New Ab-Only Provider in SC Pedaling Same Old Stuff

October 29, 2008


By: William A. Smith
Vice President for Public Policy
SIECUS



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


OP ED: Stop the undeclared war on family planning

BYLINE: Jeffrey R. Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The State Newspaper addresses South Carolina HIV epidemic

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

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

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

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

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

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

[from September 29, 2008]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USC Ranks 8th in Sexual Health...

Good morning,

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

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


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

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).

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.