In the United States, approximately two-thirds of all high school seniors have engaged in sexual intercourse.1 According to the Department of Health and Human Services, approximately one in four persons will become infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) by the age of twenty-one.2 Additionally, the United States has one the highest rate of teenage pregnancy of any industrialized nation with about forty percent of woman becoming pregnant before the age of twenty.3 While there has been no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only based sexuality education programs either prevent the onset of intercourse or reduce the frequency of intercourse, the United States government currently finances three federal abstinence-until-marriage programs.4 By prohibiting State governments from promoting the use of contraceptives in their school sex education programs in order to receive Federal funding, the United States government is endangering the welfare of its citizens.  
    According to a report entitled “School-Based Programs to Reduce Sexual Risk Behaviors” commissioned by the Division of Adolescent and School Health within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Because incidence of pregnancy and STDs among teenagers is so great, these consequences involve not only the individuals involved and their families, but overall welfare dependency, unemployment, and medical costs in the United States.”5 In 2002, there were an estimated 750,000 pregnancies (450,000 live births) among 15-19 year old girls.6 With the proper use of a condom, chance of pregnancy can be reduced by 98%.7 Furthermore, sexually active teenagers have the greatest chance of becoming infected with an STD than any other age group.8 With about 9.1 million persons between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four being infected every year in the U.S., almost half of all new STD cases occur among young people.9 According to the CDC, at the end of 2003 somewhere between 1,039,000 and 1,850,000 people in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS.10 Of the approximately 40,000 new cases each year, about half occur with persons under twenty-five years old (usually infected through intercourse).11 With the use of a condom, the chance of infection from intercourse with a person with HIV-AIDS is reduced by 80 to 87%.12
    In 1981, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) “to promote chastity and self discipline” among adolescents by funding “family-centered” programs. The Act, sponsored largely by political conservatives, was used to almost exclusively fund religious and right wing groups that often maintain (without any significant scientific proof) that dissemination of safe sex practice information hastens the initiation of sexual activity and the frequency of intercourse among youths. Allegedly, many of these groups, including Sex Respect and Teen-Aid, relied on “scare-tactics” and misinformation about disease and pregnancy prevention in order to promote their abstinence-based initiatives. In 1983, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the program on the grounds that it violated the seperation of church and state as required by the U.S. Constitution. In 1993, the case between the challengers and the Department of Justice Counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) reached an agreement in which certain requirements must be met before the granting of funds through the AFLA to any sex education program. These stipulations include having AFLA grantees submit their curricula to the DHHS for  “consideration of whether the curricula teach or promote religion and whether such materials are medically accurate.”13
     A 2004 report from the office of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that two-thirds of government-funded abstinence-only programs contain misleading or inaccurate information pertaining to abortion, contraception, genetics, and sexually transmitted infections. The report prompted the Government Accountability Office to investigate the claims, releasing a report in 2006 supporting Waxman’s findings.14
    In 1996, Congress attached an additional abstinence-only Federal program to a welfare reform law. According to Title V of Section 510 of the Social Security Act, “Neither the State nor any of its sub-awardees may use Federal or matching funds under this award to promote the use of contraception.” All federally funded sex education programs must adhere to this requirement.15 Over $1.5 billion have been allocated to these federal and state programs since 1996. President Bush has requested $242 million for the funding of abstinence-only programs in his FY2008 budget. Since states are required to match federal funds for abstinence-only programs, some states are forced to divert money away from more comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs. Eleven states have refused to accept such federal programs because of these terms.16
    In 2007, Congress authorized an extensive year-long study by the Mathematica Policy Research, Inc found that students who participated in federal abstinence-only programs were just as likely to engage in pre-marital sex as those students who did not. They were also found to engage in sexual-risk behaviors at the same mean age and have the same approximate number of sex partners as students who did not participate in the federally funded programs. Another study focusing on individuals engaged in virginity pledge programs (promoting chastity until marriage) found that, although many did delay the onset of sexual activity, many of these youths (88%) still engaged in premarital sex but were less likely than non-pledgers to use contraceptives at first intercourse or to get tested for STDs.17
    Relying on evaluations of twenty-three separate national surveys, the “School-Based Programs to Reduce Sexual Risk Behaviors” report by the CDC found that comprehensive school sex education programs covering topics such as abstinence, conception, pregnancy, STD, and HIV-AIDS did not lead to an increase in sexual activity. Programs designed to promote the use of contraceptives, such as condoms, also did not increase the onset or frequency of sexual activity. “Indeed, all of them either delayed the onset of intercourse or had no effect upon the initiation of intercourse. Furthermore, of the four studies that focused on program impact on the frequency of intercourse, none found significant increases in sexual activity, and one found a significant decrease among the relatively small proportion of youths who initiated intercourse after program implementation.”18
    It is estimated that only 10% of school districts in the U.S. have comprehensive sexuality programs that promote not just abstinence but the use of contraceptives and safe sex practices.19 The CDC “School-Based” report stated that two studies it analyzed indicated that some comprehensive programs reduce the onset of sexual activity, limit the number of sexual partners, and increase the use of contraceptives. “Logically they should also reduce pregnancy, births, STD, and HIV rates.”20 It is the responsibility of the American government to ensure the general welfare of its citizens. When the federal government blatantly disregards rigorous scientific data in order to promote ineffective morality-based sexuality programs in state school systems, that government can be held accountable for actually harming the lives of its citizens.

