Saturday, December 27, 2008

Sex in The News:: Revisited

I don't read or watch the news very often, but I like to skim through the sex-related articles every not and then to see whats up.

Of course, the news typically sucks...with all those silly anti-sex people running around. Which introduces our first story...

New Rule Hurts Women:

"Bush's Last Word; Imposition sets back reproductive rights"

So, it seems Bush finally decided to make morals part of science. Fucker. This new..."imposition" basically says that any doctor, nurse, or medical worker can refuse to do just about anything when it comes to reproductive health. In any federally funded health center/hospital, any worker has the right to refuse to participate in any (sexual health related) act or distribution of information without any punishments or reciprocation.

Don't "believe" in the morning after pill? You don't have to give it to your crying patient (even if she's a rape victim!). You don't even have to tell her it exists. If she asks for it, you can just say no, because it's what you "believe in".
Then, when that patient gets pregnant because you denied her basic information, you can refuse to give her an abortion (because it's what you "believe in"), forcing her to find help elsewhere.

Think contraception, condoms, and birth control pills encourage promiscuity? You don't have to prescribe a single box, bottle, or pack, even if they're requested by your patient.

For those of you reading who don't care so much about contraceptive rights, well, how about HIV/AIDS?
The list of "potentially objectionable" procedures could even include treatments for, and information about, HIV/AIDS.
And I'm sure there are lots of homophobes and anti-sex assholes that would love to deny those dying their treatment. Because, as we all know, AIDS only happens to "the gays", and they're on their way to hell anyways. *insert rolly-eyed face here*

It's going to take Obama for-fricking-ever to fix this crap. Let's hope he really takes the time to do it.

Saudi women's group assails judge over 8-year-old's marriage

This one's interesting. And sad.
An 8-yr-old in Saudi Arabia was given to her father's friend as a wife, essentially, as payment to settle debts. Women's Rights activists fought to get the marriage annulled, but the judge ruled (partially) in favor of the father.
The ruling forbids the husband from consemating the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, at which time the girl will be allowed to appeal for divorce.
As if the husband actually would keep his hands off his little prize for the next five or more years. Oh wait, maybe that's really 2 or 3 years? When's puberty in Saudi Arabia?

At least the judge did something a little positive, but its doubtful the ruling will do a damned thing to really help the girl. Poor thing.

But this shit happens all the time, and at least someone's fighting for the girl, even if they didn't get it quite this time. There's more on this story here, and here.


Clarisse Teagen said...


I read this book called Burned Alive,
it's far worse on the West Bank of Pakistan. .

RBV said...

I really hope that Obama fixes this shit as well. This gives health care professionals the ability to mislead patients and no matter how much you know about your own reproductive system, you still might not know what they're doing to be misleading.

In terms of the Saudi Arabia case, I agree that it's tragic according to my own moral compass, but I am always hesitant to pass judgment on a different culture and interject my own beliefs. Where do you draw the line? Why don't advocates protect little boys in America from being circumcised? I think it's best not to look upon other cultures with a sense of a moral absolute.