Last month, I wrote a story on why the government won’t fund local youth AIDS prevention group WAIT (or Washington AIDS International Teens). WAIT’s problem was this:

a. Their goal was stopping the spread of HIV.

b. Their methodology was abstinence.

c. The government only funds one or the other.

Last week, President Obama proposed to add another roadblock to their fight for funding by cutting abstinence-only cash from the budget altogether.

Now, groups like WAIT, which represent the most practical side of abstinence eduction—delaying sex only to prevent an uncurable deadly disease—will remain, well, pretty much unaffected. As I detailed in my piece, federally-funded abstinence-only education was always itself too much of a “comprehensive” strategy. In order to receive federal funding, abstinence groups couldn’t just work against AIDS—they also had to teach prevention of “out-of-wedlock pregnancy”; that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity”; and that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”

So while proponents of comprehensive sex education rejoice at the White House rule, some abstinence advocates, at least, aren’t lamenting the move: abstinence’s realists have always been left behind.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

In a blog post entitled Sigh . . ., El Guapo in DC makes his triumphant return by lamenting the mass exodus of high-heel wearing ladies from the district. “Ballerina flats,” he writes. “Si, ballerina shoes. The women of DC have for some reason turned to wearing ballerina shoes. Have they done this to spite me? I think so. Is this their way of telling me that I’ve mistreated women in the past? Lo siento. En serio, I’m sorry. Please, por favor, put the heels back on. I cannot take this anymore.”

El Guapo shies from outright blaming the return of “the footwear equivalent of sweatpants” on “that Latino president that is in the White House (Yes, he’s part Guatemalan. No black man is that smooth).”

“I don’t want to point fingers,” he writes. “No fingers pointing at Obama. But there were no ugly ballerina shoes when Bush was in town. All heels. All the time. . . . Please bring the heels back. You look horrible. Seriously.”

Okay. I’ll bite. Are Democratic women more likely to wear flat shoes? I voted for Obama, and have never worn any shoe north of a half-inch heel for more than a very uncomfortable afternoon. Coincidence? Probably.

But aren’t Democratic women more likely to be hippies, who are more likely to ride bikes, which are more likely to require flat feet [Fig. 1]?

FIGURE 1:

OBAMA —> HIPPIES —> BICYCLES —> BALLERINA SHOES

Bushies, on the other hand, were rich enough to not have to care about the environment, OR to display their token hippiedom by using special lightbulbs and staging charity balls for trees, to which they traveled in taxis, which are far more accomodating of the high heel [Fig. 2].

FIGURE 2:

BUSH —> $$$ —> LIGHTBULBS/ CHARITY BALLS —> TAXIS —> HIGH HEELS

Proof.

Photo by Kekka

Today, Mike Madden published a piece on Salon about the conservative tea-bagging parties staged across the country to protest Obama’s first Tax Day. In it, Madden quoted Brian Smith, a Greenville, S.C., man who attended the Washington, D.C. Lafayette Park protest while in town on business. Writes Madden:

Another seemingly sedate protester, Brian Smith, a marketer from Greenville, S.C., who was in Washington on business and came by the rally, wandered equally off message. “I love my country and I don’t like what’s going on,” Smith said. “Government—to be honest with you, and this will probably be misquoted, but on 9/11, I think they hit the wrong building. They should have gone into the Capitol building, hit out, knocked out both sides of the aisle, we’d start from scratch, we’d be better off today.” I pointed out that “they” did try to hit the Capitol. “Yeah, I know, they missed,” he said. “The wrong sequence. If someone had to go, it should have been the Capitol building. On that day I felt differently, but today that’s the way I feel.”

I was curious: Did Smith feel he was misquoted? I called him to find out.

When I called Smith, he had yet to read the Salon piece, but he allowed me to read the paragraph back to him to gauge his reaction. “Well, the context is wholly facetious,” says Smith, “I don’t want my entire government to be gone, but we might be better off if we start from scatch.”

