TellThem!

South Carolina Puts One More Boulder Into the Path to Abortion Access

2009-04-23T11:45:00.003-04:00

April 23, 2009

By Debbie Billings

H. 3245 is the latest attempt by South Carolina's legislature to undermine women's ability to access safe abortion services. H.3245 effectively mandates a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, if she has an ultrasound to determine gestational age. If she does not have an ultrasound, then 24 hours still needs to pass after a woman receives state-prepared materials. Section 1(2)(a) of H.3245 states specifically that, "The woman must be presented by the physician who is to perform the abortion or by an allied health professional working in conjunction with the physician a written form containing the following statement: 'You have the right to review printed materials prepared by the State of South Carolina which describe fetal development, list agencies which offer alternatives to abortion, and describe medical assistance benefits which may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. You have the right to view your ultrasound image.' This form must be signed and dated by both the physician who is to perform the procedure and the pregnant woman upon whom the procedure is to be performed." The proponents of H.3245 are dressing this as "informed consent". It's also called the "Women's Right to Know" Act within South Carolina's abortion law. The use of both terms truly distorts the meaning of a very important process in which any health care provider concerned about human rights fully engages.

South Carolina's existing abortion law (Section 44-41-50) states that medical employees ("physician, nurse, technician or other person") are not required to aid in abortions and cannot be demoted, dismissed, suspended or otherwise disciplined by the employer.

Throughout the state, only three clinics provide elective abortion services; 91 percent of South Carolina counties have no abortion provider. South Carolina's exsiting abortion law states that before obtaining an abortion, a woman must be informed by the physician performing the abortion of the probable gestational age of the fetus. The three clinics that provide first trimester elective abortion services routinely conduct pre-abortion ultrasounds precisely to determine gestational age. Whether or not this is medically necessary, clinics are following this practice to protect themselves from malpractice suits and attempts to shut down their services. The "if" in H.3245 does not provide women with a realistic opt-out option. Performing an abortion without the ultrasound proof of gestational age would leave providers vulnerable to sanctions that could further limit women's access to abortion services in South Carolina.

Ultrasound has been touted in the public eye as a fail proof technology that serves to "inform" women about their pregnancy. Yet determining gestational age without an ultrasound is possible by a trained professionals; this is accomplished throughout the world. Ultrasounds must be interpreted and if this is done by someone who is not trained to appropriately use the technology, the "information" generated can be erroneous. (The extent to which this is happening in anti-choice pregnancy "counseling" sites throughout the US needs to be documented). On March 19, 2009 I had the opportunity to testify before South Carolina's Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee. Public testimony was given both by supporters and opponents of H.3245, speaking to Subcommittee members Senators Thomas, Fair, Hutto, Pickney and Bryant in 2-minute spots. Supporters of the Bill included several women who had negative abortion experiences during the 1970s (including pre- Roe v. Wade). One woman asked the Senators to think about the "times that they gone shopping with their wives and how long it took them to pick out a new dress." (Note: South Carolina has no female Senators). This same woman emphasized the ways in which "women's bodies are raging with hormones" and how they "needed help in making the decision to end life." Others attributed divorce, anger and food disorders to women terminating their pregnancies. Opponents of H.3245, including two physicians from two of the three clinics that provide abortion services in South Carolina, emphasized that most women seeking care have already reflected and come to their decision to end their pregnancies. In my own testimony, I stated that, "This bill will negatively affect the ability of many women in our state to access a legal medical service. When a 24-hour delay is put into place, women who do not have flexibility in their jobs to be able to take off from work for several days and women whose financial situation does not allow for making two office visits for a service that should take just one will be most severely affected. In addition, the delay for many women may become much longer than 24 hours, as they find it impossible to make a second appointment within the 24-hour period. This delay can make the abortion more expensive and less safe, especially if women seek untrained providers or their own ways of ending their pregnancies."

I included these points in correspondence to Senator John Courson, urging him to help defeat H.3245. His response included his understanding that H.3245 would put South Carolina in line with 26 other states and that "for such a sensitive and important issue, the 24-hour wait time does not seem to be unreasonable." Not unreasonable for whom? He ends his correspondence by trying to appeal to my "feminine side", I suppose, by stating, "Of the seventeen women serving in the South Carolina General Assembly, only four voted against H.3245." Clearly Courson wants me to see that most women in the General Assembly were "reasonable"; my own conclusion is that we need to fully support the four women that voted against H.3245 in educating their fellow Assembly members, both women and men.

H.3245 assumes that women make the decision to abort quickly and without thought and that the State of South Carolina should, therefore, impose a 24-hour period post-ultrasound during which they might reflect. Given the grave shortage of safe abortion services in South Carolina, I suspect that during that 24-hour period few women will be engaged in deep meditation and most will be scrambling to find childcare, figuring out a way to take several days off of work or school instead of just one, and finding an affordable place to stay for several nights until the 24-hour period elapses since most will have to travel for both the ultrasound and the abortion procedure. This, of course, assumes that they are able to schedule the abortion for within 24 hours of the ultrasound. Many women will also be working on a way to raise the funds to pay for two medical visits instead of just one. More than 326,000 female residents of South Carolina have no health insurance coverage. Even women who have insurance coverage through the State Health Insureance Plan must come up with the cash themselves, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or places the woman's life at risk. Some may travel to neighboring states. Others will find the barriers to be insurmountable and will continue with their pregnancies. This is the true goal of proponents of H.3245 and of other constant attempts to impose legislation to make abortion services less and less accessible in South Carolina.

Proof: On April 6th The Greenville News Published a 650 word article by Anti-Choice Senator Mike Fair titled "Waiting Period Makes Sense" Senator Fair, a publicly elected official who sees no line between Church and State exclaims: "H.3245 simply reflects common sense." Why? Because according to him "The leading cause of death is abortion. Approximately 1.2 million unborn children die due to elective abortion each year...Pregnancy should be a blessing. Many do not recognize the blessing at the time, but that is true of very many of the blessings God bestows upon us....More time will equate to more life." Which way do you think Fair is voting on H.3245?

On April 3rd the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs passed H.3245 with a vote of 10-6. Roll Call was not taken. The Bill is now on the Senate Floor Calendar. South Carolina will be the first state to attempt to require that if an ultrasound is performed, a mandatory 24-hour delay go into effect.

New Ab-Only Provider in SC Pedaling Same Old Stuff

2008-10-29T12:31:00.006-04:00

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.

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

2008-10-16T10:11:00.006-04:00

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.

The State Newspaper addresses South Carolina HIV epidemic

2008-10-14T11:06:00.009-04:00

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.

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

2008-10-02T12:51:00.008-04:00

[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...

2008-10-02T11:30:00.008-04:00

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.

And So it Goes …

2008-09-05T16:01:00.008-04:00

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).

September 3, 2008

2008-08-28T12:02:00.011-04:00

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.

