CNN - Now They're Just Assholes

Approximately 5 minutes after McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, a male reporter on CNN just asked another reporter something along the lines of, “Palin also has a baby with Down’s Syndrome. Those children require an awful lot of care. Do you think she’ll be able to balance taking care of that baby with being Vice President? I mean, having a Down’s Syndrome baby takes up a lot of time and energy.” (emphasis mine)

The (female) reporter answered by saying that the McCain campaign would probably point out that a similar question wouldn’t be asked of a man. She then said that although Palin “unfortunately” has a baby with Down’s Syndrome, having that baby was a choice she made knowingly as a person with strong anti-abortion views, and that may endear her to conservative voters.

How many times did that make you want to throw up? "Yes, her decision to have a disabled baby could make it impossible for her to have a political career, but she brought that on herself since she's anti-abortion." How...sweet?

Goodie...now we'll have the ultimate martyr - a working woman who claims to feel blessed because her child has Down Syndrome. Gee, I wonder if she'll have any understanding at all for women who don't want to get pregnant or have children?

Calling it Abortion Instead of Birth Control Didn't Work, Now I'll Act Like I'm Protecting Doctors

The Health and Human Services new proposal, which would reclassify methods of birth control such as the pill, patch, ring and IUD as abortifacients, got too much criticism. You can read more details here.

Now the HHS has released a revised version of the proposal, which removed the redefinition of contraception as abortion, but centers on the idea of protecting doctors that are morally opposed to abortion and refuse to refer patients to other doctors that do perform abortions. That's right, if a doctor wants to block your attempt to have a legal abortion, this proposal would protect that doctor's right to do so. RH Reality Check has a great article on the revised proposal.

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt has been trying to argue that the justification for these new regulations are because the poor doctors who would want to be Board certified OBGYNs would be FORCED to provide abortion services in order to be certifed, and forcing doctors to provide medical services that they disagree with is wrong. You can't keep someone from being a gynecologist just because they don't want to provide abortions! Except, oh, wait...there is nothing that requires OBGYNs to perform abortions...there are plenty of OBGYNS that don't offer abortions NOW, and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology has publicly stated, multiple times, that whether or not an OBGYN performs abortions will have no bearing upon their certification or re-certification. Leavitt doesn't seem to have an answer to this, so he just keeps ignoring the fact that this new argument of his is wrong. I guess he doesn't want to come right out and say that he wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

Here's an idea - why don't we all go over to Secretary Leavitt's blog right now and leave him some comments letting him know how we feel about these proposed regulations? The proposal is also open for public comment, it's HHS_FRDOC_0001. And check out this excellent comment on Leavitt's blog!

I've been trying to figure out when I can fit my tubal into my schedule, with work and personal and family events, since I'll need to allow a few days for recovery time. This makes me want to run out and get it RIGHT NOW!

Food for Thought

I came across a comment on a feminist blog I read regularly and it made such a good point that I thought it was worth posting here. It just really made me think.

“Now, I firmly think abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but holy shit.”

While it does certainly suck that your friend had such a shitty encounter, I have an issue with the above sentence. If abortion shouldn’t be used as another form of birth control, what should it be used for then? Should it only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and health?

When talking to anti-choicers they use they same rhetoric because it feeds into the notion that women who have elective abortions are heartless selfish bitches who enjoy killing babies. Having an abortion is not easy, as you can see from calling all the clinics. I live in Northern Nevada and there is only one abortion clinic and it will cost you $600 cash only. I highly doubt that there is a woman who thinks, in the heat of the moment; yeah I could use a $3 condom or $25 pack of birth control but nah I will just wait till I get pregnant so I can have a painful $600 abortion. If a women used abortion as her sole method of birth control she would have more than 30 in her lifetime, seems pretty costly to be.

I just don’t think we should judge women who have abortions.

Of course, the problem with making abortion legal only in cases of rape, incest, and immediate threat to the mother's health are all problematic, because they all need to be legally defined. Does the woman have to prove that she is a victim or rape or incest before she can get an abortion? If that's the case, she'll never be able to get one by the legal cutoff for the late term abortion ban kicks in. So then she is screwed by the legal system.

