skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don't let women's health care rights become merely a privilege of the wealthy simply because a bunch of male Republicans want to impose their out-of-date values on this country.
I was among the thousands, if not millions, of horrified citizens when the Republican led House of Representatives voted to end federal funding to Planned Parenthood yesterday. I try very hard to remain politically neutral on this blog, but not on this issue.
The measure now moves to the Senate, which will ultimately decide the funding fate of this vital family service organization. Thus, it's time to make your voice heard, and reach out to each and every Senator from your state and tell them just how vital it is to maintain funding levels, and that you will remember in November if they vote this funding down!
Planned Parenthood MUST retain its federal funding.
This organization provides health care services to needy women and children. Less than 5 percent of its budget goes to reproductive choices, and NO federal money is used to perform abortions NOW! [See above graphic.]
I have included important information below, the first a letter of appeal from Planned Parenthood, the second a fabulous posting by the non-profit Woodhull Freedom Foundation. I wish I had written Woodhull's post, but since I didn't, I am including it below in its entirety.
Here is the information from Planned Parenthood:
"We've never faced an attack like this in our 95-year history — and we've never needed your support like we do right now. Thank you for standing with us.
We have to raise a massive outcry against this dangerous attack on women's health and Planned Parenthood. Please, tell everyone you know to stand with us today.
Did you hear? The House voted to bar Planned Parenthood from federal funding. They cut funding for HIV tests, cancer screenings, birth control, and more, putting millions of women and families at risk. We can't let it go unanswered. It's time for you and me to stand with Planned Parenthood. Sign the open letter to the reps who voted for this bill — and to the senators who still have a chance to stop it.
This fight will continue as our legislators return to their home districts, and when legislation to bar Planned Parenthood from federal funding heads to the U.S. Senate. Your voice, your strength, and your unwavering support are absolutely critical, now and in the weeks ahead. Thank you so much for standing with us.
Ready to do more?
Help us fight back against ongoing attacks and set the record straight by sharing your story about how Planned Parenthood has been there for you, your family, or your friends. Telling the truth about Planned Parenthood and those we serve is critical to stopping this truly dangerous legislation. Click here.
These attacks on Planned Parenthood are a drain on our resources at a time when we have to work harder than ever to protect and promote women's health. Please consider making a gift to Planned Parenthood Federation of America to help us through this difficult time."
Now, please read this incredible blog posting from Woodhull below, or directly at its website:
War Against Women in Our Own Country
Posted on February 19, 2011 by rlevy
"It’s an inquisition as virulent as any Inquisition. It’s a holocaust with women and children as the targets.
It’s a fear-driven, rhetoric-inspired hysteria.
It’s a war.
It’s a war of words, not guns. And the victims are women and children. The “guns,” the weapons, are the gradual diminishing of our human rights.
We had warnings. We knew the attacks would be coming. In fact, we were promised that our rights would be stripped away if we put certain people in power. Well, we did. They are. And they are fulfilling their promises.
We are at war and we have to figure out what we’re going to do about it.
The latest salvo was yesterday when the House adopted an amendment to the continuing resolution, or C.R., offered by anti-choice Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) that would eliminate funding for preventative-health services, including contraception and cancer screenings, at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. The House is expected to pass the overall budget measure, which will then move to the Senate.
Note that I said “latest.” This isn’t the first attack against our fundamental human right and it won’t be the last. H.R.3 and H.R.358 are two bills that have sparked intense controversy. Lawmakers finally had to cave to public pressure and remove a provision in both bills that tried to redefine rape, but now a new version of H.R.358 includes a measure that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care to women who will die without it.
Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL, said that if passed, both H.R.3 and H.R.358 would interfere in women’s personal, private decisions in unprecedented ways. H.R.3, authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would effectively block private-insurance plans from covering abortion care in the new health-care system and impose tax penalties on individuals and small businesses that purchase plans that include abortion coverage. Currently, 87 percent of private plans include such coverage.
Just last week a bill in South Dakota would have made it “legal” to murder an abortion provider.
We are a country in the midst of a financial depression. We are a country where millions of people have lost jobs and are unemployed. Shouldn’t those be the priorities Congress is facing? Instead the newly elected Senators and Representatives are manically focused on removing a woman’s right to choose.
Even allowing for editing of the tapes from Planned Parenthood, and imagining how many offices the undercover folks had to go into to get material for their expose, some of what the folks in PP said was wrong. And PP has addressed those individuals and those practices immediately. Did we close down the banks or AIG because someone, some individuals in those corporations screwed up? Well, as a matter of fact we actually increased our support of them and handed them lots and lots of money to fix their “business.”
Why is it so different with an organization that only does good? Why is it a different set of rules for an organization that serves millions of women every year, providing counseling, cancer screenings, testing? I can tell you why. Because it’s convenient for the “right” for the anti-choice war mongers who characterized the issue as one of abortion when that was never the real issue. It’s a weapon the “right” can re-package and use very effectively to strip away our human right to sexual freedom.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTION. Period.
All Pence did was remove health care from women.