April 24, 2008

2008-08-15T13:39:00.005-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:38:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:36:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:35:00.001-04:00

"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

2008-08-15T13:34:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:31:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:29:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:28:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:09:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:07:00.004-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:06:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-15T13:00:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:59:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:57:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:56:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:54:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:53:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:50:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:49:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:48:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:46:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:06:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:04:00.001-04:00

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

2008-08-15T12:02:00.000-04:00

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.

August 16, 2007

2008-08-15T12:01:00.002-04:00

Abstinence just part of effective programs

This great letter to the editor was published in The State on Monday by Forrest Alton, Executive Director of the SC Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

Abstinence just part of effective programs

A July 29 headline proclaimed, “Abstinence-only sex education questioned.” But while the jury was out for some time on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, there is no longer a question: A large-scale, well-designed, federally funded evaluation has shown that they do not work.

Abstinence is clearly the first and best choice for young people and should be emphasized.

But there is a clear distinction between abstinence as a behavior and abstinence-only as an educational approach. While abstinence-only programs have been shown to be ineffective, there are a variety of programs that research has shown to be effective. A commonality of the programs that work is a clear and consistent message that abstinence is the first and best choice combined with age-appropriate, medically accurate information and condoms and contraception for those youth who are sexually active. This comprehensive approach has been shown through rigorous research to delay the initiation of sex, increase the use of contraception and ultimately decrease rates of pregnancy and STDs.

A 2007 survey showed that 81 percent of S.C. adults agree that sexuality education that emphasizes abstinence as the first, best option but also teaches the importance of contraception should be taught in the public schools.

As future decisions about funding are made, let’s hope the results of sound research and the views of an overwhelming majority of South Carolinians are considered. There is no time to continue funding approaches to sex education that do not work.

The mission of the South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy is to prevent adolescent pregnancy in South Carolina through education, advocacy, technical assistance, public awareness and research.

August 15, 2007

2008-08-15T12:00:00.002-04:00

Meeting with Rep. Clyburn's Area Director

In partnership with Advocates for Youth, a group of dynamic women who are all TellThem! members met with Dalton J. Tresvant, Midlands Area Director for federal House Representative James E. Clyburn. The meeting was scheduled to request that Rep. Clyburn 1) not support funding for abstinence-only programs and 2) support the abundant research that reveals that abstinence-only programs do not work and also provided information on funding for abstinence-only programs in our state. South Carolina received $3,341,101 in federal funds for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in Fiscal Year 2006 despite the fact that we know that 81% of South Carolina voters think that sex education in public schools should contain information on both abstinence and contraception. A large portion of this funding went to Heritage Community Services out of Charleston.
As both a constituent and the Program Manager for the SC Emergency Contraceptive Initiative, Lottie McClorin voiced how both through her teen experience in Williamsburg County and her work in the field as a health educator with the Initiative, she has seen a huge need for a more comprehensive approach to education. As a teen, she saw that most teens were getting their reproductive health information from the streets and not from the schools where they needed it. As a professional, she has seen how even health professionals do not know about emergency contraception and are not fully informed through out our state.
An avid volunteer for the SC Democratic headquarters and a retired nursing professor at USC, Opal Brown shared with Mr. Tresvant how HIV/AIDS had directly impacted her own personal family and the importance of comprehensive sexuality education for the health of our young people who are being devastated by STIs/STDS.
Finally, Bonnie Adams, Executive Director of the New Morning Foundation, shared information about the Foundation’s work in Rep. Clyburn’s 6th District. She also shared crucial information on the numbers of teen births in the District and the economic cost of these births.
Mr. Tresvant explained that Rep. Clyburn’s vote for abstinence-only was probably due to the fact that the abstinence-only funding piece was part of a larger appropriations bill that included funding for other positive programs for the community. As we all know, what happens up on Capitol Hill is all about compromise. We were, however, assured that the bill would probably come back to conference and that our views would be taken into consideration at that point. It was great to know the difference one meeting was able to make and that Rep. Clyburn was supportive of a more comprehensive approach.
Summer seems to be a great time to meet with legislators. For tips on doing so, visit our advocacy toolkit on members’ home.

August 10, 2007

2008-08-15T11:53:00.001-04:00

Adolescents from Malawi to SC, the same

The Guttmacher Institute and nine partner organizations asked “more than 20,000 adolescents in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi and Uganda to describe their lives, their worries, their sources of information about pregnancy and HIV prevention, and how they access health care services”.
They found that:
• Adolescents’ knowledge is broad but not deep. The vast majority of young people have heard about HIV, but many lack in-depth knowledge of how the disease is spread, which they need to protect themselves.
• Young people trust the formal sector. Overwhelmingly, young Africans said their preferred sources of information were doctors, nurses and teachers, and they wanted to receive health services from clinics and health centers. However, they also said a key reason why they did not seek care was that they were embarrassed and ashamed to do so; and we know that much more needs to be done to provide adequate and accessible services for young people.
• The very young are not naive. While most younger adolescents have not yet had sex, by the age of 15, nearly all are aware of it, some have sexually experienced friends and many have experimented with kissing and fondling. Many young adolescents said they want to learn about sex in schools, from sources they can trust.
The adolescents in Africa seem to have the same level of knowledge and needs as our own SC teens. Improving reproductive health education and awareness for our young people is so important. As Guttmacher stated in their press release today, “we should…listen to what young people are telling us. They look forward to brighter futures and want to stay safe from disease and early pregnancy. Let us honor their request by providing them the sexual and reproductive health information and services they need to live out their dreams and help build stronger societies.”
To read more about Guttmacher’s work with adolescents, click here.

August 9, 2007

2008-08-15T11:35:00.002-04:00

Reproductive Health in The State

Two great letters to the editor have been published in The State this week. Murray Vincent, Ed.D, nationally recognized for his successful Barnwell County Teen Pregnancy Prevention Council, was published on Saturday. His letter entitled “Comprehensive family planning key to better, healthier S.C.” stresses the importance of ensuring that community-based family planning programs and clinical services provided by DHEC be accessible to all South Carolinians. Today, Lanita Patterson, Planned Parenthood Healthy Systems’ state-wide health educator writes “Abstinence-only programs waste money”. The letter addresses the fact that “$800,000 is included in our state’s budget this year for abstinence-only programs” and stresses the importance of providing medically accurate information to our teens. It is wonderful to see the media covering these two important issues: reproductive health education and access.
A big thank you to Dr. Vincent & Ms. Patterson for writing these letters. We need more community advocates writing letters supporting teenage pregnancy prevention. For tips on doing so, please visit our members’ only media toolkit.

