Afghan government will change marital rape law.
Afghan government will change marital rape law.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN yesterday that his government will change a law legalizing marital rape, after hundreds of Afghans took to the streets to protest the law:
Karzai told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that he and others were unaware of the provision in the legislation, which he said “has so many articles.” Karzai signed the measure into law last month.
“Now I have instructed, in consultation with clergy of the country, that the law be revised and any article that is not in keeping with the Afghan constitution and Islamic Sharia must be removed from this law,” Karzai said.
(HT: Jezebel)
- Comments
- 25
Afghan women pelted by stones while protesting rape law.
Afghan women pelted by stones while protesting rape law.
Last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai provoked international outrage when he signed legislation that effectively legalizes marital rape. Afghan women are trying to fight back, joining forces with women’s rights group and protesting the law. But yesterday, the women protesters were greeted by “largely male” counter-protesters:
A group of some 1,000 Afghans swarmed a demonstration of 300 women protesting against a new conservative marriage law on Wednesday. The women were pelted with small stones as police struggled to keep the two groups apart. [...]
[O]thers shouted “Death to the slaves of the Christians!” Female police held hands around the group to create a protective barrier. … “You are a dog! You are not a Shiite woman!” one man shouted to a young woman in a headscarf holding aloft a banner that said “We don’t want Taliban law.” The woman did not shout back at the man, but told him: “This is my land and my people.”
Obama Responds To Afghan Law That Legalizes Rape: ‘I Think This Law Is Abhorrent’
Obama Responds To Afghan Law That Legalizes Rape: ‘I Think This Law Is Abhorrent’
At a news conference in Strasbourg, France, this morning, President Obama discussed NATO efforts in Afghanistan and secured the commitment of NATO allies to send 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Fox News’ Major Garrett asked Obama what he thinks of a new Afghanistan law that legalizes rape. The legislation, which applies to the country’s Shia population, contains this provision:
“As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,” Article 132 of the law says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”
In a written statement, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), said the law “legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband. … The law violates women’s rights and human rights in numerous ways.”
This morning, Obama said, “I think this law is abhorrent” and that his administration’s views are being communicated to the Karzai government. “We have stated very clearly that we object to this law.” But Obama added, the priority for the U.S. right now is al Qaeda. “But I want everybody to understand that our focus is to defeat al Qaeda and ensure that they do not have safe havens from which they can launch attacks against the Alliance.” Watch it:
The Afghanistan law poses a difficult diplomatic challenge for Obama and for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said recently, “Women’s rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama Administration; they are not marginal; they are not an add-on or an afterthought.”
President Karzai said he ordered his Justice Ministry to review the law, and if anything in it contravenes the country’s constitution or Shariah law, “measures will be taken.” But he added that he had studied the law earlier in the day and, “I don’t see any problems with it.”
Transcript: More »
Afghan President Hamid Karzai signs a law that ‘legalizes’ rape.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai signs a law that ‘legalizes’ rape.
Today, the UK Independent reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has signed the new Shia Family Law, which women’s groups believe will essentially legalize rape. Specifically, the measure “negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman’s right to leave the home.” Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation, called it “one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century.” More details:
The most controversial parts of the law deal explicitly with sexual relations. Article 132 requires women to obey their husband’s sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least “once every four nights” when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court.
A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: “Article 132 legalises the rape of a wife by her husband”.
Critics are charging that Karzai rushed the bill through parliament “in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.” (HT: AMERICAblog)
Fox Business anchor compares tax on AIG bonuses to sexual abuse.
Fox Business anchor compares tax on AIG bonuses to sexual abuse.
Today, Fox Business Network anchor Dagen McDowell appeared on Fox News to make the case against the tax on AIG bonuses by comparing it to sexual abuse:
You don’t want to think if you get in bed with Uncle Sam he’s going to strip you naked, chain you to the bed, leave you there and then take nasty pictures of you and then put them on the Internet. Because that’s what’s been happening.
Watch it:
“Thank you, Dagen, well stated,” responded Bill Hemmer.
O’Reilly’s sexism: Women need male breadwinners, should stay home to watch the kids.
O’Reilly’s sexism: Women need male breadwinners, should stay home to watch the kids.
Last night — before engaging in a baseless, misleading attack against ThinkProgress’s Amanda Terkel — Bill O’Reilly launched his ire at single mothers who dare to have children without fathers. He said such decisions make women poorer because they need male breadwinners, and he insisted that mothers should be at home with the children anyway:
O’REILLY: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you don’t have a father supporting the family, you’re probably poor.