Making exceptions only for an immediate threat to the woman's health is also problematic, as this story shows. Just something to think about. And keep in mind, John McCain and others who agreed with him voted against requiring health insurance companies to cover birth control. Not a lot of options if you don't want to be pregnant.

My Feelings for John McCain in a Nutshell

Beautifully done!

Why Obama Trivializing the Ban on Late Term Abortions is Problematic - and Arrogant

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama recently clarified his position on late term abortion to the publisher of Relevant magazine:

"...I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

Did that sound okay to you? It probably would to most people. But here is one of the best cases I've ever heard for not marginalizing "mental distress", and requiring and "immediate" risk to the mother's health, for exceptions to the late term abortion ban.

Maryland Wants to Make "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" Tell the Truth

I've lived in Maryland almost all my life. You do occasionally see signs that say "Pregnant? Scared? Call us, we'll help." Those are "crisis pregnancy centers". And no, they don't help. They have staff with no medical training who give women sonograms and spout pro-life propaganda at them, outright lying about contraception and abortion, and pressuring women against terminating their pregnancies, regardless of their situations.

The bill would force such "crisis pregnancy centers" to tell the truth about their mission and the fact that their staff is not qualified to provide sonograms, read sonograms, or provide any reproductive health information, and that they are in fact "pro life"(anti-choice) based organizations.

This article in the Frederick News Post has a great quote:

Delegate Joseph Bartlett, a Frederick County Republican, said the centers should be able to continue to operate normally.

“The premise that we’re going to require these organizations to disclaim that they don’t have to tell the truth is just about the silliest thing I ever heard,” he said. “We certainly don’t do that in the case of politicians, do we?”

So, I wonder how he got into office?

Finally!

My doctor called me back this morning about the Nuva Ring. I told her what happened, and she said that was very unusual. I guess the majority of women who use the Nuva Ring don't have problems with it sliding down, but if you look at the online reviews, there are women who have that problem.

Anyway, she said she would be fine with doing a tubal ligation for me, but she wanted me to wait 3 months (which is better than the 6 months she previously said!) and then come in and talk to her about getting it done. In the meantime I'm thinking of using the sponge. My doctor said I should use it with a condom. Hmmm. Well, it's only for three months!

Dumb Question of the Week

So I called my OBGYN's office to let her know that NuvaRing dod not work for me, since it wouldn't stay in place. The receptionist took a message. When I told her I couldn't use NuvaRing because it would not stay in place, she asked "And you're sure you're putting it in right?"

Okay, keep in mind that when I talked to my doctor about the NuvaRing on Tuesday, I had said I would worry about having it in right, and she said "There is no one right way."

So, does the receptionist think I'm some kind of imbecile? I mean, look at the Nuva Ring. You have to hold the sides together so that you can get it up there, and then you push it as far back as you can. Yeah, I'm too stupid to do that correctly.

So I firmly replied "YES." and she said "Okay...I'll give her the message."

Let Freedom Ring? Not So Much...

Well, the NuvaRing just didn't work out for me. I did have some minor pain/tenderness in that area after inserting it, but I thought that would go away. But, it didn't. But the big issue was that it wouldn't stay in place. You are supposed to push it as far back as you possibly can. Well, I did. But...it didn't stay there. It kept sliding down. Not out, but down. Sometimes I was freakin' walking around the office at work and I could feel the thing sliding down. Not pleasant. This morning I was washing in the shower and I could feel the stupid ring poking out. Um, that would DEFINETELY be a mood killer in the bedroom. And the fact that it wouldn't stay in place and kept sliding down did not instill confidence in me that it was a reliable method of birth control. So I did a Google search on Nuva Ring reviews, and it's a little scary. After 2 days of pushing it as far back as I possibly could, I realized it's not staying in place, so I just threw it out. Ugh.

In reading the reviews it sounds like a fair number of women had the same issue. I wonder why on earth they don't have different sizes? I mean, off the bat, I'd think that women that have had kids might need bigger ones, and young women who haven't had kids may need smaller ones. And hey, people's bodies vary. It's not a one size fits all situation, obviously. Oh well. The birth control search continues.

So Cool!

