20080905

And So it Goes …



By Cynthia Boiter

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

But I don’t stay there long.

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

And here we are today.

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

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

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

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

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

20080828

September 3, 2008



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

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

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


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

20080815

April 24, 2008

Skirt! Magazine's visit to Immaulate Consumption

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

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

January 11, 2008

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

by : Mindy Lucas


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

January 9, 2008

Refusing to address teen births

By BONNIE K. ADAMS
Guest columnist

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

December 10, 2007

"Abstinence sucks as public policy"

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

December 13, 2007

An Intern's Insight

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