Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced “The Life at Conception Act,” a personhood measure that would outlaw abortions by declaring that “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.” “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” Paul said in a statement. Anti-abortion activists have tried to advance similar measures across the nation.

But on Tuesday, during an appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room, Paul — who is said to be eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — seemed to waver from his belief that all abortion is tantamount to killing human life and should be illegal. Asked if the measure offers exceptions for rape or incest victims, the Tea Party star admitted that it includes “thousands of exceptions” and explained that medical decisions “in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family” — free of government interference:

BLITZER: Just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother is that right?

PAUL: I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different. Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother…. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to, but I think it is important we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family and physician. [...]

BLITZER: It sounds like you believe in some exceptions.

PAUL: Well, there is going to be like I say thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved so I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law let’s say people came more to my way of thinking there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.

Watch it:

Paul describes himself as pro-life and has called on Congress to “end abortion on demand once and for all” and overturn Roe v. Wade. But in the answer above, he almost seems to adopt a pro-choice frame, inadvertently making the case for why the right wing’s efforts to declare a fetus a person (and outlaw abortion) undermines women’s health care and well being and invades the doctor/patient relationship.

Two more states are considering bills that would prevent whistleblowers from exposing cruel or unsafe practices in factory farms, joining five other states with similar “ag gag” bills. If passed, the pending legislation in Tennessee and California would require that evidence of animal abuse be turned over to law enforcement authorities within 24 to 48 hours.

Such bills are touted — and, in some cases, sponsored — by agriculture industry officials as a lawful attempt to stop animal cruelty in farming operations. But they actually undermine advocates’ work to develop animal cruelty or food safety cases against the agricultural industry.

And it turns out the real basis for the bills has its origins in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank that has been behind such legislative pushes as “stand your ground” gun laws, voter ID laws and laws mandating states teach climate change denial in schools. Several of the lawmakers who are pushing ag gag laws have agriculture industry ties and ties to ALEC — nearly one in four Iowa lawmakers who voted for Iowa’s ag gag law, for example, are members of ALEC.

In 2002, ALEC introduced a piece of mock legislation titled the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act, which labels people who interfere with any animal operations “terrorists” and made it illegal for anyone to enter “an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner.” ALEC began pushing the legislation in 2004, and several of the bills currently being considered borrow language from AETA — Indiana’s bill aims to keep farming operations “free from the threat of terrorism and interference from unauthorized third persons,” for instance. And ALEC continues to support these bills, as an ALEC spokesman told the AP:

“At the end of the day it’s about personal property rights or the individual right to privacy,” said spokesman Bill Meierling. “You wouldn’t want me coming into your home with a hidden camera.“

In fact, these proposed laws aren’t about personal property or privacy rights: they’re about consumers’ rights to know where their food comes from versus the agriculture industry’s desire to protect itself from negative press. Undercover videos have played a key role in exposing cruelty in some of the nation’s most well-known agriculture companies, and videos of sows crammed in gestation crates helped garner enough public outcry that McDonald’s announced it would phase-out gestation crates from its supply chain. But ag gag laws that require videos and photos to be immediately turned over to law enforcement, instead of delivered to the press, makes it doubtful that the public — the people who are consuming the meat, eggs and milk from these factory farms — will ever see them.

Six states already have ag gag laws on the books, and these laws have led to a chilling effect on advocacy groups’ investigations. If these new bills are passed, they would further close off the agriculture industry from the public eye — and we’ll have ALEC to partially thank for that.

On Election Day 2012, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure B, an ordinance “requiring producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit” and for “adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts.” Porn producers, who have consistently opposed the measure, vowed to fight it tooth and nail. But as it turns out, one group is ready to fight back.

On Monday, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) — an advocacy and lobbying outfit that has pushed for cheaper HIV medications and greater public health protections for HIV-positive Americans — became the first group to call out the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health over its allegedly lax enforcement of Measure B since its passage. The foundation lodged an official complaint with the County “after receiving an anonymous letter with an accompanying videotape filmed by someone on an Immoral Productions set” depicting unsafe sex practices and reviewing material on the production company’s website that also depicted intercourse without a condom.