So the NuvaRing welcome kit comes with a little timer. You start it when you put the NuvaRing in, and it beeps when it's time to put in the new one. But the REALLY cool thing, which really appeals to the techie geek in me, si that you can download a NuvaTime app to your computer!

Good News!

I saw a new OBGYN today. She's new at the practice that I've been going to for about 3 years now. I needed to discuss birth control options with her. My dermatologist put me on antibiotics for a couple of months, and of course, that "may decrease the effectiveness of the pill", and I'm not using condoms for the whole 5 or 6 months I'm taking antibiotics, because then what'ss the point of being on the pill, right?

So I talked to her about different options. Implanon - no. Most women who try it have a lot of breakthrough bleeding, even after several months, so then end up having it removed and going to another method. Well, who wants to deal with that? Nobody.

Mirena - it's an IUD that also uses hormones to prevent pregnancy. For women who have not had kids, the insertion can be more painful, and there is a risk (although not a huge one) that you could expel your uterus. Yes, that's right. Your entire fucking uterus. I basically said "Okay, next option?"

Nuva Ring - this one I wasn't sure about. I thought I would worry about whether or not it was in right, etc. My doctor said there is no one "right way". You can feel to check and make sure it's still in. If it's in, as long as it's not uncomfortable, you're good. You remove it every 21 days to have your period. I asked if there was a risk of it coming out during sex. She said it's uncommon, but if it does happen, you rinse it off and put it back in. It can be removed for up to 3 hours without risk of pregnancy.

Wow, well, that sounds...really good! And easy! She explained how to put one in, then left me alone to try it. I happened to be at the end of my period now, so after putting it in and taking it out (to make sure I could), I put it back in.

I don't feel anything at all. I forgot it's there. So for the next couple of months (or until I plan out the rest of my vacation time for the year) it's Nuva Ring.

I did tell her that I don't want kids, and that I have known that for about 4 years now, and am very comfortable with it and sure about it. I'm 32, and the other doctors at that practice didn't want to do a tubal because I'm not married and don't have kids, and were afraid that I might change my mind later. Heh.

She didn't bat an eyelash, and said "At 32 you pretty much know your own mind." We talked about it a bit, and she asked some questions: how does my boyfriend feel? Would he consider having a vasectomy, since it's simpler and less invasive than a tubal? What if we broke up and I met someone who wanted kids? I said "But I still wouldn't want kids, so I wouldn't be with someone who wanted kids." She said take about six months or so to think about it, since it's irreversible, and then if after that, I still wanted to do it, she would do it!

For Anyone Who Wonders Why Feminism is Still Necessary...

I'll try not to gag or barf as I type this:

• female golfer not allowed to compete in tournament at her own country club; club officials called HER FATHER, not her, to tell him of the decision. And this is in Massachusettes, the state that allows gay marriage!
  
• Ithaca College in NY considers drug use by RAs to be grounds for immediate dismissal, and did fire an RA for marijuana use, but allowed an RA who admitted to raping a student to keep his job.
  
• A private school asks a female referee to leave a game because they do not believe that women should be in a position of authority over boys. Props to her colleague, a male ref who also walked off the field with her.
  
• And it's not enough that some doctors and pharmacists HAVE the right to deny women contraceptives, but now, some doctors in Canada are refusing to do PAP tests because of "religious objections". WTF??? Then don't become an OBGYN! Gee, I wonder if they'd have regligious objections to treating a man with erectile dysfunction? Somehow I think not.

All I can say is...don't let anyone tell you that the struggle for equality is over, because that's bullshit. I need a drink.

Missouri wants PlanB Classified as Abortion Inducing

This is why all adults need to keep an eye on this stuff. Birth control matters. Reproductive health matters. If we don't pay attention, each state, one by one, is going to try shit like this.

OK, let me see if I have this straight. Based on what I have always read, heard and understood, the medical community considers pregnancy to begin when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining. There are plenty of times when eggs are fertilized, but do not implant in the uterine lining, and pass out of the woman's body without a pregnancy ever developing. That just happens naturally. That is not abortion.

