January 2008 – Page 4

More Reasons to Love the Pill

And not just because it brought us a great Loretta Lynn song: A new study suggests that the birth control pill can decrease your risk of ovarian cancer.

According to the study, a woman’s ovarian cancer risk is cut by 20 percent for every five years she is on the pill. Researchers tracked women who had never taken the pill to those who had taken it for more than 15 years. They found that even 30 years after women had stopped taking the pill, they still had about a 15 percent reduced risk of getting ovarian cancer, compared to women who had never taken oral contraceptives.

The experts estimated that use of the pill so far has prevented about 200,000 cases of ovarian cancer and 100,000 deaths from the disease. Based on current levels of oral contraceptive usage, they guessed that 30,000 cases could be avoided every year.

Not bad.

Of course, the pill also has some side-effects that women should be aware of, but the ones that are the most over-hyped also tend to decrease once you stop using it:

While the pill protects against ovarian cancer, it slightly increases the chances of breast and cervical cancer. But those risks disappear after women stop taking oral contraceptives. And the pill also provides long-term protection against endometrial cancer, which affects the lining of the uterus.

The Pill isn’t for everyone, and a lot of women’s bodies don’t tolerate hormonal contraception. But for a lot of women, it’s a life-saver (quite literally).

Bringing Palestinians to Their Knees

The situation in Gaza should be of primary concern to anyone who cares about human rights; and for the more cynical among us, it should be of concern at the very least out of self-interest. As Soumaya Ghannoushi writes:

Since 9/11, many in the US have been grappling with the question “why do they hate us?” Enormous amounts of money were and continue to be, pumped into a public diplomacy strategy aimed at improving America’s image in the world. But the truth is that a mere glimpse of what goes on in Gaza today, or what went on in Jenin, Rafah, or Beit Hanoun before, is enough to undo the work of years of exchange programs, speaking tours, and PR campaigns. No amount of money, propaganda, or diplomacy can erase the scenes of blood, destruction, and starvation. That is the truth the administration and its hired band of apologists in the US and across the Atlantic are bending backward to conceal from our sights. But try as they may, the people of the region will see America not as it wishes to be seen, but as they experience it first hand: an occupier or an occupier’s accomplice.

Others have written about the situation in Palestine far more eloquently than I have, so I’ll point you in their direction:

–No Snow Here (most of the recent posts are about Gaza, and all are excellent)
–Raising Yousef: Down Goes the Wall
-Chris Hedges: The Strangulation of Palestinians in Gaza
-Brownfemipower: Tens of thousands of Palestinians break through border wall
-The Unapologetic Mexican: Tear Down the Wall
-Vox ex Machina: The Walls Came Tumbling Down

For more information on the widespread human rights crises across Israel and Palestine, I’d recommend B’Tselem – the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

93 Pounds is a Lot of Thongs

Steal my Hanky Panky panties and I will have your head.

Frat-boy prankster or panty-stealing pervert? We may never know:

A man who pleaded guilty to stealing 93 pounds of women’s undergarments in Pullman has been given a 45-day sentence.

Garth Flaherty, 24, may serve 30 days of his term in community service under the sentence he was given Friday in Whitman County Superior Court.

He pleaded guilty in an agreement with prosecutors after being charged with first-degree theft and burglary in the stealing of 1,613 pairs of panties, bras and other women’s underwear from laundry rooms.

Regular readers and people who know me in real life probably know about my special relationship with underwear: I LOVE IT. Some women have shoes, some women have handbags, I have lingerie. Lots of it (approximately a dresser and a half, plus a few bags under my bed and in my closet). I am very particular about it, and I surely spend too much money on it, but it brings me a lot of pleasure — and few things are more satisfying than walking around all day in comfortable, perfect-fitting, pretty underwear. Few things are more tragic than panties ruined or lost in the laundry, or a bra accidentally tossed in the washing machine or dryer.*

So this story offends me to my lingerie-loving core. I’ll probably have nightmares tonight about my favorite set cruelly stolen from the laundromat, only to end up in the paws of some half-wit frat boy who wouldn’t know Agent Provocateur from Fredrick’s of Hollywood.

