many. The site welcomes people who have real knowledge in an area to become "allexperts" and these "experts" agree to help those looking for answers for free. As the "about us" section of allexperts.com explains, "Our experts are all volunteers, people with knowledge in their area of expertise who are willing to share their knowledge with others. We can't guarantee they can answer every question, but we can guarantee that most try to help."

But what happens when one of the these volunteers is not an expert and doesn't have good intentions? What if instead she had an ideological agenda she hopes to assert? And what if she has snagged a prime spot online where allexperts.com technology drives hapless information seekers seeking expertise into her clutch? Such would seem to be the case with Diane Cheryl, one of only two people signed up as a "birth control expert" on allexperts.com. It is likely that most of those seeking help from her haven't read the fine print offered in the website disclaimer and don't know that "experts," like Diane, "have varying levels of expertise and haven't been certified as 'experts' (or anything else) in any professional way...Allexperts has not undertaken to verify the credentials or abilities of any of our volunteers." Little do they know that Diane's "expertise" is exclusively based by 20 years of experience with ideologically-driven Crisis Pregnancy Centers and her desire to get you to stop using the most effective forms of birth control (as well as her travel agent degree.)

Since joining on as an "expert," Diane has provided 1130 people in search of unbiased information about birth control the following tidbits of advice:

"I don't believe any kind of hormonal birth control is healthy for your body.”

"I don't agree, personally, with birth control at all."

"I can't recommend any kind of hormonal birth control methods."

"Condoms are not 100% sure in preventing pregnancy. Perhaps you should check out Natural Family Planning as a method."

"I don't agree with taking birth control pills for regulating a woman's period or for helping with acne."

"I would strongly recommend natural family planning. You can go to allexperts.com and find the expert lady in that subject. Or do a search online. Your doctor may not agree but like I said, it's your right to do what you want with your own body. I would not use any kind of birth control that would require a doctor to have control. Sorry but I am really adamant about this subject."

"I have done some research on this subject and I found some information about the copper IUD (non-hormonal). There are some risks and side effects to this such as PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease), perforation of the uterus and expulsion in which the IUD falls out partially or completely. I congratulate your decision on going off the pills. Have you checked into NFP (Natural Family Planning)?"

Most of those writing to Diane have serious questions about the birth control they are on or want to be on. Diane offers a lot of information but only about the negative side effects of highly effective birth control methods. Interestingly, she never points out that natural family planning, which she recommends to everyone, has one of the highest failure rates of all methods, 25%. (To put this in perspective, the withdrawal method is only slightly less effective--failing 27% of the time.)

Many women write her having very recently had sex during which the condom broke leading them to fear pregnancy. Many were clearly within the time frame in which emergency contraception would have worked at preventing pregnancy. Diane never recommends any way for the information-seeker to obtain EC or prevent pregnancy in such an event. She simply refers them, and anyone who fears she is pregnant, to optionline.org--a crisis pregnancy referral network run by Heartbeat International and Care Net--two of the nation's largest operators of the made-to-seem-like-health-centers that offer no medical services and counsel against abortion. Naturally, optionline.org informs visitors that emergency contraception is abortion, and abortion may cause breast cancer and make you want to commit suicide.

One wonders what steps would be taken by allexperts.com if someone masqueraded as a cardiac expert and willfully (and dangerously) misled those seeking advice on cardiac care. It's not enough to dismiss this problem as the risk one takes for seeking advice from an unreliable source instead of their physician. If the site was called mightbeexperts.com then visitors would have better warning. Instead, with the help of well intentioned and unsuspecting founders at allexperts.com, Diane Cheryl has set up a perfectly placed web on the web to lure the uninformed and those in need of unbiased help with the goal of trapping them into her belief system.

Thanks to wingnutwatch for alerting us to Diane Cheryl's mischief making.

William Saletan, the Slate columnist who's made a career of claiming to be pro-choice while justifying attacks on reproductive rights, has had yet another epiphany: We should all support the rights of pharmacists to refuse to fill our doctor's prescriptions for birth control. According to Saletan, who defends pharmacy refusals in his June 19 piece "Drugstore Choirboy," "You bring your scrip to the pharmacy, and the guy at the counter says, "Sorry, we don't stock contraceptives." That's annoying and, in my view, stupid. But nobody's walling you in. Your burden consists of finding another pharmacy."