In college I did a research paper on the difference with which pregnancy is described in regard to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and abortion. Women who undergo IVF have several fertilized eggs placed in the uterus to increase chances that at least one of those fertilized eggs will become implanted in the uterine lining. What blows me away is that right on the FAQ page of most sites for places which provide IVF, you'll find something similar to this:

What happens to any extra pre-embryos?
A: A maximum of four pre-embryos will be transferred to the uterus for possible implantation. Patients will have several other options regarding the disposition of the remaining pre-embryos. One option is to freeze pre-embryos for your later use. Other options are to donate or simply dispose of them. Excess pre-embryos, if any, belong to you, and you will determine what is to be done.

So if you do get pregnant and you have any leftover fertilized eggs, you can just toss those out or freeze them for later. It's totally up to the couple, since they "own" the eggs.

Uh, excuse me? How is it that couples who have "extra" fertilized eggs laying around, and just leave them in a freezer or toss them out and nobody gets all up in arms about it or tries to pass laws against it?

Not only that, but women who have 3 or 4 embryos implant can decide to have "multifetal pregnancy reduction", or "selective termination". Basically, abort some of the ebryos. Nobody gets upset about that either. That's okay, as long as you are having SOME babies.

OK, then how about this: instead of abortion, doctors can just "harvest" the fertilized egg and the woman can then decide if she wants to freeze it for later or just toss it out. Somehow, I don't think anyone would go for that. Because the truth is that the Right to Life nutjobs who support this kind of idiocy just don't want women to be able to take control of their reproductive health. They want a situation where women have sex only at risk of getting pregnant and carrying the pregnancy to term.

So women who don't want kids, have use birth control but have it fail - it's not okay for them to have abortions. But for couples who spend $10,000 and up on IVF, it's okay for them to toss out their extra embryos, nobody gets upset about that.

Sex Toys No Longer Illegal in Texas

Check out this article. What I find particlarly telling is this excerpt from a brief in the case explaining why Texas has laws banning sex toys and until 2003, had a law prohibiting consensual sex between people of the same sex:

Texas has legitimate 'morality based' reasons for the laws, which include "discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation."

So basically, the state of Texas only wants people to have sex if they intend on making babies. Not to enjoy sex or experience intimacy with a partner or loved one. The thing that scares me is that this sounds a lot like the hard core pro-lifers who want to ban hormonal forms of birth control so that women can't protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy if they have sex, and also want to ban abortion. Gee, do you think they have an agenda?

Anti Choicers Defeat Bill to Make Contraceptives More Accessible

So, lemme see if I have this right...so called "pro life" legislators in South Dakota voted against and defeated a bill that would have protected access to contraceptives.

Some pharmacists believe that hormonal forms of birth control and the morning after pill (Plan B) cause abortions, and therefore refuse to dispense them. Currently, they legally allowed to do this by South Dakota state law. The bill would have drawn a clear line between contraceptives and abortifacients, which would have made it illegal for a South Dakota pharmacist to refuse to fill a birth control prescription.

That can't be right. Wait - they are against abortion, so doesn't it make sense that they would support laws that would help to decrease the abortion rate by making it easier for women to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Apparently not. According to them, a 16 year old girl needs parental permission to obtain birth control. Seriously. How realistic is that? And how many teenage girls have the type of relationship with their parents where they can realistically ask for a permission slip so she can get a prescription for birth control?

The article states:

Kimberly Martinez, executive director of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls, which provides services to women and men involved in unplanned pregnancies, opposed the bill and applauded the Senate for its majority decision Wednesday..."The key to reducing the number of unwed pregnancies and abortions in South Dakota is sexual integrity relationship education, which includes healthy decision making, healthy relationships and refusal skills," Martinez said.

Oh, so she just thinks that girls need to be taught to say no to sex unless they intend on making a baby. So if a 16 or 17 year old girl wants to have sex with her boyfriend, any pharmacist in the state of South Dakota can refuse to dispense her birth control prescription. And if a grown woman doesn't want to have children, weather or not she is married, then she is in the same situation - have sex at risk of pregnancy, because getting birth control will be a gamble.

A gynecologist who lives and practices in South Dakota disagreed. Maria Bell, who specializes in gynecologic oncology at Sanford Clinic Women's Health, said 95 percent of all women in South Dakota will use a method of birth control at some point in their lives. She added doctors prescribe birth control for reasons other than contraception, such as regulating menstrual cycles or treating ovarian cysts.