HOOVER: That’s sexist. It’s not that you have to have a father supporting the family. But you do have to have parents and you have to have them be able to —
O’REILLY: I love this. I love this from you. It’s sexist, because I just told the truth. You don’t have the father providing some income when the mother is giving birth, OK? You see, when you give birth — you may some day know this — you can’t go out and work the next day, OK?! And you should be watching the kid anyway. So there’s got to be somebody else giving you money beside the government.
Watch it:
O’Reilly to run ambush segment tonight: ThinkProgress ‘hurt a rape victim and her family.’
O’Reilly to run ambush segment tonight: ThinkProgress ‘hurt a rape victim and her family.’
Over at its website, Fox News is saying that Bill O’Reilly will be running his segment on ThinkProgress tonight:
We’re eagerly awaiting how he justifies sending out his henchman to track me down this weekend, and how he spins his offensive comments about Jennifer Moore.
I Was Followed, Harassed, And Ambushed By Bill O’Reilly’s Producer
I Was Followed, Harassed, And Ambushed By Bill O’Reilly’s Producer
On March 1, ThinkProgress picked up on a story by News Hounds, which noted that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly — who has made controversial comments about rape victims in the past — was slated to speak at a March 19 fundraiser for the Alexa Foundation. The group is committed to supporting rape survivors.
Our post — which never criticized the Alexa Foundation — highlighted the fact that in the past, O’Reilly has implied that women who dress in a certain way or consume too much alcohol should perhaps expect to be raped. Here is what he said on his radio show on Aug. 2, 2006, about Jennifer Moore, an 18-year-old woman who was raped and murdered:
Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.
O’Reilly’s comments about Moore were part of a larger segment about the dangers of drunkenness. His other example was Mel Gibson going on a drunken tirade and yelling anti-Semitic comments. “I think it’s safe to say that if Mel Gibson didn’t get drunk, he wouldn’t be in this terrible situation he finds himself in,” said O’Reilly. “And if a young woman, 18-year-old Jennifer Moore of Harrington Park, NJ, didn’t get drunk, she’d be alive today.”
This weekend, while on vacation, I was ambushed by O’Reilly’s top hit man, producer Jesse Watters, who accosted me on the street and told me that because I highlighted O’Reilly’s comments, I was causing “pain and suffering” to rape victims and their families. He of course offered no proof to back up this claim, instead choosing to shout questions at me.
I expect O’Reilly to air this “interview” at some point this week, possibly as early as tonight. I have no expectation that he will show the entire altercation or give the entire story about what happened, so here is the full account, offering a glimpse inside the O’Reilly harrassment machine:
– The Stalking: Watters and his camera man accosted me at approximately 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, March 21, in Winchester, VA, which is a two-hour drive from Washington, DC. My friend and I were in this small town for a short weekend vacation and had told no one about where we were going. I can only infer that the two men staked out my apartment and then followed me for two hours. Looking back, my friend and I remember seeing their tan SUV following us for much of the trip.
– The Ambush: Shortly after checking into our lodgings, we emerged and immediately saw two men walking toward us calling out my name. Watters said he was from Fox News, but never said his or his companion’s name, nor did he say he was with The O’Reilly Factor.
– The Surprise Attack: Watters immediately began asking me why I was causing “pain and suffering” to the Alexa Foundation. He never gave me the context for his questions. Confused, I repeatedly asked him what he was talking about and whether he could refresh my memory, but he just continued shouting his question.
– The Evasion: I said that it was inappropriate for O’Reilly to imply that just because a woman may be drunk and/or dressed in a certain way, she should expect to be raped. Watters asked me whether I had listened to the interview (which I had) and claimed that O’Reilly had made the comments in the context of a commentary on Mel Gibson/drunkenness. When I tried to ascertain why he was attacking ThinkProgress in particular — even though other sites had also covered the story — he said that we were part of the “smear pipeline,” which also included the “Soros-funded” Media Matters. He ignored my comments when I asked if Fox News also smears people.
– Setting A Guilt Trap: Watters ended the charade by demanding that I look into the camera and apologize to the Alexa Foundation and rape victims. I told them that I don’t speak through Fox News and if someone from the Alexa Foundation would like to personally call me, I’d be happy to speak with that person.