Did Madden fail to make Smith’s facetiousness clear? “In the way you read it, yeah, I think so—don’t you?” replied Smith, raising another question: Was it Madden’s writing or my own delivery that caused the context to suffer?

Smith added that he, too, could have aided in further contextualizing the quote. “I probably should have said that they can leave peacefully, and that would be fine, too,” clarified Smith.

Beyond the lack of clarity on the facetiousness of his comment, Smith says Madden’s presentation was fair. “Yeah, I ’spose,” Smith confirmed.

Photo by irrational_cat

It’s clear that now that there’s an animal at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., PETA will be able to target all its campaigns specifically at the President, using Bo as a scapedog for whatever issue it would like to further at the moment. Hey—at least it’s better than using hot chicks.

Expect a lot more press releases that tangentially refer to Bo before launching into a thinly veiled press release as to why the White House needs to employ vegan mouse traps, or whatever. In this edition, Bo helps us understand that purebred dogs are “disquieting,” that the overpopulation problem won’t benefit from monetary donations “unless you pour in as much as the Iraq war has cost us,” and animals are just like humans, “except that they are in a different type of body and have a somewhat different culture.”

The full PETA letter is after the jump.

President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

Now that you have brought a dog into your family, we urge you to take a most important action—have Bo sterilized. We are sending you a coupon good for one free sterilization at PETA’s SNIP clinic, which you are welcome to use or pass on to a member of your Cabinet or someone in a low-income neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

We love that the girls are going to grow up with a dog, as having a dog teaches people an extra dimension of love and allows youngsters to see into the lives and feelings of others who experience the same emotions as they do: joy, pain, confusion, loneliness, fear, and love of life. Loving and caring for a member of a different species also teaches compassion for those who are like us in so many ways, except that they are in a different type of body and have a somewhat different culture.

While it is disquieting that your decision to get a “purebred” dog from a breeder will inspire others to do the same and that the subtlety of acquiring a dog who had a home but originally came from a breeding kennel may be lost on most people, we are grateful that you plan to make a donation to the Washington Humane Society (WHS), where I used to be director of cruelty investigations; funds are always needed there. However, money alone, unless you pour in as much as the Iraq war has cost us, cannot “fix” the overpopulation problem. Please show that you understand this by making the first dog the last dog of his line and having Bo neutered. Sex in the White House has been the topic of past scandals, but with a simple “snip,” the first dog can set a new tone and a great example.

In the U.S. alone, up to 8 million animals are abandoned in animal shelters each year, and half of them must be put to death for lack of a good home. Simply put, every animal purchased from a breeder or pet store takes a home away from a needy, homeless animal. Because the spotlight is now on your new dog, people will imitate your actions and may seek out breeder without giving a thought to the tragic consequences of breeding or considering the time and money it takes to care for an animal properly.

We look forward to hearing that Bo will be getting neutered. This will set a fine example for the world to follow, and Bo will be the happier for it. Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Ingrid E. Newkirk
President

In yesterday’s The Fix, Chris Cillizza poses the question: “Is Gay Marriage Still An Issue?”

Hey, let me take this one, Chris: Yes.

But let’s back up a bit and see why Cillizza labors over whether or not one of the biggest issues the states are grappling with today is simply a sneaky non-issue in disguise!:

Twin decisions in Iowa and Vermont legalizing gay marriage over the past five days have reinvigorated the debate over same sex unions and raised questions about whether the issue continues to have the same political potency for Republicans as it did as recently as four years ago.

As recently as four years ago? Proposition 8, the legislation that overturned gay marriage in one of the biggest, gayest states in the union, was passed four months ago, dude. But continue:

By and large, however, Republican national leaders—-particularly those running for president—have condemned the recent decisions. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said the “definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts” while former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) called the decision “outrageously wrong” and said it revealed “judicial arrogance.”

Conversations with a handful of high level Republican party strategists, however, produced a far more mixed view of gay marriage as a campaign issue.