August 8, 2007

2008-08-15T11:34:00.001-04:00

National Views on Reauthorization

In this week’s newsletter, we linked to SIECUS’ view on the House of Representatives approving a bill that would reauthorize the Title V abstinence-only program with policy changes. Their press release seemed positive and supported that the policy changes would at least allow for some improvements:
1) Requiring funded programs to contain medically and scientifically accurate information;2) Giving states the flexibility to use funds for more comprehensive programs which discuss abstinence, but may also include information on birth control; and3) Requiring funded programs to have been proven effective at decreasing teen pregnancy, STD, and HIV/AIDS rates.
Advocates for Youth (AFY), another one of our national partners, has officially stated that they do not support these fixes for two reasons: First, the “fixes” leave A-H abstinence education intact. Second, any abstinence-plus program must still go through the Bush administration’s abstinence-only filter. AFY believes that the best approach to changing these programs is to amend the A-H definition into a comprehensive sex education definition. Failing that, they believe that Congress should let Title V expire.
President Bush has threatened to veto the House’s approval of the reauthorization. So, for now, we will wait and see as the debate continues.

August 7, 2007

2008-08-15T11:32:00.001-04:00

Legislative Training

Last Friday, advocates from across the state met for a legislative training. New Morning Foundation and the South Carolina Coalition for Healthy Families were co-sponsors along with Alliance for Full Acceptance, Carolina Peace Resource Center, Coalition for New South Carolinians, College of Charleston Women & Gender Studies, Gamma Sigma Alliance (Francis Marion University), League of Women Voters of South Carolina, People Against Rape, SCCADVASA, SC Equality Coalition, SC Log Cabin Republicans, South Carolina Progressive Network, and Young Democrats (SC Democratic Party).

The afternoon began with a tour of the statehouse grounds. If you haven’t had a chance to go on a tour, the video at the beginning is actually quite informative. Perhaps the most engaging part of the tour was the chance to see the African American History Monument, which is “dedicated to the people of South Carolina to recognize the many accomplishments and contributions of the African-American citizens to the State”.

The tour was followed with a panel discussion including Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Rep. J. Seth Whipper, and Tanya Wallace (WAND National Field Director).

Tanya Wallance suggested these ideas for grassroots advocacy:- talk to your newspaper’s editorial board- write op-ed collectives- publish in community papers- host town hall meetings- participate in joint lobbying days- involve the teachers’ union on your coalition- conduct focus groups to find out how constituents feel
Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter and Rep. J. Seth Whipper suggested the dos and don’ts of working with state-level legislators:
Do:
- commit to the long haul (incremental change takes time)- know your issue- give it to them straight- be ready for shortcomings in your position- be clear about what makes the legislator listen- communicate quickly and succintly - make a message that lasts- be always willing to be nice- decide who is best suited to make the pitch- identify your human resources and take advantage of them- learn the legislative process- understand the calendar year and calendar of activities- make sure the media is a good resource for you- make friends with the receptionist
Do Not:
- make stuff up- get angry (assume he/she knows nothing about the issue)- take on every issue- lie (if you don’t know, say so)- send form letters- get confused about who you are or the legislator’s role(remind he/she that they serve the people)- take this stuff too serious

August 6, 2007

2008-08-15T11:30:00.000-04:00

Letters Make a Difference

Recently, Seneca’s Daily Journal published Plan B Prevents Pregnancy written by Don Downing, Consultant to the South Carolina Emergency Contraception Campaign.
To show support, one of our TellThem! members, Carol Fritze, wrote a letter to the editor, which was published! (Thank you Carol!) In it, she states that she hopes “it was read by those who need to know the difference between “Plan B” and RU-486″.
We couldn’t agree more. When we are out in the community, we find that a lot of individuals do not know the difference and think that Plan B is the same thing as RU-486, or the abortion pill. Plan B, a concentrated dose of the same hormones as regular birth control pills, is a medication that prevents pregnancy up to three days after unprotected or unwanted sex. It will not cause an abortion.
Carol’s great letter was followed by another by Dr. Gerald B. Holzman. Dr. Holzman responded to a July 6th letter written by Dr. Pirkle (Life begins at conception) by stating:
“It should be understood that Dr. Pirkle offered his opinion, not that of the scientific community. The mechanism probably does not interfere with implantation, and is currently not well understood. Furthermore, when life begins can be argued from an ethical, scientific, and religious standpoint and religious views have changed over the millenia. It would be prudent if Dr. Pirkle followed the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice in his statements to the press and his patients.”
We commend Dr. Holzman for explaining how EC works and taking the time, as a busy physician, to show support and to write. Letters to the editor can make a difference. If you would like tips on writing a letter to the editor, please check out our advocacy toolkit on members’ home.

August 3, 2007

2008-08-15T11:29:00.000-04:00

Abstinence-only debate continues

The USA Today has published both an editorial againstabstinence-only education as well as an opposing piece supporting abstinence-only education.
Here are two quotes from the Kaiser Network:
Teaching abstinence has “always had a certain appeal,” but it is “not a time for wishful thinking” because recent studies have suggested that the “decline in the rate of teens having sex has plateaued” (USA Today, 7/30).
From USA Today: Our view on sex education: Abstinence-only fails to stop early pregnancies, diseases
Abstinence programs “shar[e] the realities” of STIs and provide accurate information about contraception “but always within the context of abstinence as the healthiest choice,” Huber writes, concluding, “The health and future of our teens depend on a common-sense approach that works” (Huber, USA Today, 7/30).
From USA Today: Opposing view: Abstinence works
At TellThem!, we believe, while abstinence-only may work as a birth control method that prevents pregnancy with 100% certainty, abstinence-only as a primary policy for preventing teen pregnancy is not sufficient. Our young people must receive the medically accurate information and education they need to avoid the high-risk behaviors that lead to unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections such as HIV.
What do you believe?

August 2, 2007

2008-08-15T11:24:00.001-04:00

Real Teens. Reel Life.

This video is a bit long but good. This video was awarded the first place prize in the “Real teens. Reel life” video contest sponsored by the Illinois Campaign for Responsible Sex Education. For more information, visit: www.responsiblesexed.org

Watch the video here.