– More Stalking: The camera man then continued to film me as I walked down the block. After a few minutes while I waited at the light to cross the street, Watters called him back and they left.
This weekend, we contacted Watters and Loren Hynes, who works in Media Relations at Fox. We have yet to receive a response from them, or anyone else at the network, on Saturday’s incident.
The main issue remains: O’Reilly should offer an apology/explanation of why, when a woman is raped and murdered, it’s relevant what she was wearing or how much she was drinking. O’Reilly never asked me for a statement nor invited me on his show before sending Watters to harass me. Since I’m a 5 ft, 100 pound woman with an opinion that he doesn’t like, perhaps O’Reilly believes I deserve to be treated this way.
Meghan McCain responds to Laura Ingraham’s insults: ‘Please stop talking about my body.’
Meghan McCain responds to Laura Ingraham’s insults: ‘Please stop talking about my body.’
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that right-wing radio talker Laura Ingraham attacked Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) daughter, Meghan, by mocking her as “plus-sized.” McCain responded yesterday on Twitter, telling Ingraham to “stop talking about my body“:
In a follow-up tweet, McCain wrote: “To all my girls out there. Don’t let anyone make you feel bad about your body! I love my curves and you should love yours too!.”
Laura Ingraham mocks Meghan McCain as being ‘plus-sized.’
Laura Ingraham mocks Meghan McCain as being ‘plus-sized.’
Last night, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) daughter, Meghan McCain, appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show, where she continued to criticize Ann Coulter. On her radio show today, Laura Ingraham responded to McCain’s critique of far right conservatives, saying that she is “just another Valley Girl gone awry.” In a mocking faux-Valley Girl voice, Ingraham made fun of McCain’s body, joking that she didn’t get a “role in the Real World” because “they don’t like plus-sized models”:
MCCAIN (on MSNBC): And I think there’s an extreme on both parties and I hate extreme. I don’t understand. I have friends that are the most radically conservative and radically liberal people possibly ever and we all get along. We can find a middle ground.
INGRAHAM (mocking): Ok, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models. They only like the women who look a certain way. And on this 50th anniversary of Barbie, I really have something to say.
Listen here:
In the past, McCain has said that she is “proud” of her body. Last summer, she told Glamour, “I got to a point where I was like, I just don’t care. You think I’m fat? Fine. I don’t care how much you weigh.”
Transcript: More »
Steele Bends Under Far-Right Pressure: ‘I Am Pro-Life, Always Have Been, Always Will Be’
Steele Bends Under Far-Right Pressure: ‘I Am Pro-Life, Always Have Been, Always Will Be’
Yesterday, GQ published an interview with Michael Steele in which the RNC chairman said that he is pro-choice:
GQ: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
STEELE: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
As ThinkProgress noted, these comments contradicted the pro-life image he has tried to cultivate for himself in order to win the support of far-right conservatives, who were incensed at his new pro-choice stance. Charmaine Yoest, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, said it was “language straight out of Planned Parenthood’s messaging playbook.” Anti-choice activist Jill Stanek said, “You thought he was ‘embattled’ last week over his Limbaugh comment? Ha. He has now stepped both feet into it.”
Today, at 7:49 a.m. — less than 24 hours after the GQ story became public — Steele issued a new statement, completely backing down from his comments. Not only does he say now that abortion isn’t an individual or state choice, he says that he supports a constitutional ban on abortion:
I am pro-life, always have been, always will be. I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a ‘choice’ before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed.
I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue. But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.
In the past, Steele has been more circumspect about overturning Roe v. Wade. In 2006, when asked whether it was his “desire” that the Supreme Court decision be kept “in place” at this point, Steele replied, “My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.”
Steele himself said it best in February: “You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”
Steele Goes From Being ‘Pro-Life His Entire Adult Life’ To Believing Abortion Is An ‘Individual Choice’
Steele Goes From Being ‘Pro-Life His Entire Adult Life’ To Believing Abortion Is An ‘Individual Choice’
GQ has a new interview with Michael Steele, in which the embattled RNC chairman says that he is pro-choice:
GQ: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
STEELE: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice. [...]
GQ: Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
STEELE: I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
GQ: Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
STEELE: The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Steele is shifting from what he has said in the past. As recently as November 2008, he supported the GOP platform on a constitutional ban on abortion, although he was “skeptical” of tinkering with the Constitution:
In an editorial board meeting at The Washington Times on Tuesday, Mr. Steele clarified his stance, saying that he thinks Roe should be overturned as a sloppy piece of decision-making, favors state regulation on abortion, and supports the Republican party’s platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. … Mr. Steele added however that he is skeptical of changing the Constitution, fearing that the process will get out of control.