Let’s pick one of the anonymous GOP sources from the handful who suggests that gay marriage ain’t no big thing:

Another Republican consultant said that the issue is a complicated one for GOP candidates in the context of a political campaign. “It’s sort of a no-win,” said the source. “You often need to be on one side of the issue to win the primary, then you’re in trouble for the general.”

Who is this consultant, and who is he consulting? No major party candidate—Democrat or Republican—has ever openly supported gay marriage in the primary or the general election. Barack Obama, socialist Democrat/Antichrist, supported civil unions but not gay marriage.

Thankfully, after a long discussion of whether or not this issue is an issue, Cillizza comes around: The issue is, in fact, an issue.

What seems clear is that as gay marriage becomes more prevalent in the country, the issue will almost certainly continue to animate the bases of the two parties—Democrats in support, Republicans in opposition.

Photo by nerdcoregirl.

Go to the ACLU Action Center here, or visit Planned Parenthood’s action page here, or Compassion & Choices’ action page here, all of whom have made it incredibly easy to make your voice heard by the Obama administration.

If all goes according to plan, the conscience rule will have accomplished nothing at all. Mwa ha ha.

The AP reports that President Obama has invited more than 100 gay and lesbian families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll. The majority of tickets are offered online to the public (and sell out within seconds), but the President reserves a number for special guests. From the AP:

Families say the gesture shows that the new Democratic administration values them as equal to other families. And for many, being included in the annual tradition—dating to 1878—renews hope that they will have more support in their quest for equal rights in matters such as marriage and adoption than under the previous administration.

The AP is quick to point out that this isn’t the first time large numbers of gay families have participated in the Easter tradition. In fact, in 2006, the same number of families—over 100—attended the Bush-administered roll, “in part to make the statement that they should be welcome.”

Now, the sentiment is different, “more celebratory,” says D.C. resident Leah McElrath Renna, who “attended the event in 2006 and 2007 with her partner Cathy McElrath Renna and their now 3-year-old daughter, Rosemary.” The AP notes that “Rosemary is particularly excited to see the Easter Bunny again and already has planned her outfit: A yellow polka-dotted dress and a new straw hat with a pink band.”

Wait a second— Rosemary is particularly excited to see the Easter Bunny “again”? This three-year-old kid is going for the third time?

I’m all for extending warm invitations to gay and lesbian families, but aren’t there any other gay and lesbian families we could invite?

I understand the first two times were kind of lame because Bush was still in office, and gay and lesbian couples were going “in part to make [a] statement,” but let’s not forget the other part: You go to the Easter Egg Roll for your kids, who are more interested in like, rolling the fucking eggs. How about we let some other kids have a chance at rolling the fucking eggs?

Photo by donnamarijne

The counter-protest was organized by Colin MacDonald and Ian Goldin, GW students who were joined by “between 80 and 100 people” in raising signs, chants, and face-locks against the church. At the height of the action, Freshmen Paige Medley and Lauren LaMonte kissed “to show their support for gay rights.” It looks like there might have been some tongue, but it’s too close to call.

For those also interested in, ahem, showing their solidarity, check out Hatchet photographer Marie McGrory’s shot of the kiss here.

Cristina Page for Reproductive Health Reality Check wrote yesterday on one sector of the economy that hasn’t hurt from the economic downturn: Birth control sales. Page’s evidence of a contraceptive spike:

- Vasectomy.com has fielded a 30 percent increase in appointment requests since January

- Over-the-counter contraceptives (like condoms and emergency contraception) have “jumped a dazzling 10.2 percent in the first two months of the year.”

- Nielson reports that “condom sales jumped up 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 6 percent in January compared with the same time periods last year.”

- and “sales of Essure, a non-invasive, irreversible birth control method for women were up also, 28 percent over last year’s sales.”