And if that doesn’t keep me awake and terrified all night, the pictures I just saw when I made the mistake of google-imaging “thong” certainly will (for extra fun try “male thong”).

Thanks to Lauren for the link.

______________________
*If you’re not going to hand-wash your bras, a mesh lingerie wash bag is a life-saver (throw lacy or fancy panties in there too). Hook your bras closed before you wash them. And always air-dry.

Happy 20th Anniversary, Pro-Choice Canada!

UPDATE: My stars and stripes are showing; turns out the Morgetaler anniversary is on Monday.

~~Today~~ On Monday, Canadians celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision, which struck down Canada’s anti-abortion laws and ended the prosecution of Dr. Henry Morgentaler. And there’s a lot to celebrate — including Dr. Morgentaler himself, who is a pretty impressive man.

Morgentaler, a Polish Holocaust survivor who earned his medical training in Germany after being released from Auschwitz, came to Canada after med school graduation (he opposed Zionism and turned down a chance to live in Israel). He worked as a general practitioner in Canada, and began to see the damage illegal abortion did to women — and so he advocated for changing the laws, and began performing illegal abortions himself. Morgentaler eventually opened Canada’s first abortion clinic. He was arrested in 1970, tried, but acquitted by a jury. The acquittal was overturned, so he appealed, and was acquitted again. He was tried again in 1983, and this time the case went up to Canada’s Supreme Court. The Court held that the law under which Morgentaler was convicted was unconstitutional, ending most statutory restrictions on abortion in Canada.

Morgentaler was the victim of anti-choice terrorism in 1992, when his Toronto clinic was bombed. He wasn’t hurt. He won another Supreme Court case in 1993, this one about abortion regulations in the provinces. And he is currently working on opening two abortion clinics in the Canadian Arctic, in order to increase access to abortion services for women who live there. The slogan of his Ontario clinic is “Every Mother a Willing Mother, Every Child a Wanted Child.”

But, just as is the case with their neighbors to the south, Canada is in less-than-perfect shape when it comes to abortion rights. Their problems, though, are different from ours, as is their justification for abortion rights. Just check out what their Supreme Court said about abortion:

As the late Madam Justice Bertha Wilson wrote in the judgment, a woman has a right to continue or terminate a pregnancy, free of state interference.

No law is necessary because no law can do justice to this deeply personal decision.

“It is not just a medical decision,” Judge Wilson wrote. “It is a profound social and ethical one as well. It asserts that a woman’s capacity to reproduce is to be subject not to her control, but to that of the state.”

Dear Megan McArdle,

I’m with Becks; if you really think that poor people are fat simply because they make bad food choices, I’d suggest you take this challenge. See how well you can eat a healthy, well-balanced diet on a food stamp budget — that’s about $3 a day, by the way.

Cutting off money for food isn’t going to help low-income people eat better, and government-sponsored starvation is not the antidote to obesity. I know this is going to sound totally crazy, but if you give people access to fresh, healthy food they can actually afford, they’ll buy fresh, healthy food. If you give them $3 a day, they’ll buy ramen and frozen fish sticks.

I’ve never been obese, but my weight has fluxuated pretty significantly depending on my diet — and, strangely enough, I’ve been at my heaviest (and my least healthy) when I was stretched for cash and didn’t have access to a gym (or time to go). I was healthy as a kid in large part because my parents could afford and had time to prepare fresh, healthy food; I went to schools with gym classes and sports fields; my mom packed me a well-balanced lunch every day so I wasn’t eating tater tots in the cafeteria; and my parents could afford to put me on sports teams. Growing up in a body that was a socially acceptable size was largely a function of privilege coupled with genes. I gained weight once I was living out of their house and had to buy my own food on a limited budget, and I discovered very quickly that pasta is cheaper and more filling than fruits, veggies and whole grains. Shocking, I know. It’s Grad Student Economics, not brain surgery.