The real issue is that Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider. Less than 10 percent of the organization’s services are in providing abortions.
The $317 million that the House eliminated, known as Title X, provides women access to contraceptives and family planning services who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford them. No matter your political affiliation, these services should be considered vital.
So what can you do about it? Fortunately, it’s unlikely the amendment will pass in the Senate. In the meantime, hop on over to the Planned Parenthood website and SIGN THIS LETTER, directed toward representatives who signed the bill and senators who can still stop it from passing.
And, if you haven’t been, start paying really close attention to your fundamental human rights and what those elected officials in Congress and at the state level are doing to violate them."
I, too am adding my voice to those who will be reaching out to Congress. I cannot stress how important it is for every citizen, regardless or gender or age, to reach out and make your views known. Don't assume there are enough callers or writers on this issue. Do it for your family, for all families, for the health and welfare of everyone who lives in the U.S.!
— The Curator
The pope is at it again: Confusing the faithful and activists on whether the use of condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS is OK with the church.
I respect all religious views, but I want to be up-front here and happily disclose that I am a FORMER Catholic, and the most recent flap has only strengthened my resolve to never, ever go back.
How is it even possible to have to think about whether the use of condoms to help stop AIDS and all STD’s is advantageous? It is a no brainer, but apparently the Vatican remains stuck in the wrong century, as usual. It also remains blatantly homophobic and obviously bigoted, views it has held close to his hypocritical chest and has carefully nurtured for over 2,000 years.
While some AIDS activists welcomed the pope’s apparent softening of the Vatican’s opposition to the use of condoms, sex workers said his concession, directed only at infected prostitutes, demonstrated both his prejudice, and stark removal from reality. Not to mention, his apparent belief that sex workers are responsible for AIDS!
In a book-long interview entitled Light of the World to be published on Tuesday, the 83-year-old German pontiff suggests that using condoms could be justified in some cases on moral grounds to prevent infecting others with the virus causing AIDS, citing the example of a “male prostitute.”
In a book to be published this week, Benedict XVI said there could be “justified individual cases” in which condoms could be used, softening Rome’s blanket ban on contraception, one of the most controversial issues facing the Church.
"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics said, giving as an example a male prostitute having sex with a client.
Of course, he gave no guidance on the long-standing moral and religious question of whether it would be permissible for a married couple, in which one partner is HIV positive, to use condoms in order to prevent the other partner from becoming infected. Not to mention, the millions of homosexuals worldwide who are sexually active and want to protect themselves and their partners from AIDS and any and all other STD’s.
If that is what he meant even in this very narrow area, it is quite a contradiction, since the pope spoke out against condom use as recently as March 2009 during a trip to Africa. At that time, the pope caused an international uproar by claiming that condoms “increase the problem” of AIDSs. Ridiculous, disgusting and incredibly dangerous, in my view.
Pressed yesterday by Peter Seewald, a German Catholic journalist, whether he meant that the Church was not opposed in principle to the use of condoms, Pope Benedict replied: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” Um, what?
While the Vatican’s ban on artificial birth control was set out in a 1968 encyclical, it has not formally documented its position on condoms as a means to combat AIDS.
“This is a significant and positive step forward taken by the Vatican,” Michel Sidibé, executive director of UNAids, said. “This move recognizes that responsible sexual behavior and the use of condoms have important roles in HIV prevention. This will help accelerate the HIV prevention revolution.”
Predictably, Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, a U.S. group, commented quite positively, proclaiming, “It is a marvelous victory for common sense and reason, a major step forward towards recognizing that condom use can play a vital role in reducing the future impact of the HIV pandemic.”
O’Brien asserted that the pope’s words were especially significant for “the many, many people who work for Catholic aid agencies and have been secretly handing out condoms while fearing that they will lose their jobs.”
But, the Vatican today apparently contradicted that all-too rosy interpretation as well as its Pope! The Vatican's chief spokesman today said that the pope is neither "reforming or changing" the Catholic Church's position banning condom use. Reverend Federico Lombardi emphasized that the church does not consider condoms a "moral solution" to sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS.
Some activists, including dissident Catholics, were dismayed that the pope only specifically cited the narrow example of a male prostitute – although the Vatican’s own newspaper fueled confusion by translating his words in Italian as a female prostitute.
“Thirty years of Vatican prevarication and refusal to admit the gravity of the HIV pandemic – which has already claimed the lives of 25 million people and threatens not only the 33 million currently affected but their partners and offspring – cannot be wiped away by a narrow exception constructed by a papacy under fire,” commented Mark Harrington of Treatment Action Group.
The pope’s shift was also interpreted by some Vatican observers as a communications ploy to soften his image as an out-of-touch fundamentalist whose papacy has been tarnished by revelations of hundreds of cases of child abuse committed by priests, sometimes protected by their bishops.
Sex workers were equally unimpressed by the pope’s new insight. “What the pope said is not connected to reality,” said one 23-year-old male prostitute in Rome who asked not to reveal his name. “No one cares about him. Maybe it is interesting from the theological point of view but in practical terms it makes no difference.”