July 27, 2007

2008-08-15T11:23:00.002-04:00

Thinking globally but acting locally: the case of SC children

Dr. Phillipe Cunningham is a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Family Services Research Center at the Medical University of South Carolina.
During his 2005 State of the Union address, President Bush asked first lady Laura Bush to lead a nationwide initiative called “Helping America’s Youth.” This initiative is designed to help at-risk children and teens reach their full potential by connecting them with family, school and community.
This initiative originated out of an overarching concern that many of America’s youth are at high risk of not making a successful transition into adulthood.
They are living in unsafe neighborhoods, lacking nurturance, structure and support, and engaging in risky behaviors (e.g., cigarette smoking, drug use, early sexual activity, dropping out of school). Many of America’s youth are staring at a lifetime of poverty and failure.
But, it is not just high-risk youth that are in trouble. America’s youth are academically lagging behind children from other industrialized nations. In 2003, U.S. students’ average score in science literacy was lower than 18 other countries; our students scored lower than their counterparts in 25 other countries in problem solving; and in mathematics literacy, U.S. students scored lower than their counterparts in 20 other countries. If America’s youth are to successfully compete in a global economy, we must remove impediments to their development such as poverty, inadequate health care, ineffective and inadequate schools, and risky behavior. Sadly, South Carolina’s children are no exception.
As part of the Helping America’s Youth Initiative, Mrs. Bush held a conference in October on the grounds of Howard University that brought together more than 500 parents, civic leaders, faith-based community service providers, researchers, child advocates and child development experts. The conference was designed to review problems facing our youth, and to discuss and recommend possible solutions.
My colleagues and I at the MUSC Family Services Research Center, (directed by Scott W. Henggeler, Ph.D.) have devoted our scientific careers to developing, validating and disseminating clinically-effective mental health and substance abuse services for youth with serious clinical problems and their families.
Our faculty was honored to participate in the first lady’s conference, not because it would validate our work, but because the conference held promise to serve as a catalyst for putting the health and welfare of America’s youth on the national agenda. Such promise has yet to be realized either nationally or locally. With coverage of the war in Iraq and the political scene, the first lady’s conference regrettably failed to garner much attention. This is ironic considering that the future health, vitality, and safety of our nation depend on the well-being of our children.
Unfortunately, key indicators of child well-being would suggest that South Carolina’s children may have a particularly hard time becoming successful adults.
According to South Carolina Kids Count, in 2000 an incredible 37.8 percent of our youth lived 200 percent below the poverty level. But this statistic tells only part of the story.
According to South Carolina Kids Count:
Twenty-six percent of South Carolina mothers get less than adequate prenatal care
Forty percent of babies born in S.C. are born to single mothers
Fourteen percent of students are not academically ready for the first grade
Thirteen percent repeat one of the first three grades
Thirty-three percent of tenth graders fail one or more parts of the exit exam on their first attempt
Thirty-two percent fail to graduate from high school
S.C. ranks 34th in children living in poverty; 49th in teen births; 48th in low birthweight babies; and 48th in single-parent households with children.
These indicators suggest that South Carolina’s children are at high risk of being ill-prepared to compete in America’s economy and no hope of competing in a global economy.
As I mentioned in my brief comments at the first lady’s Helping America’s Youth Conference, public policy must be informed by the realization that helping children means helping their families. This will require three actions:(1) Be brave enough to stop doing what does not work. Many programs that may have curb appeal have no empirical evidence and are unlikely to work because they fail to address the known causes of the problem. These programs may include removing youth to special schools or other institutional placements and using tactics touted as “silver bullets,” and strategies that are politically popular, such as character education, or Scared Straight. The single best predictor of youth engaging in antisocial behavior (e.g., drug use, violence) is association with deviant peers.
(2) Do what is proven to work in helping youth. For example, successful violence prevention programs share several important characteristics. They have targeted the known causes and correlates of the behavior; they have demonstrated a significant deterrent effect; they have demonstrated effectiveness via rigorous experimental designs (e.g., random assignment); and they have sustained effects over time. Some of the more successful programs that target antisocial behavior include Multisystemic Therapy, Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses, Behavioral Parent Training, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, and Functional Family Therapy.
(3) Let researchers who are good stewards of taxpayer dollars (National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism produce scientific evidence to help influence policies related to the prevention and reduction of serious behavior problems in youth.
In my opinion, it is only through these steps that South Carolina can overcome some of the obstacles facing our children and help them fulfill the promise of successful, productive lives. We owe it to our children to recognize when there are problems that need to be addressed, to identify solutions that work (based on scientific evidence), and to support them along the way.
The future of our country and the state of South Carolina depends on it. Together with Mrs. Bush, my colleague and I are committed to this cause. We invite you to educate yourself about the subject and to do your part.
More information about this subject is available at: http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov.
Visit the Family Services Research Center Web site at: http://www.musc.edu/psychiatry/research/fsrc/abt_fsrc.htm

July 10, 2007

2008-08-15T11:20:00.000-04:00

Plan B prevents pregnancy

Don Downing, Consultant to the South Carolina Emergency Contraception Campaign

As a pharmacist, college professor, and women’s health advocate, I spend a lot of my time educating pharmacists, pharmacy students and other medical providers on how to improve access to health care, especially health care that helps prevent avoidable problems, including unintended pregnancies.
Recently, I spent a week in South Carolina delivering seminars to pharmacists, nurses and physicians on emergency contraception. Last fall, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that Plan B — also known as “morning after” pills, emergency contraception or emergency birth control pills — can be sold without a prescription to customers over the age of 18. (Women under the age of 18 still need a prescription from their doctor or clinic.) The FDA’s decision makes it much easier for women to obtain this method of contraception in a timely manner. And timing is everything. A woman can reduce her risk of pregnancy by up to 89% if she takes the medication within 72 hours (three days) after unprotected intercourse.
The health care professionals I met with repeatedly said that they had no idea that emergency contraception (Plan B) was not RU-486 – the abortion pill. They didn’t know that Plan B is a concentrated dose of the same medication as in regular birth control pills. Many believed, inaccurately, that Plan B only worked by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. During the seminars, they learned that medical evidence does not support this belief. Plan B prevents pregnancy – it does not end a pregnancy. In fact, it has absolutely no effect if a woman is already pregnant when she takes it.
Providers, elected officials, and community leaders, among others, must make themselves aware of the unmet health care needs of the people they serve. They must understand and appreciate the factors that contribute to these health care needs, including becoming self-aware of things they themselves may be doing or believe that may contribute to health care problems. Unintended pregnancy is a national public health issue and access to contraception and objective sexual health information is critical to addressing this crisis. While women should take the lead in educating themselves about such matters, there must be additional support from physicians and pharmacists.
Recently, legislators in South Carolina have considered a bill that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions based on their moral beliefs. My major concern is that many providers have wanted to hide behind this type of “conscience clause” in order to not provide what they erroneously construed to be an abortifacient medication. What a shame if they denied a woman access to medication that actually has the potential to prevent an abortion! The number of women who have had to make the difficult decision to have an abortion because a provider failed to inform them about a legal and safe contraceptive method is a frightening thought.
While health care providers and pharmacists have constitutional protections of their religious freedoms and may elect to not provide a service that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs, this protection does not impart any right to refuse services they only thought were in conflict with their beliefs. I am concerned about how few people really know about the scientific evidence of how the contraceptive, Plan B, works. Before considering legislation that might allow unknowing pharmacists to deny contraceptive care, it would be prudent to make sure that enlightened choices by providers are being made.
Pharmacies must reasonably accommodate their employees’ rights but denial of a standard-of-care contraceptive service to a rape victim, incest victim or to a woman who, after-the-fact, discovers a hole in her condom or diaphragm, is a victimizing act in and of itself.
Rather than spending the time, money and energy it takes to pass laws that may increase women’s chances of having an unintended pregnancy, take a few moments to consider the evidence-based medical facts and consider supporting better contraceptive access and health education for everyone.
Don Downing, a licensed pharmacist in Seattle, Washington, is a faculty member at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy and serves as a consultant to the South Carolina Emergency Contraception Campaign. You may direct inquiries to him at info@morningafterinfo.org.

June 29, 2007

2008-08-15T11:16:00.002-04:00

Talk to Your Kids About SEX!

