By Suzanne MacNevin
I want to apologize to every fat person I have ever made fun of. Including Rob Ford.
Historically I thought that my "tough love" approach with the obesity epidemic was my way of promoting fitness and motivating fat people to stop coddling themselves, get off the sofa, and start exercising / eating healthy.
I thought that obese people needed both positive and negative reinforcement in order to motivate themselves to change.
What I have since realized is that obese people have no shortage of negative reinforcement, what they really need is more positive.
Furthermore I have also realized I was being a hater.
Not that I hate fat people. What I hated was what you stood for. Laziness and gluttony. It was nothing against the people themselves, but an indictment of their lack of willpower and a society that feeds upon laziness and gluttony, turning people into food addicts.
I came to this epiphany while I was chatting online with a friend in Canada, a personal trainer who lives in Toronto who uses sports to help motivate his clients to lose weight.
What he said was "Haters are going to hate and you can't let haters get you down. You have to stay up, keep going forward, keep trying harder, because quitting will only let the haters win - and you cannot let them win. You have to take your own hate for the haters and turn that into positive action - but you are never going to do that unless you have the support of people who are not haters and tell you to 'go for it!' "
And that was when my brain just clicked. I realized that my brand of negative reinforcement wasn't very supportive. My mindset was all screwed up and my friend had opened a window in my brain, letting a flood of light in and suddenly I could see clearly.
So now I feel I need to spread three messages.
One, I apologize. I am very sorry for all the times I made fun of fat people. I know that isn't a very good apology, but it is sincere.
Two, to other haters out there: Please realize that your hate only drags other people down.
Three, to all the people out there who are feeling a lack of motivation: You can do it. I believe in you.
Note - I want to point out that my friend was speaking broadly about haters and motivation. He wasn't speaking about exercising, the conversation turned in this direction because of some jackass who hates him just for the sake of hating him (and is probably just jealous of his physique). If you have encountered this type of person you know what they are like. The hardcore haters will find any excuse to hate people - even perfectly likable people who can speak so eloquently about turning hate into positivity.
But what he said was truly profound because it applied to all kinds of hate and to many different activities - not just motivating yourself to exercise. It also easily applies to sexism, racism, and any of discrimination.
With that said I am going back to all my old articles and blog posts on the topics of obesity, exercising, etc and re-writing them so they are more supportive. It will take awhile but I will do it. So I apologize if you read any of my old articles in which I make fun of lazy fat people and defended my negative reinforcement. It will take some time and effort to re-write everything.
And you can do it too. You just have to set your mind to it and ignore the haters!
Showing posts with label Your Body is a Temple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Your Body is a Temple. Show all posts
Nobody is Immune to Breast Cancer
Wonder Woman, She-Hulk, Storm and Catwoman are not immune to breast cancer.
What makes you think that you are immune to a disease that effects millions of women?
Regular breast self exams can help detect lumps early on and save your life.
What makes you think that you are immune to a disease that effects millions of women?
Regular breast self exams can help detect lumps early on and save your life.
Disturbing Video - 600 lb mother paid to eat
Below is a video of a 600 lb mother in the USA who was paid by men to make videos of her eating. The phenomenon is known as feeders and chubby chasers.
Eventually she reached a point where she was confined to a bed and couldn't walk any more, so she finally decided it was time to try and lose weight. So now she can walk again, but it will be a long and hard road for her to travel in America, a country which celebrates gluttony and "bigger is better".
In related news a friend of mine in Canada recently got his personal training certification from Elite Trainers. Congratulations!
And myself I am working on my weightlifting and yoga routine, trying to find new ways to jazz it up. (Maybe I should exercise while listening to jazz music???)
My point is for those seeking to lose weight and eat healthy, if you can find the motivation, then do it. Just do it and then stay motivated. You will live longer, be healthier, and be able to enjoy life more fully.
Because quite frankly being stuck in a bed or a wheelchair is something nobody should wish for.
Eventually she reached a point where she was confined to a bed and couldn't walk any more, so she finally decided it was time to try and lose weight. So now she can walk again, but it will be a long and hard road for her to travel in America, a country which celebrates gluttony and "bigger is better".
The Truth about Fashion Models and Plus Size Models
In 1992 the average American woman in her 20s weighed 132 lbs.
In 1992 the average fashion model weighed 120 lbs (8% less than the average).
In 2012 the average fashion model weighs 102 lbs (23% less than the average).
In 2002 plus-size models were considered to be between size 12 and 18.
In 2012 plus-size models now average between a size 6 and size 14.
So the fashion models are getting thinner and even the plus-size fashion models are getting thinner, despite the vast majority of women who say they would prefer models who are more realistic.
In America 50% of women wear a size 14 or larger, but the majority of fashion stores only cater to size 14 or smaller. Even so-called "plus size" stores have a limit on the sizes they have available.
My message?
Support local companies which cater to your size and taste in fashion. Change will never happen if we keep supporting companies which keep making things smaller and smaller.
Let fashion designers and brands know what you think via social networking sites and email them via their websites to let them know how you feel about clothing options.
If more people stop buying at certain stores and let them know you will not be purchasing clothing from them until they market to you, this will get their attention when they see their revenue losses and have to start contemplating store closures.
Support indie designers.
We are bombarded with sexually suggestive ads every day, but there is nothing wrong with our bodies. Our bodies aren't meant to be starved. We're meant to be eating hearty, exercising constantly and have an Amazon / Cavegirl physique. Its being too skinny which is unnatural.
We need to embrace our Amazon side and not be afraid of it.
In other news here is a fun video that may give you some food for thought...
In 1992 the average fashion model weighed 120 lbs (8% less than the average).
In 2012 the average fashion model weighs 102 lbs (23% less than the average).
In 2002 plus-size models were considered to be between size 12 and 18.
In 2012 plus-size models now average between a size 6 and size 14.
So the fashion models are getting thinner and even the plus-size fashion models are getting thinner, despite the vast majority of women who say they would prefer models who are more realistic.
In America 50% of women wear a size 14 or larger, but the majority of fashion stores only cater to size 14 or smaller. Even so-called "plus size" stores have a limit on the sizes they have available.
My message?
Support local companies which cater to your size and taste in fashion. Change will never happen if we keep supporting companies which keep making things smaller and smaller.
Let fashion designers and brands know what you think via social networking sites and email them via their websites to let them know how you feel about clothing options.
If more people stop buying at certain stores and let them know you will not be purchasing clothing from them until they market to you, this will get their attention when they see their revenue losses and have to start contemplating store closures.
Support indie designers.
We are bombarded with sexually suggestive ads every day, but there is nothing wrong with our bodies. Our bodies aren't meant to be starved. We're meant to be eating hearty, exercising constantly and have an Amazon / Cavegirl physique. Its being too skinny which is unnatural.
We need to embrace our Amazon side and not be afraid of it.
In other news here is a fun video that may give you some food for thought...
Feminism: The Sliding Scale
FEMINIST - Seriously, feminists will protest almost anything they think causes inequality.
ie. The Muff March
Activists in London and Southampton are staging a "Muff March" on Saturday December 10th to speak out against labiaplasty and what they call a ‘pornified’ culture driving increasing numbers of women to seek vaginal cosmetic surgery, and to protest against the cosmetic surgeons profiting from it. The activists will be wearing fake ‘muffs’, will march down Harley Street, famed for its cosmetic surgeries, and stage a synchronised "muff dance".
Demand for labiaplasty is increasing rapidly due to the online porn industry. Its not just saggy breasts women are seeking surgery for. Between 2007 - 2008 there was a 70% increase in the number of labiaplasty operations carried out by the NHS, and last year the Harley Medical Group received more than 5,000 inquiries about cosmetic gynaecology. Researchers at Kings College London are studying the demand for labiaplasty and have suggested this increase stems from the increasing ‘pornification’ of culture. The protest comes two weeks before Christmas, a period during which demand for cosmetic surgery has been found to surge.
The "Muff Marches" protest includes slogans likr: “Keep your mits off our bits!”, “there’s nothing finer than my vagina!”, and “Harley Street puts my chuff in a huff”.
Over 325 people have so far signed up to the London event on Facebook.
Ahem...
Which brings me back to the real reason I am writing this post: The concept of a Sliding Scale of Feminism. A scale of 0 to 10, sort of like wine dryness to sweetness.
0 - A woman who doesn't care that she is treated poorly and basically does whatever men want her to do.
5 - The average woman in the world.
10 - A hardcore feminist.
Obviously there are some women out there who want labiaplasty and have a specific idea of what their vagina should look like on an aesthetic level. On the opposite end there are women who think body modification for the sake of male standards of beauty is wrong.
Now I admit there is always the potential for some kind of horrible accident and a woman might want to seek labiaplasty as an effort to get her self esteem back, and yes, she should totally have that option. But that isn't really a feminist issue to me except on the level that it gives the victim back some of their self-esteem.
Thus I would leave the door open to people doing these things because they might see it as part of their healing process after some horrific accident.
Also some people are just really into body modification... tattoos, piercings, implants... there is a whole sub-culture for such things. Not my cup of tea, but people are free to make their own choices.
There are some things I believe in that makes me think I might be more of a 9.5 on the Sliding Scale of Feminism. Maybe a 9.1 or a 9.9. There is no way to accurately measure unless I come up with some kind of more scientific survey which determines exactly where people are on the scale.