Steele, in fact, presented himself as a strong pro-life candidate when running for the RNC chairmanship. Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said that Steele had “shown a commitment to the values that were once the GOP’s guiding light,” including on abortion. Here’s how Steele pitched himself on his campaign website (cached site here):
No one should ever doubt Michael Steele’s commitment to life. He has been pro-life his entire adult life. In 2006 he was endorsed for US Senate by National Right to Life and Maryland Right to Life. He ran as a staunchly pro-life candidate in a state that rarely elects pro-life candidates.
In its Oct. 25, 2006 endorsement of Steele’s U.S. Senate run, the Washington Times wrote, “Mr. Steele is staunchly pro-life (parting with many Republicans who support abortion in cases of rape and incest) and he is a free trader.”
This announcement will likely add fuel to the fire of his critics, who are already upset that he slighted their real leader.
Australia follows Obama, ends ban on aid to groups that provide abortions overseas.
Australia follows Obama, ends ban on aid to groups that provide abortions overseas.
Days after taking office, President Obama “struck down the Bush administration’s ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information.” Now the government of Australia is following Obama’s lead, scrapping a 13-year old policy that prevented non-government organizations from using official funds overseas to advise about abortions or provide services. After Obama lifted the ban, Australia was “the only country in the world to limit overseas aid funds” in such a way.
Vitter introduces legislation defunding Planned Parenthood.
Vitter introduces legislation defunding Planned Parenthood.
Earlier this year, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who was named in the DC Madam prostitution scandal, co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” Now, “as he seeks to shore up his bona fides with conservative voters,” Vitter has introduced legislation slashing funding for family planning services:
The Louisiana senator has introduced an amendment to the omnibus spending bill before the Senate to drastically cut funding for family planning programs. Vitter’s amendment states that “none of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be made available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Service Act.”
As the Washington Post observed, Vitter may be trying to outflank his potential primary opponent, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. RH Reality Check has more.
Right wing engages in culture war against Sebelius nomination.
Right wing engages in culture war against Sebelius nomination.
President Obama’s selection of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) to head the Department of Health and Human Services has sent the far right scurrying to man their battle stations. Igor Volsky reports that conservatives “are trying to turn a debate about health care reform into a culture war” over abortion. Some examples:
“Sebelius, governor of Kansas — the late-term abortion capital of the world — is a threat to the health and well-being of our country and her appointment must be stopped.” [American Life League]
“She has had a close personal and financial association with the nation’s most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions.” [Family Research Council]
One of the anti-choice groups is even attacking Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) for his support of Sebelius. As The Wonk Room notes, “[A]bortion rates declined 10 percent during Sebelius’ first three years as governor.” And as for her “association” with Tiller, she did indeed once have dinner with the doctor — a dinner that Tiller won “in a fund raising auction.”
O’Reilly to speak at fundraising event for rape victims.
O’Reilly to speak at fundraising event for rape victims.
News Hounds points out that on March 19, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is slated to speak at a fundraiser for the Alexa Foundation, a group committed to supporting rape survivors:
In the past, however, O’Reilly has made controversial comments about an 18-year-old woman, Jennifer Moore, who was raped and murdered, implying that it was partially her fault. O’Reilly called her “moronic,” adding:
Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.
Number of Washington Post op-eds by women in the past two days: 0.
Number of Washington Post op-eds by women in the past two days: 0.
In recent days, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt has come under intense criticism for allowing columnist George Will to spout lies about global warming science. Media Matters follows up today, noting that the editorial page has been especially biased toward conservatives in recent days:
Yesterday’s Washington Post featured op-eds by Henry Kissinger, David Broder, Bill Kristol, David Ignatius, and George Will. Today’s brings op-eds from George Will, Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Kinsley, and Eugene Robinson.
That’s ten columns total. One is by a liberal (Robinson), one by a contrarian who may lean left (Kinsley), two by centrist Villagers (Broder and Ignatius - and remember, Village centrists are typically to the right of the actual center.) And six are by staunch conservatives - Will (twice), Krauthammer, former Nixon aide Kissinger, former Bush I aide Kristol, and former Bush II aide Gerson.