A representative of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe said his remarks were a, “damn sight better than saying condoms are of no use, but still pins the blame for AIDS on sex workers who face discrimination and stigmatization.” She also questioned whether the pope was really directing Catholic social workers to do anything differently.
Catholic aid organizations account for some 25 per cent of AIDS programs in sub-Saharan Africa, providing education, treatment and working against the stigma attached to the disease.
— The Curator
Not this month dearest, we BOTH have headaches.
Kenyans may consider holding a national "no-sex" month to slow down the spread of HIV and maintain the current momentum which has seen a drop in new infections.
This is one of the innovative and less expensive methods, countries attending the 18th International AIDS Conference 2010 which opened in Vienna, Austria on Sunday, may have to consider.
First proposed by Aids researchers, Prof Alan Whiteside of the University of Kwazulu-Natalin South Africa and Dr. Justin Parkhurst of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the U.K. in April, the hypothesis is gaining momentum and the two will be suggesting it be put on trial.
The new proposal was first published in the Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine, in April and forms part of hundreds of proposals and researches to be discussed at the ongoing Vienna conference.
Writing of the proposal for aidsmap, one of the official online information channels for the Aids 2010 international conference Keith Alcorn says Swaziland, which has a high HIV prevalence rate is considering trying out the idea.
The researchers argue that, since newly infected people have the highest transmission rates to their partners, an abstinence period would disrupt the infection chain with significant gains in bringing down the prevalence rates.
Scientists say HIV levels are highest in first six weeks after infection. This is before the body's defense system kicks in to fight the virus. Individuals in this phase are thought to account for anywhere from 10 to 45 per cent of new HIV infections.
"Stopping large numbers of recently infected people from passing on the virus for a month could act as a "fire break," in the same way that trees are chopped down in a forest fire to break the progress of the fire," says aidsmap.
The researchers say countries may try other options depending on what is most acceptable to their people. They may try a month of protected sex for all, or no commercial sex for everybody for a certain duration.
Another suggestion would include no sex at night for a period of time for the whole population. This behavioral change options comes soon after Kenya won praise from the conference organizers, UNAids on its success in convincing the youth to adopt responsible sex.
In a pre-conference communication last Thursday, UNAids said HIV prevalence in pregnant women aged 15 to 24 fell by at least a quarter in 12 countries, with some of the steepest drops in Kenya.
"Young people have shown that they can be change agents in the prevention revolution," the agency said in its OUTLOOK Report 2010.
Talking to the Nation soon after the release of the report, Dr. Nicholas Muraguri, the director of the National Aids and Sexually Transmitted Infections Control Program, said persistent campaigns have resulted in behavior change among the youth, considerably reducing the infection rate.
He said condom use as well as voluntary counseling and testing are also on the increase because of the efforts. "There are more young people using condoms, and many more are going for HIV tests without fear.
"This has seen HIV testing rise from 35 per cent to 70 per cent in the recent past," said Muraguri as he prepared to leave for the Vienna meeting. "Unlike in the past, when men would brag about the number of women they had slept with, young people are now more cautious.”
— The Curator
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has decided to retain the policy that bans blood donation by any man who has had sex with a man at any time, even once, since 1977.
Incongruously, current policy allows people who have unsafe heterosexual sex with someone who has AIDS to donate blood after a one-year waiting period.
In a 9-6 vote, which took place last week, the committee cited a lack of research to support the notion that lifting the ban would not contaminate the blood supply.
Current HIV testing technology can identify a new infection with the virus within about 10 days of transmission.
The committee acknowledged that current policy permits "some potentially high-risk donations while preventing some potentially low-risk donations."
It called this state of affairs "suboptimal" and suggested more research into the matter."
This decision is outrageous, irresponsible and archaic," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We expect more out of this advisory committee and this administration than to uphold an unnecessarily discriminatory policy from another era."
She said all donors should be "screened appropriately and assessed based on actual behavioral risk independent of their sexual orientation."
The American Red Cross, the nation’s largest blood supplier, agrees.
"The American Red Cross is disappointed with the decision made by the (committee) not to recommend a change to the FDA policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men," the organization said. "While the Red Cross is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth by the FDA, we also strongly support the use of rational, scientifically based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."
Though the committee voted to recommend against changing the current policy, the committee did recommend, among other actions, that quarantine release errors should be investigated. Depending on the results of such an investigation, this could lead to a future recommendation to reduce or eliminate the “deferral” of gay men and other men who have sex with men desiring to donate blood. Not much improvement, but a bit of a start.
While the increase the blood supply could receive by lifting the indefinite deferral was noted as “modest at best,” Dr. Frederick Axelrod, CEO of LifeStream, noted that there are other concerns with not changing the current policy at all.
Referring to college campuses and others canceling blood drives to express sympathy for and solidarity with the gay community, Axelrod said, “these issues...are coming up more frequently and the vocal nature of it is getting louder and louder.” Axelrod warned that if the policy is not changed “there could be an increased voice that’s going to push harder as it relates to this and then it’s going to affect the amount of blood that we can collect and then it’ll affect patients in a different way — not with an infectious disease, but not having enough blood and going back to shortages.”
