Blogs Comment on College Abstinence Clubs, Abortion Coverage Bans, Other Topics

February 19, 2010 — The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "The Chastity Ring-Around," Lena Chen, The American Prospect: Student-run abstinence groups "have cropped up on college campuses across the country," with pre-marital chastity "marketed to students as the 'true feminist' ideal," Chen writes. She adds that such groups "sell their message with a 'you go girl!' attitude, furthering the arguments made in books like The Thrill of The Chaste and Girls Gone Mild that chastity is counterrevolutionary." The campus abstinence movement "roots its advocacy in concern for 'traditional' marriage and publicly opposes same-sex marriage and reproductive rights, much like the national organizations that support it," according to Chen. She writes that the groups claim that "[p]reserving one's virginity ... is the only way to reverse the trend of failing marriages." However, "[i]n framing their arguments for chastity in this manner, abstinence proponents treat marriage as a goal that everyone should hold out for, all the while excluding queer sexuality from the equation," Chen continues, concluding, "But if the state of marriage is as bleak as they make it seem, then is virginity really the traditional family's savior?" (Chen, The American Prospect, 2/18).

~ "Roundup: The Slippery Slope of Abortion Coverage In Insurance," Rachel Larris, RH Reality Check: Larris writes that that the "only 'reform' imposed on the health insurance industry" as a result of the health overhaul debate could be the "removal of coverage of abortion services from both public and private insurance policies." On Wednesday, the Kansas House debated a bill "that would prohibit insurance providers from 'covering most elective abortions under basic Kansas health care policies,'" Larris reports. The bill would require people to purchase a separate insurance rider to cover abortion services, including in cases of rape or incest but not for cases in which the woman's life is in danger. The proposal was submitted by state Rep. Peter DeGraaf (R), who said, "I don’t think the rest of society should have to pay for abortions. There are plenty of insurance companies that want to make money." Larris writes, "When the debate was about the federal health care reform bills, the argument for the Stupak-Pitts amendment was that the federal government shouldn't force taxpayers to subsidize abortion coverage for women -- even if in reality women would be paying for insurance with their own money." DeGraaf has changed the debate by arguing that "those who pay into insurance subsidiz[e] others' coverage -- which under his reasoning should give them some 'right' to control other people's insurance policies," Larris says, adding, "Anti-choice lawmakers are now using the same language for tax dollars and applying it to private monies" (Larris, RH Reality Check, 2/18).

~ "Colorado 'Personhood Initiative' Meets Signature Threshold," Robin Marty, RH Reality Check: Marty writes that supporters of a "personhood" ballot initiative in Colorado say they have gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the 2010 state ballot. The ballot initiative asks voters to amend the state Constitution so that "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." According to Marty, the 79,817 signatures that have been gathered is "significantly less" than the amount gathered in 2008, when the ballot initiative was rejected 73% to 27%. She writes, "In order for the initiative to make it onto the ballot, 95% of the signatures submitted must be verified as registered Colorado voters" (Marty, RH Reality Check, 2/17).

~ "Pushing Babies: The Assault on Childless Women," Elizabeth Gregory, Huffington Post blogs: Gregory, an author and director of the Women's Studies Program at the University of Houston, writes, "Childless women of all ages are under assault in America," with teens "pushed toward motherhood by 'moralizers' bent on denying" them access to birth control and older women bombarded by media-created "fertility anxiety." She notes, "When you consider that 2007 saw an upturn in the birthrate in every age category between 10 and 45 as U.S. births hit an all-time high, there's a clear disconnect between the high rates of birth for women 35 plus and the claims of the anxiety peddlers." Gregory continues, "What's left out of all these stories is why women wait" to have children, such as finishing their education, obtaining a better job, traveling or finding the right long-term partner. According to Gregory, when these reasons are ignored, "everybody loses." She writes, "The lack of good childcare systems and flexible schedules means many college-educated women who become mothers, like teen moms, are locked into limited career paths that ensure long-term low wages and a limited voice in business and public policy creation." Gregory continues, "Because fertility is experienced as a very personal issue by everybody, it ends up getting very little critical discussion, and that's a big problem since many women then end up with bad information on which to make life-shaping decisions." She says, "Time for an honest exploration of the dynamics of birth timing and women's work" (Gregory, Huffington Post blogs, 2/17).