William Saletan, one assumes, has not had to drive twenty-five miles to a second pharmacy – the case in a large swath of rural America – because a pharmacist imposed his moral beliefs on him. But then Saletan, one assumes, has never filled a prescription for birth control, has he? (Condoms are available at every 7-11 though William should be advised that the people he finds it provocative to defend would like to see the condom banned too.)

Saletan's proposed solution is to post a polite sign explaining the pharmacy does not fill birth control prescriptions. Saletan apparently thinks indulging extremists and, indeed, inviting them to take charge of our health care, to, in effect, supersede our doctors' recommendations is a minor inconvenience. If though we're going to let everyone's political beliefs or religious enthusiasms govern our important life decisions, then we must allow that any political or religious convictions can hold sway. In this case, why not permit a Muslim fundamentalist pharmacist to simply put up a sign politely explaining that his religious beliefs require him to deny a woman's prescription for any medication? No doubt Aryan pharmacists have a belief system too. Why should they be forced to violate their dearly held beliefs and serve blacks? (It's worth pointing out that not filling birth control prescriptions is not merely discrimination by product category, is it? The pharmacist is discriminating against women.) By Saletan's lights, it seems that a "We don't fill prescriptions for black people" sign should not be a violation of black people's rights as long as it's accompanied by a 24 hour hotline, as Saletan proposed for those denied birth control, directing them to the nearest pharmacy that will serve them.

And, then to follow Saletan's thought line further, why should ethical concerns be limited to pharmacists? Why should only "pharmacists for life" get the perk of refusing to do their jobs? Why not, say, cashiers who just can't bear the thought of violating their ethical beliefs by ringing up birth control pills? If we follow Saletan's advice, isn't it just a matter of time before we'll have Cashiers for Life too? The pack of condoms and case of beer that provide hundreds of thousands of Americans with fulfilling Friday nights must first pass the approval of the cashier who, by Saletan's logic, has a right to deny those purchases. As for the rights of the rest of us, all we'll have to do is swallow our rage and find ourselves another 7-11.

Saletan's argument rests on the smug and dangerously uninformed notion that anti-family planning acts are fringe acts, and so are best ignored. He underestimates the scope, commitment, and resources of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception movement. He fails also to acknowledge that contraception is life-saving medication too. Most Americans families want (and have) two children meaning women spend about seven years, on average, getting and being pregnant and about 23 years preventing pregnancy. Planning a pregnancy leads to dramatic declines in both maternal mortality and infant mortality. Indeed, the countries on earth with the lowest maternal and infant mortality rates are those with the greatest access to and use of contraception. Those with the highest death rates are countries that deny women and families access to family planning—many are nations that took Saletan's route and simply ignored the fanatics into power.

The best way to move beyond the abortion debate is to make preventing unwanted pregnancy, planning a family and protection against disease a top priority. Instead, we have witnessed in just the last few years a dramatic increase in activity aimed at rolling back American's right to use contraception and protection. Pro-life pharmacists are just this movement's warm-up act. This year Colorado is considering a ballot measure that would define life as beginning at conception, an unknown biological moment. Rejiggering the science has as its ultimate goal not only banning abortion, but all hormonal forms of birth control. These same forces have successfully de-funded the US portion to UNFPA, the contraception provider to the most desperate regions on earth. Bush, no doubt a supporter of "pro-life" pharmacists, has worked closely with the anti-contraception movement throughout his presidency. One of his first acts in office was his attempt to strip federal employees and soldiers of contraceptive coverage. Another was to place at the head of the nation's contraception program for the poor an anti-contraception activist. In fact, he has delivered these activists many more anti-contraception successes than anti-abortion ones. Now presidential-contender McCain is playing footsie with the anti-contraception movement, coyly refusing to answer reporters' questions on whether he supports contraception.

Saletan is no doubt under pressure to think provocative thoughts several times a week. What he doesn't see is that if we allow extremists to intercede in our medical lives by simply putting up a sign then the writing is, as they say, already on the wall.