So... on my list of things to do in the future I need to craft a survey which does two things, 1. gauges what topics people consider to be a feminist issue, and 2. asks people to gauge themselves on a scale of 0 to 5 how much they agree to disagree with a specific feminist issue. Add up all the scores, come up with a score out of 100, and then pinpoint based on the responses people give whether they are a 5.2 or a 9.7 or whatever on the scale.
Note: The questions and answers on the survey should be made precise and avoid any vagueness. Vagueness decreases the accuracy of a survey because then people will just pick one of the numbers when uncertain which number reflects their own beliefs.
1 - Disagree Strongly (worth 0 points).
2 - Disagree (worth 1 point).
3 - Not sure (worth 2 points).
4 - Agree (worth 3 points).
5 - Agree Strongly (worth 4 points).
Times 25 questions... a grand total of 100 possible points. Divide the total by 10 to get your result. Voila! Suzy's Sliding Scale of Feminism.
ie. The Muff MarchActivists in London and Southampton are staging a "Muff March" on Saturday December 10th to speak out against labiaplasty and what they call a ‘pornified’ culture driving increasing numbers of women to seek vaginal cosmetic surgery, and to protest against the cosmetic surgeons profiting from it. The activists will be wearing fake ‘muffs’, will march down Harley Street, famed for its cosmetic surgeries, and stage a synchronised "muff dance".
Demand for labiaplasty is increasing rapidly due to the online porn industry. Its not just saggy breasts women are seeking surgery for. Between 2007 - 2008 there was a 70% increase in the number of labiaplasty operations carried out by the NHS, and last year the Harley Medical Group received more than 5,000 inquiries about cosmetic gynaecology. Researchers at Kings College London are studying the demand for labiaplasty and have suggested this increase stems from the increasing ‘pornification’ of culture. The protest comes two weeks before Christmas, a period during which demand for cosmetic surgery has been found to surge.
The "Muff Marches" protest includes slogans likr: “Keep your mits off our bits!”, “there’s nothing finer than my vagina!”, and “Harley Street puts my chuff in a huff”.Over 325 people have so far signed up to the London event on Facebook.
Ahem...
Which brings me back to the real reason I am writing this post: The concept of a Sliding Scale of Feminism. A scale of 0 to 10, sort of like wine dryness to sweetness.
0 - A woman who doesn't care that she is treated poorly and basically does whatever men want her to do.
5 - The average woman in the world.
10 - A hardcore feminist.
Obviously there are some women out there who want labiaplasty and have a specific idea of what their vagina should look like on an aesthetic level. On the opposite end there are women who think body modification for the sake of male standards of beauty is wrong.
Now I admit there is always the potential for some kind of horrible accident and a woman might want to seek labiaplasty as an effort to get her self esteem back, and yes, she should totally have that option. But that isn't really a feminist issue to me except on the level that it gives the victim back some of their self-esteem.
Thus I would leave the door open to people doing these things because they might see it as part of their healing process after some horrific accident.
Also some people are just really into body modification... tattoos, piercings, implants... there is a whole sub-culture for such things. Not my cup of tea, but people are free to make their own choices.
There are some things I believe in that makes me think I might be more of a 9.5 on the Sliding Scale of Feminism. Maybe a 9.1 or a 9.9. There is no way to accurately measure unless I come up with some kind of more scientific survey which determines exactly where people are on the scale.
So... on my list of things to do in the future I need to craft a survey which does two things, 1. gauges what topics people consider to be a feminist issue, and 2. asks people to gauge themselves on a scale of 0 to 5 how much they agree to disagree with a specific feminist issue. Add up all the scores, come up with a score out of 100, and then pinpoint based on the responses people give whether they are a 5.2 or a 9.7 or whatever on the scale.
Note: The questions and answers on the survey should be made precise and avoid any vagueness. Vagueness decreases the accuracy of a survey because then people will just pick one of the numbers when uncertain which number reflects their own beliefs.
1 - Disagree Strongly (worth 0 points).
2 - Disagree (worth 1 point).
3 - Not sure (worth 2 points).
4 - Agree (worth 3 points).
5 - Agree Strongly (worth 4 points).
Times 25 questions... a grand total of 100 possible points. Divide the total by 10 to get your result. Voila! Suzy's Sliding Scale of Feminism.
The Truth about getting Pregnant
SEX - Here is a wee tidbit for you. I am thinking about having a child. Not adoption either. Via a sperm bank. No sexual acts required.
Let me explain... I am in my 30s. My (egad) biological clock is ticking. I have no intention of marrying a man, but I would be tempted to get married to my partner. I might even propose to her when the time is right. Regardless, the choice to have a child would still be mine to make. I know my partner also wants children, although we do differ on the number (she wants 2, I prefer 1).
Future Note: She could pull a fast one and get pregnant too, thus we would each have 1. It would be entirely her choice.
But you see therein lies an important truth. I am planning to get pregnant. In contrast for many women it seems to happen by accident. Often causing the need for an abortion if the woman is financially unable to support a child by herself.
Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to have children. Its a choice like any other. There's also nothing wrong with adoption.
For me its nothing to do with blood or genetics. I don't care about that. I am really quite fascinated however with the concept of bearing a child and going through the whole pregnancy process.
I want the morning sickness. I want the mood swings. I want people telling me I look radiant. I want people asking me when the baby is due. I want to discuss all my options with a doctor. Call it part social experiment / part maternal need.
And once the child is born I want to go through the whole breastfeeding process, the weaning, the raising, the whole teenage years and eventually empty nest syndrome. I want it all. (I may eat these words later, but for now I am willing to say 'em.)
And because I can plan my pregnancy it also means I have complete control over my circumstances. I know how much savings I have. I know I can depend on my partner for emotional and financial support, especially if we get married. I can research government support and heck, even government research grants since I am a bio-chemist. As a scientist I can monitor my health throughout the pregnancy and report on my status (I may need to make a separate blog for this).
I should note that I will need to find a doctor who can cope with me being 'a difficult patient' to work with. I know a little too much about the inner workings of the human body, the various hormones and chemicals at work, and how they effect the childbearing process.
To be continued...
Let me explain... I am in my 30s. My (egad) biological clock is ticking. I have no intention of marrying a man, but I would be tempted to get married to my partner. I might even propose to her when the time is right. Regardless, the choice to have a child would still be mine to make. I know my partner also wants children, although we do differ on the number (she wants 2, I prefer 1).
Future Note: She could pull a fast one and get pregnant too, thus we would each have 1. It would be entirely her choice.
But you see therein lies an important truth. I am planning to get pregnant. In contrast for many women it seems to happen by accident. Often causing the need for an abortion if the woman is financially unable to support a child by herself.
Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to have children. Its a choice like any other. There's also nothing wrong with adoption.
For me its nothing to do with blood or genetics. I don't care about that. I am really quite fascinated however with the concept of bearing a child and going through the whole pregnancy process.
I want the morning sickness. I want the mood swings. I want people telling me I look radiant. I want people asking me when the baby is due. I want to discuss all my options with a doctor. Call it part social experiment / part maternal need.
And once the child is born I want to go through the whole breastfeeding process, the weaning, the raising, the whole teenage years and eventually empty nest syndrome. I want it all. (I may eat these words later, but for now I am willing to say 'em.)
And because I can plan my pregnancy it also means I have complete control over my circumstances. I know how much savings I have. I know I can depend on my partner for emotional and financial support, especially if we get married. I can research government support and heck, even government research grants since I am a bio-chemist. As a scientist I can monitor my health throughout the pregnancy and report on my status (I may need to make a separate blog for this).
I should note that I will need to find a doctor who can cope with me being 'a difficult patient' to work with. I know a little too much about the inner workings of the human body, the various hormones and chemicals at work, and how they effect the childbearing process.
To be continued...
The Truth about Crisis Pregnancy Centres
FEMINISM - If you don't know what a "crisis pregnancy centre" is go to your local abortion clinic... and then go to the 'friendly' place right next door to it. Its not an abortion clinic, in fact its not even affiliated with it... but they try really hard to convince women who are confused about what to do.
"Pregnant? Confused? We can help." says the pamphlet.
Once inside they usher you into a soft-lit room with a comfortable couch, a coffee table, scale models of fetuses nestled in a womb... they offer you water or tea. Not coffee however because they don't want to damage the baby.
These counselling rooms are setup via registered pro-life charities. The women who work there are often paid, not necessarily volunteers. They've made it their living to convince women to have babies instead of an abortion. The charities sometimes also gives away baby clothes, cribs and diapers.
And yes, its still your choice, but they will bombard you with a series of lies designed to make you rethink your decision.
Lie #1: Terminating a pregnancy is dangerous. You could die during the procedure.
Lie #2: You may suffer permanent damage and never be able to get pregnant again.
Lie #3: Abortion clinics sell "pieces of babies" to medical research, describing in detail how "a big truck arrives and all the fetal parts are collected in a bin and put up for sale".
Lie #4: A terrifying description of the abortion procedure, with pictures of bloody aborted fetuses handpicked to look as horrible as possible.
Lie #5: Abortion is always - ALWAYS - the wrong decision because its unnatural.
Lie #6: You will become hardened, lose part of your soul and suffer from 'Post Abortion Depression' for the rest of your life.