Guest Writer Roxanne Walker Cordonier, HIV Prevention Specialist at The Phoenix Center in Greenville, SC

I have a rather urgent request for parents…talk to your kids about sex. I make this request because I talk to people about sex every day as part of my job as an HIV/AIDS Prevention Specialist and I’ve become increasingly concerned about how little people of all ages know about sex and how awkward so many of us seem to feel about talking about sex with our partners and our children. I find it amusing that we are all sexual beings but most of us can’t seem to bring ourselves to talk openly about a very natural part of life. One of the things I say to my audiences in my near daily discussions about HIV/AIDS is if you don’t feel comfortable discussing condoms and birth control methods with your partner you probably don’t have a good enough relationship to be sexual yet. The essence of good sex is good communication and good communication comes from being comfortable talking about all kinds of intimate subjects with your partner. Being comfortable with your partner comes from intimacy and intimacy isn’t built overnight…it takes time and that’s why you need to take time to build a relationship. That’s why my mama used to warn against jumping in bed with the first man or woman who showed an interest in you!
Although the United States is clearly a sexualized nation we are generally ignorant as individuals when it comes to the mechanics and the facts about sex and that’s what concerns me. During a recent episode of “Oprah” the Reverend Eugene Rivers made some interesting points about the sexualization of American youth today. AIDS is currently the number one cause of death among young African American women in the United States and Rev. Rivers calls this a “moral and cultural crisis in America.” Rev. Rivers alleges that bi-sexual black men are causing murder by having unprotected sex with black women. One aspect of the crisis according to Rev. Rivers is ‘the culture of promiscuity which demeans black women.’ Rev. Rivers contends that our current culture has reduced a generation of young black women to a biological underclass, who believe that having unprotected sex is perfectly acceptable and main stream. Rev. Rivers says as a culture we have gone from Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of equality and justice to demeaning and degrading women. He contends that unprotected sex is functioning as an instrument of mass destruction. I couldn’t agree more.
With an average of 40,000 new HIV infections every year in the United States and 820 HIV/AIDS diagnoses in South Carolina it’s outrageous that condoms aren’t commonly and widely used and made available to all sexually active individuals of all ages in America. A recent public health survey found that 95% of all Americans engage in pre-marital sex and have done so as far back as the 1940’s…so much for that myth that our current culture is more sexualized than in the past. The only thing that’s changed is the consequences of our behavior especially for our young people. Half of all new HIV infections occur among people under the age of twenty five. It is imperative that children learn the facts about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases from their parents or guardians at an early age. Studies show that parents or adult guardians are the most influential people in a child’s life. Even when they act like they aren’t listening to you and don’t care what you think they crave your approval and your guidance and they need to hear the facts. If discussing intimate subject matter makes you feel embarrassed or ashamed you need to seek help, go to the library or go to AID Upstate or the Health Department and ask for videos or pamphlets about STD’s, HIV/AIDS and sex education for teens. Read them and then pass them on to your kids. Practice your talk with a friend or your wife or husband until you feel comfortable…trust me the more your practice the more comfortable you become. You don’t have to be an expert, just break the ice but do it and keep doing it and eventually your kids will feel comfortable enough to start asking questions. Also start listening in on your kids conversations with their friends in the car and on the phone and then use those little fragments of conversations to open up your conversations about sex. You’ll be surprised where those conversations can lead…your kids want to discuss these things with you but…they need to feel comfortable and not feel like you are judging them or condemning them for feeling curious and hormonal. Don’t just have one big sex talk, have frequent discussions and keep the chatter going. Look for opportunities to engage your child in discussions about sex and sexuality, it’s not hard since bill boards, movies and advertisements surround us every day of our lives.
One of the most chilling aspects of the Oprah show about HIV/AIDS was the panel discussion with six HIV+ women who had been heterosexually infected. Several of the younger women claimed they didn’t know much about HIV/AIDS because their only formal instruction in school was abstinence based and the only advice their parents had given them was not to get pregnant. Not one person had ever discussed condoms or HIV transmission in a factual or frank manner with these articulate, intelligent young women. Twenty years after the discovery of HIV and after the AIDS related deaths of more than 22 million people world-wide there are still young people in the United States that don’t realize that having unprotected sex puts them at risk for contracting HIV. That’s truly unconscionable.
If you think living in South Carolina keeps you safe think again. Our state ranks tenth in the nation for HIV/AIDS per capita, 13,600 persons have been diagnosed and are living with HIV/AIDS in South Carolina as of December, 2005. Of these, 618 are children and teenagers under 20 years of age. One of them could be your child. Talk to your children today about sex and condoms and how sex is a responsibility and a decision that should never-ever be undertaken lightly.
Roxanne Walker Cordonier is an HIV Prevention Specialist at The Phoenix Center in Greenville, SC. A native of Michigan and a graduate of the University of South Carolina Upstate Roxanne was named South Carolina Broadcasters Association’s Radio Personality of the Year in 2002. She blogs regularly on her website

www.roxannewalker.com.