Photo taken from williamtillis' photostream

Most Americans believe that the right to plan when to become pregnant was the most important step toward women's liberation. A Gallup poll revealed that more people cite birth control as having the "highest impact" on women than "opportunity for higher education," "access to jobs," political representation," or even the much-publicized "women's movement." Certainly, once birth control became legal, and especially after the introduction of the instantly popular birth control pill, women's lives were transformed. June Cleaver became Hillary Clinton. The change was almost instantaneous. Harvard researchers recently looked into the relationship between family planning and women's liberation and came to the same conclusion. The study, The Power of the Pill, shows that almost immediately after legalization of contraception there was a surge of women entering college and the professions. From 1970 to 2000, the number of women graduating college more than doubled. Women now represent 61 percent of undergraduates. In just two decades after the legalization of family planning the number of women in the workforce nearly doubled. Today, there are nearly equal numbers of women as men in the workforce. Women's liberation was set in motion by the sexual revolution—the correlation has been amply documented.

What's left out of all this good news is men. Little attention has been paid to the impact that women's liberation has had on men. The unacknowledged truth is that men have been transformed too. Today, men have more freedom, flexibility and choices—in the most meaningful ways. A University of Michigan study found that children's time with their fathers increased significantly only in families in which the mother worked out side the home. As researchers of the Families and Work Institute summed up, "There are many other indications that the workforce has become more family-friendly—especially the fact that American fathers are spending more time with their children than fathers did a generation ago. This trait seems to be passed along in the DNA of the new workforce. Gen X fathers spend significantly more time with their children than baby-boomer fathers—a difference of more than one hour each day. And most men are aware of this difference: 84 percent report that they spend more time with their kids than their fathers did. As the researchers point out, "Obviously, this trend is affected by the increase in the number of employed mothers." Today, more husbands count on their wives to bring home a significant share of the family wealth; nearly one in four women now earns more than her husband. With this, men have options to leave a negative work environment, change careers, take more career risks, and be more involved with their children.

Today, as a result of not having to shoulder all the economic demands of the family, and by having smaller families, men have been allowed to become more involved fathers—better fathers—than ever before. And they seem to like being fathers. Eighty-five percent of dads say they get more joy out of fatherhood than their own fathers did.

Of course, you'd never know this if you listened to the so-called pro-family groups set on convincing us that they way we live is tearing the country apart, family by family.

No doubt, some men are angered—silently or otherwise—by women in the workplace. The competition is keener than ever. Yet in the past thirty years, men have been transforming. Today, the majority of men say they desire an equal marriage (77 percent). And they appear to mean it. Mothers spend thirty six minutes less on chores on workdays and an hour less on non-workdays, than they did 25 years ago. Dads spend thirty minutes more each day helping their wives raise their children than they did twenty-five years ago. Fathers increased involvement starts at the very beginning of their children's lives: 90 percent of dads are present in the delivery room (compared to 10% in 1970). "Men are doing more changing, feeding and burping than they were 30 years ago," states James Levine, who heads the Manhattan-based Fatherhood Project at the Families and Work Institute. "At parent teacher meetings," says Levine, "you're still going to see more women than men, but the number of men is increasing. We're seeing this across all income, racial, ethnic and geographic groups. It's a very broad based social phenomenon." Dads today are more affectionate with their children: 60 percent hug their school age kids every day, and 79% tell their children they love them several times a week. "This is welcome news because it benefits the child," says Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, a professor of child studies at Syracuse University who has researched cross-cultural fathering for more than two decades. "Children whose fathers are involved with them show better education achievement, fewer problems in school, and they're better off socially."

All this seems to have created a revolution in how men see themselves. Seventy percent of dads today feel they would be just as effective staying home and raising children as their wives. The Gallup organization found that one in four men would actually like to stay home and take care of the house and family. Spike TV, the TV network for men, surveyed 1,300 men and found that the number considering staying home is even higher; the poll found that 56 percent of men would consider becoming stay-at-home dads. As the Spike TV pollsters explain, "This is the first generation of men to feel the full effect of women entering the workforce. As women have become partners in the workplace, men are now adjusting to a more equal status at home." And record numbers of men are choosing to stay home too. Today statistics show that roughly 2.5 million dads nationwide stay home to be their children's primary caretaker.

