What does the Tennessee House Bill 3517 REALLY say?

Tennessee House Bill 3517 would make changes to sections 39-13-107 and 39-13-214 of the Tennesse Code so that the resulting code would read:

39-13-107. Viable fetus as victim.

(a) For the purposes of this part, "another," "individuals," and "another person" include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by this part, and when at the time of the criminal act the victim was pregnant.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend the provisions of § 39-15-201, or §§ 39-15-203 39-15-205 and 39-15-207.

(c) Nothing in subsection (a) shall apply to any act or omission by a pregnant woman with respect to an embryo or fetus with which she is pregnant, or to any lawful medical or surgical procedure to which a pregnant woman consents, performed by a health care professional who is licensed to perform such procedure.

39-13-214. Viable fetus as victim.

(a) For the purposes of this part, "another" and "another person" include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by this part, and when at the time of the criminal act the victim was pregnant.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend the provisions of § 39-15-201, or §§ 39-15-203 39-15-205 and 39-15-207.

(c) Nothing in subsection (a) shall apply to any act or omission by a pregnant woman with respect to an embryo or fetus with which she is pregnant, or to any lawful medical or surgical procedure to which a pregnant woman consents, performed by a health care professional who is licensed to perform such procedure.

This bill changes assault and homicide law in Tennessee to replace the words, "viable fetus of a human being" with the words, "human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero".

In other words, an attack on a woman carrying an embryo or fetus, at any stage of gestation, whether or not that fetus or embryo is viable, is the same as attacking (or murdering) two people.  If the woman survives, but the embryo fails to implant due to the attack, then the attacker is guilty of murder.

The law doesn't state whether or not it matters if the woman knows she is pregnant.  It also doesn't state how police will determine that a woman is (or was) carrying an embryo.  It is possible that the stress of the attack may induce a spontaneous abortion that is, as I've said before, unnoticed by the woman.  

So this may be rather difficult law to enforce in many cases.

In my last post on this law, I went overboard in believing that this law would criminalize regular behaviors that actually endanger the child.  It seems to be restricted to acts of assault or homicide.  The woman seems to be exempt from her own acts or omissions - possibly through intent.

But this law does set a dangerous precident.  It claims that any ovum is the same as any person in cases of assult or murder.  It is not clear that a pregnant woman's intent to terminate her own pregnancy is not assault or homocide upon her embryo or fetus, moving her from the class of "mother" to the class of "attacker".

This law is also dangerous in that it could make a murderer out of someone who merely committed assault and happened to be unlucky enough for the woman to miscarry naturally.  An aggressive shoulder-bump in a crowd could result in manslaughter charges due to natural miscarriage.

 

What have I learned from this?  Hopefully I've learned to not jump the gun and let my emotions run away with me.  I forgot that experts often comment in areas where they are amateurs - and I am not an expert in law.  So the next time I comment on a law, I'll do my best to get expert advice.

Tennessee goes BATSHIT INSANE and attacks the rights of women.

UPDATE: 27 April 2012 - 

As they say legally, "mea maxima culpa".  I made a mistake here, so please accept my apologies.  

My friend Richard called me on it in the comments, and he's right.  I'll be making a new post on this over the weekend, and will link to it from here when done.

For now, know that this law does not criminalize a woman's actions (or omission of action) toward the fetus.

The rest of this post will stay here, as a lesson on letting emotions overcome reason.

----------------------------------------

You know, when I posted "If Abortion is Murder, then Coffee is Manslaughter", I had several people tell me that I was being silly.  That my little fictional story was merely a "slippery slope fallacy" not worth taking seriously.

Well, let me be the first to say, "I told you so".

Tennessee is trying to pass a law that will criminalize all spontanious abortion, known commonly as miscarriage.

The Tennessee House last week voted 80-18 to make miscarriage — or the killing of any fertilized egg — murder. Last night, the Tennessee Senate passed by a 28-2 margin a companion version of the bill. The bill specifically includes all embryos “at any state of gestation in utero.” Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Haslam has not indicated if he will sign the bill.

To be clear, this bill goes further than covering, say, a violent attacker harming an expectant mother who then, unfortunately, miscarries. This bill, House Bill 3517 and the Senate’s companion, makes anyone’s actions that presumably cause a miscarriage murder. Opponents of the bill question how law enforcement would actually enforce this law or determine if someone’s action was a direct cause of a miscarriage.

This bill removes the "viability requirement" that currently exists for protecting fetuses.  In other words, it doesn't matter if the fetus is "viable" - that it can survive outside of the womb with medical attention - it doesn't even matter if the fetus, or the fertalized ovum, would never become viable - for example if the blastocyst failed to implant.