June 22, 2007

2008-08-15T11:13:00.002-04:00

Rebuttal to HHS Report

Kaiser Daily Women’s Policy reported that an HHS report stated that nine comprehensive sex education programs were not focused enough on abstinence and used misleading statements on condoms. Bill Smith, Vice President for Public Policy at SIECUS responds
Senator Tom Coburn must have felt like a champ last week. He released his own missive on the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), claiming in the title of the document that the CDC’s “wasteful” spending indicated a “CDC Off Center.” The 114 pages of that report have consumed more paper and staff time in its creation than it is worth. Until the CDC comes fully into line with Dr. Coburn’s vision of fiscal restraint and public health strained through an ideological sieve, such diatribes make for amusing reading. I was pleased to see that yours truly made the cut when Coburn retold the story of how I got booted from a peer-reviewed panel at the national STD conference. I was tossed out because I was actually going to question the public health rationale for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—of course, that’s not exactly how Coburn told the story. Amusingly, the CDC ended up picking up the last minute tab for the goofs brought in to replace me—of course the report didn’t mention that.
Yet Coburn must have been particularly pleased with the release of a second report last week to which he was tied. In cahoots with another comrade in the social issue assault on America, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Coburn managed to have a hatchet job on comprehensive sexuality education programs (PDF) released under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Not coincidentally, ACF is the entity that is charged with administering federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and has never funded any type of comprehensive program aimed at sexual behavior change. Perhaps to show some semblance of credibility, ACF farmed out the project to a third party.
Into the picture steps two right-wing organizations well-known as architects of Bush’s extreme social agenda. The Sagamore Institute for Public Policy Research was contracted to conduct the Santorum/Coburn report. This group’s founder, Jay Hein, was tapped by Bush in 2006 to take over the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives . And who, among the luminaries in the public health arena did the Sagamore Institute reach out to? None other than Bush’s favored Medical Institute (formerly known as the Medical Institute for Sexual Health or MISH), the Texas-based group that was at Bush’s side when he was Texas Governor and has since reaped enormous fiscal rewards and extended national bragging rights for carrying out the administration’s agenda.
The problem with the Santorum/Coburn report are numerous and in so many ways not worthy of rebuttal. Yet, they have to be addressed for at least two reasons. First, because the Bush administration has proven, once again, just how willing it is to sacrifice sound public health by slapping official government endorsement on politically motivated nonsense. (Make no mistake, ACF’s imprimatur means that officially the report matters more than say the polemics emitting from Coburn’s personal office.) Second, the sloppiness of the report disparages several prominent and well-known programs that have been proven to help young people be more responsible in their behaviors. This is of course, wholly intended. To quote the wizard behind the curtain, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, as proof: the best way to defend abstinence-only programs is to attack comprehensive sex education.
To begin, the Santorum/Coburn report claims that a review of comprehensive sex education programs shows evidence of medical inaccuracies and insufficient emphasis on abstinence. On medical inaccuracies, they take issue with the fact that one curriculum refers to a certain latex barrier as a “dental dam” instead of the FDA-approved term “rubber dam.” (It doesn’t matter that no one in the public health field has ever heard of a rubber dam.) Several also referenced the use of the spermicide Nonoxynol-9 which had been recommended by the CDC prior to 2003 when many of these curricula were last released.
On insufficient emphasis on abstinence, the report follows Rector and Heritage not just in spirit but in practice. Recently, Rector issued his own report (PDF) on the treatment of abstinence in what he characterized as comprehensive sex education programs. What profound methodology did the wizard employ to determine the emphasis on abstinence? A word count. You know, the tool in your word processing program that allows you to search for a word. That is what passes for genuine inquiry at the Heritage Foundation these days and the Santorum/Coburn report follows suit. Now, what these bright folks fail to recognize is that motivating behavior change means you actually have to use terms that young people accept. So, because we all want young people to delay sex, good program developers have employed other words that are either too complicated to search for, or more likely, lack the black/white and abstinent/promiscuous dichotomies that create the ordered mania that passes for logic among the right wingers.
At the end of the day, the report does agree that the programs reviewed actually work. Most of them increased condom use and several helped delay sex. That is volumes more than abstinence-only programs do. The report is also forced to admit that “…the medical accuracy of comprehensive sex education curricula is nearly 100%.” But these findings are buried on the underside of a teacup with a tempest inside it. Instead, the reader is led to the conclusion that the semantics over whether to use the word “dental” or “rubber” rise to the same level as previous evidence showing medical inaccuracies in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs such as that HIV can be spread through sweat and tears. Elementary word counts are also passed off as careful reviews of curriculum content.
This is classic public health rationale Bush-style and it is a shameful slip of hand to have our government’s seal applied to in agreement. Is this a surprise? Hardly. Yet it comes just days after House Democrats agreed—despite so much evidence against it—to increase funding for one of the federal government’s abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Who would have guessed six months ago that the efforts of Santorum, Coburn, and House Democrats would combine forces to try and save crumbling abstinence-only-until-marriage programs from the public health ash heap? Not even Coburn, I’d say.

TellThem! Spotlight Blog

2008-08-15T11:10:00.001-04:00

June 21, 2007

Guest Writer Alison Piepmeier, Director of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the College of Charleston

When Our Bodies, Our Selves Became Now, What Exactly is Going on Down There?

In my Women’s and Gender Studies class last fall, I had planned a day to talk about reproductive rights. I thought we’d spend the time examining the laws and Supreme Court cases and their implications.
As the class got underway, though, it became increasingly clear to me that the students weren’t understanding certain things I was talking about. I expected that they might not know the difference between a medical abortion—the “abortion pill”—and emergency contraception—the “morning after pill.” What I didn’t expect was that most of the women in the class, although they were on birth control pills, had no idea about how oral contraceptives work. In fact, they didn’t know much about their own reproductive anatomy. We couldn’t discuss reproductive rights because these students didn’t have a basic grasp of reproduction.
I said, “Okay. Let’s back up. I’m going to tell you whatever you want to know. How detailed do you want me to be?”
“Extremely!” they said.
So I told them as much as I could. I drew a picture of ovaries and fallopian tubes and explained the female reproductive cycle. I told them how you get pregnant, and about the various contraceptives on the market and how they function. They were riveted. They kept asking questions (“How long can sperm stay alive inside a woman’s body?” Answer: up to five days if your body is producing fertile quality cervical fluid. “Can you get pregnant while you’re on your period?” Answer: it’s possible, but generally unlikely. “Is there a birth control pill for men?” Answer: there has been research done on this, but pharmaceutical companies seem to believe that there’s not much of a market for contraceptives targeting men). This conversation took up the entire class period.
These were college students, many of them having come through the South Carolina public education system. Many of them were sexually active. And they were embarrassingly poorly informed about their bodies.
I left that class feeling that I had seen the consequences of abstinence only sex education. In a recent article on the TellThem! blog (http://blog.tellthemsc.org/?p=9), William Smith, Vice President for Public Policy at SIECUS, discusses the abstinence only curriculum taught in many South Carolina schools by Heritage Community Services. This curriculum, as well as other abstinence only offerings, provides misleading information about the effectiveness of contraception, presents sexist depictions of “male sexuality” and “female sexuality” as if they are factually true, and denies students the real information they need to make informed decisions. And now a recent study funded by the federal government (http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0141.html) has shown that these curricula don’t even work to achieve their own goals of promoting abstinence.
I have long been a supporter of comprehensive sex education. My experience in class this fall showed me that the situation is more troubling than I had suspected. Apparently there are school districts in South Carolina and elsewhere that are sending high school graduates out into the world with the level of information about their bodies I would expect from an elementary school student. They should be ashamed. The students deserve better.
Guest Writer Alison Piepmeier is the Director of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the College of Charleston, where she is also an assistant professor of English. She is the author of Out in Public: Configurations of Women’s Bodies in Nineteenth-Century America and co-editor of Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st Century. She and her partner write about politics, culture, and life in general on their blog, Baxter Sez (piepmeier.blogspot.com).