For the well-funded advocacy group, this is just the latest skirmish in a decade-long battle. AHF president Michael Weinstein has spearheaded efforts to instill the same workplace safety and public health standards on straight porn sets as are already enforced in most gay pornography productions. Under his leadership, the AHF filed suit — to no avail — to make Los Angeles-produced pornography a “condom-only” enterprise; pushed for a citywide L.A. ordinance to the same effect; and spent over $1.6 million in its ultimately successful 2012 campaign to pass the more expansive, countywide Measure B. As he told L.A. Weekly in 2010, “AHF doesn’t give up on an issue, and we’re not going to give up on this.”

It appears that Weinstein and his group plan to follow through on that promise in the face of a combative Los Angeles adult entertainment industry and concerns over the Public Health Department’s enforcement prowess. “We’re putting them to the test,” Weinstein told the Los Angeles Times. “If democracy means something in L.A. County — if porn producers and county supervisors are not above the law — then they will enforce it.”

AHF and fellow public health advocacy organizations certainly have their work cut out for them. Trade groups associated with the multibillion dollar L.A. porn industry have promised to litigate the measure, citing freedom of speech concerns. This argument could potentially stand up in court — but only if the industry’s claims that it sufficiently tests all of its performers for sexually transmitted infections are true. An independent study by AHF that was published in the December Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases presents plenty of evidence to suggest that they are not, as “roughly a third of the 168 adult film actors who participated in the research project were found to have a previously undiagnosed STD.”

This month, the CDC has been sounding the alarm about the rise of a rare, potentially deadly superbug that is resistant to last-resort antibiotics. According to the agency, a recent jump in the recorded incidences of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) means that health officials need to be on high alert, since the “nightmare bacteria” represents one of the biggest threats to patient safety in hospitals across the country. But even though antibiotics can’t help contain the spread of CRE, another type of advanced technology can: Superbug-killing robots.

As drug-resistant bacteria become an increasing problem for health care settings, hospitals are looking toward innovative prevention methods. Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore began using robots — each about the size of a washing machine — to kill superbugs by first spraying a toxic hydrogen peroxide mist into a sealed hospital room, and then following up with a vapor that makes the air safe for humans to breathe. Thanks to the robot technology, Johns Hopkins recently reported a sharp 64 percent drop in the number of untreatable infections at its hospital.

About 24 other hospitals around the country have their own hydrogen-spraying robots. But that’s not the only way robots can help hospitals stay superbug-free. More than 100 hospitals now use robots that can disinfect hospital rooms in just 10 minutes by emitting powerful beams of ultraviolent light to zap the bacteria. Unfortunately, germ-zapping robots don’t come cheap: The ultraviolent versions can cost as much as $10,000 apiece.

Since robots are about 20 times more effective than the typical hospital sanitation methods, however, that could be a valuable investment. And especially now that CDC officials are warning that CRE represents a particularly troubling threat with a high rate of mortality, hospitals may want to pursue the most advanced technologies available to slow the superbug’s spread. Perhaps most problematically, CRE could help hasten the rise of other drug-resistant diseases, which is already a significant global health problem — but maybe not if the robots get to them first.

The guilty verdict in the Steubenville rape case has managed to spark a broader national conversation about sexual assault, and the way that a community handles allegations of such behavior. The case in Steubenville raised valid questions about how communities treat victims of rape, who should be responsible for handling sexual assault reports, the culture that surrounds rape and victims, and what, if anything, happens to the perpetrators of sexual crimes. But Steubenville is not the only place that conversation is happening.

College campuses in particular have struggled with how to handle these issues. Like Steubenville, each campus is its own tight-knit community where victims may fear speaking out, which could lead to the community taking sides. Often, it’s easier for people not to believe a victim than to question the perceptions of their friends or classmates. The power dynamic at schools is particularly difficult, too, since administrators have a vested interest in keeping the cases of sexual assault low.

Here’s a look at other Universities where students are begging officials to reassess their rape culture and implement better sexual assault policies, and how officials are responding:

University of North Carolina: UNC’s administration is under investigation by the Department of Education for its handling of sexual assault allegations. Both students and faculty filed a complaint in January alleging that the University mishandled reports from rape victims. One rape victim at UNC says she was told, “Rape is like football, if you look back on the game, and you’re the quarterback, Annie… is there anything you would have done differently?” Another victim is being penalized by the Honor Court at UNC for speaking out about her alleged rape.