Lie #7: Terminating a pregnancy will increase your chances of getting breast cancer and ovarian cancer by 80%. (Any idiot can tell that statistic is a flat out lie, but the few gullible people out there might fall for it.)
Such misleading information is designed to discourage women from choosing an abortion. When asked they will claim to be pro-choice and non-judgmental support, but in reality they're feeding you as much false information as they can in an effort to scare you.
The modern abortion clinic is a clean, professional atmosphere. There is no pushing women one way or another. If they're there in the first place it usually means they've already made their decision. The 'crisis pregnancy centre' next door is there preying on the confused and promoting free pregnancy tests and free counselling to promote the other options of adoption and single-parenthood, all the while promoting the idea that abortion is something to be avoided at all possible costs.
Now don't get me wrong, I support adoption and single mothers. I think people who adopt are fabulous people and every child would be lucky to have such loving parents. And single mothers are the bravest, most courageous people I can think of.
But it ultimately comes down to the choice of the individual. Trying to scare and trick someone into choosing a different option is immoral. Let people think for themselves and they will always pick the course of action which is right for themselves.
These centres are run by compassionate people who clearly believe what they're doing is right, and they firmly believe lying to convince women towards adoption and single motherhood is an 'acceptable sin' from their religious perspective.
Throwing false statistics at women in such a case could arguably be worthy of suing a crisis pregnancy centre, but I have yet to hear of a case of someone suing such a place. They don't make any promises to help support the women. Their goal is to convince a woman towards a different decision and then move on to the next confused woman.
Crisis pregnancy centres are here to stay however. The era of protesters picketing outside abortion clinics is gone. Humiliating doctors, threatening violence, blowing up abortion clinics with explosives... some of this still happens but its become more rare. The focus these days is to trick women into walking into the wrong building and convincing them that they've made the wrong decision.
And the biggest lie they will tell you is: “We’ve seen so many women that said, ‘Oh my goodness, I wish I had been told the truth and if someone would have told me, I would have kept my baby.’”
And they can say that because there's nothing to back it up. No statistics. No quotes from actual women.
And I know it to be completely false because I know plenty of women who have had abortions over the years. Not a single one regrets it. True, there might be a few women out there who do regret it (ie. they became religious later in life and became convinced that the abortion they had years earlier was murder), but these born-again Christians are - excuse my French - often full of shit and willing to say anything to promote their new found religion.
All of this misleading information just makes it more difficult for REAL family planning centres (which offer advice about abortion, adoption and single motherhood but are not judgemental about it). They end up spending a lot of their time trying to explain the real statistics, dispel the myths being promoted by the crisis pregnancy centres and be reassuring and supportive of whatever decision the woman chooses to make.
Here's a fact for you: The chances of having complications during or from an abortion is so low you're more likely to have a fatal car accident between the time you decide to have the abortion and the three days later when you finally do. The technique is ridiculously safe (and if it wasn't it wouldn't be allowed in the first place).
There are 17 crisis pregnancy centres in Toronto alone, paid for by 14 local religious charities. Across Canada there is an estimated 197 centres spreading misinformation, including 83 in Ontario alone... in contrast there is only 151 abortion clinics in Canada (36 in Ontario)
But that is nothing compared to the 4,000+ crisis pregnancy centres operating in the United States where they often get funding from Republican party members, and local state funding depending on who is the governor at the time.
In Canada they receive zero funding from provincial and federal governments. Health Canada has no role in telling women what to do with their own bodies beyond asking people to try and live in a healthy fashion.
Obviously you shouldn't go to a crisis pregnancy centre for information about abortion because they're only going to give misinformation. TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR INSTEAD. Doctors are trained to be non-judgemental in these matters, to do otherwise would lead to malpractice suit. The doctor can refer you to people who can give you more information and that info will be accurate.
ABORTION MYTHS
There are three main risks that crisis pregnancy centres claim are associated with abortion. According to medical experts they are just myths and exaggerations.
BREAST CANCER
Depending on which centre you visit they might claim the increased risk of breast cancer is "as high as 80%".
The U.S. National Cancer Institute convened a workshop of more than a hundred leading international experts in 2003 to review the existing studies and concluded that neither abortion nor miscarriage increases the risk of developing breast cancer. The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Cancer Society both support this conclusion. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recommends that women be reassured that there is zero risk when they seek information about abortion from their doctors.
EMOTIONAL TRAUMA
The centre will claim abortion can cause negative psychological effects ranging from sadness and guilt to substance abuse and suicidal thoughts, claiming this is based on first-hand knowledge of talking to people but with no statistics to back it up. They will mention post-abortion support programs, which tend to be Bible-based and lead women toward asking for forgiveness for terminating a pregnancy. They describe it as “Post Abortion Stress” or “Post Abortion Syndrome”, sometimes referred to simply as PAS.
The American Psychiatric Association does not list either “Post Abortion Stress” or “Post Abortion Syndrome” in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, considered the authoritative index of mental illnesses. The association issued a statement in 2008 noting the lack of evidence linking abortion to psychiatric illness.
“A woman may have many emotional reactions to an unwanted pregnancy and abortion – most commonly relief, but also sadness and a sense of loss. These feelings can coexist and, like feelings about any important life decision, they can vary over time,” said the statement, adding that negative feelings are often associated with the circumstances that led the woman to choose abortion, and not the procedure itself.
FERTILITY PROBLEMS
Crisis pregnancy centres say abortion increases the risk of future miscarriages and premature births, often with counsellors telling stories of women they had met who had chosen to terminate their pregnancies in the past and were now suffering because they are infertile.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom reviewed induced abortions and concluded there are no proven links between terminating a pregnancy and subsequent infertility. They did note a tiny increase in the chance of future miscarriage but noted that the evidence is inconclusive. The relative risks are extremely rare and more influenced by the age of the mother, which becomes more infertile as their biological clock keeps ticking.
Minor damage to the uterus happens less than once per 1,000 procedures, but the damage is so minor it only requires corrective surgery less than once every 10,000 procedures. This is according to 'A Clinician’s Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion' (Churchill-Livingstone, 1999).
Thus the risks are so low it becomes self-evident these stories have been ridiculously exaggerated.
See Also
Open Letter to Anti-Abortionists
"Pregnant? Confused? We can help." says the pamphlet.
Once inside they usher you into a soft-lit room with a comfortable couch, a coffee table, scale models of fetuses nestled in a womb... they offer you water or tea. Not coffee however because they don't want to damage the baby.
These counselling rooms are setup via registered pro-life charities. The women who work there are often paid, not necessarily volunteers. They've made it their living to convince women to have babies instead of an abortion. The charities sometimes also gives away baby clothes, cribs and diapers.
And yes, its still your choice, but they will bombard you with a series of lies designed to make you rethink your decision.
Lie #1: Terminating a pregnancy is dangerous. You could die during the procedure.
Lie #2: You may suffer permanent damage and never be able to get pregnant again.
Lie #3: Abortion clinics sell "pieces of babies" to medical research, describing in detail how "a big truck arrives and all the fetal parts are collected in a bin and put up for sale".
Lie #4: A terrifying description of the abortion procedure, with pictures of bloody aborted fetuses handpicked to look as horrible as possible.
Lie #5: Abortion is always - ALWAYS - the wrong decision because its unnatural.
Lie #6: You will become hardened, lose part of your soul and suffer from 'Post Abortion Depression' for the rest of your life.
Lie #7: Terminating a pregnancy will increase your chances of getting breast cancer and ovarian cancer by 80%. (Any idiot can tell that statistic is a flat out lie, but the few gullible people out there might fall for it.)
Such misleading information is designed to discourage women from choosing an abortion. When asked they will claim to be pro-choice and non-judgmental support, but in reality they're feeding you as much false information as they can in an effort to scare you.
The modern abortion clinic is a clean, professional atmosphere. There is no pushing women one way or another. If they're there in the first place it usually means they've already made their decision. The 'crisis pregnancy centre' next door is there preying on the confused and promoting free pregnancy tests and free counselling to promote the other options of adoption and single-parenthood, all the while promoting the idea that abortion is something to be avoided at all possible costs.
Now don't get me wrong, I support adoption and single mothers. I think people who adopt are fabulous people and every child would be lucky to have such loving parents. And single mothers are the bravest, most courageous people I can think of.
But it ultimately comes down to the choice of the individual. Trying to scare and trick someone into choosing a different option is immoral. Let people think for themselves and they will always pick the course of action which is right for themselves.
These centres are run by compassionate people who clearly believe what they're doing is right, and they firmly believe lying to convince women towards adoption and single motherhood is an 'acceptable sin' from their religious perspective.
Throwing false statistics at women in such a case could arguably be worthy of suing a crisis pregnancy centre, but I have yet to hear of a case of someone suing such a place. They don't make any promises to help support the women. Their goal is to convince a woman towards a different decision and then move on to the next confused woman.
Crisis pregnancy centres are here to stay however. The era of protesters picketing outside abortion clinics is gone. Humiliating doctors, threatening violence, blowing up abortion clinics with explosives... some of this still happens but its become more rare. The focus these days is to trick women into walking into the wrong building and convincing them that they've made the wrong decision.
And the biggest lie they will tell you is: “We’ve seen so many women that said, ‘Oh my goodness, I wish I had been told the truth and if someone would have told me, I would have kept my baby.’”
And they can say that because there's nothing to back it up. No statistics. No quotes from actual women.
And I know it to be completely false because I know plenty of women who have had abortions over the years. Not a single one regrets it. True, there might be a few women out there who do regret it (ie. they became religious later in life and became convinced that the abortion they had years earlier was murder), but these born-again Christians are - excuse my French - often full of shit and willing to say anything to promote their new found religion.
All of this misleading information just makes it more difficult for REAL family planning centres (which offer advice about abortion, adoption and single motherhood but are not judgemental about it). They end up spending a lot of their time trying to explain the real statistics, dispel the myths being promoted by the crisis pregnancy centres and be reassuring and supportive of whatever decision the woman chooses to make.
Here's a fact for you: The chances of having complications during or from an abortion is so low you're more likely to have a fatal car accident between the time you decide to have the abortion and the three days later when you finally do. The technique is ridiculously safe (and if it wasn't it wouldn't be allowed in the first place).
There are 17 crisis pregnancy centres in Toronto alone, paid for by 14 local religious charities. Across Canada there is an estimated 197 centres spreading misinformation, including 83 in Ontario alone... in contrast there is only 151 abortion clinics in Canada (36 in Ontario)
But that is nothing compared to the 4,000+ crisis pregnancy centres operating in the United States where they often get funding from Republican party members, and local state funding depending on who is the governor at the time.
In Canada they receive zero funding from provincial and federal governments. Health Canada has no role in telling women what to do with their own bodies beyond asking people to try and live in a healthy fashion.
Obviously you shouldn't go to a crisis pregnancy centre for information about abortion because they're only going to give misinformation. TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR INSTEAD. Doctors are trained to be non-judgemental in these matters, to do otherwise would lead to malpractice suit. The doctor can refer you to people who can give you more information and that info will be accurate.
ABORTION MYTHS
There are three main risks that crisis pregnancy centres claim are associated with abortion. According to medical experts they are just myths and exaggerations.
BREAST CANCER
Depending on which centre you visit they might claim the increased risk of breast cancer is "as high as 80%".
The U.S. National Cancer Institute convened a workshop of more than a hundred leading international experts in 2003 to review the existing studies and concluded that neither abortion nor miscarriage increases the risk of developing breast cancer. The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Cancer Society both support this conclusion. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recommends that women be reassured that there is zero risk when they seek information about abortion from their doctors.
EMOTIONAL TRAUMA
The centre will claim abortion can cause negative psychological effects ranging from sadness and guilt to substance abuse and suicidal thoughts, claiming this is based on first-hand knowledge of talking to people but with no statistics to back it up. They will mention post-abortion support programs, which tend to be Bible-based and lead women toward asking for forgiveness for terminating a pregnancy. They describe it as “Post Abortion Stress” or “Post Abortion Syndrome”, sometimes referred to simply as PAS.
The American Psychiatric Association does not list either “Post Abortion Stress” or “Post Abortion Syndrome” in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, considered the authoritative index of mental illnesses. The association issued a statement in 2008 noting the lack of evidence linking abortion to psychiatric illness.
“A woman may have many emotional reactions to an unwanted pregnancy and abortion – most commonly relief, but also sadness and a sense of loss. These feelings can coexist and, like feelings about any important life decision, they can vary over time,” said the statement, adding that negative feelings are often associated with the circumstances that led the woman to choose abortion, and not the procedure itself.
FERTILITY PROBLEMS
Crisis pregnancy centres say abortion increases the risk of future miscarriages and premature births, often with counsellors telling stories of women they had met who had chosen to terminate their pregnancies in the past and were now suffering because they are infertile.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom reviewed induced abortions and concluded there are no proven links between terminating a pregnancy and subsequent infertility. They did note a tiny increase in the chance of future miscarriage but noted that the evidence is inconclusive. The relative risks are extremely rare and more influenced by the age of the mother, which becomes more infertile as their biological clock keeps ticking.
Minor damage to the uterus happens less than once per 1,000 procedures, but the damage is so minor it only requires corrective surgery less than once every 10,000 procedures. This is according to 'A Clinician’s Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion' (Churchill-Livingstone, 1999).
Thus the risks are so low it becomes self-evident these stories have been ridiculously exaggerated.
"Given time an exaggeration becomes a rumour, a rumour becomes a myth, a myth becomes a legend and then legend is misconstrued as fact." - Suzanne MacNevin.
See Also
Open Letter to Anti-Abortionists
Media Messages that Kill
The following is a Guest Post by Dr S. Jeanne Bramhall - June 2010.
I obsess (and blog) a lot about pro-war and anti-civil liberties messages in the media because they are easiest to recognize. As a woman, I am far more concerned about the stereotyped treatment of women in the media. As a child and adolescent psychiatrist I worry particularly about the culture of extreme thinness in our society – which is one hundred percent media driven.
How Feminism Shapes My Views
I confess I am also a feminist. This is an embarrassing confession. Feminists, gays and dark-skinned people are subject to much ridicule and scorn in contemporary society. In my opinion the controversy stems from confusion around the definition, which has somehow been associated with an irrational hatred of men. I use the word feminist in its broadest sense – to describe women who refuse to automatically subordinate their own (or their children’s) needs to men, the male power structure or a male-oriented view of society. I happen to like men. Some of my best friends are men. As a feminist health professional, I am enormously concerned that young girls are continuously bombarded with messages from TV, movies, music videos and youth and fashion oriented books and magazines that leave them with a distorted – and dangerous – view of themselves and their bodies.
Romantic Love is Dangerous to Your Health
Among the most pernicious is the constant emphasis on being young, thin and attractive to men. It relates, in large part, to a carefully crafted myth that romantic love is the highest ideal a woman can achieve in contemporary society. It is so powerful that the majority of women grow up believing in a highly stereotyped version of romantic love, as well as a self-concept that they are utterly worthless without a man to love them. This myth, like Santa Claus and the diamond engagement ring, are creatures of an elaborate and sophisticated marketing industry. It bears little relation to real life. In fact the myth hurts men almost as much as women because it is largely to blame for our high rate of divorce and broken families.
On Being Young, Attractive and Dead
As a health professional I am most distressed by the extremely narrow and stereotyped standard of attractiveness – young, perfectly chiseled and starvation thin – necessary to succeed in the fashion, TV or movie industry. There is no question media marketing deliberately aims these messages at teens and pre-teens who lack the critical thinking necessary to differentiate what they see on the screen from real life.
This strategy is immoral and should be illegal. All women exposed to this stuff learn to hate their own bodies. This universal self-hatred is responsible for an exponential increase in potential fatal eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.
The U.S. Statistics Speak for Themselves
I obsess (and blog) a lot about pro-war and anti-civil liberties messages in the media because they are easiest to recognize. As a woman, I am far more concerned about the stereotyped treatment of women in the media. As a child and adolescent psychiatrist I worry particularly about the culture of extreme thinness in our society – which is one hundred percent media driven.
How Feminism Shapes My Views
I confess I am also a feminist. This is an embarrassing confession. Feminists, gays and dark-skinned people are subject to much ridicule and scorn in contemporary society. In my opinion the controversy stems from confusion around the definition, which has somehow been associated with an irrational hatred of men. I use the word feminist in its broadest sense – to describe women who refuse to automatically subordinate their own (or their children’s) needs to men, the male power structure or a male-oriented view of society. I happen to like men. Some of my best friends are men. As a feminist health professional, I am enormously concerned that young girls are continuously bombarded with messages from TV, movies, music videos and youth and fashion oriented books and magazines that leave them with a distorted – and dangerous – view of themselves and their bodies.
Romantic Love is Dangerous to Your Health
Among the most pernicious is the constant emphasis on being young, thin and attractive to men. It relates, in large part, to a carefully crafted myth that romantic love is the highest ideal a woman can achieve in contemporary society. It is so powerful that the majority of women grow up believing in a highly stereotyped version of romantic love, as well as a self-concept that they are utterly worthless without a man to love them. This myth, like Santa Claus and the diamond engagement ring, are creatures of an elaborate and sophisticated marketing industry. It bears little relation to real life. In fact the myth hurts men almost as much as women because it is largely to blame for our high rate of divorce and broken families.
On Being Young, Attractive and Dead
As a health professional I am most distressed by the extremely narrow and stereotyped standard of attractiveness – young, perfectly chiseled and starvation thin – necessary to succeed in the fashion, TV or movie industry. There is no question media marketing deliberately aims these messages at teens and pre-teens who lack the critical thinking necessary to differentiate what they see on the screen from real life.
This strategy is immoral and should be illegal. All women exposed to this stuff learn to hate their own bodies. This universal self-hatred is responsible for an exponential increase in potential fatal eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.
The U.S. Statistics Speak for Themselves
Eating disorders are a major cause of death for women age 15-24.
4% of American women are afflicted with a life-threatening eating disorder.
Approx. 10% of American women with eating disorders die within 10 years of developing the disorder.
20% of American women with eating disorders die within 20 years of developing the disorder.
The Truth about the Sexual Revolution & the Pill
SEX - 50 years ago tomorrow (it was first approved on May 9th 1960) a miraculous pill appeared on the market that prevented pregnancy 100% of the time if used properly. Sometimes mistakes were made or women forgot to take their pill for the day, but otherwise it was an ingenious little tool for freeing the libidos of women both young and slightly older.
Some people however tend to blame/credit the Pill with the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. Oh how wrong they are.
The truth of the Pill is statistically it did nothing to the abortion rate. Women kept getting pregnant when not on the pill, often due to inexperience and some men not knowing how to do the "pull out at the last minute routine". Thats the routine men were doing prior to the Pill and it apparently was working at least part of the time.
The little compact case and the "magic pills" it contained was somewhat synonmous with the 1960s: Peace, love and rampant sex in the mud at Woodstock.
But what would have happened if there had been no pill?
Peace, love and rampant sex in the mud at Woodstock, that's what. People still would have been having sex, the difference would have been a lot more couples using the pull out technique instead and couples would have been getting less enjoyment out of sex.
So thats the truth right there. The Pill resulted in couples being able to enjoy sex more. It did very little it stemming unwanted pregnancies because all too often people made mistakes with the oral contraceptive and got pregnant anyway.
And the other truth of the matter is that it wasn't all hippie chicks who rushed out to take the Pill. It was mostly married women in their late 20s, 30s and even early 40s. They already had several kids and didn't want any more. Thus this sexual revolution was more in the married bedrooms than the single bedrooms.
“Within the first five years of its release something like a quarter of all married women of reproductive age had used the Pill, so clearly there was a big shift and a concomitant decrease in the proportion of women using diaphragms and condoms,” says Elizabeth Watkins, author of "On the Pill: A Social History of Oral Contraceptives, 1950-1970" and a professor of history at the University of California, San Francisco.
Before the Pill came on the market there was already a sexual revolution going on. Between 1940 and 1960 the number of single mothers had tripled. Women were having sex, getting pregnant, and probably have a good time during the process.
It was after all the 1950s Baby Boom period. Everyone was having sex, women were getting pregnant whether they were married or not and it wasn't until 1960 when the Pill became available that they realized they could have even more sex and didn't have to use the pull out method any more. Married women and men no doubt celebrated with a rousing bout of hide the weasel in the bushes.
Thus the Sexual Revolution was already in full swing when the Pill arrived. It just gave the revolution an extra push.
Its also known that the Pill was rather expensive when it first arrived. A bit like Viagra is today (I'll get back to the Viagra topic later) and thus married/working women were the only ones who could easily afford it.
There are other things that pushed the Sexual Revolution too.
In 1947 Professor Alfred Kinsey founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University. Kinsey's research about human sexuality during the 1940s and 1950s was groundbreaking and the first of its kind. His books "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" in 1948, followed in 1953 by "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" reached the top of bestseller lists and turned Kinsey into an instant celebrity.
In 1950 Ernst Grafenberg, a German gynecologist, discovered the G-Spot.
In December 1953 Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Magazine featured Marilyn Monroe as its first cover girl and nude centerfold in the premiere issue.
In 1959 The Immoral Mr. Teas was directed, produced and released by Russ Meyer. Meyer was a pioneer in the porn industry, creating softcore porn (he even created the term) in films like Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965) and Vixen! (1968) and pushing the limits of censorship in America. He continued making films well into the 1970s.
And there are hardly the only things.
What the Pill did really was allow women to more fully enjoy sex, right up to moment of orgasm and even afterwards for round 2 or 3.
“Polls taken at the time indicated that single women who were already sexually active were enthusiastic about the Pill because it allowed them to enjoy sex more fully,” says Elizabeth Tyler May, professor of American studies and history at the University of Minnesota, is the author of the just released 'America + The Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation'.
It wasn't until 1967 that Time magazine dubbed the Pill the “miraculous tablet”.
“If the Pill can defuse the population explosion,” the magazine theorized, “it will go far toward eliminating hunger, want and ignorance.”
But that never really happened. The Catholic Church pushed the agenda that the Pill was a sin to use, thus while population growth rates have declined unwanted pregnancies still exist because the percentage of women on the Pill never reached a "breakthrough level" where it became the driving force behind population control. Instead women kept getting pregnant by accident, men kept using the pull-out method and it wasn't really until STDs like AIDS appeared that people started taking condoms more seriously.
The Pill was more of a contraceptive stepping stone in legitimizing the use of other contraceptives like condoms, diaphragms, injections, patches, rings, the Morning After Pill, Lybrel, a continuous low-dose period-free pill with no placebos, etc. It created a Contraceptive Revolution... but it was hardly the cause of the Sexual Revolution which was already in full swing anyway.
And it also kickstarted the sex-pill revolution... Pills like Viagra, Cialis and what will eventually become the Viagra 4 Women pill (or whatever name they choose) are a growing (sometimes disturbing) trend. Just this past week Britain released a new pill called Prilogy which cuts down on Premature Ejaculation and allows PE sufferers to last 3 times longer.
Just wait they'll invent pills that cause instant orgasms, feelings of love, induce abortion without the need for surgery, allow men to orgasm without releasing semen, make women more sensitive so they can orgasm easier, pills to make us younger, more energetic... Disturbed by the possibilities yet?
And frankly it will all become a bit disturbing because it won't be just the younger generation popping pills, it will be the older generation getting it on. There's nothing more disturbing than our parents and grandparents having booty calls.
Some people however tend to blame/credit the Pill with the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. Oh how wrong they are.The truth of the Pill is statistically it did nothing to the abortion rate. Women kept getting pregnant when not on the pill, often due to inexperience and some men not knowing how to do the "pull out at the last minute routine". Thats the routine men were doing prior to the Pill and it apparently was working at least part of the time.
The little compact case and the "magic pills" it contained was somewhat synonmous with the 1960s: Peace, love and rampant sex in the mud at Woodstock.
But what would have happened if there had been no pill?
Peace, love and rampant sex in the mud at Woodstock, that's what. People still would have been having sex, the difference would have been a lot more couples using the pull out technique instead and couples would have been getting less enjoyment out of sex.
So thats the truth right there. The Pill resulted in couples being able to enjoy sex more. It did very little it stemming unwanted pregnancies because all too often people made mistakes with the oral contraceptive and got pregnant anyway.And the other truth of the matter is that it wasn't all hippie chicks who rushed out to take the Pill. It was mostly married women in their late 20s, 30s and even early 40s. They already had several kids and didn't want any more. Thus this sexual revolution was more in the married bedrooms than the single bedrooms.
“Within the first five years of its release something like a quarter of all married women of reproductive age had used the Pill, so clearly there was a big shift and a concomitant decrease in the proportion of women using diaphragms and condoms,” says Elizabeth Watkins, author of "On the Pill: A Social History of Oral Contraceptives, 1950-1970" and a professor of history at the University of California, San Francisco.
Before the Pill came on the market there was already a sexual revolution going on. Between 1940 and 1960 the number of single mothers had tripled. Women were having sex, getting pregnant, and probably have a good time during the process.
It was after all the 1950s Baby Boom period. Everyone was having sex, women were getting pregnant whether they were married or not and it wasn't until 1960 when the Pill became available that they realized they could have even more sex and didn't have to use the pull out method any more. Married women and men no doubt celebrated with a rousing bout of hide the weasel in the bushes.
Thus the Sexual Revolution was already in full swing when the Pill arrived. It just gave the revolution an extra push.Its also known that the Pill was rather expensive when it first arrived. A bit like Viagra is today (I'll get back to the Viagra topic later) and thus married/working women were the only ones who could easily afford it.
There are other things that pushed the Sexual Revolution too.
In 1947 Professor Alfred Kinsey founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University. Kinsey's research about human sexuality during the 1940s and 1950s was groundbreaking and the first of its kind. His books "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" in 1948, followed in 1953 by "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" reached the top of bestseller lists and turned Kinsey into an instant celebrity.
In 1950 Ernst Grafenberg, a German gynecologist, discovered the G-Spot.
In December 1953 Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Magazine featured Marilyn Monroe as its first cover girl and nude centerfold in the premiere issue.
In 1959 The Immoral Mr. Teas was directed, produced and released by Russ Meyer. Meyer was a pioneer in the porn industry, creating softcore porn (he even created the term) in films like Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965) and Vixen! (1968) and pushing the limits of censorship in America. He continued making films well into the 1970s.
And there are hardly the only things.What the Pill did really was allow women to more fully enjoy sex, right up to moment of orgasm and even afterwards for round 2 or 3.
“Polls taken at the time indicated that single women who were already sexually active were enthusiastic about the Pill because it allowed them to enjoy sex more fully,” says Elizabeth Tyler May, professor of American studies and history at the University of Minnesota, is the author of the just released 'America + The Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation'.
It wasn't until 1967 that Time magazine dubbed the Pill the “miraculous tablet”.
“If the Pill can defuse the population explosion,” the magazine theorized, “it will go far toward eliminating hunger, want and ignorance.”
But that never really happened. The Catholic Church pushed the agenda that the Pill was a sin to use, thus while population growth rates have declined unwanted pregnancies still exist because the percentage of women on the Pill never reached a "breakthrough level" where it became the driving force behind population control. Instead women kept getting pregnant by accident, men kept using the pull-out method and it wasn't really until STDs like AIDS appeared that people started taking condoms more seriously.The Pill was more of a contraceptive stepping stone in legitimizing the use of other contraceptives like condoms, diaphragms, injections, patches, rings, the Morning After Pill, Lybrel, a continuous low-dose period-free pill with no placebos, etc. It created a Contraceptive Revolution... but it was hardly the cause of the Sexual Revolution which was already in full swing anyway.
And it also kickstarted the sex-pill revolution... Pills like Viagra, Cialis and what will eventually become the Viagra 4 Women pill (or whatever name they choose) are a growing (sometimes disturbing) trend. Just this past week Britain released a new pill called Prilogy which cuts down on Premature Ejaculation and allows PE sufferers to last 3 times longer.
Just wait they'll invent pills that cause instant orgasms, feelings of love, induce abortion without the need for surgery, allow men to orgasm without releasing semen, make women more sensitive so they can orgasm easier, pills to make us younger, more energetic... Disturbed by the possibilities yet?
And frankly it will all become a bit disturbing because it won't be just the younger generation popping pills, it will be the older generation getting it on. There's nothing more disturbing than our parents and grandparents having booty calls.
The Truth about Funding 3rd World Abortions
CANADA/HEALTH - When a country like Canada or the United States contributes money to help legal safe abortion clinics overseas what they are really doing is saving lives.
Unsafe abortions (the kind you do with a coat hanger, etc) in third world countries have a 13% mortality rate, and are usually done by women who already have children thus resulting in their existing children becoming orphans.
Safe clinical abortions however have a 0% mortality rate and is one of the most important ways for planning childhood.
When women don't have the option for a safe abortion, they will inevitably pick an unsafe one.
Even in countries like Canada where abortion is legal... unsafe abortions still happen because sometimes young women like to keep it secret.
I know a woman from northern Ontario who had an unsafe abortion. Lets call her "E". E's parents were very religious and because of her age in order to have an abortion she needed parental permission. She didn't want to upset them so she arranged to have an unsafe abortion using a coathanger in her bathtub while her parents were away. She had kept the pregnancy a secret by wearing baggy clothes and putting on extra weight until the fetus was large enough to be removed using the coathanger technique.
"E" then buried the fetus in the woods.
"E" doesn't regret her decision. She was convinced her very strict religious parents would have killed her if they had known she was having sex and had gotten pregnant. They didn't even know she had a boyfriend, who later beat her up and ditched her.
So here's my point: If these kind of traumatic unsafe abortions are still in Canada, just imagine what its like in a third world country where food is scarce, crime is rampant and local governments allow abortion but can't afford to fund it?
Abortion is a women's right. It is a human right. Women are going to do it whether its legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. Religion isn't even a factor when you're desperate.
So when Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, announces that Canada's foreign aid will no longer be used to fund clinics that provide abortions... what is he really doing? What he is doing is cutting off ALL funding to all clinics that provide anything meaningful in terms of condoms, advice, abortion, everything... Its an all or nothing scenario.
The end result is the only groups that would receive funding are ones that promote ABSTINENCE and preach that using condoms is a sin.
Abstinence doesn't work. Its a proven fact. People are going to have sex regardless, either because they want to or because they've been raped. These are third world countries and there isn't a lot else to do for fun and because of low educational standards it means they don't know the dangers of sex, how babies are made and possibly even have some superstitions about it.
Years ago I met a woman from China who thought only married couples have babies. She didn't even know what condoms were for because she thought people just used them for being kinky. She was coming from a reasonably educated country with a one-child-only policy. In theory she should have known what condoms were for but apparently didn't learn that until moving to Canada.
What third world countries need therefore is more sex education. And they also need the tools and funding to perform legal safe abortions in the event that fails to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Stephen Harper's recent cutting of funding for safe abortions shows his complete ignorance on the topic and a political bias rooted in fundamental Christianity wherein he thinks abstinence can actual work.
Abstinence is a great theory, it just doesn't work in practice.
Magnitude of the Problem
20 million women experience an unsafe abortion worldwide each year; 18.5 million of these occur in developing countries.
67 000 - 70 000 women die from complications of unsafe abortion each year - all in developing countries.
Nearly 60% of all unsafe abortions in Africa are among young women aged 15-24 years.
See Also
Open Letter to Anti-Abortionists
A Woman's Choice - The Right to Privacy and the Right to Choose
Unsafe abortions (the kind you do with a coat hanger, etc) in third world countries have a 13% mortality rate, and are usually done by women who already have children thus resulting in their existing children becoming orphans.Safe clinical abortions however have a 0% mortality rate and is one of the most important ways for planning childhood.
When women don't have the option for a safe abortion, they will inevitably pick an unsafe one.
Even in countries like Canada where abortion is legal... unsafe abortions still happen because sometimes young women like to keep it secret.
I know a woman from northern Ontario who had an unsafe abortion. Lets call her "E". E's parents were very religious and because of her age in order to have an abortion she needed parental permission. She didn't want to upset them so she arranged to have an unsafe abortion using a coathanger in her bathtub while her parents were away. She had kept the pregnancy a secret by wearing baggy clothes and putting on extra weight until the fetus was large enough to be removed using the coathanger technique.
"E" then buried the fetus in the woods.
"E" doesn't regret her decision. She was convinced her very strict religious parents would have killed her if they had known she was having sex and had gotten pregnant. They didn't even know she had a boyfriend, who later beat her up and ditched her.
So here's my point: If these kind of traumatic unsafe abortions are still in Canada, just imagine what its like in a third world country where food is scarce, crime is rampant and local governments allow abortion but can't afford to fund it?Abortion is a women's right. It is a human right. Women are going to do it whether its legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. Religion isn't even a factor when you're desperate.
So when Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, announces that Canada's foreign aid will no longer be used to fund clinics that provide abortions... what is he really doing? What he is doing is cutting off ALL funding to all clinics that provide anything meaningful in terms of condoms, advice, abortion, everything... Its an all or nothing scenario.
The end result is the only groups that would receive funding are ones that promote ABSTINENCE and preach that using condoms is a sin.
Abstinence doesn't work. Its a proven fact. People are going to have sex regardless, either because they want to or because they've been raped. These are third world countries and there isn't a lot else to do for fun and because of low educational standards it means they don't know the dangers of sex, how babies are made and possibly even have some superstitions about it.
Years ago I met a woman from China who thought only married couples have babies. She didn't even know what condoms were for because she thought people just used them for being kinky. She was coming from a reasonably educated country with a one-child-only policy. In theory she should have known what condoms were for but apparently didn't learn that until moving to Canada.
What third world countries need therefore is more sex education. And they also need the tools and funding to perform legal safe abortions in the event that fails to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Stephen Harper's recent cutting of funding for safe abortions shows his complete ignorance on the topic and a political bias rooted in fundamental Christianity wherein he thinks abstinence can actual work.
Abstinence is a great theory, it just doesn't work in practice.
Magnitude of the Problem20 million women experience an unsafe abortion worldwide each year; 18.5 million of these occur in developing countries.
67 000 - 70 000 women die from complications of unsafe abortion each year - all in developing countries.
Nearly 60% of all unsafe abortions in Africa are among young women aged 15-24 years.
See Also
Open Letter to Anti-Abortionists
A Woman's Choice - The Right to Privacy and the Right to Choose
Pregnant Woman Wins Court Battle
FEMINISM/HEALTH - In 2008 Ontario woman Jessica Maciel was 20 years old, single and was accidentally pregnant. She chose to keep it. A year later she has a bouncing baby boy.
What she wasn't expecting was to be fired over it. The Nino D'Arena beauty salon in Mississauga apparently didn't want a pregnant woman working in their salon.
Two days ago on Wednesday the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario awarded Maciel $35,000 is damages and lost wages, to be paid for by the salon. The Nino D'Arena salon has also been ordered to implement a policy that will protect women in the future from being fired over a pregnancy.
Maciel was already 4 months pregnant when she first started working at the salon in August 2008. There is no requirement under the Ontario's Human Rights Code to advise possible employers about a pregnancy.
After telling her boss Cinzia Conforti about the pregnancy however she was asked 15 minutes later to leave. It was blatant discrimination.
The court decision to punish the salon and award Maciel "really sends the message that excluding new mothers from the workplace is not an option for employers," says Maciel's lawyer Kate Sellars. Ontario's Human Rights Legal Support Centre receives about 40 calls / week from women facing discrimination.
Other legal support groups are out there all across Canada and the United States. You just have to look for them. Here is the links for other non-Ontario groups.
Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commissions
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
British Columbia Human Rights Coalition
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies
Manitoba Human Rights Commission
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission
Newfoundland Human Rights Commission
Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission
Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission
Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission
Quebec – Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission
Yukon Human Rights Commission
Word to the Wise: Don't trample on people's Human Rights, because they can sue you and win.
What she wasn't expecting was to be fired over it. The Nino D'Arena beauty salon in Mississauga apparently didn't want a pregnant woman working in their salon.Two days ago on Wednesday the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario awarded Maciel $35,000 is damages and lost wages, to be paid for by the salon. The Nino D'Arena salon has also been ordered to implement a policy that will protect women in the future from being fired over a pregnancy.
Maciel was already 4 months pregnant when she first started working at the salon in August 2008. There is no requirement under the Ontario's Human Rights Code to advise possible employers about a pregnancy.
After telling her boss Cinzia Conforti about the pregnancy however she was asked 15 minutes later to leave. It was blatant discrimination.
The court decision to punish the salon and award Maciel "really sends the message that excluding new mothers from the workplace is not an option for employers," says Maciel's lawyer Kate Sellars. Ontario's Human Rights Legal Support Centre receives about 40 calls / week from women facing discrimination.
Other legal support groups are out there all across Canada and the United States. You just have to look for them. Here is the links for other non-Ontario groups.
Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commissions
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
British Columbia Human Rights Coalition
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies
Manitoba Human Rights Commission
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission
Newfoundland Human Rights Commission
Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission
Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission
Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission
Quebec – Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission
Yukon Human Rights Commission
Word to the Wise: Don't trample on people's Human Rights, because they can sue you and win.
Prostitution: Criminalizing the Men
FEMINISM/SEX - What is the point in arresting prostitutes? We charge them, fine them and release them back on to the street within 48 hours.But the Johns and pimps on the other hand... to say nothing of sex traffickers who smuggle children into sex-slavery. Those are the people we should be worried about.
"89% of prostitutes desperately want out"
In the world of international exploitation and sex trafficking, it's men, the customers and the people pushing the women into into sex, who should be charged and tossed in prison.Some women choose to work as prostitutes, but many admits its "the ultimate act of humiliation and desperation". They do it to survive and put food on the table. Studies show that 89% of prostitutes desperately want out. They're hungry, need to feed children or give health care to aging parents, and the only alternative is to take their clothes off and service a line-up of willing men.
In some countries there's really no other kind of work for young women to do, especially in countries with struggling economies. Its not like the United States or Canada or other western countries where prostitution is largely a choice. In many countries they don't have other options available.
And even here in Canada there is surprising results for the makeup of prostitutes. Many of them are immigrants with poor English, struggling in this new place. In Vancouver many of them are Native Canadians who were raised on reserves and are now being controlled by pimps who pay them with drugs.The drugs keeps them controlled and coming back for more.
The pimps are the root of the problem and the Johns seeking a "moment of bliss" are the demand. So how do we cut off that demand?
"These men never ask how she is, how did she get here, is she being forced. They don't look into her eyes beyond the veneer of gaudy makeup, stiletto heels and cheap clothes. They just want to get their rocks off. When money changes hands, it's the ultimate conscience pacifier. They don't have to deal with guilt," says investigative reporter Victor Malarek, author of "The Johns: Sex for Sale and the Men who Buy It".
"They delude themselves into believing that every moan and groan is because of their magnetic masculinity. They want to believe it, and the women are trained to do this," says Malarek.And the type of men who use women in this way, they're not exactly pro-women, just pro-sex. "When anyone on the... sex sites raises the question about conscience, they are immediately asked, "Are you a feminist, a fem-Nazi, a fundamentalist? Who are you?" They don't want anyone to raise the question," says Malarek.
Then there's the STDs, the beatings, the men who pay extra for strange services (including having sex without a condom)... and even murders. Legalized prostitution comes with all the same risks as illegal prostitution, the problem is its giving men a green light to do whatever they want, without fear of police looking over their shoulders.
Even in drug-and-sex-crazed Amsterdam, the mayor is saying, "What a big fricking mistake." Women there are still controlled by pimps, beaten, trafficked, forced and controlled with drugs. There is almost no measures to protect women and organized crime is rampant. The government there has essentially becomes pimps and pushers.Prostitutes in Sweden have been reduced by half.
So what would happen if we started having sting operations and charging Johns?
Well, theoretically we could get that 89% of women out of the business and doing something else. Give them job training so they can find jobs and create careers with a future.
In Sweden the government decriminalized the women and criminalized the men. Since then the number of prostituted women has been reduced by half. Norway just introduced identical legislation in January 2009.So would it work in Canada and the United States?
"I believe it would. We have a mishmash of laws that don't seem to make sense. Sweden is concerned with equality of women ... and an option for women to be retrained, to seek psychological help, all the safety valves. Here, there is certainly no protection for women," says Victor Malarek.
Laziness seems to be the key for some of these men. They say they don't want the drama, they don't want to invest in relationships, because it takes too much time, effort and emotional strain.But if it was illegal for men, if the police did a lot more sting operations to catch Johns, it would cause men to be more worried about getting caught with their pants down and their balls on the chopping block.
If its proven to work in Sweden and Norway, why can't we do it here?
Ursula Andress on Osteoporosis
ENTERTAINMENT/HEALTH - Ursula Andress is the original James Bond girl, but she is hardly the stereotypical image of the osteoporosis sufferer. Andress is the iconic Bond Girl, emerging from the Jamaican waters like mythical Venus in the 1962 film 'Dr. No', complete with a knife tucked into her hip-belt.Andress, 73-years-old, still looks to be around 60-something and unmistakable with her sharp cheekbones.
She is currently the spokesperson for 'Timeless Women: The Campaign for Stronger Bones', a program aiming to raise awareness of osteoporosis. It is a disease that weakens bones, making them more susceptible to breaks or fractures, usually in the hip, spine and wrist. It also reduces the body's ability to grow new bone tissue and repair micro-damage.
One in four women over the age 50 have osteoporosis. And it is surprisingly deadly, one out of five Canadians who fracture a hip will die in less than a year.
People as young as 25 can be affected by osteoporosis, as can men. One in six men over the age of 50 has osteoporosis.
"I have to accept the truth," says Andress. "Why would I want to hide it? If I can help other women I am happy to do it.
"It is important to reach the public. It is very important to create awareness and get a checkup (a bone-density test). I never took osteoporosis seriously: `Oh, it's an old-bone disease and can be cured with calcium.' It's a sickness and I was diagnosed at 60. I did the mammogram, blood-pressure test and they asked if I'd had a bone-density test. When they did it, they said, `On your left hip, we don't like that. Take this medication.'"
Staving off osteoporosis is best using a combination of exercise (especially weightlifting) and a high calcium diet. Sometimes that is not enough however."I was snow shovelling and I fell down. They told me then that I had osteoporosis. I had been taking extra calcium, and that wasn't enough."
For her condition, Andress intravenously takes an $800, annual dose of Aclasta, a medication that inhibits the release of calcium from bone. Before her fall, Andress thought she was warding off osteoporosis with calcium, but her lack of exercise had resulted in her body not absorbing all of the calcium she was eating.
Now Andress is on a huge exercise kick. "I don't do crazy things but I do certain exercises. I never go to the gym – I have a huge property and I work in the garden. I swim a lot; I have a pool. I walk so fast nobody can follow me. I don't lift weights except for 150 flower pots. And I do the lifting wrong. You are supposed to crouch down." Andress admits she should be doing more weightlifting but says "I am active and my freedom is so important. I will give up anything but my freedom. I need it to exist. I don't do anything more carefully. I hope not to fall but you never know: You go skiing, you fall."
Thankfully she doesn't ski any more."Dr. No was my first movie and they asked me what kind of gymnastics I do," she recalls. "I have never worked out in my life. I was born with an athletic body. As a child, I biked miles and miles to school and I did competitive swimming. I walk briskly but I do nothing with fanaticism."
Andress also appeared in over 30 films including Fun in Acapulco, What's New Pussycat?, The 10th Victim and Casino Royale (1967).
Andress was married to John Derek from 1957 to 1965, when he divorced her for younger actress Linda Evans.
Andress's advice for women getting older? Lots of milk and an active lifestyle.
QUESTION: Is Osteoporosis a feminist issue?
Yes, because its an issue of exercise and education. Women need to ignore the stereotypes about female athletes and go out there and exercise more.
International Women's Day
FEMINISM - Sunday March 8th is International Women's Day (in Canada and several other countries IWD is celebrated on March 7th). Around the world women will be gathering together to promote equality, better pay and an end to discrimination against women.
International Women's Day did not come about by chance but evolved under pressure. This pressure was brought to bear as women reacted to hardship experienced by female needle trade workers in New York City in 1908. Due to poor working conditions, several female workers in that trade perished in a fire. The tragic event led women in the needle trade to demand better working conditions, the right to be unionized and the right to vote. Their ideas gained momentum with wide acceptance of IWD on a global scale, in both developed and developing countries, since 1910.
WORLD WIDE PROBLEMS
Female Genital Mutilation
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), between 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of female genital mutilation. In Africa, about 92 million girls age 10 years and above are estimated to have undergone the procedure - the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, the partial or complete closure of the vaginal opening, or other injury to the female genital organs as part of cultural, religious and social reasons. The procedures are mostly carried out on young girls, sometime between infancy and age 15.
Violence against Women & Femicide
The WHO reports that about 5,000 women are murdered by family members in the name of honour each year worldwide. See The Ten Worst Countries for Women.
Also, in a 10-country study on women's health and domestic violence conducted by WHO, between 15 per cent and 71 per cent of women reported physical or sexual violence by a husband or partner. See Femicide in Guatemala & Canada or Gender Violence in Mexico.
Stonings of Women
In countries like Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia the stoning of women is still highly practised. In one case in Nigeria, Safiya Hussaini Tungar-Tudu, a 30-year-old woman was ordered stoned to death for having sex outside marriage after asking a court to force a man that she alleged had raped her, to pay for her newborn daughter's naming ceremony.
IWD LOCAL EVENTS
If you live in a major city, check out the local events that feminists are doing tomorrow in your local city newspaper.
In Toronto Canada, Feminists are having a three part event on March 7th:
11 AM - Rally at OISE auditorium.
1 PM - March down Bloor Street and Yonge Street. See map.
1:30 PM onwards - Fair at Ryerson University, 55 Gould St.
International Women's Day did not come about by chance but evolved under pressure. This pressure was brought to bear as women reacted to hardship experienced by female needle trade workers in New York City in 1908. Due to poor working conditions, several female workers in that trade perished in a fire. The tragic event led women in the needle trade to demand better working conditions, the right to be unionized and the right to vote. Their ideas gained momentum with wide acceptance of IWD on a global scale, in both developed and developing countries, since 1910.
WORLD WIDE PROBLEMS
Female Genital Mutilation
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), between 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of female genital mutilation. In Africa, about 92 million girls age 10 years and above are estimated to have undergone the procedure - the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, the partial or complete closure of the vaginal opening, or other injury to the female genital organs as part of cultural, religious and social reasons. The procedures are mostly carried out on young girls, sometime between infancy and age 15.
Violence against Women & Femicide
The WHO reports that about 5,000 women are murdered by family members in the name of honour each year worldwide. See The Ten Worst Countries for Women.
Also, in a 10-country study on women's health and domestic violence conducted by WHO, between 15 per cent and 71 per cent of women reported physical or sexual violence by a husband or partner. See Femicide in Guatemala & Canada or Gender Violence in Mexico.
Stonings of Women
In countries like Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia the stoning of women is still highly practised. In one case in Nigeria, Safiya Hussaini Tungar-Tudu, a 30-year-old woman was ordered stoned to death for having sex outside marriage after asking a court to force a man that she alleged had raped her, to pay for her newborn daughter's naming ceremony.
IWD LOCAL EVENTS
If you live in a major city, check out the local events that feminists are doing tomorrow in your local city newspaper.
In Toronto Canada, Feminists are having a three part event on March 7th:
11 AM - Rally at OISE auditorium.
1 PM - March down Bloor Street and Yonge Street. See map.
1:30 PM onwards - Fair at Ryerson University, 55 Gould St.
Obama ends abortion-linked ban
FEMINISM/POLITICS - President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information – an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.Obama's executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious policies of the previous president was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.
The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since Republican President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released from the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," said President Obama.
Obama signed the executive order, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's Wednesday announcement on ethics rules and Thursday signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspectsHis action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion.
The Bush Administration had banned money from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world. The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a UN International Conference on Population.
Organizations and legislators that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future."
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign. Clinton visited the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier Friday but made no mention of the step, which had not yet been announced.Anti-abortionists condemned Obama's decision.
See Also:
International Women's Day
Criminalizing Women
Sleeping in Sports Bras
FASHION/HEALTH - Myself and a friend have both been experiencing muscle-related chest pains as we get older, especially while we sleep, and we think its caused by a lack of support while we sleep.We were both told by our mothers (and everyone else with an opinion) that we're not supposed to sleep with a bra and told it would either make our breasts smaller, cause deformities, that its bad for circulation, constricts your breathing and that its unhealthy for a variety of reasons.
Well, recently my friend has started wearing a sports bra to bed. Not a really tight one, just something comfortable that provides support and she claims her chest pains have gone away. It could be a placebo effect, but she's certain its the sports bra.
Now before I jump on the bandwagon and try the same thing I thought I'd consult the internet and see what other people have been saying about sleeping in sports bras... and what I found was a lot of people with an opinion, but most of it just seems to be hearsay. Some people even mention so-called studies that prove sleeping in a bra (regardless of type) is bad for your health. Well, I've been searching around for these studies and I can't find any of the research results. I have pretty much concluded this "don't sleep in a bra" thing is just an urban myth forced on women (by ourselves it would appear).I'd love to see a formal or informal study of 10 women with muscle-related chest pains who all decide to wear sports bras for 2 weeks and see if it helps. Maybe then we could disprove this myth once and for all.
According to rumour (not sure if this is true or not) Marilyn Monroe always slept with a bra so she would never lose that gravity-defying look. So evidently I am not the only one who thinks this "don't sleep in a bra" thing is a myth.
See Also:
History of the Bra
Bras, Spas and Anorexic Celebrities
Sports, Corsetry and the Empowerful Woman
George W Bush's New Contraceptive Rules
FEMINISM - In the waning days of the Bush administration, George W. Bush has issued a federal rule reinforcing protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or provide contraceptive information because of religious or moral objections.
The rule will limit a patient's right to get medical care and accurate information. For example, a pharmacy clerk could refuse to sell birth control pills, AIDS medication, condoms and face no ramifications from an employer.
Despite multiple long-standing federal laws on the books protecting health care providers from participating in abortions or sterilizations, the Bush administration argued that the rule was needed "to raise awareness of federal conscience protections and provide for their enforcement."
What it actually does however is make it harder for women to get services such as contraception, birth control or counseling in the event they are pregnant and want to learn all of their options, and not just the ones the religious wacko on the other side of the counter is pushing.
Several medical associations as well as a group of 13 attorneys general were among the many thousands who wrote to the department to protest the new rules after it was proposed. Opponents didn't like the rule any better after it was finalized.
"In just a matter of months, the Bush administration has undone three decades of federal protections for both medical professionals and their patients, replaced them with a policy that seriously risks the health of millions of women, then tried to pass it off as benevolent," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Several lawmakers have promised to take up legislation that would overturn the rule once Congress reconvenes in January. Another option is for the Obama administration to issue new regulations that would trump it.
Making birth control more – not less – accessible is the best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion. Its not only ridiculous, its dangerous when you consider the fact AIDS is still very strong in the United States, and more unwanted pregnancies raises both the abortion rate and the suicide rate.
NOTE: If anti-abortion people were really serious about cutting back on abortions they should be PROMOTING condoms and working to get rid of poverty in America.
The rule will limit a patient's right to get medical care and accurate information. For example, a pharmacy clerk could refuse to sell birth control pills, AIDS medication, condoms and face no ramifications from an employer.Despite multiple long-standing federal laws on the books protecting health care providers from participating in abortions or sterilizations, the Bush administration argued that the rule was needed "to raise awareness of federal conscience protections and provide for their enforcement."
What it actually does however is make it harder for women to get services such as contraception, birth control or counseling in the event they are pregnant and want to learn all of their options, and not just the ones the religious wacko on the other side of the counter is pushing.
Several medical associations as well as a group of 13 attorneys general were among the many thousands who wrote to the department to protest the new rules after it was proposed. Opponents didn't like the rule any better after it was finalized.
"In just a matter of months, the Bush administration has undone three decades of federal protections for both medical professionals and their patients, replaced them with a policy that seriously risks the health of millions of women, then tried to pass it off as benevolent," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.Several lawmakers have promised to take up legislation that would overturn the rule once Congress reconvenes in January. Another option is for the Obama administration to issue new regulations that would trump it.
Making birth control more – not less – accessible is the best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion. Its not only ridiculous, its dangerous when you consider the fact AIDS is still very strong in the United States, and more unwanted pregnancies raises both the abortion rate and the suicide rate.
NOTE: If anti-abortion people were really serious about cutting back on abortions they should be PROMOTING condoms and working to get rid of poverty in America.
"IF ANTI-ABORTIONISTS SPENT HALF AS MUCH TIME GETTING RID OF POVERTY AS THEY SPEND TRYING TO GET RID OF ABORTION POOR WOMEN WOULDN'T NEED ABORTIONS AS OFTEN ANYWAY."
Korean Women: Not allowed to Pregnant
RELIGION/HEALTH - What does this sign mean?Based on my friend's limited Korean it means pregnant women shouldn't sit down.
Where was this image found? On a subway? We're not sure. We're guessing it might be to prevent miscarriages from bumpy rides... or is it discriminatory against pregnant women?
Korea has some unusual superstitions. ie. If a pregnant woman miscarries she has to wear lots of clothes for 2 weeks so she will heal faster; babies can't be taken out of the house until after their "baek-il" (one-hundred-day) party; leaving a fan on in a closed room will suffocate the occupants; having sex with the lights on will cause infertility; refrigerators should be filled only 60% to prevent food poisoning; the number four sounds like death; you can't write your name in red ink because it was the colour used to write the names of the dead during the Korean War; and its bad luck for a man to sit beside a woman in a car whom he is not married to.
Fan death is by far the most amusing, as the South Korean government still issues warnings about the dangers of fan suffocation.
Please remember we're also talking about a country where women still use squat toilets and men use normal toilets. Toilet protectors for women aren't commonly found over there.
The Truth about Botox
HEALTH - Its bad enough that the advertising industry lies to us regularly, but pressuring women with the idea that its safe to use botox...? Scary. I seem to recall the breast implant industry using the same tactics. Its amazing the number of women willing to go under the knife for the sake of fake beauty.
Of course these days the beauty industry tries to be more sophisticated, but they're not above preying on the fears of women, and one of our biggest fears is growing old and becoming ignored.
I found this excellent video which illustrates the lies used by the botox industry... and I will point out that REAL doctors don't recommend botox, but slimy money-grubbing estheticians do... and it will only cost you $299.99 to inject your face with needles.
Scary? Not half as scary as the women hired to smile for the camera while being injected. Its like they don't even have souls any more...
Of course these days the beauty industry tries to be more sophisticated, but they're not above preying on the fears of women, and one of our biggest fears is growing old and becoming ignored.
I found this excellent video which illustrates the lies used by the botox industry... and I will point out that REAL doctors don't recommend botox, but slimy money-grubbing estheticians do... and it will only cost you $299.99 to inject your face with needles.
Scary? Not half as scary as the women hired to smile for the camera while being injected. Its like they don't even have souls any more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)