This would be a very progressive and successful move, for the SA Gvmt. It would, also, go a long way in setting a platform to empower women and allowing them to make (safe and protected) decisions about their bodies and sexual choices, not only in their chosen profession but in their lives, in general.
The local authority in Durban wants legalised adult entertainment venues during the tournament.
But African Nazareth Democratic Movement (ANDM) president Thokozani Hlatshwayo said the proposal was "against the word of God". * Not everyone has the same "Concept of God", therefore spoon feeding people religion, through leagl policy, is abserd* Opposition parties fear that, if introduced, it could become permanent. The main opposition Democratic Alliance and the youth wing of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) have condemned the suggestion. "Plans to legalise Durban's red-light districts before the 2010 World Cup should be condemned in the strongest possible manner," said Pat Lebenya-Ntanzi of the IFP youth brigade. She said the South African government was sending out mixed messages to young people. "On the one hand it preaches strong family values and moral regeneration, but on the other hand they want to legalise prostitution on Durban's streets. It doesn't make sense," she said. An additional concern is Aids - some five million people in South Africa are HIV-positive - making it one of the world's worst-hit countries. * Halting the spread of HIV/Aids is a matter of education and bringing a tabu subject out of the dark and addressing it in safe and mature enviornments. The spread of HIV/Aids has not deminished, thusfar, and policies have been in place to keep prostitution illegal. Family values and health are matters of indivisual responsibility.*
Durban's municipality said Germany had many adult entertainment centres during the World Cup in 2006, which were very popular with visitors. *For as long as there have been men and women, there has been a srtiving industry of sex. Making it a safe and common place enviornment, is now the matter.*It said while prostitution was illegal in South Africa, it could not ignore the fact that the sex industry thrives during major events like the World Cup. To address this, entertainment centres such as strip clubs and escort agencies would be located in special areas where they would be safe and easily accessible. Municipality Deputy Mayor Logie Naidoo said a final decision had not yet been taken. "The national government will give us a lead in this matter, whether it relates to the 2010 Soccer World Cup or any other time for that matter," he said.
City officials admit that there are already young girls and women working as prostitutes on the streets of Durban. They say plans are already in place to help them operate in safe environments. *This option has been proven successful. Note: Navada (USA) and Ansterdam, where there are laws mandating health care and retirement plans for workers.*
In January, MP George Lekgetho called for prostitution to be legalised during the tournament.
"It is one of the things that would make it a success," he said. He told parliament that it would help cut incidences of rape. The BBC's Mpho Lakaje in Johannesburg says his suggestion was met with derision by other MPs. But a group representing sex workers welcomed it.
"We would support any legalisation of sex work, particularly during the 2010 World Cup," Nicola Fick from the Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Task Force (Sweat) told the BBC.
The idea of legalising sex workers was first proposed last year by police commissioner Jackie Selebi.
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Abstinence-Only Education Just Says No to the Truth
By Kim Gandy, NOW Foundation President
During the discussion at a Chicago teen forum called Let's Talk About Sex, a young man offered a novel suggestion: if you don't have a condom, you can always use aluminum foil. I can't quite make my mind go there. This sparked a debate among the 14 to 19-year-old audience about the efficacy of homemade plastic bag condoms, having sex while standing up (to prevent pregnancy, of course), and bathing after sex to rid oneself of potentially harmful sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
While our president and his allies believe that talking to teenagers about sex is equivalent to putting them in a room together, naked, with instructions to try out their parts – we are learning firsthand the dangers of abstinence-only education. Yes, having teen sex talks can be awkward for both parents and educators alike; but the alternative is worse. More teens are having sex without knowing the facts or the consequences, and abstinence-only funding is to blame.
Still, "Just say NO" and "condoms don't work" funding continues. We are reminded of its ineffectiveness in epidemic proportions: a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study released in March indicates one out of every four teenage girls – that's 3.2 million young women – "has at least one of the most common sexually transmitted infections." For African-American girls, the infection rate was double – i.e. half of those between the ages of 14-19 were infected. Common STIs reported in the study included: human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, herpes simplex virus and trichomoniasis.
Higher susceptibility to HIV/AIDS, possible sterilization, and potentially terminal cervical cancer are just a few of the consequences of untreated STIs. It's appalling that before teens are equipped to make responsible decisions about sex, their entire sexual futures could be irreversibly compromised.