University of Maryland: Last month, the University of Maryland’s Senate Executive Committee approved a requirement that all incoming students receive a peer-on-peer sexual assault education workshop. Students hope for final approval of the measure this month. Currently only some students, including those involved in Greek life at UMD, have to take the course.

Occidental College: Students at Occidental College worked with the administration earlier this year to create an alert system for sexual assault where students received an email whenever an assault had occurred on campus. But recently, students were not notified of an assault on campus. The President of the college just released a letter in which he said, “Investigators need time to sort through conflicting accounts in order to provide a clear narrative of what took place.” Students have suggested that this means the president is not inclined to believe victims, a common problem on college campuses. The president committed to releasing a “detailed annual sexual assault report,” but students still feel that his administration has done too little, and are filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights.

Harvard University: Harvard victims of sexual assault have very publicly renounced the prestigious school’s handling of their cases in the school’s newspaper, The Crimson. This month, the University hired its first-ever Title IX coordinator, and is in the process of reviewing its policy on sexual assaults. But students still worry that among administrators, “there remains a persistent attitude that rape doesn’t—and can’t—occur at Harvard.” They are asking for a faster review process from administrators and, moreover, a change in culture from the people that victims are expected to go to when they have been raped.

Read more

The North Dakota legislature recently passed the harshest abortion ban in the nation, and is also considering two “personhood” measures that would outlaw abortion altogether. But state lawmakers also want to target abortion by going after Planned Parenthood — even when it comes to the organization’s preventative sexual health resources for youth. Republicans are now attempting to block a comprehensive sex ed program that North Dakota State University (NDSU) was planning to launch in partnership with Planned Parenthood.

NDSU won a three-year federal grant to partner with Planned Parenthood to provide sexual education resources to at-risk youth. The voluntary sex ed program is designed to offer family planning resources and life coaching for teenagers at high risk for unintended pregnancy, and would take place outside of school hours. However, the grant was frozen earlier this year after abortion opponents attempted to derail the initiative because Planned Parenthood was participating — even though the state’s affiliates don’t perform any abortion services. North Dakota’s Attorney General gave NDSU permission to proceed with the sex ed program last month. Unfortunately, the fight over sex ed isn’t over yet.

Now, state legislators are joining the crusade against Planned Parenthood. On Monday, the House Human Services Committee approved an amendment to a Senate bill that would prohibit the use of government funds to “contract with, or provide financial or other support to individuals, organizations, or entities performing, inducing, referring for, or counseling in favor of, abortions.” The amendment notes that this ban would apply to any “institution under the control of the State Board of Higher Education” — and would sure that NDSU’s sex ed grant won’t move forward with Planned Parenthood’s participation.

The president of the Planned Parenthood affiliate for Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota points out that blocking comprehensive sex ed resources actually undermines anti-choice politicians’ goal of preventing abortions. “Politicians in North Dakota who are opposed to abortion are blindly taking aim at the very agencies that can prevent them,” she explained in a statement. “If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the last thing you should do is take away programs that help young people prevent pregnancy before they are ready to have a family.”
Read more

Last week, the North Dakota legislature passed the most stringent abortion ban in the nation, cutting off access to reproductive services after just six weeks of pregnancy — before some women even know they’re pregnant. But Republicans in the state aren’t stopping there. The legislature is also considering even more stringent “personhood” measures, which would endow fertilized eggs with the full rights of U.S. citizens and outlaw absolutely all abortion services.

Two personhood bills — Senate Bill 2303 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4009 — have already passed the Senate, and the GOP-controlled House is expected to take them up sometime this week. But if North Dakota successfully enacts a total abortion ban, there will be serious consequences for the state that extend even beyond women’s reproductive freedom. Here are five ways the state will suffer under personhood:

1. There will be fewer doctors in the state available to provide medical care. In a historic move for the North Dakota Medical Association, the nonpartisan organization has come out against personhood. The group points out that the anti-abortion measures go too far to “interfere with the physician practice,” and they suspect it will be harder to find qualified medical professionals willing to practice in North Dakota if the state imposes so many complicated restrictions on doctors. Some doctors have already testified before state lawmakers to say they will leave North Dakota if the abortion bans pass.