The numbers aren’t simply evidence of couples putting off pregnancies during the recession—they’re also a big fuck-you to Congressional Republicans who objected to the family planning provisions in Obama’s stimulus. Vasectomies, condoms, and Plan B are great options for men and women with health insurance and cash. But those Americans who can’t afford to step-up their birth control with their current bank balances will be having recession-era babies—and they’re the ones who will be hit hardest by another mouth to feed.

Or, as Page puts it: “So much for contraception being a non-sequitur in discussions about the economy.”

Photo by Marshall Astor

The FDA has approved a new version of the female condom, known awesomely as “FC2.” The new female condom will sell for about 30 percent less than its predecessor, the “FC1.” But is cost really the deciding factor in female condom use?

The new FC2 is cheaper to manufacture than the FC1 because it’s made out of “a different material—a synthetic rubber called nitrile.” Still, the main roadblock to female condom use is cultural, not economic.

The female condom is the only barrier method that is proven effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases—and is completely controlled by the female. Despite the empowerment factor, the device is unpopular in the United States, where “it is more expensive than the male condom, makes noise during sex, and sometimes causes discomfort,” HIV/AIDS resource The Body reports. I’ve never heard of a woman using one, much less seen one in the nitrile flesh.

But the female condom has been hailed as a prophylactic savior for women living in countries where HIV rates are high and male condom use is low. In cultures where refusing a rubber is a matter of course, it’s a lot easier for a woman to place a barrier in her own body than to force a man to apply one as a condition of sex.

But female condom use abroad also depends on attitudes at home. Despite the reluctance to male condom use in many countries, the U.S. shipped 486 million condoms abroad in 2006. According to the India Post, “only 1.6 percent of U.S. international condom shipments” are female condoms, and the devices “account for only 0.2 percent of the world’s total condom supply.”

A worldwide acceptance of the female condom will involve more than a price-slash. First, U.S. leaders (listen up, Barack Obama) will have to make female condom shipments a priority. Then, men with aversions to condoms of all kinds will have to learn to accept the method, too. AIDS activist <strong>Noerine Kaleeba</strong> told <em>The Body</em> in 1998 that “this  gadget is difficult to use without the cooperation of men,” as it’s easily removed with a bit of force, or thwarted by “misrouting” the penis to go “under the pouch instead of in it.”

For a short period this year, healthcare providers across the country were free to follow their consciences. President Bush’s final act in office was something known as the “conscience rule,” a provision meant to protect workers in federally funded facilities from providing services they found morally objectionable. The rule went into effect on Jan. 20, the day its ultimate destroyer took over. The Obama administration allowed consciences a one-month leash before announcing its intention to reverse the rule in early April, following a 30-day comment period.

The short-lived rule took its inspiration from decades-old federal legislation that remains on the books: the Church Amendments, the Weldon Amendment, and the Public Health Service Act, which explicitly protect workers from being forced to perform abortions and sterilizations against their will. The Bush rule interpreted that protection a little too broadly for Obama’s taste, extending protections to a whole range of moral objections—from the dispensation of contraception to the use of stem cells in biomedical research. And under the rule, any worker at an affected healthcare provider could claim a grievance, from the receptionist who schedules an abortion appointment to the janitor who cleans up after one.

The rule will have been on the books for only two-and-a-half months by the time it’s overturned. Let us take a moment to remember Bush’s conscience rule, snatched from us far too soon. What consciences were awoken? What services denied? What bureaucratic roadblocks constructed, only to be dismantled again?

FACILITIES AFFECTED: 584,294. That’s the number of healthcare providers and their subcontractors who benefit from federal funds—and must, under Bush’s rule, accommodate the moral objections of their employees. Many of those half-million entities trade daily in possible conflicts of conscience—hospitals that provide abortions, pharmacies that dispense contraception, and laboratories that conduct stem-cell research. But in order to appease the base one final time, the Bush administration went all-out. The rule also applies to providers of less morally contentious services, like schools of dentistry, occupational therapy, and podiatry. Clearly, the podiatrists of America have been implicated in this debate like never before.