From 2000 to 2007, funding for abstinence-only education rose by $116 million dollars, totaling more than $1.3 billion over the last decade. In the last year alone, $176 million was allocated for programs that preach abstention from sex until marriage as the only viable option for adolescents and actually prohibit teaching about condoms or other contraceptives -- other than to discuss failure rates. And a Congressional study found that many of the programs provide false and misleading information to students, and some rely on gender-based stereotypes for their messaging.
As many as 17 states are leading the reality-driven revolt to keep our kids safe, refusing millions of dollars worth of "Just Say No" grants. And on April 23, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) held a hearing on federally-funded sex education programs. Testimony and data discrediting abstinence-only education was overwhelming. Waxman referred to a 2007 "longitudinal, randomized, controlled study of four federally-funded programs" that found "abstinence-only programs had no impact on whether or not participants abstained from sex. They had no impact on the age when teens started having sex. They had no impact on the number of partners. And they had no impact on rates of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease."
Of course we want our kids to wait. Comprehensive sex education does, in fact, encourage teens to abstain from sex until they are mature and ready. Yet it acknowledges that, with or without adult approval, sex is happening and there are consequences to ignorance.
Research, not religion, should guide us when it comes to our children's health. Education on human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior, sexual health, and contraception can only contribute to kids making the right decisions about their bodies or at the very least informed decisions without lifelong physical and psychological consequences.
During the discussion at a Chicago teen forum called Let's Talk About Sex, a young man offered a novel suggestion: if you don't have a condom, you can always use aluminum foil. I can't quite make my mind go there. This sparked a debate among the 14 to 19-year-old audience about the efficacy of homemade plastic bag condoms, having sex while standing up (to prevent pregnancy, of course), and bathing after sex to rid oneself of potentially harmful sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
While our president and his allies believe that talking to teenagers about sex is equivalent to putting them in a room together, naked, with instructions to try out their parts – we are learning firsthand the dangers of abstinence-only education. Yes, having teen sex talks can be awkward for both parents and educators alike; but the alternative is worse. More teens are having sex without knowing the facts or the consequences, and abstinence-only funding is to blame.
Still, "Just say NO" and "condoms don't work" funding continues. We are reminded of its ineffectiveness in epidemic proportions: a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study released in March indicates one out of every four teenage girls – that's 3.2 million young women – "has at least one of the most common sexually transmitted infections." For African-American girls, the infection rate was double – i.e. half of those between the ages of 14-19 were infected. Common STIs reported in the study included: human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, herpes simplex virus and trichomoniasis.
Higher susceptibility to HIV/AIDS, possible sterilization, and potentially terminal cervical cancer are just a few of the consequences of untreated STIs. It's appalling that before teens are equipped to make responsible decisions about sex, their entire sexual futures could be irreversibly compromised.
From 2000 to 2007, funding for abstinence-only education rose by $116 million dollars, totaling more than $1.3 billion over the last decade. In the last year alone, $176 million was allocated for programs that preach abstention from sex until marriage as the only viable option for adolescents and actually prohibit teaching about condoms or other contraceptives -- other than to discuss failure rates. And a Congressional study found that many of the programs provide false and misleading information to students, and some rely on gender-based stereotypes for their messaging.
As many as 17 states are leading the reality-driven revolt to keep our kids safe, refusing millions of dollars worth of "Just Say No" grants. And on April 23, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) held a hearing on federally-funded sex education programs. Testimony and data discrediting abstinence-only education was overwhelming. Waxman referred to a 2007 "longitudinal, randomized, controlled study of four federally-funded programs" that found "abstinence-only programs had no impact on whether or not participants abstained from sex. They had no impact on the age when teens started having sex. They had no impact on the number of partners. And they had no impact on rates of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease."
Of course we want our kids to wait. Comprehensive sex education does, in fact, encourage teens to abstain from sex until they are mature and ready. Yet it acknowledges that, with or without adult approval, sex is happening and there are consequences to ignorance.
Research, not religion, should guide us when it comes to our children's health. Education on human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior, sexual health, and contraception can only contribute to kids making the right decisions about their bodies or at the very least informed decisions without lifelong physical and psychological consequences.
Reproductive rights, in review
1965 — Griswold v. ConnecticutThe Supreme Court nullified a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of birth control by married persons, arguing that the right to marital privacy protects the access of married couples to contraceptives.
1972 — Eisenstadt v. BairdThe Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of birth control to unmarried adults.
1973 — Roe v. WadeBy a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Texas law prohibiting abortions not necessary to save the woman's life, extending the fundamental right to privacy to a woman's decision to choose abortion.