2. Maternal health care will be compromised. Doctors could be charged with criminal negligence if anything happens to an embryo — which could prevent them from making quick decisions that could help save women’s lives. The tragic case of Savita Halappanavar, a woman who died after being denied an abortion in a Catholic hospital because her doctors were reluctant to provide care that could get them in trouble with the law, highlights the serious consequences of state lawmakers coming between a woman and her doctor.

3. Women could be forced to resort to illegal abortion procedures. Under a personhood law, women will end up resorting to dangerous “backroom” abortions, one former pediatrician warned North Dakota lawmakers last week. That Fargo-area doctor did his medical training before Roe v. Wade, when women were dying of bacterial infections after botched abortion procedures — and he warns that the passage of the proposed personhood measures would pull North Dakota back into “the stone age of medicine.” There’s evidence to back up that claim. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the legality of abortion has absolutely no correlation to abortion rates around the world, because women will continue to seek to terminate pregnancies regardless of the law.

4. Women won’t be able to use in vitro fertilization to try to have a family. Ironically, in addition to compromising medical procedures for the women seeking to terminate a pregnancy, personhood measures also place restrictions on the women who are trying to get pregnant. “These bills will stop the practice of in vitro fertilization in this state,” Dr. Stephanie Dahl, an obstetrician-gynecologist and reproductive medicine specialist in Fargo, explained to lawmakers. Doctors wouldn’t be able to perform any procedure that carries the risk of damaging some embryos, so women would be forced to travel to South Dakota or Minnesota for in vitro treatment, a six-week process that requires multiple sonograms and up to 12 visits to the doctor.

5. The state will become embroiled in expensive lawsuits. North Dakota’s six-week abortion ban already runs afoul of Roe v. Wade, and will certainly invite several costly legal challenges. A total abortion ban would lead to similar consequences. Two personhood bills were recently struck down in Oklahoma, suggesting that the courts won’t take kindly to North Dakota’s push to restrict women’s constitutional rights, either. Nevertheless, even the self-proclaimed “fiscally conservative” Republicans in the state are willing to defend their abortion bans on the state’s dime.

So far this session, Republican majorities in both chambers of the state legislature have successfully advanced a radical anti-abortion agenda in North Dakota — and that’s on top of the existing abortion restrictions. Women already have to undergo a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before having an abortion, and there’s just one last abortion clinic left in the entire state.

Go ahead — check those notifications. According to a new pilot study conducted by Dr. Alice Good of the University of Portsmouth, the vast majority of Facebook users use the social network to lift their spirits when they’re feeling down by navigating their old photos and wall posts in which they’ve interacted with family and friends — a “self-soothing” coping mechanism somewhat akin to flipping through a photo album or watching old home videos.

Researchers argue that that could be a big boost for users who are prone to anxiety or depression by providing a healthy emotional conduit for reminiscing about the good times in one’s life. The findings also shed new light into what, exactly, users are looking to achieve when they use social media to share their feelings and experiences:

Psychologist Dr Clare Wilson, also of the University of Portsmouth, said: “Although this is a pilot study, these findings are fascinating.

“Facebook is marketed as a means of communicating with others. Yet this research shows we are more likely to use it to connect with our past selves, perhaps when our present selves need reassuring.

“The pictures we often post are reminders of a positive past event. When in the grip of a negative mood, it is too easy to forget how good we often feel. Our positive posts can remind us of this.”

Dr Good’s study has concluded that looking at comforting photos, known as reminiscent therapy, could be an effective method of treating mental health. [...]

The act of self-soothing is an essential tool in helping people to calm down, especially if they have an existing mental health condition.

The findings are particularly interesting given past studies that have indicated that Facebook users end up feeling depressed after a browsing session. For instance, one German study found that “one in three people felt worse after visiting the site and more dissatisfied with their lives, while people who browsed without contributing were affected the most.”

But those findings derived from users’ envy at their friends’ vacations, life milestones, and various successes. The new preliminary data from Dr. Good’s study suggests that, used in a different way — i.e., actively “self-soothing” rather than passively sulking — browsing through one’s Facebook history could be a net benefit. And that could be very good news from a global mental health perspective for the social network, which has over a billion users worldwide and counting.