And yet, the American Podiatric Medical Association, based in Bethesda, remains demure about its own role in the promotion of the conscience. James Christina, director of scientific affairs for the association and a podiatrist, said he was not aware of significant conscience issues in his field. “Some of the podiatry schools, since they’re affiliated with the other medical schools, might have gotten locked in there,” he says. “But podiatrists don’t prescribe contraceptives, or anything like that.” Moral conflict in the podiatry field may have to wait for science to catch up. “As far as I know, there’s not yet any stem-cell research in wound-healing or diabetic foot care,” he says, adding that future conflicts are possible.

BUREAUCRATIC WASTE CREATED: The annual cost of conscience protection, as projected by the Bush administration, is minimal. The main bureaucratic hurdle of conscience protection: Completing a form certifying compliance with the rule.

“We estimate that each of the 584,294 entities will spend an average of 30 minutes on these activities,” the rule reads. Since Health and Human Services certifications require a “CEO, CFO, direct owner, or Chairman of the Board” to do the signing, that half-hour would have cost each entity $72.77, or half the median loaded hourly rate for a top earner. Multiply that by 584,294 entities, and you get an estimated yearly cost of $42.5 million dollars, plus an additional $2 million cost for “collecting and maintaining records.” Don’t start prorating that figure over the past two months: The Obama administration didn’t jump to send off 584,294 conscience rule certification forms upon assuming office, meaning that the $44.5 million (or by Obama’s math, $43.6 million) price tag will be off Obama’s conscience.

More likely, the only administrative waste incurred as a result of the rule will fall on the Obama staffers tasked with rolling it back. Like a flaming bag of excrement placed upon the steps of the White House, perhaps the real purpose of Bush’s final act was to force his successor to clean it up.

CONSCIENCES ACCOMMODATED: Did the conscience rule’s two-month lifespan actually allow any healthcare workers to follow their hearts instead of their job descriptions? It’s not clear. Healthcare providers on the fringes of the abortion debate—think Catholic outfits like D.C.’s Providence Hospital or Planned Parenthood centers—would have been largely unaffected by the rule, as prospective employees with moral objections know what’s up. Even in more general practices, evidence of the nightmare scenario—a doctor forced to perform an abortion against her will—is difficult to pin down.

But with the conscience rule’s expansions, many more practitioners can claim moral conflict, and anecdotal evidence of less-classic conscience cases abounds. The Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA), a prominent supporter of the rule, submits the following [PDF]: Frank Block, Jr., an anesthesiologist who turned down a job offer upon learning he’d be required “to provide anesthesia for abortions;” Dr. Shelley Phillips, who resigned from her San Antonio, Texas, practice instead of being forced to prescribe contraception to unmarried women; Vicki L. Duncan, a doctor who stopped performing intrauterine insemination procedures entirely when she was told that refusing to perform the procedure for a lesbian couple would likely result in a lawsuit; Dr. Gregg R. Albers, who graciously accepts “gay men and women” as patients but still reserves the right to “take the opportunity to lovingly say, here is why we believe so strongly that ‘this’ is wrong.”

For two months, were these doctors and those like them allowed to practice freely? Not exactly. Margie Shealy, vice president of communications for the CMDA, says the abbreviated time frame makes finding a practitioner positively affected by the rule “like finding a needle in a haystack.”

Dr. David Stevens, the organization’s CEO, says that even with a longer shelf life, the rule would largely serve to protect those medical professionals who are already denying services. “The idea that all of a sudden, doctors, or insurance agencies, or nurses are going to stop performing services for their patients has a fatal assumption beneath it,” says Stevens. “These providers have not been regularly violating their consciences in their work,” he says. “Those who oppose abortions have not been participating in abortions in the past. There’s nothing you can do to get a pro-life doctor to perform an abortion,” he says. In other words, Frank Block was never knocking women out for abortions, and Gregg Albers was never condoning homosexuality. What the rule has done, Stevens says, is make those decisions consistent with the law.