1976 — Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthThe Court ruled against a Missouri statute that would force a married woman to obtain her husband's approval before getting an abortion and ruled against a written parental consent requirement for minors.
THE BACKLASH & THE RESPONSE:
1977 — Maher v. RoeThe Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut ban on public funding for abortions, with the exception of abortions that were "medically necessary."
1980 — Harris v. McRaeThe Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the federal Medicaid funding of abortions not necessary to preserve the woman's life.
1989 — Webster v. Reproductive Health ServicesThe court upheld a Missouri law prohibiting the use of public employees and public facilities for the purpose of performing abortions that were not medically necessary.
1992 — Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. CaseyThe Supreme Court, while refusing to overturn Roe, nevertheless upheld a laundry list of abortion restrictions (parental consent, anti-abortion counseling, and a waiting period) only invalidating spousal notification.
1994 — Congress enacts the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
1994 — NOW v. ScheidlerThe Supreme Court affirmed NOW's right to use federal anti-racketeering laws against anti-abortion terrorists who organize others to use fear, force and violence to shut down women's health clinics where abortions are performed. The Court is now reviewing the nationwide injunction we won in 1999, which was upheld by the 4th Circuit.
2000 — The FDA approves mifepristone (RU-486), following a 16-year struggle by reproductive rights activists to have the safe and effective abortion drug approved. Opponents made repeated efforts to prevent approval and distribution of mifepristone and are continuing efforts through a petition to the FDA to have the drug withdrawn.
2001 — The Bush administration reinstates the global "gag" rule that was first adopted in 1984 by the Reagan administration and later lifted when President Clinton came into office. The "gag" rule is an anti-free speech and anti-democratic policy which has caused 430 organizations in 50 countries to stop performing abortions or speaking about abortion laws in order to qualify for U.S. funding. Over 80,000 women around the world die each year from unsafe and illegal abortions and hundreds of thousands suffer complications from unsafe abortions.
2002 — The Bush administration tries to install a right wing, religious ideologue, who has led efforts to get the FDA to reverse approval of mifepristone, as head of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
2003 — Congress passes and Bush signs the so-called "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban—the first federal ban on an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Bush signs the bill, which does not include an exception to preserve a woman's health, while surrounded by a group of smiling men.
2004 — The House of Representatives passes the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003, which would for the first time establish in federal law a fetus as a legal "person," with individual rights separate from those of the pregnant woman.
1972 — Eisenstadt v. BairdThe Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of birth control to unmarried adults.
1973 — Roe v. WadeBy a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Texas law prohibiting abortions not necessary to save the woman's life, extending the fundamental right to privacy to a woman's decision to choose abortion.
1976 — Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthThe Court ruled against a Missouri statute that would force a married woman to obtain her husband's approval before getting an abortion and ruled against a written parental consent requirement for minors.
THE BACKLASH & THE RESPONSE:
1977 — Maher v. RoeThe Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut ban on public funding for abortions, with the exception of abortions that were "medically necessary."
1980 — Harris v. McRaeThe Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the federal Medicaid funding of abortions not necessary to preserve the woman's life.
1989 — Webster v. Reproductive Health ServicesThe court upheld a Missouri law prohibiting the use of public employees and public facilities for the purpose of performing abortions that were not medically necessary.
1992 — Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. CaseyThe Supreme Court, while refusing to overturn Roe, nevertheless upheld a laundry list of abortion restrictions (parental consent, anti-abortion counseling, and a waiting period) only invalidating spousal notification.
1994 — Congress enacts the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
1994 — NOW v. ScheidlerThe Supreme Court affirmed NOW's right to use federal anti-racketeering laws against anti-abortion terrorists who organize others to use fear, force and violence to shut down women's health clinics where abortions are performed. The Court is now reviewing the nationwide injunction we won in 1999, which was upheld by the 4th Circuit.
2000 — The FDA approves mifepristone (RU-486), following a 16-year struggle by reproductive rights activists to have the safe and effective abortion drug approved. Opponents made repeated efforts to prevent approval and distribution of mifepristone and are continuing efforts through a petition to the FDA to have the drug withdrawn.
2001 — The Bush administration reinstates the global "gag" rule that was first adopted in 1984 by the Reagan administration and later lifted when President Clinton came into office. The "gag" rule is an anti-free speech and anti-democratic policy which has caused 430 organizations in 50 countries to stop performing abortions or speaking about abortion laws in order to qualify for U.S. funding. Over 80,000 women around the world die each year from unsafe and illegal abortions and hundreds of thousands suffer complications from unsafe abortions.
2002 — The Bush administration tries to install a right wing, religious ideologue, who has led efforts to get the FDA to reverse approval of mifepristone, as head of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
2003 — Congress passes and Bush signs the so-called "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban—the first federal ban on an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Bush signs the bill, which does not include an exception to preserve a woman's health, while surrounded by a group of smiling men.
2004 — The House of Representatives passes the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003, which would for the first time establish in federal law a fetus as a legal "person," with individual rights separate from those of the pregnant woman.
A New Front on the war on Women's Rights
By Susan Stanton, NOW Public Policy Intern
NOW staff photo by Lisa Bennett
Every January 22, NOW leaders and activists honor the day the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in the United States. Anti-reproductive freedom forces are attempting to challenge Roe by passing state ballot initiatives that would make abortion illegal in most cases in those states. Pictured: Kristen Moorhead (left), Mari Horike.
This November, women's reproductive rights will be put before the voters in at least five states. Heavily funded by right-wing religious and political extremists, the effort is part of a strategy they hope will turn out voters to elect like-minded politicians while placing new limits on women's access to reproductive health care.
Proponents of two of the most extreme measures, in Georgia and Missouri, failed to meet state requirements. But ballot initiatives remain in play in South Dakota, California, Oregon, Montana and Colorado.
Ballot Initiatives Often Mislead
In some states, individuals and groups frustrated with the ordinary legislative process can submit policy positions for a popular vote, often by gathering a set number of signatures on petitions. Those petitions are often given deliberately confusing or outright misleading titles and worded in ways intended to confuse the public (see the infuriatingly titled Colorado Equal Rights Amendment below). Voters whose attention is focused on a high-profile presidential or senatorial race may, relying on the title alone, inadvertently vote for a ballot proposition in direct opposition to their beliefs. Even if a ballot measure must later be voted on by the state legislature, a positive popular vote creates a powerful, though sometimes unjustified, presumption that it represents "the will of the people."
South Dakota, Once Again
In 2006, after an intense campaign led by a coalition which included many NOW activists, South Dakota voters rejected an initiative which would ban all abortions, except to save the life of the woman. The group Vote Yes For Life has filed a new initiative for the 2008 ballot which adds exceptions for rape, incest and threat to the health of the pregnant woman, though those exceptions will be difficult to use. Reportedly double the number of required signatures were gathered and are currently in the verification process.
While the 2006 measure was rejected by 56 percent of the voters, this new initiative is even more dangerous and we must oppose it with a strong voter education and organizing campaign.
Third Round in California
In a wear-them-down strategy, abortion opponents have put parental notification on the California ballot this year for the third time. As recently as 2006, California NOW activists were leading organizers in the defeat of a similar initiative, the new "Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative" would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after the physician notifies the minor's parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.
Oregon Would Make Abortion Murder
An initiative in Oregon would prohibit "the use of public or private funds to facilitate the killing of any human being from the moment of conception, wholly or partially within the womb or after delivery, and the acceptance of funds for performing such a procedure." Violations would be punishable as murder or accessory to murder. The initiative specifically exempts the state's execution of someone convicted by a jury of a capital offense. An Oregon parental notification ballot initiative failed in 2006. Supporters of the 2008 initiative have until July 3 to collect sufficient signatures.
Equal Rights for Fertilized Eggs
In Colorado, the misleadingly-named "Colorado Equal Rights Amendment," would add to the state constitution a definition of "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization." Colorado for Equal Rights has until May 13 to collect signatures. Life for Montana is collecting signatures to amend the Montana constitution's Declaration of Rights to provide a "right to life" and to extend that right to the moment of fertilization. They have until June 20 to collect the required signatures. The Georgia legislature attempted to place a similar measure, as a constitutional amendment, on that state's November ballot. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed, and the amendment failed to reach the required two-thirds majority in either the state House or Senate.
Such wording is particularly dangerous as it could ban some of the most popular and effective forms of contraception, including emergency contraception, the IUD, and some forms of the birth control pill. For an analysis of the tactics and intent behind these "fetal personhood" efforts, read "Viewpoint: Not Just Semantics".
Missouri Act Withdrawn
In Missouri, proponents of the cynically-titled ballot measure, the "Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act" withdrew their submission when it became clear that they would fall short of the requisite number of signatures by May 4. While it appeared to leave the door open for some abortions, this law would be so intrusive and restrictive that no doctor would be likely to perform abortions in Missouri if it passed.
A Coordinated Campaign
All of these initiatives work to ban abortions by establishing the legal definition that fertilized eggs are people -- fully endowed with all the rights of a born human being. The driving force behind some of these ballot measures is the Thomas More Law Center, a right-wing advocacy organization based in Michigan, which seeks court cases through which the center can fight to protect "Christian family values."
NOW staff photo by Lisa Bennett
Every January 22, NOW leaders and activists honor the day the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in the United States. Anti-reproductive freedom forces are attempting to challenge Roe by passing state ballot initiatives that would make abortion illegal in most cases in those states. Pictured: Kristen Moorhead (left), Mari Horike.
This November, women's reproductive rights will be put before the voters in at least five states. Heavily funded by right-wing religious and political extremists, the effort is part of a strategy they hope will turn out voters to elect like-minded politicians while placing new limits on women's access to reproductive health care.
Proponents of two of the most extreme measures, in Georgia and Missouri, failed to meet state requirements. But ballot initiatives remain in play in South Dakota, California, Oregon, Montana and Colorado.
Ballot Initiatives Often Mislead
In some states, individuals and groups frustrated with the ordinary legislative process can submit policy positions for a popular vote, often by gathering a set number of signatures on petitions. Those petitions are often given deliberately confusing or outright misleading titles and worded in ways intended to confuse the public (see the infuriatingly titled Colorado Equal Rights Amendment below). Voters whose attention is focused on a high-profile presidential or senatorial race may, relying on the title alone, inadvertently vote for a ballot proposition in direct opposition to their beliefs. Even if a ballot measure must later be voted on by the state legislature, a positive popular vote creates a powerful, though sometimes unjustified, presumption that it represents "the will of the people."
South Dakota, Once Again
In 2006, after an intense campaign led by a coalition which included many NOW activists, South Dakota voters rejected an initiative which would ban all abortions, except to save the life of the woman. The group Vote Yes For Life has filed a new initiative for the 2008 ballot which adds exceptions for rape, incest and threat to the health of the pregnant woman, though those exceptions will be difficult to use. Reportedly double the number of required signatures were gathered and are currently in the verification process.
While the 2006 measure was rejected by 56 percent of the voters, this new initiative is even more dangerous and we must oppose it with a strong voter education and organizing campaign.
Third Round in California
In a wear-them-down strategy, abortion opponents have put parental notification on the California ballot this year for the third time. As recently as 2006, California NOW activists were leading organizers in the defeat of a similar initiative, the new "Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative" would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after the physician notifies the minor's parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.
Oregon Would Make Abortion Murder
An initiative in Oregon would prohibit "the use of public or private funds to facilitate the killing of any human being from the moment of conception, wholly or partially within the womb or after delivery, and the acceptance of funds for performing such a procedure." Violations would be punishable as murder or accessory to murder. The initiative specifically exempts the state's execution of someone convicted by a jury of a capital offense. An Oregon parental notification ballot initiative failed in 2006. Supporters of the 2008 initiative have until July 3 to collect sufficient signatures.
Equal Rights for Fertilized Eggs
In Colorado, the misleadingly-named "Colorado Equal Rights Amendment," would add to the state constitution a definition of "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization." Colorado for Equal Rights has until May 13 to collect signatures. Life for Montana is collecting signatures to amend the Montana constitution's Declaration of Rights to provide a "right to life" and to extend that right to the moment of fertilization. They have until June 20 to collect the required signatures. The Georgia legislature attempted to place a similar measure, as a constitutional amendment, on that state's November ballot. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed, and the amendment failed to reach the required two-thirds majority in either the state House or Senate.
Such wording is particularly dangerous as it could ban some of the most popular and effective forms of contraception, including emergency contraception, the IUD, and some forms of the birth control pill. For an analysis of the tactics and intent behind these "fetal personhood" efforts, read "Viewpoint: Not Just Semantics".
Missouri Act Withdrawn
In Missouri, proponents of the cynically-titled ballot measure, the "Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act" withdrew their submission when it became clear that they would fall short of the requisite number of signatures by May 4. While it appeared to leave the door open for some abortions, this law would be so intrusive and restrictive that no doctor would be likely to perform abortions in Missouri if it passed.
A Coordinated Campaign
All of these initiatives work to ban abortions by establishing the legal definition that fertilized eggs are people -- fully endowed with all the rights of a born human being. The driving force behind some of these ballot measures is the Thomas More Law Center, a right-wing advocacy organization based in Michigan, which seeks court cases through which the center can fight to protect "Christian family values."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