June 8, 2007

2008-08-15T11:09:00.002-04:00

Beyond Shame: Democrats Sell Out Youth

Guest Writer James Wagoner, Advocates for YouthPosted on RH Reality Check

Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America’s youth.
The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—they’ll give them a $27 million increase—the first in three years!
Shame on Congressman David Obey for brokering this “deal;” shame on Congresswoman Nita Lowey for agreeing to it; and shame on those other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee who have already promised not to offer any amendment that would cut funding for abstinence-only programs and thus “upset” the deal.
In one inglorious motion, the Democrats have sold the health and well-being of young people down the proverbial drain, delivered a public slap in the face to evidence-based public health, and made a mockery of their “prevention first” message.
Consider this irony. The first domestic policy the Democrats will endorse on the prevention front will be to fund abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for young people up to the age of 29! Good work, gang. You make me proud to be a Democrat—NOT!
And consider this second irony. The Democrats will now become one of the largest funders of an ultra-conservative network that is clearly hostile to its policies and candidates (See an in-depth article in The Nation.)
The funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs represents the worst of cynical, “inside-the-beltway” deal-making. Whose interests were protected at the expense of young people’s health and lives? Whose politics were advanced by including this “sweetener” for conservatives in an appropriations bill threatened with a Presidential veto? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Now is the time for advocates to hold these Democrats accountable. It would be the height of hypocrisy to go mute when this kind of damage is done to young people because “our friends” are in power.
We cannot afford to play the “never mind” game.
Never mind the Society of Adolescent Medicine report that stated abstinence-only programs “threaten fundamental human rights to health, information and life”; never mind the congressionally-mandated Mathematica study released in April showing that abstinence-only programs simply do not work; never mind the research showing that young people who take “virginity pledges” are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. Should we really ignore it all because these Democrats are “our friends” and we shouldn’t publicly criticize our “friends?”
To hell with that! Over the next few weeks we need to mount a campaign to reverse this policy even if it means publicly dinging our “friends.” After all, with friends like these, who needs conservative Republicans?
I urge everyone to take action. Tell the Democratic leadership that it is time to END funding for failed abstinence-only programs today!
Filed under: Uncategorized — TellThem @ 1:45 pm
Comments (0)

May 2, 2007

2008-08-15T11:07:00.008-04:00

TellThem! Spotlight Blog

Forrest L. Alton, MSPH, CHES,Executive Director SC Campaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy

This May-NO Time for Complacency

The message bears repeating – “there is no time for complacency”! Despite recent declines over the last decade nearly 10,000 teen girls become pregnant in South Carolina each year ultimately resulting in the 17th highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. A young girl under the age of 20 gets pregnant in our state every 56 minutes!
Since its inception, in 1994, the SC Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (Campaign) has worked to address this critically important issue through five mission-based areas of programming: education, technical assistance, public awareness, advocacy and research. The Campaign has established itself as the leader and quality resource for age-appropriate, comprehensive, science based approaches to teen pregnancy prevention in South Carolina. Guided by research and an understanding that an issue as complex as teen pregnancy requires a solution that is equally complex, the Campaign works on the state level to increase awareness and understanding of the issue, and to promote a comprehensive approach to prevention.
May is “Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month” – an opportunity for all of us to speak up and speak out on this critically important issue. Our young people deserve a renewed focus on an age-appropriate, comprehensive approach to teen pregnancy prevention. Did you know…
• A 2004 survey found that 81% of South Carolina’s registered voters support sex education that contains information on BOTH abstinence and contraception;• Research shows that sex education programs inclusive of information on abstinence and contraception can be effective in increasing the number of youth who remain abstinent; increasing the number of sexually active youth who use contraception; and ultimately decreasing teen pregnancy;• A recent national study of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs found that “youth in the (abstinence-only-until-marriage) program group were no more likely than (other) youth to have abstained from sex”;• According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey nearly 3 out of 4 South Carolina high school students will have had sex prior to graduation, and 1 in three young people in South Carolina did not use a condom the last time they had sex. Clearly our young people need more information about BOTH abstinence and contraception – not just one or the other.
This May speak up and speak out to protect our state’s most valuable asset – youth! To find out more information about the SC Campaign and how you can get more involved with teen pregnancy prevention programs in your area, please visit www.teenpregnancysc.org.
Filed under: Uncategorized — TellThem @ 1:37 pm
Comments (0)

April 25, 2007

2008-08-15T11:07:00.004-04:00

Federally Funded Study-Abstinence-Only Does Not Work

On April 13, 2007, the federally supported evaluation of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. found that abstinence-only programs do not work to change teens’ sexual behavior. According to the study, “students in the abstinence-only programs had a similar number of sexual partners as their peers not in the programs, as well as a similar age of first sex” (SIECUS). Despite these long-awaited results along with more than “ten state evaluations [that] also show that abstinence-only programs failed to change young people’s behavior” (AFY), the federal government continues to fund these ineffective programs at a cost to date of over $1.5 billion wasted tax dollars!
For a synopsis of the Mathematica study, click here.
To read the evaluation report, click here.
To take action to tell congress to eliminate funding for these failed abstinence-only programs, click here.

April 13, 2007

2008-08-15T11:05:00.000-04:00

Pharmacist Refusal Slowing Down

We have good reason to believe that Senator Bryant’s Pharmacist Refusal bill (S. 126) is going to be held in committee this session thanks to the great advocacy work of concerned citizens across the state that wrote letters and called the senator and the SC Medical Affairs Committee. We will be watching this piece of legislation closely and will be prepared to take action should it begin to move either this session or next.
According to National Women’s Law Center, this is a bill that would allow refusals for any drug, from contraceptives to HIV medications to medications for attention deficit disorder, based on the pharmacists’ personal beliefs. While the bill requires pharmacies to notify patients that they are employing a pharmacist who will not dispense certain drugs, this is of little help to those who are limited by their transportation or insurance coverage to a particular pharmacy. Furthermore, by listing which drugs are subject to refusals in notice required under the law, the notice contributes to the stigma surrounding certain diseases, conditions and medications.
Here is what some had to say about this negative legislation:
“As a licensed pharmacist, I personally feel that pharmacists can have a major impact on medication use and healthcare. However, I do not believe that the right of refusal to dispense is the impact we should desire.”
Daniel G. Dauner, PharmD, MSPH, Licensed Pharmacist in South Carolina
“People with HIV/AIDS like myself depend on prescription medications to stay alive. We are already overburdened due to being stigmatized by society, while having to maintain strict adherence to rigid, time-sensitive “chemotherapy-like” drug regimens for the rest of our lives. Now our legislature is considering a bill that would allow pharmacists to decide which prescriptions they will dispense, while including no exceptions in the bill for cases where a patient’s life or health may be at risk. Passage of such a bill could set us back a decade in the treatment of HIV disease and ultimately cost our state millions in increased hospitalization costs.”
Karen Bates, Co-Chair South Carolina Campaign to End AIDS (SC-C2EA)
“This bill is out of step with the current approach taken by many other state legislatures, pharmacy boards, professional organizations and pharmacy chains addressing the refusal issue. Unlike other laws and policies, this bill does nothing to ensure patients’ timely access to their medication.”
Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel National Women’s Law Center
“…While pharmacists have the right to object in this matter I do not believe they have the right to obstruct otherwise legitimate therapy.”
David R. Work, Executive Director Emeritus NC Board of Pharmacy
“Under S. 126, pharmacies face unreasonable financial losses, as they must either employ conscientiously objecting pharmacists without regard for any undue economic loss suffered by the pharmacy or face a lawsuit for the failure to hire or retain the pharmacist who refuses to meet patient/customer needs.”
Beth Richardson, Columbia Attorney and Member of the South Carolina Coalition for Healthy Families