Atrios also points out that there hasn’t been a single woman writer. In fact, during the past week, there have been only four pieces written by women (Anne Applebaum, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Ruth Marcus, and Kathleen Parker).
Limbaugh To Convene A ‘Female Summit’ To Figure Out Why Women Hate Him
Limbaugh To Convene A ‘Female Summit’ To Figure Out Why Women Hate Him
Women don’t really like Rush Limbaugh. On Feb. 23, Public Policy Polling released findings showing that only 37 percent of women hold a favorable opinion of the hate radio host, compared to 56 percent of men.
As Jill Zimon notes, Limbaugh brought up this poll yesterday on his radio show, noting that it was one of the largest gender gaps Public Policy Polling has seen on any issue it has polled in the past year. His solution? To convene a summit of women to find out why they dislike him:
We’ll have a summit of all the women in this audience — or as many of them as we can get into breakout groups — and perhaps devote an hour in an upcoming program to calls only from women who genuinely want to talk to me. They can be liberal, conservative. They could be non-audience members, could be audience members. But I want some of these women to start telling me what it is I must do to close the gender gap — or, if not what it is I must do to close the gender gap, what it is I’ve done that has caused the gender gap; assuming the gender gap is true and that the poll is true. [...]
I own the men, and what must I do now to own women? And who better to ask than women? Including some of those who may agree that that I’m unfavorable. So stand by for that.
Listen here:
Women generally don’t like sexist remarks. A quick scan through some of Rush’s past statements shows that he does:
– “She’s actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn’t have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat’s taught me more about women, than anything my whole life.” [11/30/06]
– “He’s trying to figure out how he can get involved in the deal down there at Duke where the lacrosse team…supposedly, you know, raped, some, uh, hos.” [3/31/06]
– “You know, there’s a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan.” [5/21/08]
– “Classic example of the castrati, the new castrati. Jack Carter is — has been castrated by the feminization of this culture since he grew up.” [2/21/06]
– “I just heard Erin Burnett sounding a little wifey. … Well [she was] whining.” [10/23/07]
Rush later followed up, saying, “The first unsolicited reports from the upcoming female summit already in. They’re saying it’s a waste of time, women will not like me any more than the ones that already do, that you have to be an Oprah today in the media to attract.” He said that he was nevertheless still intent on holding a summit.
Face it, Rush. We’re just not that into you.
One thing about the Female Summit: sorry, no transsexuals. We’re not going to have anybody who’s had an addadictomy, and we’re not going to have anybody who’s had a chopadickoffamy. We’re going to have women from birth.
Colorado state senator says HIV testing for pregnant women rewards ‘sexual promiscuity.’
Colorado state senator says HIV testing for pregnant women rewards ‘sexual promiscuity.’
Today, Colorado State Sen. Dave Schultheis (R) caused outrage by announcing that he would vote against a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he doesn’t think the government should reward “unacceptable behavior.” Schultheis explained his motives before casting the lone vote against the bill:
We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.
As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.
Barnes: When Bristol Palin Said That Abstinence ‘Is Not Realistic At All,’ She Meant That It ‘Actually Is Realistic’
Barnes: When Bristol Palin Said That Abstinence ‘Is Not Realistic At All,’ She Meant That It ‘Actually Is Realistic’
In an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren earlier this month, Bristol Palin, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter who recently gave birth to a son, said that while she believes “everyone should be abstinent,” it is “not realistic at all“:
BRISTOL: But I think abstinence is, like — like, the — I don’t know how to put it — like, the main — everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it’s not realistic at all.
In a segment discussing the “Ups and Downs” of the past week, Fox News’ Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes said on Saturday that Bristol Palin is now “the new face of teen pregnancy.” After playing a clip of Palin’s abstinence comments, Barnes claimed that what she was really saying was that “abstinence is actually realistic”:
BARNES: I guess so. That means she’s saying that abstinence actually is realistic. Either way, it’s certainly not fool proof. People slip, particularly teenagers, but not only teenagers.
Watch it:
As ThinkProgress has previously noted, abstinence-only education has proven to be completely unrealistic. Federal studies have found that abstinence-only sex education “does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.”
In November 2007, 10 leading scientists in the field of adolescent sexual and reproductive health warned that abstinence-only education withholds “information that may be critical to protecting the health of young people.” This past April, health experts told Congress that abstinence-only education programs “have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins.”
Transcript: More »
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll