20081029

New Ab-Only Provider in SC Pedaling Same Old Stuff

October 29, 2008


By: William A. Smith
Vice President for Public Policy

SIECUS



Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
http://www.siecus.org/


Last week, SIECUS held our 6th annual “Back to School” briefing for Members of the United States Congress and their staff. This year we continued the tradition of shining a light on what types of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are receiving tax-payer money, and being carried out in schools across the country.

SIECUS has long focused on the on-going need to combat the advance of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in South Carolina. Previously, for example, we have reviewed the curricula of Heritage Community Services, the state’s most well-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage provider. But this year, we looked at another of the state’s four ab-only programs; Life Support Inc. which is based in Darlington and receives nearly $600,000 in federal money (from 2007 through 2011).

Life Support uses the Healthy Images of Sex (HIS) curriculum, which was co-written by Sheri Few, the head of South Carolina Parents Involved in Education’s (SC PIE), yet another of the state’s ab-only providers. You may recall that Ms. Few also used to work for Heritage Community Services so the state’s strong tradition of keeping the millions of dollars “in the family” persists. So we were very interested in seeing what HIS had to say.

First, even though Life Support has been quoted in news sources as being involved with “many schools” in Marlboro County, make no doubt that this is a religious program through and through. Let’s start at the very beginning, the title itself, “HIS,” is suggestive in and of itself because more fundamentalist Christians refer to themselves as belonging to Jesus Christ – we are HIS and our behavior should reflect this. HIS the abstinence-only-until-marriage program makes certain that students recognize that this means no sex outside of marriage.

One way this program seeks to make its abstinence-only-until-marriage message crystal clear is by scaring the heck out of young people. HIS compares pre-marital sex to getting hit by a truck, putting fire in your lap, injecting poison into your veins and eating worms. Worse still, HIS suggests that the decision to engage in pre-marital sex is similar to using planes to hit the World Trade Center or allowing children to play with guns. And, the sex drive is described as so powerful and potentially destructive that teachers of HIS are told to create a parallel between it and “the power of water as evidenced by Hurricane Katrina in and around New Orleans in 2005 and the tsunami in and around Indonesia and Thailand in 2004.”

HIS of course also teaches that marriage is a panacea. The benefits of marriage are listed as “health, money, child doing well in school, child feels good, happiness, long life” while cohabitation is contrasted as bringing about” risk of illness, lack of money, child doing poorly in school, child misbehaving, anger and shorter life.” Single parenthood brings similar misery including “risk of illness, poverty, child failing in school, child abused, child in jail and depression.” If the nail was not sufficiently driven home, teachers are encouraged to “Tell students not to be confused – a popular statement today is ‘I would like to be married or in a solid committed relationship’ – marriage is a solid committed relationship, anything less in not commitment or solid. Let’s stop the confusion!” We have to wonder what such statements mean to kids who have single parents, divorced parents, or those who live together but aren’t married.

And of course, no abstinence-only-until-marriage program in South Carolina would be complete without the pervasive anti-choice ideology that serves as the wellspring for Life Support, SC PIE, and Heritage Community Services. HIS describes abortion as “death of the baby” and, not surprisingly spreads medically inaccurate information such as telling students that abortion leads to increased risks for breast cancer and infertility. It goes on to also say that those who choose abortion are likely to experience “guilt over the decision to take the life of another human being, anxiety, coldness, depression, flash backs, eating disorders, [and] drug abuses.”

Twenty-five states have now withdrawn from the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding because they have had enough of the extremist nonsense advanced by the likes of HIS, Life Support, Ms Few, and others like them around the country. Unfortunately, while the rest of the country has taken new steps to limit the advance of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, South Carolina continues to expand its involvement. Making matters worse were shady shenanigans in the state house this year that allowed this industry to continue to flourish without check and saw some longtime allies of comprehensive sex education on the wrong side of the fight.

That is why it is even more important now to remain vigilant and keep up the policing and watchdogging of the ab-only grantees in the state. The tide is shifting against abstinence-only-until-marriage programming and even if South Carolina is not currently part of that wave, sustained advocacy can make sure that the receding national tide takes this junk with it. To help empower your advocacy, SIECUS has many resources including our State Profile on South Carolina at www.siecus.org/SC and full reviews of HIS and one of the Heritage Community Services curricula at www.communityactionkit.org/reviews.

20081016

What would you do if your access to birth control and certain personal health care services was threatened??



What would you do if your access to birth control and certain personal health care services was threatened?How would that make you feel?

Read this op-ed by Jeffrey R. Lewis. Then, share your thoughts by leaving a comment here on the TellThem! Blog.


OP ED: Stop the undeclared war on family planning

BYLINE: Jeffrey R. Lewis

One in seven Americans currently is living without health insurance. That’s 45.7 million people, equivalent to the combined populations of California and Ohio. With our nation in the middle of a health care crisis, one might expect the Bush administration to be working with Congress to ensure health care access for American families who are struggling to make ends meet. Instead, it is creating new roadblocks to health care that could deny millions of men and women access to mainstream family planning services and contraception.


The administration has proposed a new set of regulations that it says will protect doctors, nurses and health care workers who object to abortion from having to participate in providing care they find objectionable. The new conscience clause will require health care agencies and clinics to certify that they will not discriminate against individuals or organizations that refuse to offer — or even provide referrals to — family planning services that disagree on personal, moral and religious grounds.

If workers or organizations declare that the pill, intrauterine device (IUD) or emergency contraception are contrary to their beliefs, they can deliberately withhold both services and information from patients. The proposed regulation affects any hospital, clinic, doctor’s office or pharmacy that receives federal funding, directly or indirectly, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The new rule is a carefully crafted ruse to obstruct public access to contraception methods that are used by more than 37 million American women and men to act responsibly, stay healthy and plan for strong families. Federally funded comprehensive family planning programs — such as those implemented by states, municipalities and community health centers — could start refusing to offer women and men education on responsible sexual behavior and access to contraception.

Comprehensive family planning programs have helped low-income families get the education and contraception they need to act responsibly. They prevent an estimated 1.3 million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions each year. Every dollar spent on them saves an estimated $4.02 in pregnancy-related and newborn care costs to Medicaid.

These health centers also provide screenings for HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, identifying thousands of cases that would otherwise go undetected and untreated. And they address women’s broader health needs by conducting millions of breast screenings and Pap tests. Over two decades, they have detected 55,000 cases of invasive cervical cancer, saving lives and money.

By law, federally funded services cannot provide abortion. What they provide is age-appropriate sex education, counseling and contraception that are effective in preventing unplanned pregnancies and the need for abortion.
A look past the lofty rhetoric reveals a policy guided by ideology, not science, and an aggressive, 11th-hour attempt to redefine contraception as abortion — an extremist view that few Americans in either party support.

The real target of the new rule is mainstream contraception — the pill, IUDs and emergency contraception — all of which have been deemed safe, effective and legal. None of these methods
cause abortion by any scientifically accepted definition of the term.
The rule would directly affect the 37.3 million Americans living in poverty who can’t afford the cost of contraception, especially those who live in small communities where federally funded hospitals or clinics could refuse to support comprehensive family planning.
It would affect all Americans, because the federal government sets the standard for private health care benefits and practices. The new rule is so vaguely written that hospital systems, HMOs and insurance programs could refuse to fill prescriptions or provide coverage for the pill and IUDs.

Health providers could refuse emergency contraception to victims of rape or incest, compounding the trauma of sexual violence. And they could refuse to educate men and women about the safe and legal methods of contraception that have prevented 20 million unintended pregnancies and averted 9 million likely abortions during the past two decades.

The administration quietly has made the first move in a new, undeclared war on contraception — a war that is tragically out of step with the will of the American people.


• Jeffrey R. Lewis, a former staffer to former U.S. Sens. John Heinz and Bob Packwood, is
president of the Heinz Family Philanthropies.






20081014

The State Newspaper addresses South Carolina HIV epidemic



This week, The State Newspaper publishes a series of stories about an epidemic that sweeps our state. HIV/AIDS affects thousands in South Carolina. In 2006, it was calculated that roughly 14,000 people in this state are living with HIV.

The series, "HIV in South Carolina," is written by Czerne Reid, health and science reporter for The State Newspaper. Reid has interviewed people like Bambi Gaddist, Executive Director for the South Carolina HIV/AIDS Council, Dr. Robert Ball, who found the first case of HIV in Carolina, Dayshal Dix, a 14-year-old living with HIV, and many others whose lives have been impacted by the disease.

It is true that HIV/AIDS has been a been a tragic blow to our community. But, it is commendable that we are now more educated and aware of its impact--and that we are actively raising awareness and utilizing our resources in order to take action.


Visit The State Newspaper website to see the many faces of "HIV in South Carolina," and visit TellThem! to find out what you can do to make a difference.

How do you feel about the epidemic in South Carolina? What should be done to help solve the problem? Leave your comments here.

20081002

SC program aimed at preventing teen pregnancy cut...WHY?



[from September 29, 2008]

Why is it that with South Carolina's adolescent pregnancy rates on the rise after ten years of decline, funding is being cut for programs designed to alleviate the problem??

On Friday, September 26, The Associated Press published a story announcing that 40 groups who are reimbursed through the Medicaid Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Services (MAPPS) will no longer have funding by the end of this year.

Essentially, the cut will affect programs that have served the thousands of at-risk girls in South Carolina, and programs like Charleston County's Communities in Schools dropout prevention program, which receives 20% of its budget via the pregnancy prevention program.

(Please note that, of the 280 students who participated in Communities in Schools last year, none became pregnant.)

I guess we can "thank" the state budget board who requested this retrogressive move...a move that will accrue an overall loss of $90 million...a decision that will leave many jobless.

How many other effective programs will be undermined by erroneous politics? Where do you stand on the matter? What do you think?

Read the full story, then come back and comment on the TellThem! Blog.

USC Ranks 8th in Sexual Health...



Good morning,

The University of South Carolina's Gamecock Newspaper just published a really interesting article about the University of South Carolina ranking eighth out of 139 colleges in Trojan's Top 10 Most Sexually Healthy Schools.

The scores were based on factors such as HIV and STD testing, availability of contraceptives and condoms, sexual assault programs, health center hours of operation, lecture programs, website usability, and student opinions of the health center. According to the story, this is the first time student's ideas have been included in the polling process, which will hopefully help to initiate more frequent conversation about reproductive health services on campus.


Check out the story
here, and leave a comment right here at the TellThem! Blog.

20080905

And So it Goes …



By Cynthia Boiter

When teaching the sections on sexuality in my sociology and women’s studies classes, as I did when my husband and I counseled our daughters on the same subject when they were younger, I often hearken back to the days of my own sexual education.

But I don’t stay there long.

My most enduring memories of learning the facts of life involve awkward silence, euphemisms, and shame. A product of her own repressive generation, my mother, (forget my Dad, who never entertained the subject other than to emphasize the importance of being a “good girl”), did her best with what she had been given herself, but the conversation left me only slightly less confused and with a significantly greater sense of guilt than I had ever known in my young life. I might have gone to my older brothers for information, but I had already learned from them that the mention of anything involving the parts of one’s body which were not visible when fully clothed provoked giggles, if not outright laughter.

And here we are today.

Given the various cultural revolutions involving information, communication and, yes, sex, that my generation has known over the course of our years, I’d like to think that, these days, our children leave their lessons on sexuality unencumbered by wearisome sensations such as confusion, guilt, shame and the giggles.

I’d like to think so, but evidence in my classroom sometimes suggests I’m wrong.
As soon as issues of sex or sexuality arise, a wave of snickering, silly grins and blushed or flushed faces sweeps over the room. In order to reach then teach the young adults sitting before me about the fundamentals of sexuality, sexual identity and sexual politics, I first have to dig through the layers of naughtiness with which anything having to do with the term “sex” has been cloaked. If the notion that sex and all its connotations is dirty isn’t pervasive enough, then the idea that sex is funny, a staple message of the American entertainment industry, certainly is.

The reality that sex and sexuality continue to be painted with the broad brushes of guilt, shame and silliness is evident nowhere more than in campaigns for abstinence only education. Champions of abstinence only education seek to withhold information regarding the intimate workings of the human experience from young people under the auspices of sheltering them; a gross misuse of a term which implies protection from harm. In fact, denying this vital information is in itself a harmful act, the results of which can be seen in the self-conscious snickers, guilt-ridden faces and downcast eyes of yet another generation of youth who enter adulthood ill-schooled in the most fundamental aspect of human existence.

Only when our children are allowed to own the knowledge of the intricacies of this most pure and elemental part of the self will they be able to approach their sexuality, sexual identities and sex lives from a place of health and happiness. Withholding any information which might enable them to do so damages not only our children, but our culture. In the absence of truth, mythology prevails – guilt, shame and silliness persists.

Boiter is shown here with her daughters Annie Boiter-Jolley (top) and Bonnie Boiter-Jolley (right).

20080828

September 3, 2008



If you haven't heard the recent buzz about U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulations that could negatively affect access to certain contraceptives, read here and check out a great blog by reproductive rights advocate and educator, Dr. Deborah Billings.

We want to hear from you! So feel free to share your thoughts and comments here.

TellThem! Spotlight Blog
by: Deborah Billings, Ph.D


What do democracy, sexual and reproductive health, and human rights all have in common? In order for them to function well, to the benefit of all, they require that people be informed about their choices and have the abilities and conditions to put those choices into practice. I’m thinking a lot about these issues as we come closer to the moment of electing a new president for our country. Eight years of Bush’s ultraconservative policies have placed us in a situation where information and the possibilities of informed choice have become rarer each day. In its most recent attempt to restrict people’s access to basic health services, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) – our Federal level agency responsible for guiding health policies in the US—released a proposal on July 14, 2008 that would effectively redefine many forms of birth control as “abortion.” (see http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf) These include hormonal methods, such as the pill, patch, and ring, as well as the IUD. Using the Weldon and Church amendments, this would effectively prohibit any recipient of Federal funds from providing or referring for such services, since they would now be classified as forms of abortion. This includes clinics, organizations, and health-care plans. Can we imagine living in a country where providing basic forms of birth control would be off limits to thousands of clinics, organizations and health care plans? Are we really living in the year 2008? This proposal is insulting to the lives of all of us but, once again, those most severely affected will be low income and uninsured women and men, including adolescents, who depend on programs such as Medicaid for some or all of their health care needs. Efforts to defeat the proposal are underway, but only because the uproar from civil society has been strong and clear (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/21/an-outrageous-attempt-bush-adminstration-undermine-womens-rights). You see, these kinds of proposals and the mechanisms used to put them in place aren’t presented to the public. We don’t get to vote on them. So our only alternative is to speak loudly and in strategic ways to people whose voices can be heard.
Under the guise of protecting freedom of conscience, this DHHS proposal would protect “employees” (including volunteers!) who refuse to offer basic health care services that are not in line with their own views about when pregnancy begins and what constitutes abortion. This blatant disregard for science has been experienced time and time again during the past eight years. Just a few examples include modifications made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website that presented condoms as ineffective in helping to prevent the transmission of HIV and the continued funding of “abstinence only” programming in our public schools, despite evidence that these interventions do not result in lower rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
During the past seven years, I’ve lived in Mexico and had the privilege of participating in movements to make human rights, sexual and reproductive health, and democracy a reality. We have much to learn from Mexico- a country where since 2004 emergency contraception (EC) has been part of the official family planning program and where dedicated EC products are available over-the-counter to anyone, regardless of age or marital status. Within months of including EC in Mexico’s family planning guidelines, at least six different products were available to women and couples, not just Plan B, which is available in the US. Mexico’s then Minister of Health (equivalent to DHHS’s Secretary), Julio Frenk, stood up to conservative forces, including the powerful Catholic Church, which opposed the availability of EC, using scientific evidence and arguments to uphold a decision that has since benefitted hundreds of thousands of women and couples who weren’t ready to be pregnant. This includes victims of rape, whose pregnancies were forced upon them, violating every basic tenet of human rights. Mexico’s national model of care for rape victims who become pregnant includes options for women and adolescents to use EC to prevent pregnancy (if they use it within 120 hours post-rape, its window of effectiveness), to have a safe and free abortion (legal in the case of pregnancy from rape in every Mexican state), or to maintain the pregnancy. Putting this into practice comes with its challenges but the starting point for action is in place. We in the US, with our fragmented health care “system” and conservative policies, continue to debate whether EC – which acts to prevent pregnancy-- should even be made available to rape victims.
I’ve been invited by Tell Them to contribute to this new blog. I want to use this space to reflect on ideas, provide information and resources to readers, and help us to see how we in South Carolina are part of a bigger global movement that demands respect for the secular state, respect for diversity, information that guides choices that are right for people’s lives, and the conditions to exercise those choices. In sum, it’s a global movement for democracy, health and rights. I’m honored to be a part of this and plan to contribute my small piece to our democracy-in-process.

20080815

April 24, 2008

Skirt! Magazine's visit to Immaulate Consumption

Margaret Pilarski and Sabrina Heise, writers for Skirt! Magazine, visited Columbia as part of their road trip to New Orleans for the 10th anniversary of the Vagina Monologues. On the way, they stopped in our neck of the woods, and conducted a interviews at Immaculate Consumption, a local cafe’ on Main Street.
The idea of these interviews was to find out what womanhood and feminism mean to locals in Columbia, South Carolina. Sabrina and Margaret spoke with women and men about the issue, and among some of the interviewees were TellThem! Program Manager, Morgan Sherman, and fellow grassroots organizer, Kate Hampton of Planned Parenthood Health Systems.

Watch the video. Then check out Skirt! Magazine for yourself.

January 11, 2008

Contraception Crisis
USC’s Thomson Student Health Center Running Out of Affordable Birth Control

by : Mindy Lucas


USC’s Thomson Student Health Center has been stockpiling birth control pills — but not because administrators anticipate a run on oral contraception, although they might once word gets out that less expensive pills are almost gone.
The health center has been stockpiling pills since January, when the little-known Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 became law. The act effectively eliminated a group discount policy on drugs — key to negotiating with pharmaceutical companies.
“What I believe the act was originally trying to do was reduce spending or control spending on drugs, but the unintended consequence was [that] it eliminated the ability to get this group discount rate and that gave pharmaceutical companies no incentive to offer discounted rates,” says Lauren Vincent, public relations coordinator for the health center.
Brand name birth control pills, such as these, are going up in price at USC’s Thomson Student Health Center.File photo
As a result, birth control pills at the health center have jumped from $12 per pack for a month’s supply to $30 and $45 per pack. And although the health center, located in the heart of the USC campus, continues to offer generic forms of oral contraception, Vincent says for some women, generic might not be an option.
“That’s something they’ll want to discuss with their physician,” she says. “But even the generic is still not going to be $12 a month.”
In the meantime, she says the center has been doing what it can to keep up with the demand for affordable contraception, including stocking pills and letting students who use the facility know of the price increases.
“When we found out, we tried to buy a bulk amount but we’re basically starting to run out,” Vincent says. “We’re trying to let students know it’s not our fault.”
The health center is not alone in struggling to keep affordable contraception on its shelves as a result of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, according to Sarah Gareau, program manager for TellThem!, a statewide grassroots health policy program started by the New Morning Foundation, which is working to reduce teen pregnancy.
“It [the law] has interfered with not only college health clinics, but many community health clinics’ ability to provide name-brand drugs at affordable rates,” says Gareau, adding that pills at community health clinics have jumped from $10 per pack to $50 or more for a month’s supply. “Which is just cost prohibitive for many young people and students,” Gareau says.
She goes on to say that many health advocacy groups and others involved with health issues in the state are concerned that the rising costs of birth control pills might have negative impacts on young women. “We know from research that more than 50 percent of unwanted pregnancies occur among women in their 20s and that’s college age,” Gareau says.
Both Gareau and Vincent are trying to get the word out about the legislation. As a member of the American College Health Association, the health center is pushing for additional legislation to be attached to the act, Vincent says. “We are asking for them to make college health centers exempt from the act,” she says.
Gareau says TellThem!, made up of about 2,000 members, also supports exempting health clinics from the law. She says TellThem! is asking U.S. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., to approach U.S. Rep. John Dingell about the issue. Dingell, D-Mich., chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Clyburn has the pull to ask Dingell to attach the language,” says Gareau, adding that the deadline for attaching the language — Sunday — is fast approaching. And although Gareau says Clyburn, whose district includes part of Richland County, has said he is only willing to speak to his constituents about the issue, Gareau says he should listen to all South Carolinians. “The university sits in his district and serves many of his constituents who will vote in his district.”
Powered by Content Management System - PLANet w3 Magazine - PLANet Systems Group 2007

January 9, 2008

Refusing to address teen births

By BONNIE K. ADAMS
Guest columnist

The State’s Dec. 27 editorial about the nation’s rising teen birth rate expressed appropriate concern about taxpayers’ funds being used to put abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in our schools, stating “we need some assurance that specific programs do work before we keep spending tax money on them.” Indeed.
The editorial also bemoaned that rational conversations about sex education are nearly impossible because the debate about how to address teenage pregnancies is so ideologically charged. While true, it is an oversimplification to suggest that this issue is only about philosophical differences: The sex education debate in the United States is at least as much about the protection of large pots of money benefiting abstinence-only-until-marriage entrepreneurs as it is about genuine philosophical differences.
According to a recent study by USC’s Center for Health Policy and Research, births to young mothers 10-19 cost South Carolina’s taxpayers $156 million annually. When our state budget forecast is dismal, when our schools are hurting and when DHEC needs more funding for family planning clinical services rather than less, $156 million is enough to merit some public attention. Yet, since the Beasley administration, the General Assembly has continued to earmark taxpayer funds for its favorite abstinence-only-until-marriage program providers every year.
The best example is Heritage Community Services, a nonprofit business based in North Charleston. Just 10 years ago and prior to jumping on the abstinence-only-until-marriage bandwagon, Heritage Community Services reported annual revenues of a little more than $50,000. Since that time — due in great measure to the Badgley family’s astute prescience about emerging and potentially profitable state and federal abstinence-only-until-marriage grant streams — Heritage has garnered more than $18 million through state and federal grant revenues. Meanwhile four family members have been compensated: Anne Badgley; her husband, Gordon Badgley; her daughter Sally Badgley Raymond; and Sally’s husband, Jerry Raymond.
Then there is Badgley Enterprises, a separate, for-profit company that is wholly owned by the Badgley family. Badgley Enterprises publishes abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula, which Heritage Community Services purchases with (you guessed it) federal and state grant funds. Little wonder why the Badgleys were featured in last June’s issue of The Nation in an article titled “The Abstinence Gluttons.”
Fifteen states have decided to reject federal money for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and to cease state funding that invites contractors such as Heritage into their public schools. These states’ policymakers have looked at abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, as well as the programs’ providers, and determined that their states’ young people deserve better.
Three of these states are fighting very high rates of AIDS, much as we are in South Carolina. Is it possible that legislators in these states feel an overriding moral imperative to provide uncensored and medically accurate information about condoms to their sexually active youth, who are at risk for HIV infection?
In referring to the increase in the nation’s teen birth rate, The State’s editorial laments “These numbers should call us to action — if only we knew how to act.” We do know how to act. There are science-based curricula that have been evaluated extensively and that have demonstrated effectiveness among a variety of demographic groups. The U.S. Surgeon General has even taken a stand in support of comprehensive sex education. What we lack is not knowledge or expertise, but rather the collective will and the political courage that 14 other states have evidenced.
A nationwide survey of public opinion on sex education in U.S. schools, which was published in the November 2006 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, showed that 82 percent of Americans support comprehensive programs “that teach both abstinence and other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.” This mirrors research among South Carolina’s own registered voters, 80 percent of whom want similar programs in our schools.
Between 2000 and 2004, the pregnancy rate for South Carolina girls 18-19 years old was 110.5 per 1,000 girls — more similar to the teen birth rates of Afghanistan, Cambodia and Guatemala than to any other developed nation in the world.
Yet, in the next two months, our legislators — beginning with those who serve on the House Ways and Means Committee — will reconsider investing even more taxpayers’ dollars in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which objective research has shown do not work and which the majority of South Carolina voters do not want.
While journalists may be understandably weary of listening to the wrangling between over-zealous adults who support or oppose sex education, nonetheless South Carolina’s taxpayers cannot afford our Fourth Estate to turn a deaf ear. Too many tax dollars have been wasted. Too many young people need and deserve uncensored, protective health information they’re not getting.
Ms. Adams is executive diretor of New Morning Foundation, a privately funded grant-making foundation, that works to reduce unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among South Carolina’s young people under age 30.
© 2008 TheState.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.thestate.com

December 10, 2007

"Abstinence sucks as public policy"

Click here to read “Abstinence sucks as public policy,” a blog by Alison Piepmeier, writer for Columbia’s Skirt! Magazine.

December 13, 2007

An Intern's Insight

“In every community there is work to be done. In every nation, there are wounds to heal. In every heart there is the power to do it.” –Marianne Williamson
My name is Divya Reddy and I am a graduate student at the University of South Carolina completing my Masters in Public Health. I have had the pleasure of interning with the New Morning Foundation’s TellThem! network starting in July 2007. Today is my last day. As I prepare for graduation, I look back on my work experience and graciously smile. My experience at the Foundation has been a wonderful eye opener. It has truly given me an insider perspective on the day to day responsibilities of a grassroots organization. It has made me realize what the word ‘grassroots’ means. We work to achieve many of the same goals as other organizations- improving the lives in South Carolina. The theme that ties it all together is that knowledge is power. We want to fight to reduce teen pregnancies in South Carolina and fight for reproductive rights. The state of South Carolina faces many disparities and this forces us to ask the question- how can we make a difference? With the teen pregnancy rate higher than the national average, we must approach the problem with a new plan. Let’s break the cycle of generational teen pregnancies. It’s time to stop turning a blind eye to a problem that needs much attention. Let’s educate the children, teens, and parents through comprehensive sexual education. Let’s partner with schools, communities, and other affiliated organizations. Let’s empower people with factual information to make the best decisions. Let’s spread the word! I type these words with fervor and conviction. My goal is not to persuade you but to reiterate what I have learned. Making a difference starts at the grassroots level. This all takes dedication and energy and starts with a few people who are passionate enough to pursue a cause. I have seen the progress and goals we have accomplished in a short period of time. The strides we make mean that there is more community awareness and involvement. And, I am proud to have worked with people who have the drive and compassion to make a difference. I have enjoyed being part of the New Morning Foundation team and will always take this experience and apply it to my future endeavors

November 5, 2007

Columbia NOW: 1972 to the Present

In March 1972, Mary Heriot and Vicki Eslinger formed the Greater Columbia NOW (National Organization for Women) Chapter. Inspired by Betty Friedan and the growing presence of NOW around the country, they got to work quickly.
One of their first actions was with The State newspaper. In 1972, job advertisements were listed separately as male and female help wanted. Under the female side, the only jobs listed were for teachers, maids, and nurses. NOW representation went to speak with The State’s managing editor, only to be thrown out of his office. For over two months, NOW sent copies of the ads to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, spurring the EEOC to send letters to The State. In a few weeks, they listed all the jobs together.
But today, we still face many issues. The S.C. Legislature currently has several bills that NOW does not support. Most notable is H.3355 and S.84, otherwise known as the ultrasound abortion bills. They started out requiring that a woman sign a statement that she viewed her ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Currently, the Senate has removed that requirement from the House bill and is pushing it in Conference Committee. However, the House is still pushing for the requirement, without even an exception for rape or incest victims. Another issue is S.27, the Pharmacy Refusal Bill, which would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control or emergency contraception for moral or religious reasons.
We have joined with Planned Parenthood in their Fill My Pills Campaign, which send volunteers out to pharmacies in the Columbia area to make sure they have emergency contraception available. They have generously allowed us to use their facilities for our chapter meetings.
In the spring, we hope to continue our partnerships with Tell Them!, the South Carolina Equality Coalition, and Planned Parenthood. We will have regular monthly meetings, speakers, letter writing parties, and so much more. There is something for everyone, whether you want to stand up at a rally or write letters to the editor.
Our next meeting will be on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 7:00 PM, at the Planned Parenthood office at 2712 Middleburg Drive #107, Columbia, SC 29204. If you are interested in being added to our contact list, email us at columbiascnow@gmail.com. You can get more information at www.now.org. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
Mae WilsonGreater Columbia NOWChapter President

October 26, 2007

Not Only Abstinence

Below is a Letter to the Editor, submitted to the Post and Courier, written by Lanita Patterson.

Not only abstinence

In response to an Oct. 14 letter to the editor: As a health-care provider, Planned Parenthood knows first-hand the power of education to help individuals make responsible decisions about their health.
While working in the field as a community health educator, I have witnessed first-hand how abstinence-only programs fail our youth. Abstinence-only programs deny our teenagers medically accurate information about birth control and sexually transmitted infections.
South Carolina has the nation’s eighth highest birth rate for 15- to 17-year-olds. Isn’t it time our state focuses on greater access to information and education that helps prevent unintended pregnancies and promotes healthy women and healthy families?
South Carolina needs to help our teenagers protect themselves against unintended pregnancies, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence first, but not only.

LANITA PATTERSON
S.C. Community Health Educator
Planned Parenthood Health Systems
1722 Marley Drive
Columbia

October 17, 2007

Love Your Body Day

At TellThem! we believe that part of living a healthier, more satisfying life is having a positive self-image.
In American society, much of how women view themselves stems from what we see and hear in the media. Unfortunately images of airbrushed models have been emphasized so much that many women have forgotten how to appreciate themselves completely–just the way they are.

But the National Organization of Women (NOW) Foundation hasn’t forgotten. In fact, they’ve declared October 18 Love Your Body Day. Visit the Love Your Body campaign website for more information on what you can do, send an e-card to your friends, take a body image survey, or check out the positive and offensive ways women are portrayed in advertisements. If you’re feeling creative, you can even participate in the Love Your Body poster contest or learn how to organize your own event.
By celebrating Love Your Body Day, you’re offering support and encouragement to women everywhere, and most importantly, remembering to celebrate yourself.

Beryl Roda of Silver Spring, Maryland is the Love Your Body: 2007 Poster Contest Grand Prize Winner. To see other winning designs and positive messages
click here.

October 10, 2007

October is Let's Talk Month

October is Let’s Talk Month, a national public education campaign coordinated by Advocates For Youth. This month, organizations, schools, businesses, religious institutions and health providers will get together to plan activities that foster open dialogue about sexuality between parents and their children.
You may not have known, but most children receive their knowledge about sex from their parents. Even though parents are generally well-informed about sexuality, they often don’t know how to communicate their ideas effectively.
That’s why Advocates For Youth suggests that parents and legal guardians review a list of “Door Openers” and “Door Slammers” or ways to support or discourage those conversations.
The website also includes Messages Worth Repeating and activities you can participate in to acknowledge Let’s Talk Month.
If you’re a parent or guardian and you’re wondering what your child may want to know about sex, the Advocates For Youth website has also listed examples of questions from preschoolers, preteens, and teenagers to give you an idea of what to cover.
By recognizing Let’s Talk Month, you will not only share your knowledge about sexuality with your child, but you may learn something too. Information makes all the difference.
To learn more,
click here.

October 9, 2007


Project HOPE and Teen Health Center

Beverly Hart Pittman, Director of Project HOPE and Teen Health Center

Project HOPE (Healthy Options, Positive Effects) is a teen pregnancy prevention program
managed by Richland Community Health Partners and funded by the New Morning Foundation to serve teens in the Eau Claire and surrounding communities.

At the Teen Health Center, we offer FREE CONFIDENTIAL SERVICES to teens.
Our mission is to reduce teen pregnancy and promote healthy behaviors among youth. The primary message teens receive is “don’t engage in sexual activities before you are married”; and the secondary message is “but, if you do protect yourself.” The staff members are: Beverly Hart Pittman, MSW, LISW, Director; Shanta Pinckney, RN, Nurse; Dorthea Lewis, MHP, Community/Faith-Based Coordinator; and Cassandra Lindsey-Nesbitt, MSW, School-Based Coordinator.

The Teen Health Center, located at 4419 Fair Street, offers FREE CONFIDENTIAL Services to teens Monday thru Friday from 2:30 PM until 6:00 PM and by appointment. We offer free pregnancy testing, free SDT (sexually Transmitted diseases) testing and free birth control (pills, Nuva Ring, Depo shots, condoms and film). The Morning After Pill (EC) will soon be available. Teens visiting the Center can use our computer, read, play board games, listen to music or ‘just talk’ to the staff. The nurse is available by phone at 351-4478.
Recently, a teen reported that “The Teen Health Center has inspired me. As I come to the Teen Health Center I learn more and more. The Teen Health Center has made me realize how important things in life are. I never knew how serious the STDs are that are going around in South Carolina today. They can have such bad consequences; and look so disgusting. The Teen Health Center is a great place to go to talk and find out new things about life.” -Olivia
It truly takes a village to address teen pregnancy. Project HOPE staff also joins schools, community and faith-based agencies in the Eau Claire community to plan and implement programs and activities to reach youth, parents and youth advocates. These programs/activities address abstinence; puberty; good decision making and communication skills; sexuality; sexually transmitted diseases; contraception; and relationship issues. We have held Teen Grill and Chill workshops; Becoming a Responsible Teen Program; Spirituality and Sexuality Workshop series; and Keeping it Real Faith-Based Program for teens and adults. According to evaluations, participants report that Project HOPE/Teen Health Center events are: well organized; held in a warm, loving environment; educational; offer very good, important information on needed issues; and I love the positive affect they have on our community.
For additional information about Project HOPE/Teen Health Center’s services and upcoming events, please call Beverly Hart Pittman at 253-7521 or Dorthea Lewis at 733-5449. The website address is www.myspace.com/teenhealthcenter

October 4, 2007

Birth Control Watch

Birth Control Watch is a joint project of the Women Donors Network (WDN) and the Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC). Their motto is contraception with out exception, and we could not agree more, which is why we are supporting the Birth Control Protection Act.
According to their site, “WDN, a nonprofit organization, is a philanthropic community for those who refuse to accept the status quo. From supporting voter registration efforts, to funding international programs assisting women’s quests for economic independence, WDN unites powerful, visionary women who are committed to effecting lasting fundamental change.”The Communications Consortium Media Center, another nonprofit organization, is a “public interest media center dedicated to helping nonprofit organizations use media and new technologies as tools for policy change”.
Plan A, featured on the Birth Control Watch
homepage, is “a project of the National Council of Jewish Women, and is an initiative to educate and empower individuals to advocate for women’s universal access to contraceptive information and health services at the community level”. The National Council of Jewish Women advocates on behalf of children, women’s rights and reproductive freedom and has a nation-wide network of 90,000 members and supporters.
Birth Control Watch advocates for the following:1) Safety and Access2) Insurance Coverage3) Pharmacies Filling Prescriptions4) Equality5) Supporting All Women6) Comprehensive Sex Education7) Prevention First
Their site offers suggestions on
questions to ask Congress this year, has an active blog, and includes an activist center where you can sign up for e-alerts. Check it out…

October 3, 2007

Medicaid Policies for Covering Emergency Contraception

On August 24, 2006, the FDA approved that EC could be sold behind-the-counter to women age 18 and older. Women under 18 are still required to get a prescription. According to the National Health Law Program, “this dual-label classification has raised a number of questions regarding how states are covering Plan B® for Medicaid-eligible women”. Some states could introduce Medicaid policies that “complicate access to Plan B® or exclude coverage altogether for low-income women” (NHeLP).
According to NHeLP’s
report “Over the Counter or Out of Reach?: A Report on Evolving State Medicaid Policies for Covering Emergency Contraception”, South Carolina does not have a clear state policy after August 2006 that Medicaid will cover EC/Plan B® as an over the counter drug. EC is also not included on a Medicaid drug list, formulary, or PDL updated after August 2006. Likewise, a prescription is required for EC reimbursement under a 2005 or post-August 2006 pharmacy policy.
The good news is that prior authorization is not required for reimbursement of EC. Furthermore, reimbursement is possible in general for OTC drugs not specifically listed in agency regulations or documents through prior authorization. This means that EC could be included on the list.
So, what can you do to ensure that low income women in SC are still able to get their EC covered by Medicaid? The
document “Emergency Contraception & Medicaid: A State-by-State Analysis and Advocate’s Toolkit” provides a lot of useful information and an action kit for advocates.
Follow the below action plan and checklist and
contact the South Carolina Emergency Contraceptive Initiative to volunteer to become more involved.
An Action Plan for Advocates (read the details in the
report)Action 1: Determine the Status of Medicaid Coverage of EC in Your StateAction 2: If Plan B® is Covered, Determine the Access BarriersAction 3: Document and Report Barrier IssuesAction 4: Educate Medicaid PersonnelAction 5: Educate Medicaid Recipients
Checklist: Do Medicaid Barriers to EC Access Exist in My State?□ How easy is it to find out whether Medicaid covers Plan B® in your state?□ Do you have a Medicaid drug formulary in your state?□ Is Plan B® listed on the formulary?□ If Plan B® is not listed on the formulary, what is the process for getting it on the formulary?□ Is Preven listed?□ How easy is it to obtain Plan B® if you are on Medicaid?□ Are individuals being charged co-pays?□ Does a Medicaid recipient need to obtain prior authorization for coverage of Plan B®?□ If so, are recipients receiving an emergency supply and a response within 24 hours?□ Do Medicaid personnel and websites provide accurate information about EC and coverage?□ Are there other utilization controls in place, such as a limit on the number of refills?□ Are individuals being forced to pay for EC out-of-pocket?□ Are there other barriers facing Medicaid recipients accessing EC?□ Are clinics and providers being reimbursed in a timely manner?□ Does your state enroll Medicaid beneficiaries into managed care plans on a mandatory basis?□ Is EC excluded from the managed care plan’s scope of covered benefits?□ If you are in a ‘pharmacy access’ state, you might want to ask these additional questions.□ What is the process for Medicaid reimbursement when obtaining EC from a pharmacy?□ Do pharmacists get reimbursed for time spent counseling patients?

September 28, 2007

A Sex Ed Digital Video Contest

Why is Sex So Interesting?And Sex-Ed So Boring?
Are you between the ages of 15 and 30 years old? Do you know someone who is? Are you a sex-ed or health education teacher? A cool parent who wants to make sure all young people have access to science-based, medically accurate sexuality education to help them live healthy and happy lives?
RH Reality Check, in partnership with Advocates for Youth, SIECUS, Isis, Inc., and the National Sexuality Resource Center (NSRC) are hosting:
Fresh Focus: A Sex Ed Digital Video Contest
Enter on your own, with a team or make it a class project!Shoot. Submit. Win. That’s all there is to it!
You’ve got two themes to choose from:Theme 1. Share your sex ed experience so far. Show us how and why it sucked or rocked. In three minutes or less.Theme 2. Redesign how sex ed could be delivered. Imagine that anything is possible. In three minutes or less.
It’s easy! And there are amazing prizes! First prize is $3500 in the form of a scholarship to the institution of your choice or cash, second prize is $1000, and third prize gets you your choice of a Nikon P5000, Nintendo Wii, or an iPhone!
Looking for more information?
Visit their
contest page for details, rules and submission information! Are you ready to submit? Visit the submission page hosted by Dogoodertv!
The deadline is December 31, 2008 so grab a camera and start shooting! They’ll be waiting…

September 27, 2007

Kudos to the Free Times

A big thank you goes out to the Free Times, Columbia’s free weekly newspaper for covering the issue of skyrocketing birth control prices at USC’s health center in their article Contraception Crisis.
The article discusses the fact that a poorly crafted provision of Congress’ 2006 Deficit Reduction Act changed the rule allowing pharmaceutical companies to offer some providers low-cost drugs — ultimately making it harder for college and university health clinics, including USC, to offer students affordable birth control!
Maybe this wonderful article will encourage Rep. Clyburn to ask Rep. Dingell to attach the fix language to the Act before the deadline of this Sunday, Sept. 30th. Young people need to be able to afford birth control, especially on college campuses!
To read more about this issue,
click here.
Contraception CrisisUSC’s Thomson Student Health Center Running Out of Affordable Birth Controlby: Mindy Lucas
USC’s Thomson Student Health Center has been stockpiling birth control pills — but not because administrators anticipate a run on oral contraception, although they might once word gets out that less expensive pills are almost gone.
The health center has been stockpiling pills since January, when the little-known Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 became law. The act effectively eliminated a group discount policy on drugs — key to negotiating with pharmaceutical companies.
“What I believe the act was originally trying to do was reduce spending or control spending on drugs, but the unintended consequence was [that] it eliminated the ability to get this group discount rate and that gave pharmaceutical companies no incentive to offer discounted rates,” says Lauren Vincent, public relations coordinator for the health center.
Brand name birth control pills, such as these, are going up in price at USC’s Thomson Student Health Center.File photo
As a result, birth control pills at the health center have jumped from $12 per pack for a month’s supply to $30 and $45 per pack. And although the health center, located in the heart of the USC campus, continues to offer generic forms of oral contraception, Vincent says for some women, generic might not be an option.
“That’s something they’ll want to discuss with their physician,” she says. “But even the generic is still not going to be $12 a month.”
In the meantime, she says the center has been doing what it can to keep up with the demand for affordable contraception, including stocking pills and letting students who use the facility know of the price increases.
“When we found out, we tried to buy a bulk amount but we’re basically starting to run out,” Vincent says. “We’re trying to let students know it’s not our fault.”
The health center is not alone in struggling to keep affordable contraception on its shelves as a result of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, according to Sarah Gareau, program manager for TellThem!, a statewide grassroots health policy program started by the New Morning Foundation, which is working to reduce teen pregnancy.
“It [the law] has interfered with not only college health clinics, but many community health clinics’ ability to provide name-brand drugs at affordable rates,” says Gareau, adding that pills at community health clinics have jumped from $10 per pack to $50 or more for a month’s supply. “Which is just cost prohibitive for many young people and students,” Gareau says.
She goes on to say that many health advocacy groups and others involved with health issues in the state are concerned that the rising costs of birth control pills might have negative impacts on young women. “We know from research that more than 50 percent of unwanted pregnancies occur among women in their 20s and that’s college age,” Gareau says.
Both Gareau and Vincent are trying to get the word out about the legislation. As a member of the American College Health Association, the health center is pushing for additional legislation to be attached to the act, Vincent says. “We are asking for them to make college health centers exempt from the act,” she says.
Gareau says TellThem!, made up of about 2,000 members, also supports exempting health clinics from the law. She says TellThem! is asking U.S. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., to approach U.S. Rep. John Dingell about the issue. Dingell, D-Mich., chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Clyburn has the pull to ask Dingell to attach the language,” says Gareau, adding that the deadline for attaching the language — Sunday — is fast approaching. And although Gareau says Clyburn, whose district includes part of Richland County, has said he is only willing to speak to his constituents about the issue, Gareau says he should listen to all South Carolinians. “The university sits in his district and serves many of his constituents who will vote in his district.”

September 23, 2007

President Threatens to Veto SCHIP

According to Politico, despite a clear veto threat from President Bush, Democratic and Republican negotiators on Friday announced a breakthrough deal on the children’s health insurance program, agreeing to expand the initiative by $35 billion in an attempt to provide health care to million more uninsured children. The compromise will closely mirror the bipartisan Senate bill, which passed this summer 68-31, with enough support to override an eventual veto (Source).
Created in 1997, SCHIP is a national federal/state health insurance program for low-income children whose families’ incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private health insurance, and whose parents count among the nation’s working uninsured. Due in large part to this program, the percentage of low-income children in the United States without health coverage has fallen by one-third, despite the erosion of private health coverage over this period. More than 4 million low-income children, most of whom would otherwise be uninsured, are enrolled in SCHIP.
This remarkable success, however, is now threatened. Unlike Medicaid, an entitlement program whose federal funding increases automatically to compensate for increases in health-care costs (as well as increases in caseloads), SCHIP is a block grant with a fixed annual funding level. Consequently, the federal SCHIP funding that states receive has not been keeping pace with the rising cost of health care or population growth. (
Source).
Included in the House version of the legislation is a provision that would allow states—without having to go through a cumbersome waiver process—to expand Medicaid coverage for contraception up to the level of Medicaid coverage for pregnancy-related care. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the state option to expand family planning likely would produce savings to the federal government of $200 million over five years and $400 million over 10 years (
Source). This provision was not included in the original Senate version.
If President Bush vetoes the bill, Congress will extend it temporarily while negotiations continue with the White House.
Want to know more about this issue, read the Kaiser Family Foundation’s
SCHIP Reauthorization: Key Questions in the Debate or the opinion in the NY Times.

September 18, 2007

We Need to Tell Them

We need to Tell Them, both boys and girls, that having sex isn’t finding love. This is difficult to understand, given the way romance is portrayed in movies and on TV, of course. This relates to my second message: We need to make sure we purchase NOTHING that uses sex to sell. It’s a cheap, ugly ploy by advertisers that if you use a given toothpaste or drive a certain car, you’re sexy. This, of course, furthers the concept that being sexy is a necessary ingredient to the glamour of living in a TV commercial, which we’re all taught is the way to live, just by the constant barrage of those very commercials! It’s a dangerous mind-warping fact of life for too many Americans, especially in places like South Carolina, where’s there’s virtually nothing to do that doesn’t involve spending money. Few people in SC have money. So many kids find comfort and fun in sex.
Girls bear the brunt of all this social irresponsibility. Perhaps if we could find a way for boys to suffer life-debilitating consequences of teenage pregnancy, they’d be more careful about playing around with sex - and perhaps their parents would begin to understand the need for sex education and condoms. As long as boys can go play their sports and pretty much suffer no consequences of getting girls pregnant, there will be no change in teen pregnancy rates. Classes that dwell on shame and fear will have no effect on teenagers, given teenagers’ tendency to believe nothing bad can happen to them! The only way we’ll see changes will be to change the adult contribution to society.
To sum up, that change must come from not supporting corporations who make it cool and sexy to buy certain products and demanding the boys be treated to the same baby-making side-effects as the girls. At some point we as a society must learn and emphasize that men have as much responsibility as do women for the children they produce, and on a day-to-day basis, not just when custody battles arise and the money is being counted.
The continuation of this analysis would go into society’s insistence women make less money, then considering the father’s larger income when contemplating custody - thus insuring money is the focus of child-rearing… perhaps to insure money is spent on junk that emphasizes sexiness and keeps the nasty spiral going?
Money talks, but it needs to learn another language. The status quo is too mean.
Chicago-born Kate Lehman Landishaw moved to SC from Boston, where she had spent many years as a grassroots activist (affordable housing and racism issues) while working to build a business career. When the obvious conflict of these pursuits finally dawned on her, social activism and her undeveloped talent as an artist emerged strongest; so, that’s where life is carving Kate’s niche in the Carolina clay.

September 16, 2007

Upstate Group Partners with Clemson University

A group has formed in the Clemson Area (Anderson, Pickens, and Oconee counties) to establish a network of people interested in reproductive health and reproductive freedom. Calling itself “Upstate Friends of Reproductive Choices”, it is affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Activities planned for this year include a TellThem! Advocacy 101 Workshop (Tuesday, November 13 at 7 p.m. at the Clemson UU Fellowship) and a series of community forums.
Working with Clemson University’s Women’s Studies Program, the group will present three forums during the academic year. The series is called Sex in the 21st Century. The kick-off program will be held on Wednesday, October 24th in the Strom Thurmond Institute, Clemson University at 7 PM.
The October forum, “Reproductive Choice: Past, Present, and Future”, will delve into the history of reproductive choice and project future choices for today’s men and women. The second forum on January 29th, “Secrets & Myths: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sexuality and Reproduction,” will replace widely held myths and misconceptions with truths and accuracies. The series will conclude on April 2nd with “Finding Common Ground on Birth Control and Abortion: A Religious and Ethical Perspective.” In this program, the controversial issues of birth control and abortion will be discussed from theological, philosophical, and ethical perspectives with the goal of discovering aspects of these issues that unite us.
If you are interested in becoming involved with Upstate Friends of Reproductive Choices, call the current co-chair: Janie Shipley at 864-885-1967 or Ellie Taylor at 864-654-1331.

September 16, 2007

Teaching Prevention is Key

South Carolina has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation. Every day, 30 teen-
aged girls become pregnant in South Carolina.
Teen mothers are more likely to experience complications with pregnancy, drop out of school and live in poverty. The children of these mothers are more likely to be incarcerated, experience abuse and neglect and to enter foster care. Their daughters are likely to repeat the cycle. And of course we cannot forget the taxpayers who foot the bill of $643,000 per year.
What disturbs me the most about these facts is that the majority of these teen pregnancies that occur on a daily basis are unwanted. The solution is simple: PREVENTION. Teaching prevention in schools and at home along with ensuring that contraceptives are available and affordable to all women, despite age, economic status, or race is the only way to stop this vicious cycle.
Unfortunately, many South Carolinians do not agree with this approach. While some are staunch in their ways that we should teach abstinence-only to our youth, the majority are simply uneducated about what works. That’s why we must come together and tell anyone who will listen why access to and education about reproductive health is so important. Educate your neighbors, your friends and your colleagues. I believe that with education, we can change and shape the future for thousands of youth across our state.
Born and raised in Columbia, Kate Hampton received a B.A. in journalism and Mass Communications from the University of South Carolina. Kate is the South Carolina Field Coordinator for Planned Parenthood Health Systems. She serves on the board of the League of Women Voters and also co-chairs the Legislative Committee for the NOW organization.

September 11, 2007

Reducing Teen Pregnancy Rates

Good progress has been made in reducing teen pregnancy rates in the South Carolina and the rest of the United States in the past fifteen years, but much more needs to be done. The US still has the highest teen pregnancy rates of all the developed counties, and of the one million teens that become pregnant each year, only one-fourth will be married.
In my work as a child and adolescent therapist for the SC Department of Mental Health, I attempted to get the boys and girls that I worked with to understand the effects becoming a teen parent would have on the rest of their lives. Twenty-five percent of all teen moms will eventually end up on welfare and will face systemic poverty, because getting pregnant during your teens years usually means not completing your high school education. Without a high school diploma, or GED, it is difficult to obtain a good paying job that will allow you to support yourself and your family. The single most important indicator of future earnings is the number of years of education.The basic rules for having a successful life are as follows:
• Get all the education you possibly can• Do not become a parent until you are married• Do not get married until you have a good education
The keys to further reductions in the teen birth rate are an expanded comprehensive sex education program in our middle and high schools and increased access to family planning information and methods. Although comprehensive sex education is part of the mandated health education program in South Carolina schools, many school districts have not implemented the program because of a shortage of funding or teaching resources.
Because of the emphasis in many teen pregnancy preventions programs of educating females on the issue and solutions, men’s programs on the same subject do not carry the same emphasis on personal responsibility for out-of-wedlock pregnancies as the girl’s programs do.
If we are to continue to reduce teen pregnancies and out of wedlock births, we must find new ways to communicate to teenage boys and men their responsibility in making every child a wanted child. The second part of this aspect is to begin to hold the fathers of the out of wedlock births financially responsible and to involve them in the child’s life. We cannot continue to allow teenage boys and men to simply walk away from their financial and emotional responsibilities if our goal is to continue reducing teen pregnancies. This goal will be the most difficult to achieve because of the long historical and cultural traditions that link the concept of manhood to simply producing numbers of children without any consideration for the quality of life and future opportunities for the children.
Successful model sex and health education programs in countries like The Netherlands should be adopted in the United States if we are truly dedicated to reducing the teen pregnancy rate by another twenty-five or thirty percent. Unfortunately, our political, educational and social environments will not allow the adoption of these successful programs anytime in the near future.
Duane Bates worked as a therapist for the SC Department of Mental Health. He is retired, but currently volunteers for the United Way HELPline and as Controller for the Taylors Free Medical Clinic. He can be reached at bateduane@yahoo.com.

September 7, 2007

South Carolina EC Survey Results

Biannually, the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research conducts the South Carolina State Survey. The survey is a cost-shared random probability survey that allows policy makers, researchers, and other interested organizations, such as the New Morning Foundation, gather reliable data about South Carolina citizens. The questions are pre-tested, and the respondents to be interviewed for the survey are selected from random samples of households with telephones in SC. To avoid biasing the sample in favor of households that can be reached by multiple phone numbers, each is case is weighted inversely to its probability of being included in the sample (Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, 2007).
New Morning Foundation submitted several questions related to emergency contraception (Plan B). Below are some general results. The Spring 2007 summary report also includes results by specific demographic characteristics (sex, race, age, education, income, type of area, region, and registered to vote).
1) Pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill a prescription:Yes - 24.7No - 60.4Not Sure - 14.9
Summary: Slightly more than 60% of South Carolinians believe that pharmacists do not have the right to refuse to fill a valid doctor’s prescription for emergency contraception if doing so goes against their personal beliefs.
2) Heard of various types of emergency contraception:the morning after pill Yes - 85.7No - 14.0DK - .3emergency birth control pillsYes - 51.6No - 47.2DK - 1.2emergency contraceptionYes - 40.3No - 57.3DK - 2.4Plan BYes - 25.3No - 72.3DK - 2.4
Summary: More than 85% have heard of the morning after pill, 51.6% have heard of emergency birth control pills, 40.3% have heard of emergency contraception, and only 25.3% have heard of Plan B.
3) Women can use Plan B to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse.True - 39.9False - 8.1Not Sure - 52.0
Summary: A majority of respondents were not sure whether or not a woman can use Plan B to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse.
For more information about emergency contraception, visit the South Carolina Emergency Contraception Initiative’s
website.
Source: University of South Carolina’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research: South Carolina State Survey Spring 2007 Summary Findings for the New Morning Foundation

September 5, 2007

Heritage Keepers Failing South Carolina Youth

SIECUS posted the following press release today:

A study released last week by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. conducted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows once again that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—no matter how intensive—are not effective. Students who attended a basic abstinence-only-until-marriage course and met weekly throughout the year to reinforce their abstinence training showed no difference in rates of abstinence, number of sexual partners, age of first sex, reported STDs, or reported pregnancies when compared to students who attended just the basic abstinence course.
“I can’t say that it’s surprising that students in the extended abstinence-only-until-marriage program didn’t change their behavior,” said Joseph DiNorcia, Jr., president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), “More of nothing is still nothing.”
The newest study, which examined the program Heritage Keepers run by Heritage Community Services of South Carolina, compares students who took part in the mandatory abstinence-only-until-marriage programs with students who took part in the mandatory programs as well as the elective “Life Skills Education Component,” which met weekly for 45 minutes per session. SIECUS’ reviews of curricula produced by Heritage found them to be based on messages of fear and shame and to include biased views on gender, marriage, and pregnancy options. The often- controversial Heritage Community Services received a whopping $1,232,780 of federal funding in Fiscal Year 2006.
“There’s only so much you can learn by comparing a failed program with an expanded version of that same failed program. Still, this study has some disturbing results. For one thing it found that more than a third of the students involved in the Heritage programs think condoms, even when properly used, never prevent HIV. This kind of lack of knowledge is unforgivable,” DiNorcia said.
An earlier study by Mathematica, released in April, looked at four federally funded programs in diverse communities across the country and found no evidence that abstinence-only programs increased rates of sexual abstinence when students were compared to their peers who did not attend the programs. In fact, students in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs had a similar number of sexual partners as their peers not in the programs, as well as a similar age of first sex.
“The evidence is overwhelming —abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are failing our young people. It’s time we stop pouring taxpayer money into them and start funding more comprehensive sexuality education programs,” DiNorcia concluded.
To view the full report,
click here. To view the SIECUS state profile for South Carolina in its entirety or to learn more about Heritage Community Services, click here.
Have questions or need information, contact Patrick Malone at pmalone@siecus.org or (212) 819-9770 ext. 316.

August 31, 2007

Beaufort House Candidates Discuss Reproductive Health

The day after Labor Day, September 4th, Beaufort will hold a special election for House District 124 to fill former State Representative Catherine Ceips (R-Beaufort) seat. Ms. Ceips was recently elected to the State Senate to complete the terms of Scott Richardson [R]. She now holds a seat in the state Senate for District 46 - Beaufort County. There are three Republican candidates running: Randy Bates, Shannon Erickson, & Diane DeWitt. Candidate information can be found here.
On August 29th, The Beaufort Regional Chamber’s Candidates Forum took place with more than 100 persons in attendance. The event was hosted by the Beaufort Gazette, Beaufort Regional Chamber of Commerce, Lady’s Island Business and Professional Association and Lowcountry Young Professionals. Prior to the Forum, questions were submitted by some members of the Together for Beaufort Teenage Pregnancy Committee regarding young peoples’ reproductive health.
Lisa Rentz, a TellThem! member, reported:
“After realizing that some of the questions pre-submitted by email would not be used, I decided to write-in a question: “Healthcare is a national problem, and STDs and teen pregnancy rates in SC are high. How would you improve access to health care and birth control?”
Each candidate’s answer focused on teen pregnancy and education in the schools. Diane DeWitt also mentioned improving healthcare in her closing remarks.
The next question asked was: “How would you have voted on the ultrasound bill: pro-choice or pro-life?”
Diane DeWitt and Shannon Erickson both clearly replied they would not have voted for it, it was only to intimidate women. Ms. Erickson went as far as to say something like even though she’s pro-life and catholic, everybody can have their own ideals. Randy Bates spent his minute talking about being pro-life.”
Related Links:
Beaufort Gazette Political Pulse on the candidates
Live blogger at the event
As a 501C3 non-profit organization, we do not endorse any candidates. However, we do educate constituents about candidate’s views on the issue of reproductive health.

August 29, 2007

Birth Control Costs Increase at College Health Centers

The Deficit Reduction Act, signed into law on February 8, 2006, includes a provision that adversely affects the ability of health centers to purchase contraceptives at a discounted or nominal price. The provision went into effect on January 1, 2007.
Policy makers in Congress have since acknowledged the error and have been working to find a vehicle to attach a no-cost, technical correction. At TellThem!, we have been following this issue and will be working with national partners to make sure that South Carolina college students have all the access they need to family planning services.
Reproductive health is so important for all of our SC college students. The facts are that:
- 1 out of every four women experience unwanted sexual intercourse while attending college (
Indiana University)- At least 69% of females and 64% of males have had sexual intercourse at age 18-19 (CDC)- Over half (54%) of all unwanted pregnancies occur to women in their twenties (National Campaign)- Between 20-25% of college students have either been infected with an STD or have transmitted one to their sexual partners (Go Ask Alice)
The Charleston Post and Courier printed this wonderful
letter to the editor regarding this issue today.
Contraception costs
The increase in birth control costs on college campuses is going to hit home with students at the University of South Carolina and Clemson University.
As a college student, I could not imagine adding any additional costs to my already limited budget. The price increase will likely lead to an increase in students not using protection.
It shouldn’t have to be this way. In the Deficit Reduction Act, which went into effect in January, Congress inadvertently changed a rule and made it harder for universities and some family-planning providers to provide their patients with affordable birth control. This is a simple problem for Congress to fix — it will cost the government nothing and can be done immediately.
Students shouldn’t have to jump through hoops just to practice safer sex, especially when the fix is so easy. Congress should be making it easier, not harder, for women to have access to affordable contraception.

BROOKE SPIVEY
The Box Organization
College of Charleston
66 George St.

August 27, 2007

Why I think abstinence only education stinks

Amy Holleman chairs the Young Feminist Committee for SC NOW. She is a volunteer advocate for Sexual Trauma Services of the Midlands, and she also works with groups like RESULTS and the South Carolina Campaign to End AIDS. Amy was recently featured in Skirt! Magazine’s Feminist Issue for the Columbia market.

In a perfect world, or at least a perfect America, kids probably wouldn’t have sex very early, especially not at 11, 12, or 13 years old. In a perfect America, teenagers would know all of the risks associated with sex, how to protect themselves, and would probably wait until they were ready before engaging in sexual activity. Unfortunately, this place isn’t perfect; therefore, I believe we should educate kids and give them the information they need to make the most informed decisions possible regarding their bodies. Teaching kids about sex won’t cause them have sex any earlier or later, but it could save their lives.
We were all teenagers once. We all know what it’s like to feel the hormones rage and feel the pressure from our friends to have sex. Abstinence only education may seem like a sensible fix for things like teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, and it would be if it worked. The truth is, you cannot cure all sexually transmitted infections. Herpes is forever. Certain strains of HPV can cause cervical cancer. HIV can lead to AIDS. Syphilis, left untreated, can cause significant brain damage. Not teaching kids how to protect themselves about these things can kill them. I’m not a parent, but I think if I were, while I may be terribly upset to learn my child was having sex too young, I would rather have my child safer than not.
Thinking back on a conversation I had with some teenagers from a local high school at a young feminists sleepover that a former head of Columbia, SC NOW hosted, I am painfully aware of the misinformation circulating amongst them. Things I was shock to “learn” from these girls (ages 14-17) included, but were not limited to, such things as the following:
- If you have sex but douche immediately afterwards with a regular soda, it will keep you from getting pregnant and will wash away any diseases that you may have contracted (crazy me, I can only imagine that leading to a raging yeast infection).- You can look at a person and tell if they are HIV positive.- You cannot get AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases from anal sex or oral sex. Neither oral sex nor anal sex are sex; therefore, as long as you are not engaging in plain ol’ heterosexual vaginal intercourse, you are engaging in an abstinent lifestyle.- If boys drink a 2-liter Mountain Dew a day for a month, they will be sterile for five (5) years so do not need to use condoms.- Condoms are only for gay men who have sex with strangers at bars.- You have to be 21 to buy condoms.- It is wrong for a girl to ask her boyfriend to use a condom.- It isn’t rape if it is anal sex, and he is your boyfriend, even if you said no.
The list goes on and on, but I think you guys get the point. Those kids, by the way, were from various backgrounds and socioeconomic situations. The things I learned from those girls are prime examples of why abstinence only education is failing our children.