Reuters’s reports that Italian clothing line Nolita has posted a billboard of an obviously anorexic model, underweight and clearly unhealthy.

The billboard follows up last year's demand by the Madrid Fashion Week officials to have higher Body Mass Indexes from their models.

The debate is as follows:

Models are too thin; it's unhealthy for them, and unhealthy for us to look at. Food is your friend.

Versus 

"I think its outrageous, I understand they want to set this tone of healthy beautiful women, but what about discrimination against the model and what about the freedom of the designer," said [Cathy] Gould, [New York] Elite [modeling]'s North America director, adding that the move could harm careers of naturally "gazelle-like" models.

Last night, at a theater in Washington DC, I saw Michael Moore's "Sicko". I left the theater with a sense of enthusiasm and passion for an issue that was dear to my heart but never was something I would write about. But now, this has changed.

It was an outrage to see the stories of these innocent people suffering under a system that doesn't want to care for people. Of course I knew that all these things were occurring but when they are placed with true-life stories it really struck a chord with me.

How is it that we, the United States of America, with all our glory and grandeur, all the hype about the land of the free and the home of the brave, all the stories of opportunity, equality, and justice under the law, all about community and how we all care about each other, all the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty and the words of Emma Lazarus uttering "Give me your tired, your weak, your huddle masses yearning to breath free," cannot provide decent health care for 1/6 of our population at all, and probably another 1/2 to 2/3 with insufficient health care? I dont understand how we think we are the best. Who are these 25-30% of the population who always poll in saying that we are on the right direction, or that we dont need universal health care? I just dont understand Americans. What is it about this country that says one things on the surface but does something completely different. Where are our family values? Family values of care, nurturance, community, and respect.

How is it that all of Western Europe and many Latin American countries offer free health care for all? For goodness sake, the country that we for decades have loathed, Cuba, has one of the best health care systems in the world! I dont understand how this is possible. We always talk about how its socialism, communism, state control, the terror! Our allies, Britain, France, all these nations offer free health care. As a consequence, they have a much higher life expectancy, they have lower rates of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, obesity, cancer, etc etc etc etc. It is a cultural problem. Michael Moore was right. The problem is that in America, its all about me. In Europe, its all about us. This Jeffersonian ideal, which has been central to America for centuries, the American dream is individualism. Individualism is a good thing in a way. But we have taken it to a huge extreme. But where are the politicians answering the desires of the people. People in this country want universal health care - over 75%. Yet again I dont understand who those 25% are. The richest 1%, fine. The richest 5% fine. Corporate CEO's, stock holders, businessmen, executives, political officials, entrepreneurs, fine. But ladies and gentlemen, they do not encompass 25% of this country by any measure at all. Who are these people with an ideology that is completely against their own self-interest.

The culprit is this whole idea of big government vs small government. Republicans and conservatives have done a good job of scaring people away from the idea of an efficient government for and by the people. They have deliberately constructed a message that says, we want to get elected to make government smaller, so that it doesnt interfere in your lives. Its all a deception unfortunately. During the Hillary Clinton health care reform crisis of the 1990s, Republicans charged she wanted to socialize medicine. Whats next, they asked? A command economy and a hammer and sickle replacing the stars on the American flag? Fear won. Yet it is 2007 and we are the only industrialized nation with no universal health care plan.

I will digress and say for a moment that our lack of a universal health care system directly impacts every aspect of society. Its plain and simple. Because of this broken system, our people die, spend large sums of money on medicines, and create a pill-popping culture. Have a headache? Go to CVS. Have a soar throat? Go to CVS. OVer the counter medications are the new American candies. Europeans, Latin Americans and Asians dont nearly consume as much medicine as we do. Think about it. No universal health care = no doctor to see because you cant afford one = over the counter medication alternative with no prescription necessary = more money for drug companies. Why do we have grossely obese people in the millions in this country. That is downright disgusting and we are completely to blame. Look at our diets. Look at our eating habits and working habits. Its a deeper cultural problem not just a systemic one.

How do we find it acceptable that people do not have money for treatment and die? What kind of country is this? Shame on this country. Universal health care should be a right not a privilege. A country is better off if the people are healthy and strong, we all know that, so why dont we take care of our most needed. Is it a racial issue? I doubt it considering most of the people in Moore's movie were white. Then what is the problem? It is completely disgusting that we don't provide adequate health care for 9/11 workers. These people and many like them should be at political speeches, conventions, debates, and on primetime news telling their stories and educating the public on this issue. It is a pressing issue. They should be put on stage at the Democratic National Convention next year to tell their stories. Unbelievable. How can we let someone die of cancer because their insurance company denied them money for chemotherapy. How is that not murder? Where is the "pro-life" in that? Republicans talk so much about being "pro-life" and that "every life is unique and special." Why don't they actually adhere to that stance? Ridiculous.

By looking at Britain, we can see that the government cares about the health and well-being of its citizens. Why dont we? Why do we let drug companies do this? Who are these people voting for Republicans and some Democrats who continue to pander to these companies?Who are these people? I can assure you they dont know a thing about the issue. We are the most depressed country in the West. No wonder the drug companies want to keep it that way. I am surprised our collective body hasnt grown immune to these drugs already. Drugs should not be nearly as expensive as they are in this country yet we allow it.

Thank goodness we have reached a political consensus in this country where all the Democrats agree on this issue. The Republicans will go down in defeat on this issue yet why do people still vote for people like this? How, I just dont understand. I really want to know who those 30% opposition faction is in every poll.

Are people opposed to using their taxdollars to fund other people's health care? Dont they understand that it works both ways. You pay into the system a fraction, but you get back a huge reward. Same goes for free education.

It is time we have a universal health care plan. Lets actually join the rest of the highly industrialized world and live up to our status as a superpower.

From hippies reclaiming the body to immigrant groups who wouldn't even consider it, CNN reports that the circumcision rate in the United States has reached an all-time low of 57 percent. The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends forgoing circumcision, calling it an unnecessary and painful surgery. Even so, the United States remains the Western nation with by far the least foreskins. In the U.K, for example, fewer than 20 percent of men are circumcised; in Denmark, the number is less than 2 percent.

But don't call off the bris just yet. As I reported for In These Times last month, the World Health Organization is now recommending the procedure, emboldened by studies that found adult circumcisions in Africa decreased men's likelihood of contracting HIV by as much as 60 percent. Following the WHO's lead, New York City is considering promoting adult circumcision as a preventative measure, which worries activists who've been struggling for decades to send the message that using condoms is the only surefire way to protect yourself.

Seems to me that since evidence clearly shows circumcision protects men and their partners from a variety of sexually transmitted infections, we should be promoting the practice, not among grown men who may see the procedure as an alternative to safe sex, but among expectant parents. Get 'em while they're young and you can give them the anatomical benefits of circumcision alongside the lessons about protection and contraception.

- cross-posted at TAPPED 

Should the Girl Scouts be public enemy #1 for clogging the arteries of millions of Americans?

Apparently this is a problem for Katherine Mangu-Ward, at American.com:

According to MeMe Roth, who is the head (and may be the sole member) of National Action Against Obesity:

Girl Scouts have an economic, medical and moral imperative to dump junk food as their $700 million fundraising source….Girl Scout Cookies are high-calorie, high-sugar, high in saturated fat and nearly devoid of nutrition. Using young girls as a front to push millions of cookies onto an already bloated population further exacerbates an alarming [obesity] crisis, no matter how cute the uniforms are.

Could it be true that little girls are selling sin door-to-door in exchange for merit badges?

 ...

 But of course, more cookies do make the world a better place—as anyone who has ever had a crunchy, coconut-y, chocolate-dipped Samoa can attest. People buy Girl Scout cookies because they are good cookies for a good cause. Most people buy (and eat) them in moderation, so a boycott isn't changing health outcomes for the vast majority of cookie customers. And as Roth rightly points out, the Girl Scouts rely on the cookies for $700 million in revenue every year, revenue that they are unlikely to be able to replace with other sources—even in the five-year transition time graciously allotted to them by Roth.

While I believe Mangu-Ward exaggerates the left-leaning attack on the Girl Scouts, her general point bares some  thought: what role should the government or concerned citizens play in modifying the dietary decisions of the population.

Via Think Progress: An abstinence-only sex-ed program at a Maryland high school asked students to share one piece of gum in order to demonstrate the risks of sexual activity. As many as 15 students chewed one wad. Yeeeuck.

The adults reponsible for this thought experiment turned mono-fest weren't licensed teachers, but employees of the conservative Christian "Pregnancy Center," one of those faux clinics that lure panicked women in with promises of medical treatment and then feed them false information about the risks of abortion. Honestly. What are these people doing in our public schools?