"I'm confused as to why more doctors, citizens ... aren't up in arms over this," Bell said of the bill's defeat. "To be denied birth control by the personal beliefs of pharmacists is really appalling."

Because issues like that are never covered on the evening news or on cnn.com or major newspapers. That's why looking at independent news sources is so important. Otherwise the important things like this slip by unnoticed, and you don't realize that you missed your chance to do something about it until you go to your local pharmacy and your pharmacist refuses to fill your prescription, like Karen Romano, the first woman featured in this video:

Those Pesky Facts

I love the site RH Reality Check. They provide such great factual information, and have such cool sections, including Policy Watch, Issue Briefs, Election 2008 (which posts surveys that candidates filled out), Fact. v. Fiction and Reckless Rhetoric.

Today their blog has a fantastic article by Dr. Poppema, who was an abortion provider for many years. She completely takes down four common myths about abortion, including my favorite, the "Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control" cry. I have never, ever heard of, let alone met, someone who used abortion as their only method of birth control. But anti-choice people always assure people that there are Evil Women out there who have tons of unprotected sex, then skip off to get an abortion. Yeah, because it's so cheap and easy on a woman's body. Dr. Poppema says:

I hear this one so frequently and yet in decades of providing abortion services to more than 30,000 women, I met only two women who used abortion as a birth control method...These two women experienced blood clots while on birth control pills, ectopic pregnancies with the IUD, and they were allergic to latex condoms and spermicide. Using the rhythm method with abortion as backup was the best method for them. I've never met a woman who cavalierly chose abortion as her method of birth control.

I've always wanted to see statistics to back that claim up as well. So far none of the anti choicers using that as a reason to ban abortion have been able to provide any factual support for that assertion.

My second favorite is the assumption that only stupid or irresponsible sluts need abortions. The good doctor tackles that one as well:

Until we have a foolproof, easy-to-use form of birth control-in my opinion, that would be a pill, paid for by insurance, taken only once a year, with absolutely no side effects or adverse reactions, and absolutely no failures -- then we cannot condemn women for having unintended pregnancies.

Bingo!

I'm Still Here

I was touched to receive a comment from Feminist Gal today asking "Where are you? You haven't posted in a while." Wow, people actually read my blog, how cool! Well, I'm here. Last week I got a horrific virus that had me puking my guts up for about 10 hours and landed me in the ER due to dehydration. Fun fun. My poor boyfriend had to take me to the ER at 4:45 am, where even though there were only 2 other people in the waiting room we had to wait over an hour, and I had to keep walking to the bathroom to puke.

Speaking of which, whenever a woman of child bearing age who isn't sterilized goes to the doctor or hospital, for any kind of illness, they HAVE to see if you are pregnant. Fine, I understand that they have to take that precaution because many medications can't be given to pregnant women. They asked me if I was pregnant and when my last period was. I answerd that no, I was not pregnant and that my period had just ended. The nurse asks "Is there a chance you could be pregnant?" Well, yeah, I guess, but it has to be pretty damn small since I just told you I just finished my period and I use birth control. I mean, I'm not a statistician, but what kind of answer are they looking for? Since I haven't had a form of permanent sterilization, I can't give them an absolute no.

Then, since my boyfriend is, of course, sitting and waiting with me, one nurse keeps calling me "Mrs." even though I correct her. What, she's never heard of anyone living with their significant other? That wasn't that bad though. Once I was at Georgetown University Hospital, which is Catholic, and even though I was there without my boyfriend at the time, EVERYONE there called me "Mrs." For some reason they seemed to assume that any female over 25 must be married. Weird.

In other news, I made an appointment with a different doctor to talk to her about getting a tubal. My boyfriend and I actually discussed this while at the hospital last week. I was telling him that all of the forms of hormonal birth control had side effects that ruled them out for me, or made me not want to try them. I said "I wish I could just have my tubes tied, that way I could just take the pill to keep my periods under control." He agreed and said it would make the most sense. Then I thought "Wouldn't it be great to NEVER have to worry about getting pregnant again? Yes, yes it would!"

So I have an appointment for next Wednesday. We'll see how it goes. I am going to tell her that I've known for four years that I don't want to have children and that hasn't changed. I'm 32, so hopefully she will take me seriously. If she shows hesitation (as other doctors have) I'll ask at what magic age she will be comfortable giving me a tubal. Or Essure, I'll ask her about that too. That would make my life easier!

The Fight for Choice - Basic Birth Control is Under Attack Too

Two headlines on Alternet caught my eye today, because they spoke about topics I have mentioned on this blog repeatedly before:

• "The Problems With Anti-Choice Laws Begin at Conception" - Colorado’s ballot initiative, led by 20 year-old Kristi Burton, could do much more than overturn Roe v. Wade this fall.
  
  
• "Anti-Choice, Anti-Contraception Activists Have a Friend in Huckabee" - Mike Huckabee's "consistent pro-life position" is about more than abortion - he's against basic birth control, too.

An excerpt from the article on Huckabee:

Today, Governor Mike Huckabee is scheduled to travel to Georgia to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. There he plans to join Georgia Right to Life to lend his support, as well as the focus of the national media, to HR 536. This legislation, also called the Human Life Amendment, is a state constitutional amendment that reclassifies the most effective and popular forms of contraception as abortion. The goal of the amendment is to create a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade while also defining life as beginning at fertilization. The anti-abortion movement believes that hormonal contraception (the pill, the patch, the depo shot, the nuva ring, the IUD) can destroy a fertilized egg. By setting in law the assertion -- the unproveable assertion -- that life begins at the moment of fertilization, the most common forms of contraception become abortion. (emphasis mine)

Hear that everyone? No more birth control. You have to rely on condoms, which are not exactly the most reliable form of birth control. And if you have a baby, it's your fault, you deserve it, and you have to raise it. It's your "punishment" for having sex.

What Does "Choice" Mean? Blogging for Choice Day

Some people think that pro choice means pro abortion. To me, choice means, well, having choices. I don't see abortion as the only choice, either. Those choices include access to education about sexual health, birth control, and sexually transmitted diseases, and access to reliable birth control. Since modern medicine has not provided us with any form of birth control that is 100% foolproof (other than long term sterilization), then yes, I think abortion should be one of the choices available to women. I don't think that people should use abortion as a preferred method of birth control (personally, I don't know of anyone that does, but people always seem sure that there are women who do this) - I would hope that all women had the information and access to birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Even then, nothing is foolproof and they all have less than great side effcts.

In an ideal world, everyone would have access to and use birth control perfectly and there would never be an unwanted pregnancy.

However, we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where many children hear little to nothing about "the facts of life" or "the birds and the bees" from their parents, because their parents heard NOTHING about it from their parents, and grew up too ashamed and embarassed to talk about sex. We live in a world where for the past 7 years, the Bush administration has pushed and promoted abstinence only sexual education, which makes it possible for teenagers to leave high school not knowing how to protect themselves against pregnancy or STDs.

We live in a world where there are politicians, well known politicians (ahem, Fuckabee), who belong to the Right to Life Committee, which believes that hormonal birth control is a form of abortion, and therefore should be banned.

We live in a world where things don't always work the way they are supposed to. There are always going to be situations where birth control is used correctly and it fails. As it is, women who use the pill and other forms of hormonal birth control such as the ring, the patch, the injection, the hormonal IUD and the implant have to be very careful about other medications and supplements interfereing with their birth control. One mistake and you could get pregnant. I had asked my doctor about a couple of methods of birth control, but the side effects were daunting: weight gain (more than just 3 to 5 pounds), irregular bleeding, heavier periods (who the hell wants that?), mood swings, depression, heavier cramping, increasing the chance of ovarian cysts (which I have a history of), exacerbating migraines (I get those too), painful insertion of IUD if you haven't had a child, and the risk of perforating the uterus. So...no easy choices. And since I'm in my early 30's, I can't find a doctor who will do a tubal ligation for me.

This is something I've been wrestling with for the past few months. There are no easy answers. In the meantime, my boyfriend and I have been using condoms and spermicide. Well, a few weeks ago, something happened that had never happened before. The condom slid off. Neither of us noticed until afterwards. When we found it panic gripped my stomach - what were the chances? I didn't even know at that point that the morning after pill was available over the counter in the county I live in. I was really scared. And yes, the condom was put on correctly and yes, it was the same box of the same brand we'd been using. Shit happens.

At 9 am the next morning I called my gynecologist's office. The doctor called me back within 10 minutes and told me go call pharmacies until I found one that kept Plan B in stock. She asked when I'd had sex, and said that at this point in time, the Plan B would be 90% effective. Thank goodness my regular pharmacy did, so I didn't have to call several pharmacies until I found one that didn't have a moral objection to it. I ran over to get it, showed my ID to prove that I was over 18, came home, and took the first pill, setting my cell phone to beep when it was time for me to take the second pill. I had some mild cramping during the day, but Aleve took care of it. I got my period a few days later and thanked God that I was able to take control and choose to not to risk becoming pregnant.

If I hadn't gotten my period within 5 days, I would have had to take a pregnancy test. And it if was positive, I would not have hesitated to make arrangements for a medical abortion.

Some people might think that makes me selfish. I think it's selfish to put a woman in a situation where she has no option but to have a child out of a sense of obligation, even though she doesn't want that child, and doesn't want to raise that child. I do believe that every child should be a wanted child, and no woman should be forced into motherhood. My biological father didn't want me, and that is not something that any child should have to deal with. I know I don't want kids, so I will do everything in my power to make sure I don't get pregnant. If that fails, I'll do everything I can to make sure I don't have an unwanted child. Besides, the foster care system is far from perfect...once these unwanted children are born, where are they all going to go? You just have to turn on the evening news to see that no, not all parents are magically "ready" when their babies are born.

Women, even young women in high school, are having sex. Parents can turn a blind eye and try to ignore this, but it's happening. I'd much rather educate kids and make sure they know how to protect their health and prevent unwanted pregnancy than leave it all to chance and continue to see girls drop out and have their options in life limited.

Adult women, even unmarried ones, are having sex. And not all married couples want to have babies! The women that do want to have babies want to control when they have a baby - after they get their master's degree, after they get to a certain point in their careers, etc. We need to fight to keep that freedom - the freedom to choose whether or not we want to be mothers, and if we do, when.

Check out others who blogged for choice today.

Why You Should Care About Roe v. Wade

Take a look at Portugal, where abortions are only legal in cases of rape or the pregnancy endangering the life of the mother. And there's more:

"An abortion must be performed by, or under the direction of, a physician within the first 12 weeks of gestation on the grounds of preserving the woman’s physical or mental health or in the case of rape; or within 16 weeks if there is a risk that the child will be born with an incurable disease or malformation. The existence of these circumstances must be certified in writing by a physician other than the one performing the procedure. This certification must be accompanied by the written consent of the woman requesting the abortion, not less than three days prior to the date of the procedure; women under age 16 must have the consent of the husband, parents or, in their absence, any relative."

Recently, a doctor in Portugal was sentenced to 3 years and 8 months in jail for performing illegal abortions, the doctor's assistant got 16 months, and the three woman who got an illegal abortion from this doctor were each sentenced to 6 months jail time.

Finding information on contraceptive availability in Portugal is difficult. You'd think a country that has such strict laws on abortion would make contraceptives highly and easily available, but we are seeing here in the U.S. that isn't the case, with recent laws raising the cost of the birth control pill on college campuses and clinics which serve low income women. Let's face it, condoms and other over the counter contraceptives are not 100% effective, and it's just smart to use a more reliable method like the pill as well. But now, thousands of college students and lower income women will no longer have this option, since the price of the birth control pills have risen to 3 or 4 times their previous cost on college campuses and about 400 community health centers across the U.S. So, while we are in danger of Roe v. Wade being overturned, we are also in danger of losing access to affordable contraceptives. That's what scares me about candidates like Fuckabee, who spew this "sanctity of life" crap as a reason for wanting to ban all abortion, and at the same time are members of the National Right to Life committee, which is against hormonal birth control because they think it causes abortions. Who wants to live in a country that doesn't want women to be able to enjoy sex without worrying about conceiving?