PUBLICITY EARNED: Why would the Bush administration go through all the trouble of setting up a procedural hurdle he knew would be toppled shortly upon leaving office? Publicity, baby. The conscience rule didn’t just resurrect the longstanding federal conscience protections in the public consciousness. It also refocused their intent. Those laws were drafted to provide protections for both those who provided abortion services and those who refused them. Under the law, employees cannot be discriminated against based on their moral opposition to abortion or their moral opposition to denying one. Bush’s rule, however, only explicitly expounded upon the rights of those with pro-life consciousness, and media discussion followed along with the newly framed debate.

“I think it’s provided us the opportunity to educate people on this issue,” says Stevens. “I’ve heard ‘I had no idea that I was breaking the law trying to force this doctor to perform a procedure,’” he says. “This is where these regulations can have a larger educational role.” Still, Stevens hopes the rule remains on as more than just a token. “I think there’s hope that it will continue. We’re going to try to sustain the rule. A law without any enforcement is meaningless.”

Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

According to Chris Cilliza’s The Fix, “President Obama will sign an executive order tomorrow [that's today now, readers] to establish a White House Council on Women and Girls.” Cilliza’s intel may be good, but his analysis of the move leaves something to be desired.

Writes Cilliza: “Obama has both personal—his wife and two daughters—and political reasons to make this sort of high profile move to ensure that women’s needs are being addressed by his administration.”

Well, allow me to retort.

Is it really necessary to note that men should be interested in women’s issues because they, like, know a few of them? Does Cilliza report on the stimulus bill by writing, “Obama has personal reasons to pass his bill, because he knows several humans”? Does he report on Obama’s FDA appointments by writing, “Obama clearly has a personal stake in this issue, seeing as the President himself consumes food to sustain life”?

No—only women’s issues would need to be explained through “personal” reasons. Obama’s a man! What the hell would he want to help women for? Oh, he has two lovely daughters.

Ugh. Okay. Back to less infuriating details on the new ladies’ group:

According to a White House memo, “The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.”

The council will be headed by Valerie Jarrett.

Photo by Bascom Hogue

For the next 30 days, the public is invited to comment on Obama’s proposed rescission of the rule. Love it? Hate it? Tell the Obama administration through one of four easy ways (no faxes, n00bs). Once Health and Human Services opens comments for review, I’ll post the highlights here on the blog. And stay tuned for this week’s City Paper, where I’ll have more on the short-lived regulation.

For now, get to commentin’! Instructions are after the jump:

DATES: Submit written or electronic comment on the regulatory changes
proposed by this document by April 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to “Rescission Proposal.” To
better manage the comment process, we will not accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.

You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):

1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.Regulations.gov or via e-mail to proposedrescission@hhs.gov. To submit electronic comments to http://www.Regulations.gov, go to the Web site and click on the link “Comment or Submission” and enter the keywords “Rescission Proposal.” [Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel;
however, we prefer Microsoft Word.]

2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only:

Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201

3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only:

Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW.
Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201

4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to the following address:

Room 716G
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20201

(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in
the mail drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the documents being filed.)

Yes, but how? Five ways to appreciate, after the jump:

5. Refrain from bombarding their homes and offices with death threats.

4. Revisit Patricia Meisol’s Washington Post Magazine piece on med student Lesley Wojick’s difficult choice: To be an abortion provider, or not to be an abortion provider. Spoiler alert: While I’m sure she’s a nice girl, nobody is explicitly requsting that you appreciate Lesley Wojick today.

3. Check out President Obama’s proposed rescission of President Bush’s “conscience rule,” and send Health and Human Services a comment in support. Or against, if you don’t appreciate the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.

2. Write to the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, co-sponsor of National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, and suggest they spring for a shorter name next year to aid in appreciation.

1. Get them something nice, mmkay?

Photo by NCinDC.