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay organization that has been accused of lobbying Congress in opposition of a resolution that would denounce Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill, spoke at the meeting in favor of maintaining the current policy. Despite his organization’s anti-gay stance, his statements to the committee were carefully crafted to contain no blatantly homophobic language. Also speaking at the meeting were Nathan Schaefer and Sean Cahill of Gay Men’s Health Crisis, as well as several HIV/AIDS organizations.
Schaefer made clear that his organization does not “necessarily think that anyone opposed to changing the current policy is motivated by homophobia,” but the possibility of homophobia represented in the policy is certainly present. Describing disparities in treatment, Schaefer gave the example that though any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 can never give blood, a man who has had sex with a known HIV+ woman more than 365 days ago can give blood.
HHS apparently kept no record of how members voted on the issue. A recording of the meeting is available on the department’s website, but due to low video quality and a camera shot that doesn’t include all members, not all votes are known. One vote in support of the current policy was cast by Anne Marie Finley, Vice President of Government Relations at Celgene Corporation, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations.
Back in the 80's when we didn't know much about HIV/AIDS and the homosexual community was largely ignored and/or widely discriminated against, HIV/AIDS was seen as the "Gay Disease." This was because, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at that time most AIDS cases occurred among whites homosexual males. Soon thereafter AIDS began spreading through intravenous drug use as well as other transmission methods and that's when cases starting being identified in heterosexuals as well. Once the HIV/AIDS issue became an epidemic, the federal government got involved, "to protect the people."
In 1983 the Food and Drug Administration implemented rules against men who have had sex – even once – with another man since 1977, stating that they are forbidden from donating blood. The purpose of this rule was to prevent HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from tainting the blood supply. Screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not been developed as of yet and so an all out ban seemed like an appropriate measure. Despite the fact that this is no longer the case as there are plenty of tests that can detect the virus, the ban was nonetheless retained. Thus, in 2010, gay males who have sex with other gay males cannot give blood, even if they don't have HIV/AIDS.
Of note: There are no other minority groups banned from giving blood, regardless of whether or not said minority group has a high HIV/AIDS infection rate or not. For example, if you are a gay woman, you can apparently give all the blood you want. That is because lesbians are not seen as a high-risk group for contracting HIV/AIDS as opposed to sexually active gay males. Though hundreds of thousands of woman have HIV/AIDS due to drug use or other methods of transmissions, the CDC still doesn't consider them to be a "high-risk" group because they are not likely to transmit HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse (although it is possible).
Another example of this glaring hypocrisy is that despite gay males being labeled as a high risk group, according to the Center For Disease Control as of 2008, African American men and women were estimated to have an incidence rate that was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among white people...and yet there is no ban against black people giving blood.
In addition, various studies also show that heterosexual intercourse is the fastest-growing mode of HIV transmission in North America and the dominant mode of HIV transmission worldwide. It has been reported that HIV is rapidly showing up in heterosexual communities throughout North America. However, there is no ban on heterosexuals giving blood. It seems that the precautions taken against receiving tainted blood from sexually active homosexuals is not considered necessary for sexually active heterosexuals.
There is also a glaringly obvious problem here. For one, any person, gay or otherwise does not have to tell the truth about any of the above. All one has to say to give blood is, "I'm straight, monogamous and last time I checked, STD free." Then they take your blood and test it, just like everyone else. The dirty little secret in all of this is that homosexual men do give blood, when they choose to lie.
Sadly, it appears that the FDA is discriminating against a particular group of people based on their sexuality, rather than establishing real precautions to ensure that the country’s blood reserve is safe.
— The Curator
The use of lubricants during unprotected anal intercourse may indirectly raise the risk of HIV transmission in the receptive partner, among both men and women, new research warns.
And all along we were taught to use lube because it meant less risk of anal tissue tearing. Lube still does that very well, but a new potential risk has been found.
Concern about the possibility is being raised in the form of two new studies, and revolves around the fact that HIV infection risk rises if other infections are already present in the rectal lining of the receptive partner, the study authors noted.
In that light, indications that some lubricants may contribute to a generally increased risk for sexually transmitted infections, and therefore in turn for HIV, are scheduled for presentation this week in Pittsburgh at the International Microbicides Conference.
The use of lubricants may make anal sex more comfortable, but they may also increase the risk of spreading sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, researchers said yesterday. Many experts have been concerned about the potential effects of such lubricants, but there have previously been virtually no studies about how they affect disease.
[...] A partial explanation for the increased risk may have been provided by Charlene Dezzutti, a reproductive science specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, and her colleagues. They studied the effects of six of the most popular lubricants on rectal cells and tissues in laboratory dishes. They found that many of the products had high concentrations of dissolved salts and sugars that draw water out of cells, weakening and even killing the cells. Some of them even stripped away significant portions of the surface epithelial cells on the rectal tissue, the layer of cells that serves as a protective barrier. They also studied the effect of the lubricants on beneficial bacteria in the rectum.
So which lubes are the safest? "PRE and Wet Platinum, were shown to be safest for the cells, while Astroglide was the most toxic to cells and tissue. KY Jelly had the worst effect on rectal bacteria, essentially wiping out the entire colony. ID Glide and Elbow Grease had intermediate effects, the team found. None of the lubricants was found to have measurable anti-HIV activity."
Conducted between 2006 and 2008, one study – which focused on approximately 900 residents in the Baltimore and Los Angeles region – observed that men and women who use lubricants in general are three times more likely to have some form of a rectal sexually transmitted infection. The finding held regardless of gender, HIV status, condom use, and the number of sex partners the study participants had had in the prior month.
Although no specific lubricants were identified as particularly problematic, most study participants said they used a water-based lubricant (76 percent), while 28 percent used silicon-based products, 17 percent oil-based lubricants, and 6 percent said used a numbing lubricant.
The second study – led by Charlene Dezzutti of the University of Pittsburgh and the Microbicide Trials Network – looked at five of the most popular over-the-counter and/or mail-order lubricants, identified as such through a survey of 9,000 men and women living in 100 different countries.
All the lubricants were water-based, except for one silicon-based product.
The research team – including collaborators from International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA) – did not examine the effect of lubricant use during actual sex. However, in laboratory testing, some of the lubricants were found to have a toxic effect on cells and rectal tissue, perhaps as the result of the dissolved salts and sugars the products contained.
"We know we can't make any conclusions based on this one small study," cautioned IRMA lubricant safety advocate Marc-Andre LeBlanc, in a news release. "Further research is absolutely necessary to understand the potential role of sexual lubricants in HIV transmission. We should be able to provide consumer guidance regarding lubes that are found to be safer than others."
"Some lubes are probably better than others, but we don't know where any of the currently available products fall along the spectrum from good to bad," added IRMA chair Jim Pickett.
"We must ensure that existing lubes don't facilitate HIV transmission," he added. "People have a right to this kind of information, and it's very past due."
Conference organizers pointed out that in the United States, 90 percent of men who have sex with men – whether self-identified as gay or not – engage in receptive anal intercourse. Between 10 percent and 35 percent of heterosexual women have done so at least once. And in either instance, condoms are often not used, while lubricants are.
It seems clear by now but let’s say it again: DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX! That message continues to be underscored with every sex study, regardless of the focus. Unless your partner has had sex testing that they have shared, do not risk it – ever. Anal sex, standard sex, whatever sex, DO NOT RISK IT!
— The Curator
There is a fascinating and important opinion/editorial appearing at Bikya Masr that describes sex education – or the lack of it – in today's Egypt.
The author, Baher Ibrahim, notes that even doctor’s do not have correct or adequate sex education, nor do many men and women understand the correct usage of condoms.
Masturbation is absolutely verboten, and women, who are expected to remain virginal until marriage, are not supposed to have any specific knowledge about self-pleasure.
Ibrahim urges the country to confront its sexual conservatism, and advances a compelling argument that it must provide real, contemporary sex education.
The editorial appears in its entirety below, or read it directly at Bikya Masr.
By Baher Ibrahim
27 December 2009
in Health
“It may sound striking that in the 21st century; there are highly educated people, even doctors, who have highly inaccurate information about reproductive health. But in Egypt, that is the reality.
Starting from school pupils and reaching all the way to medical faculties, there is an astonishing lack of basic information on sex and reproductive diseases. Misconceptions and old wives’ tales are reinforced in young peoples’ minds by the insistence of medical professors on ignoring such basic information.
Egyptian society is by nature a conservative one, making sex a taboo subject. Thus, it has become absolutely normal and expected that an entire body system be practically ignored in science curricula all over the country. Everyone in Egypt has memories of the bizarre class on the reproductive system. What usually happens is that the teacher maintains a stern face and monotonous voice to deter students from making lousy jokes. If it’s a co-ed school, there is no place for a constructive detailed discussion. Likewise, if a male teacher is standing before a girl only class or vice versa, the lesson is finished off at lightning speed. Girls would be unwilling and embarrassed to listen to a man explain the anatomy of the female genitalia, and boys will almost certainly make an inappropriate comment that will deter their teacher.
In today’s age, sex is aggressively marketed through advertising, movies and music videos. With widespread Internet access, pornography is instantly available at the click of a mouse. That there is no kind of proper sex ed in our schools is preposterous. Fast forward to high school, and the situation is not any different. The reproductive process is explained in terms of spermatogenesis and fertilization, leaving numerous girls wondering (and this is not an exaggeration) how the spermatozoa happened to reach the ovum. In addition, it prompts teenage boys, who will stop at nothing to find out about sex, to get their information from their friends, who are just as misinformed as them, or from pornographic movies.
The only time when sex is formally discussed in school is in a religious context, where the (inexperienced) religious studies teacher offers the students more misinformation as fact. Examples of these are 'masturbation is strictly forbidden in religion, and the punishment of he who masturbates is equal to that of he who engages in sexual relations with his mother.' Another popular one is that 'one mustn’t masturbate because God has given each man a store of semen that will finish if you abuse it.'