March 29, 2007

2008-08-15T11:01:00.000-04:00

Sexuality Education...I have a Dream

Guest Writer: Beth Barry, MPH, CHES - TellThem! Member & Health and Physical Education Specialist
In the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., I have dream. I have dream that one day this state will rise up and provide comprehensive sexuality education for our students; that the discourse regarding sexuality education will be elevated from the tired debate over abstinence-only versus abstinence-plus education. I have a dream that we will go beyond the risk reduction philosophy of pregnancy and STI prevention, to a health promotion philosophy that fosters a positive view of sexuality, including the rights and responsibilities of sexually healthy individuals.
I have a dream that one day, as in all other subjects, providing comprehensive information about sexuality will be viewed as helpful, not harmful; that the goal of developing health literate citizens will include sexuality, ensuring the ability to obtain and understand sexual health information and services, and to use these in health enhancing ways. I have a dream that with the knowledge of the tremendous negative personal and societal consequences of sexual ignorance, the citizens of this state will demand comprehensive sexuality education as the ethical response to this dilemma.
And when this happens, when all young people receive high quality, comprehensive sexuality education in every South Carolina county and every South Carolina school, we will produce citizens who have accurate information about human sexuality, possess effective relationship and interpersonal skills, exercise responsibility regarding sexual relationships, and who are able to protect and promote their sexual health. I have a dream today!

March 21, 2007

2008-08-15T10:52:00.001-04:00

A Bad Heritage

By Guest Blogger William Smith, Vice President for Public Policy at SIECUS

South Carolina is home to one of the most mischievous abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the country. Long a beneficiary of political patronage in the Palmetto State, Heritage Community Services used early funds to develop a family business that has been lucrative to the Badgleys whose reach now extends beyond South Carolina to include a presence in Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island, and Georgia.
Run by the acerbic Anne Badgley, Heritage Community Services has created the abstinence-only-until-marriage program Heritage Keepers. My organization’s review of this program can be found here.
One of the most offensive excerpts from this program underscores what I mean by mischievous. Students are instructed that: “Males and females are aroused at different levels of intimacy. Males are more sight orientated whereas females are more touch orientated. This is why girls need to be careful with what they wear, because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while the boy is thinking sex. For this reason, girls have a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts.”
What’s next for South Carolina’s young women? Adult-sized footie pajamas for everyday wear – just to make sure no sinful flesh is showing?
This type of material, and much more in Heritage Community Service’s curriculum, has gotten them tossed out of schools in Rhode Island and basically found to be illegal in public schools in Maine. It has also gotten them into trouble closer to home in schools in both Charleston and Dorchester County. Yet, the Badgleys continue to take in record amounts of both state and federal tax dollars (and it’s not just taxpayers in South Carolina who are supporting them, by hawking their wares in other states, they’re funneling additional funds into the family coffers).
What we need to ask ourselves is, at what cost? Heritage’s curriculum employs a virginity pledge as a final component of class instruction. Researchers from Columbia and Yale Universities have found that young people who take virginity pledges, like those used by Heritage, have poor outcomes. First, when they do become sexually active, they are 1/3 less likely to use contraception than their peers who have not pledged, thereby exacerbating their risk of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STD). And, lest one jump in and say, “well they should just have waited until marriage like they promised,” we might as well know that nearly 90% of virginity pledgers go on to have premarital sex. Hardly success. Even worse, pledgers have more oral and anal sex which they (wrongly) deem to be safer behavior that allows them to maintain “technical virginity.” All of this mess adds up to a community level impact such that communities in which more than 20% of youth have pledged virginity actually have higher rates of STD’s. That is evidence.
South Carolina has a comprehensive health education law that proves a better path for the state’s youth. But decision makers in communities hosting Heritage Keepers would be wise to consider if this program compliments or undermines more responsible attempts to create a better tomorrow for our youth, our families, and our communities.
SIECUS works to secure the right of all people to accurate, comprehensive information about sexuality, sexual and reproductive health services, and sexual and reproductive rights.

"We do not provide birth control. We do not encourage birth control."

2008-08-15T10:41:00.003-04:00

“We do not. We do not provide birth control, we do not encourage birth control.” These words were spoken last week by Gloria Singleton, Director of Beaufort’s Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) - The Beaufort Women’s Center (Source). This Center is one of thousands of CPCS in the United States that do not offer “referral for birth control” (Source). Singleton said that abstinence is the “sole option for prevention” (Source), but yet the Center advertises as a place to go if you “think that you might be pregnant” (Source).
Therefore, it would seem that many of the clients coming to the Center for care are already sexually active. These women deserve to be provided with medically accurate reproductive health information that will help them prevent another unplanned pregnancy. We believe that abstinence should be considered first as a birth control method that prevents pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections with 100% certainty, but we also believe that females seeking reproductive health services should be informed about contraceptives and how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy if they choose to be sexually active.
In contrast, according to the Beaufort Gazette, “Singleton said her agency is largely opposed to Planned Parenthood, particularly when it comes to its belief that unwanted pregnancy could largely be reduced through comprehensive sex education and expanding access to contraception” (Source). This is unfortunate considering the fact that Beaufort County is ranked 14th out of 46 counties in South Carolina for the number of teenage pregnancies (Source).
To learn more about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, read CPCs: An Affront to Change.

March 5, 2007

2008-08-15T10:31:00.005-04:00

Baby Murdering Lowlifes?

In a recent email received in response to TellThem!’s March e-news, TellThem! was referred to as “nothing but a bunch of baby murdering lowlifes”. TellThem! was also labeled as “one of those feminazi groups” that is “not interested in the health and well being of the people of SC”.
This could not be further from the truth. First of all, TellThem! works to prevent unnecessary abortions by supporting legislation that will provide the reproductive health education and access necessary to ensure that less abortions are needed. We believe that if we provide youth with medically accurate information and access to preventative family planning services, there will be less unplanned teenage pregnancies and less need for abortions.
In fact, we do not even discuss legislation that is solely about abortion, since our focus is on prevention.

February 27, 2007

2008-08-15T09:44:00.001-04:00

Pharmacist Refusal in South Carolina

The National Women’s Law Center has launched the Pharmacy Refusal Project. They believe that religious refusals to fill prescriptions for contraception, including emergency contraceptive (EC), are a growing problem in the U.S. Initial research conducted by the South Carolina Emergency Contraceptive Initiative found that the majority of South Carolina pharmacists are filling birth control prescriptions.

Despite this fact, state Senator Bryant (R- Anderson) has introduced a pharmacist refusal bill, S. 126. He states on his blog that the bill has broader implications than RU486, the abortion pill. This must be true since RU486 can only be obtained directly through a trained physician or clinic, not a pharmacy. We at TellThem! wonder, if by broader implications, Senator Bryant is referring to a woman’s access to contraceptives? If this is the case, what does Senator Bryant suggest a woman who lives in a rural South Carolina community do when the one pharmacist in her town refuses to fill her prescription at his or her discretion? Perhaps she should walk to the next town to get her prescription filled?

S. 126, Relating to Pharmacy Refusal
The Need for Birth Control Protection in South Carolina
Pharmacy Refusal 101 Factsheet
Don’t Take No for an Answer: A Guide to Pharmacy Refusal Laws, Policies and Practices