Are we seriously so cynical and so disgusted by obesity that it’s become acceptable to suggest cutting off food to the poor in order to make then thinner? And, the question I can’t get past, is why does Megan McArdle care if other people are fat? I mean, she clearly isn’t all that concerned with their health if she thinks that limiting the food supply is the solution to poverty-related obesity; so, with health off the table, why does she give a fuck about how fat my (or your) ass is?

Also, is McArdle unable to spend 15 seconds on google before she starts blaming poor people for being fat?

Plus what Zuzu said.

Sully is the new arbitrator of teh feminismz

Image courtesy of Amanda

Did you know that Sen. Clinton is betraying the feminist cause? Luckily, Andrew Sullivan is around to tell us what’s what. Because, you know, he has a great record of standing up for feminist causes, and keeping the movement pure is high on his list of priorities.

What is Hil doing this time to betray the sisterhood? Well, she’s having her husband campaign for her. Who does that bitch think she is?

Someone please make him head of the Feminist Police Squad.

This is your brain. This is your brain on Ayn Rand. Any questions?

Thought the whining of Aravosis was bad? Check out Megan McArdle on the economic stimulus package, and why she agrees with the GOP that food stamps shouldn’t be included:

1) The poor don’t need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don’t have an address), food insufficiency is not.

2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food…

5) The economy doesn’t need a food sector more distorted by daft government programs than it already is. If you want to give money to the poor, give it to them. Even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates.

See, if we give poor people food stamps, they’ll just buy food with them! And they’re already fatty fat fat! But if we give them money, they’ll just buy drugs. Which is better, because at least the drugs won’t make them fat.

Remember, kids: she gets paid for these fine opinions. Welfare for poor people is bad, but wingnut welfare? A-OK!

H/T: teratologist, who rightly notes that it’s getting really hard for the Onion to keep up.

Target does not participate with you.

Some feminist bloggers wrote to Target to complain about one of their ads. I don’t love the ad, but nor do I find it particularly offensive; I do, however, think Target’s response to the bloggers is pretty shitty:

Good Morning Amy,

Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.

Well then.

Knut is a psychopath and will never mate, say experts

Awwww. I don’t believe it. He is far too cute.

GOP’s Ideology over Sound Economics

It’s no big secret that Republicans seem to take great pleasure out of screwing poor people in this country. They usually manage to justify it economically, arguing something along the lines of “personal responsibility” and saying that helping the poor will be an economic burden on everyone else. The Republican ideal is, supposedly, a strong economy. It’s interesting, then, to be in a situation where a market crisis threatens everyone’s financial security, and the most effective provisions in the stimulus package give some aid to lower-income people — and Republicans oppose those provisions because aiding low-income people would be contrary to GOP values:

Changes reportedly made last night in the stimulus package would reduce its effectiveness as stimulus. Although the package includes a reasonably designed tax rebate, the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

The two respected institutions that have rated stimulus options in recent days — the Congressional Budget Office and Moody’s Economy.com — both give their two highest ratings for effectiveness as stimulus to the two measures that were dropped.

One point of contention, it seems, is that House Republicans want to focus on business tax cuts and tax rebate checks. But tax rebate checks wouldn’t be sent out until June, and business tax cuts won’t do a whole lot of good if consumers have significantly less spending power. Food stamps and unemployment insurance, on the other hand, would inject greater consumer spending power into the economy now, and we could see improvement in a month or two. Instead, the plan is to provide $50 billion dollars in business tax cuts, while excluding unemployment insurance and food stamps.

But it’s not just a matter of different values; it’s an issue of cold, hard cash and economic gain:

Economy.com found that for each dollar spent on extended UI benefits, $1.64 in increased economic activity would be generated. For each dollar in increased food stamp benefits, $1.73 in new economic activity would be generated. No other options rated as high.

Read More…Read More…