These claims are laughable to many, but are widely accepted as fact, as well as the infamous 'masturbation ruins your eyesight.' Fast forward once again to university, and the unwillingness to discuss sex in even a medical context is absurd.
Khalid, a dentistry student at Alexandria University, recalls one of his experiences. He says 'It was in our first year during a Zoology lecture. The professor (a woman) happened to mention the word ‘vagina’. A colleague of mine, who’s English was very poor, asked the professor after the lecture about the meaning of ‘vagina’. Suddenly the professor started stuttering and launched into a prolonged English-Arabic explanation interspersed with medical terminology. While he was looking at her with blank eyes, I whispered in his ear the Arabic slang (and offensive) word for ‘vagina.’'
The country’s medical students, and future doctors, fare no better. Many still believe the common “masturbation ruins your eyesight” myth, while others believe it causes infertility. A medical student at Alexandria University laughs as he tells about one of his funnier experiences. “It was during our second year, and we were attending a psychology lecture where the topic of discussion was IQ. A student passed over a folded paper to the doctor with a question on it. (Note: this is how questions are commonly asked due to the massive number of students in the auditoriums) The question was ‘Excuse me doctor, but does masturbation affect your IQ?’ Many students burst out laughing but most of the girls seemed not to understand since they didn’t get the English term. The doctor was very professional, explaining that there was no harm at all in the act, unless it became an obsession or compulsive behavior. He also mentioned statistics that 99.9% of males and 70 percent of females masturbate.'
Naturally, the latter part of the statistic did not sit well with many. The student goes on to say 'My male friends were astonished that he mentioned such a statistic so openly in front of girls, and most believed it to be a lie. Some went on to say that only a whore would do such a thing and one also wondered if by doing so, a girl could lose her virginity. A few were also astonished at the prospect that girls even thought about sex.'
The student I spoke to is now in his fifth (second last) year. He says 'Even now, it is more of the same. We had a lecture on male infertility, and obviously, a semen sample is needed to know if a man is infertile. The professor found it too embarrassing to say that the sample is usually obtained by masturbation, despite the term being mentioned without definition in the book. He opted to say that ‘a sample is best obtained in the lab’. I don’t know what’s so embarrassing about it. I am sure many of the girls, especially the ones from rural backgrounds, didn’t understand.'
Nor are they expected to understand. Despite attempts at change, Egypt is still a largely patriarchal, male dominated society where 'respectable' girls are expected to guard their virginity and know little to nothing about sex, until they are married.
This student also says 'I was stunned when during a lecture on HIV/AIDS, the professor made very little emphasis on prevention of sexual transmission, besides mentioning the term ‘condom’ once in English. Then he made a claim I have never heard of that in 15-20 percent of proper, regular condom usage, HIV can still cross an intact condom. I’ve never heard of such a thing.'
Indeed, a fact sheet on male condom use, available on the UNAIDS website, says that after conducting studies, it has emerged that 'with regular sexual intercourse over a period of two years, partners who consistently used condoms had a near zero risk of HIV.'
Add to this the reality that most med students, even when they graduate, do not even know what a condom looks like. This is an outrageous lack of basic sex ed, especially for medical students, and steps must be taken to change it.
Ironically, in a country where extramarital sex is a big no-no, very few women know how to self induce a medical abortion or use the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.
Most girls do not even know what their external genitalia look like, nor do they have the curiosity to know. This is part of the cultural norm that girls must guard their modesty and virginity before marriage.
For all the above stated reasons, definite steps must be taken to integrate proper sex education in school and university curricula, to be taught by certified specialists, so that we may pull our students, future doctors and the general population out of the dark.”
This editorial perfectly underscores many of the challenges that conservative countries face in our modern, technological society. Every country must determine its own mores, but when its citizens have access to broader experiences via the Internet, then sex education is even more imperative. It is also quite shocking to me that many of its doctor's do not possess this vital information, either.
It is not for me to judge the behavior of a society or government when it comes to sex, but ensuring the safety of all is everyone's responsibility.
I believe that every person must be given the tools to protect themselves from contracting AIDS and other STD's, and to have the most basic knowledge about their own bodies. That is not a religious/ideology issue, but rather a human issue.
I would argue that women should be considered sexual equals in any society. Even in the U.S., which is a much less conservative country, that is still not the case, but is thankfully coming closer to becoming a reality.
— The Curator
Calls to end discrimination rang out across the globe today in a tidal wave of RED ribbons as countries marked World AIDS Day.
World AIDS Day, observed December 1 each year, is dedicated to raising awareness of the AIDS pandemic caused by the spread of HIV infection. It is common to hold memorials to honor persons who have died from HIV/AIDS on this day. Government and health officials also observe the event, often with speeches or forums on the AIDS topics. Since 1995, the President of the United States has made an official proclamation on World AIDS Day. Governments of other nations have followed suit and issued similar announcements.
The color RED has come to represent the movement to find a cure, as well as a non-profit organization that raises funds to fight the disease worldwide and provide treatment to those in need.
AIDS has killed more than 25 million people between 1981 and 2007, making it one of the most destructive epidemics in recorded history. Despite recent, improved access to antiretroviral treatment and care in many regions of the world, the AIDS epidemic claimed an estimated 2 million lives in 2007, of which about 270,000 were children. World AIDS Day began in 1987.
To read an important blog about the day, the disease, and taking precautions, please read my buddy BISH’s post.
South Africa, the nation worst affected by the pandemic, rolled out a new battle plan to defeat the virus. South Africa's President Jacob Zuma said today that his government will treat more AIDS patients and expand testing for HIV. He said the goal is to treat 80 percent of the country's affected people by 2012.
China warned today that the occurrence of the virus among homosexuals is gaining pace. President Hu Jintao called on the public to not discriminate against those with HIV.
Protesters actually interrupted an AIDS conference to focus attention on the stigma of having the disease, and the tendency for the government to deny needed treatment to homosexuals.
In the South Korean capital, protesters filed a petition with the country's human rights watchdog seeking an end to mandatory HIV tests for some foreign workers.
On Monday, White House officials said a longtime ban on HIV-positive visitors to the United States will be lifted early next year.
Washington also announced its plans to host the International AIDS Conference in 2012, and to spend 120 million dollars for treatment to help victims worldwide.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that President Barack Obama is dedicated to enhancing America's leadership in the fight against global AIDS. The previous administration of President George W. Bush began the process of lifting the HIV ban for visitors, which as been in effect for 22 years. The ban is expected to be lifted on Jan. 4, 2010. The conference is scheduled for July 2012.
The International AIDS Society said in a statement Monday that the new U.S. entry policy for people living with HIV reflects the country's key role in global efforts to combat AIDS. The U.S. last hosted the conference in 1990.
The United Nations says that last year, at least 33.4 million people globally were living with HIV and that 2.7 million new infections were reported. The U.N. also says two million deaths were due to AIDS last year.
While the war against HIV/AIDS is still far from over, 2009 is proving to be a watershed year in terms of advances in prevention and treatment, experts say.
In fact, earlier this month a U.N. report found that the number of people infected with HIV globally has remained unchanged, at about 33 million, for the past two years, but may have peaked in the late 1990’s.
Why the change? One big reason could be expanded access to antiretroviral drugs. A report released in October by the World Health Organization, UNICEF and UNAIDS found that 42 percent of people in the developing world who carry HIV now have access to life-extending medications. By the end of 2008, more than 4 million people worldwide were on antiretroviral medicines – 2.9 million of them in sub-Saharan Africa, where the bulk of HIV-positive people live. That's a tenfold increase in access over the prior five years!
"I think this has come about through a number of organizations that have been trying to get drugs to be available to people in the developing world," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He especially credited the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), begun under the second Bush presidency, which he said "is responsible for over 2 million people being on therapy."
Other nonprofit groups – most notably the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation – have also led the charge, helping to broker price-reduction schemes with pharmaceutical companies for the cheap distribution of AIDS drugs in poorer nations.
More widespread access to treatment may also pay dividends in prevention, one expert noted.
"I think this is an interesting story that's been emerging this year, as well – the possibility that people who are on antiretroviral therapy are less infectious," said Rowena Johnston, director of research for the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), based in New York City. She said that while the effect of widespread treatment on infectivity has yet to be proven, decreased viral load in infected people might help reduce the odds of their passing HIV on to others.
In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. National Institutes of Health are planning major studies in New York City and Washington, D.C., to see if better identification and treatment of HIV-positive people can help keep infection rates down across the community as a whole, Johnston said.
There was also promising news this year in terms of the search for an effective AIDS vaccine.
In October, researchers reporting in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that a combination of two vaccines brought about a modest, 31 percent reduction in infection rates among a cohort of 16,000 young adult volunteers in Thailand who were tracked for about three years. Analysis of the trial data suggested that the vaccines' effect faded with time, however, and was less effective in those at highest risk of HIV, such as sex workers or IV drug abusers.
For these reasons, no one is calling the trial a success. However, "the reason that we think it is potentially important is that it's the first time that we've ever seen the slightest positive signal" that immunization against HIV might work, Fauci said. "So, mild as [this result] is, at least it's a step in the right direction."
Johnston agreed, and called the trial an important stepping stone to further research.
"There's going to be a lot of intensive effort looking at blood samples of the people who seem to have done well on the vaccine," she explained. "If anybody can tease out what the magic ingredients are, that will form the cornerstone of how we move forward on AIDS vaccine development."
There were also new glimmers of hope in terms of treatment. One major story was reported as a case study in February in the New England Journal of Medicine. The patient in question was both HIV-positive and had leukemia, and received a stem cell transplant to help cure the cancer. The transplant was unique, however, in that the donor carried a rare gene mutation providing virtual immunity to HIV.
The result: post-transplant, the patient now has no detectable level of HIV in his system.
Johnston stressed that such a therapy could never become a widespread treatment for HIV/AIDS, because the donor pool is so scarce and bone marrow transplants carry a 30 percent risk of death. But the case does offer intriguing possibilities.
"It's a proof of concept that maybe you can cure HIV," she said. "So, there's been interest in finding out where you could do something similar with using gene therapy, for example," bypassing the need for dangerous stem cell transplants.
Other advances in HIV/AIDS made headlines as well in 2009. In February, a topical microbicide gel was found to cut the odds of HIV infection in at-risk African women by 30 percent, while in September researchers at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative said they'd discovered two immune-system antibodies that might become powerful, broad-spectrum targets for vaccine research in the future.
And as already mentioned in policy news, the Obama administration in late October lifted a decades-old ban on foreigners with HIV entering the United States. As reported by the Associated Press, Obama described the ban as a policy "rooted in fear rather than fact," and said its removal would encourage HIV testing and help save lives.
Still, despite this year's advances, HIV/AIDS continues its decades-long swath of destruction, both in the United States and globally.
As Fauci pointed out, the annual rate of new infections in the United States has been stuck at a dismal 56,000 for the past decade. "We've sort of hit a wall to get below that number," he said. "We need to intensify the multifaceted prevention efforts that are ongoing."
Susan Smith Ellis, CEO of RED, wrote the following in today's Huffington Post:
“The novelist David Rhodes once wrote that life's fundamental narrative begins with ‘I’ and ends with ‘you.’ Everything in between is conveyance from one person to another. What we convey is what matters.
“The basic idea of (RED)™ is transactional conveyance; I buy a (RED)-branded product, be it an Apple iPod, a Nike shoelace or a Gap tee-shirt, and a percentage of the profit from that sale goes to the Global Fund. The Global Fund administers a well-managed network of health care projects in sub-Saharan Africa to help stem the spread of AIDS. Somewhere in Ghana or Rwanda or Botswana, someone gets antiretroviral medication which keeps them alive or reduces the likelihood that they will transmit HIV to their unborn or just-born child. And so that someone, who otherwise might die or be destined to die, lives or bequeaths a more promising life instead. It's a good deal.
“On World AIDS Day, we don't celebrate with fireworks or champagne. We take note of what has been accomplished and we resolve to keep at it. We are proud of what our partners have accomplished. We like to say that they have gained market share for life (and for themselves) and in so doing they have changed the course of a part of human history.
“In 2006, it was estimated that only 8 percent of HIV-positive pregnant women in Ghana received the antiretroviral medicine necessary to reduce the chance of transmitting HIV to their unborn children. Without the medicine, the chances of HIV transmission were (and are) roughly 50-50. With the medicine, the chances of HIV transmission drop to between 1 and 2 percent. By the end of 2008, nearly 40 percent of Ghanaian women in need received the medicine that will transform the lives of their children. That is market share for life. And it is growing year-over-year.
“On this World AIDS Day, there is improvement in HIV detection across sub-Saharan Africa. The percentage of pregnant women who were able to take an HIV test increased from 17 percent in 2007 to 28 percent in 2008. We have every reason to believe that the percentage figure will increase substantially again this year (the final data are not yet available). The goal obviously is to keep ramping up testing until the chain of HIV transmission from mother to child is one day broken altogether. That day is coming, if we keep after it.
“AIDS is not just an African disease, of course. World AIDS Day is testament to the fact that AIDS is a global problem. (RED) focuses on AIDS in Africa because that is where the need is most acute. Nearly 14 million children in Africa have been orphaned because of AIDS. There are an estimated 2 million children living with HIV around the globe, 90 percent of them are in Africa. More than 90 percent of the children living with HIV are infected through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, around the time of birth or through breast-feeding. This is a fixable catastrophe ($26 covers the cost of providing medication to a pregnant woman to sharply reduce the risk of HIV transmission to her child). And that is where your (RED) dollars go, $26 at a time.
“All around the world tonight, from San Francisco to Chicago to Pittsburgh to Los Angeles to Salt Lake City to Dublin, Ireland and London, England, cities will bathe their municipal buildings and town halls and key landmarks and architectural masterpieces in (RED) lights. All across the Internet, on the pages of Facebook and Twitter and Google, there will be links to (RED) and its partners. An ocean and a world away, in the pre-dawn hours of sub-Saharan Africa, men and women will begin their daily work of doing battle with a viral killer, a battle financed in part by the purchases of (RED)-branded products by people like you.
“As the CEO of (RED), I have the privilege of working with great partners at the Global Fund and at some of the world's most iconic brands. Every day, I get to work with a dedicated group of professionals who have devoted themselves to a great conveyance. On behalf of all of them, I thank you for your support of (RED) branded products and the work that it enables.
“World AIDS Day this year is better than it was a year ago. It will be better still a year from now. We just have to keep after it,” she concluded.
She keep after it for more information.
In this era of increased global understanding, it is vital that we use this important momentum to put down bigotry, homophobia and xenophobia to find an AIDS cure, and in the meantime, to get treatment to everyone who needs it throughout the world. This issue is bigger than any one country, ideology, or political agenda. Real people are dying, adults and children! These people can be helped. How can we call ourselves civilized if we fail to hear their cries?
— The Curator