The unheralded result of women entering the workforce, thanks in large part to family planning, has been the rise of the real family man and the making of the more devoted father. It is to the point where the vast majority of men today, 72 percent, say they would sacrifice pay and job opportunities for more time with their families. Spike TV found that most men would choose attending their kids' sporting event over an important work obligation. The Spike TV pollsters explain, "There's been a paradigm shift. Men want involvement with kids. Even with infants, they get up at night. It was NEVER like this before. They're taking parenting seriously. New responsibilities with kids and in homes are enriching men's lives. They're excited by it and proud."

So much for the break up of the family caused by women's emerging roles, the sexual revolution, and the birth control pill—family is more desired, and enjoyed, than ever before. With women sharing a larger stake in providing economically for the family, men have stepped up their investment in nurturing.

In a 1995 interview, feminist icon Gloria Steinem summarized the achievements of women's liberation this way, "We've taken one giant step forward by convincing the majority of the country that women can do what men can do. But the next step is convincing the country that men can do what women can do. So far, we don't believe it ourselves." Maybe it's about time we start believing.

Originally posted on RH Reality Check.

Like lawn ornaments in summer, protesters outside the local abortion clinic are fixtures in many places in the United States today.

Their presence and message have long been so predictable that, without looking or listening, people believe they understand the point. And so you might not notice that the protest taking place outside your local clinic today has fundamentally changed.

It is no longer about abortion. June 7 is the anniversary of Griswold v Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that granted married people the right to use contraception. To mark the day, anti-abortion groups are taking to their normal posts outside clinic entrances not to convince Americans to oppose abortion but rather to stop using contraception.

The national campaign is called "Protest the Pill Day 08'" and it is organized by several leading anti-choice groups including the American Life League and Pharmacists for Life. The groups’ website is full of unscientific, medically inaccurate information.

Anti-contraception activism has been working its way up the priority list of the anti-choice movement in the United States in recent years and today's campaign is one of the most organized and visible displays of this broadening agenda.

Currently, there is not one pro-life organization in the U.S. that supports contraception. In fact, the multi-pronged attack against the right to use contraception is led entirely by anti-abortion groups. Their initiatives (to name just a few) include opposing health insurance of contraception, urging pharmacists to deny women's birth control prescriptions, and attempting (with no scientific rationale) to reclassify the birth control pill, and all other hormonal forms of contraception, as abortion methods with the goal of banning them. This represents an important and frightening shift in focus by the anti-abortion movement.

Despite the fact that contraception is the only proven way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce abortion rates, anti-choice groups would forgo these benefits, and even risk dramatically increasing abortion rates, in favor of a larger, more insidious goal: changing Americans' sex lives.

As the American Life League, the nation's largest pro-life educational organization, explains in its materials, "The American Life League denies the moral acceptability of artificial birth control and encourages each individual to trust in God, to surrender to His will, and to be predisposed to welcoming children." The American Life League prefers to put the choices in the hands of God, a choice they want to impose on everyone. "It must be clear that couples understand that when they ask God to not send them another child just now they are also saying, ‘If it is Your will to send us another child at this time, we praise You for Your divine providence,’” the group says.

Buoyed by their success in rolling back abortion rights, these groups seek nothing less than a complete American lifestyle makeover: sex can't ever exclude the possibility of procreation. But instead of convincing Americans to see things their way, groups like the American Life League have decided the more expeditious path is to attack the right to use contraception.

The right to use contraception is relatively new: the Griswold decision was rendered in 1965 and Supreme Court granted single people the right to use contraception as recent as 1972. But the changes these decisions set in motion now form a list of what Americans won't live without. Today, 95 percent of people have sex before marrying. Indeed, studies show that most Americans in a relationship are having sex, on average, once a week. The typical American female is fertile for approximately 30 years of her life. For about 23 of those years she is trying not to get pregnant. Much of our lifestyle, and the architecture of our most intimate relationships, is rooted in family planning. And we should be grateful for this.

In the 1950s, when there was no sex education, no birth control, no legal abortion (the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement!) teen birth rates soared and have not been equaled since. Today, the rate of teen motherhood, not coincidentally, has been reduced by more than half.

The right to plan your family to the size you want and can support is a cherished, and frequently exercised, American family value. So, the next time you pass by the protest outside your local clinic listen carefully: their real target is your way of life.