If the Prosecutor thinks that he or she can make the case against a woman who miscarries due to second-hand smoke, or job stress, or for even "ordering and consuming three 'Doppio Espresso' drinks" at Starbucks, then that prosecutor could bring murder - or at least manslaughter - charges against the mother of that zygote.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but this is a BATSHIT INSANE bill!  No matter what the intent is, the actual outcome would be to force women of child bearing age into a special class, where high stress jobs are denied to them, where they are not allowed to roam anywhere or participate in any activity that might endanger their possible fetus.  Because doing so would leave them liable for possible murder charges.

This law provides prosecutors the ability to expand liability beyond the mother, so it may be that others around the woman in question could join in with murder or manslaughter charges.  The clerk that hands the woman that espresso, the boss at the high stress job, the trainer at the gym could all possibly be held liable at the discretion of the Prosecutor.

What if the woman miscarries after going to target practice at the local shooting range?  Could another shooting range customer be charged with manslaughter for that?  Will there be a multiplier on his sentence due to the use of a gun?

"Oh no, that's crazy talk!"  Yes, you might think that, but when I first wrote about coffee being equal to manslaughter I was told THAT was crazy, and yet here is a bill that would criminalize that!

This isn't a "slippery slope fallacy" - because we have evidence right here that politicians are trying to actually create this greased slope toward the removal of the basic human rights. This isn't paranoia - it is actually being attempted.

This is what Lewis Black calls, "Fuck Nuts Crazy".  Pure and simple. 

The creeping removal of women's right to privacy...

I hope that my readers are aware that the decision of Roe V. Wade was made as a balancing act - it balances the right of privacy with the State's interest in protecting prenatal life, and protecting the health of women.

The idea that a fertilized ovum is a person, deserving of the full rights granted to natural persons, is not a rational position to hold.

I've written about this before - human gestation is not straightforward.  A fertilized ovum is at best a potential person, and declaring it a person worthy of full rights of a natural person is problematic at best.

I've described what can happen at the worst - where declaring a blastocyst to be the same as a natural person leads to ridiculous tyranny where coffee could be a form of manslaughter.

Well, it's happening:
The "creeping criminalization of pregnant women" has begun.

Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her fetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."
She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother."

Abortion vs. Personhood

Sometimes I read about atheists who wish to ban abortion. A few have even given their support for a Personhood amendment.
And I have to wonder - have they thought this through?
I will be the first to admit that a fertilized ovum is "human". But then, so are my skin cells. The real argument is over what is a "person". I'll get to that.
First, let's discuss how we all came to be. (And for you biologists out there, feel free to correct this poor electrical engineer! I'm sure I screwed up something!)
Fertilization is the fusion of gametes, (sperm and ovum) to form a zygote. The zygote goes through "cleavage" (cell division) to form a Blastula. After about 5 or 6 divisions it is called a Morula, at which point it starts to form a hollow ball of cells around a center of liquid. Once the ball is formed it is called a blastocyst. The inner cell mass of this ball starts to form structures that will later define the fetus.
Up to this point, the blastocyst has not adhered to the uterine wall - when it does, it is called implantation. At implantation the cells are called an embryo until about the 8th week, when it is then called a fetus. Implantation happens between 6-12 days after fertilization.
I won't go into the development of a fetus here.
A baby is what we call a human that has been born. Newborn is the designation of a human from birth to several weeks old, and infant is the designation usually given from one month to 12 months.
Now let's review miscarriage.
Miscarriage (also known as "spontanious abortion") is actually very common in humans. Especially before implantation of the blastocyst. There is only a very narrow window of opportunity for the blastocyst to implant, and this window can be affected by various things.
The problem at this stage is that the blastocyst is about 32 cells in size, and if a miscarriage happens it often seems just like a woman's normal menstrual flow. Sometimes it is thought to be a little heavy, but not always.
No one seems to know the exact rate of miscarriage in humans because it is difficult to identify when it happens.  Depending on who you ask, or which study you read, miscarriage rates are said to be anywhere between 30-50% of all fertilized ovum. (Wikipedia, New England Journal of Medicine, WebMD, University of Ottawa, MedicineNet)
Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester. Miscarriage is less likely to happen in the second trimester or later, and is usually due to problems with the uterus, umbilical cord, or placenta.
What makes miscarriage MORE likely?
There are things that a woman (and even the father) can do to increase the likelihood of miscarriage.
Older parents are likely to miscarry due to poor genetics. Smoking increases the likelihood of miscarriage - even if only the father smokes!  Drug use is also an increased risk (but we knew that, right?) Antidepressants can cause a failure to implant.
IUDs, which mostly prevent pregnancy by preventing fertilization also prevent blastocysts from implanting in the uterine wall. Also in some few cases the combined oral contraceptive pill (the most common birth control pill) will cause the blastocyst to fail to implant.
There are studies that show a correlation between exercise and an increased risk of miscarriage in the first trimester, with more and heavier exercise leading to greatly increased chance of miscarriage.
There are correlations between caffeine use and miscarriage, and stress and miscarriage too.
So what happens if we define a fertilized ovum to be a person?
There is no argument that a baby is a person. Personhood is usually granted after birth. (Although this isn't always true. In some countries it has been common to not officially acknowledge or even name a baby until a year after birth - due to high rates of infant mortality.)
But what if we grant a fertilized ovum the same rights to personhood that you and I reading this text on a screen enjoy?
If a mother spontaneously aborts, or miscarries, we will need to determine to what degree the mother (and perhaps even the father) is culpable for the death of that "person" in a similar manner that we now do with born persons.
In the death of a non-born person, we must ask:

• Was the woman sexually active, and not using any form of birth control that prevented fertilization?
  • If so, was she living a lifestyle that is risky to the unborn?

Depending on how these questions are answered, the woman may be guilty of manslaughter, or negligent homicide. There are already cases of women charged with drug trafficking and child neglect due to their use of illegal drugs during pregnancy.

• What if the woman willfully consumes caffeine during pregnancy, in the hopes of triggering a miscarriage? Or joins a cross-country track team for the same reason?

There are cases where women have been charged with murder for attempting to end their unborn child's life. Whether the method of murder is a pellet gun or a 10 mile run might not matter.  (Wikipedia)
Obviously, if a fertilized ovum is the same as a person, AND it deserves the protection of the State, then some restrictions must be placed upon women of child-bearing years.
These restrictions might include:

1. No high-stress jobs. (Sorry about your dreams of becoming a District Attorney!)
2. No sports. (Perhaps women athletes could guarantee that they are not sexually active?)
3. No using the Birth Control Pill or IUDs. (Spermicide and condoms should be fine.)
4. Frequent pregnancy testing. (If you don't know you are pregnant, how can you protect your baby?)

I'm sure other protections may occur to the reader.
Roe V. Wade
So why is Abortion legal? Why did Roe V. Wade make it legal?
One of my religious acquaintances told me that Roe V. Wade was decided in order to allow woman to "avoid the consequences of sex".
In reality, Roe V. Wade is a privacy issue. It's about personal liberty. The restrictions that I enumerated above are invasions into a woman's liberty and privacy. They are a form of tyranny.
A family with two children may decide that "2 is enough" and then use birth control methods to prevent future pregnancy. But not all birth control methods are 100% effective, so it is still possible for the woman to become pregnant again.
Perhaps such a pregnancy will endanger her health, perhaps it will kill her. Or maybe the family is on the financial edge and cannot afford another baby - maybe it cannot even afford a full term pregnancy.
Roe V. Wade recognizes that the mother may decide to have an abortion. The decision made by the Supreme Court recognized that it is her private right to make such a decision. The court also decided that it was better that the mother do it safely, instead of using a risky method.
And risky methods of abortion abound. Ask any woman who remembers what abortions were like before 1973.Women died.
But the State also recognizes that it has a responsibility toward the unborn too. This is why Roe V. Wade talks about the viability of a fetus. If the fetus is viable, it is right to protect it. Viability could be as early as 24 weeks with artificial support.
At 24 weeks the pregnancy is obvious and miscarriage is unlikely to occur.
Last thought: In-Vitro Fertilization
"In vitro" means "within glass" and refers to the fertilization of ovum outside the mother's body as a treatment for infertility.
Usually several embryos are cultured before being transferred back to the mother. This is done because some embryos are not as viable as others (the best are chosen for transfer back) and because not all embryos will implant in the mother. Usually only 2 or 3 embryos are transferred back to the mother, with others held back until it is known that implantation occurs.
Usually there are several embryos that are left over from the process. These can be cryopreserved, but are often discarded - usually by the decision of the family.
If every embryo is a person, deserving of full rights of personhood, then IVF will need to change dramatically, or be made unlawful.
So, where are you in the debate on abortion?

Medical Students for Choice

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that laws preventing abortion in the United States violated our constitutional right to privacy. Due to "Due Process" as outlined by the 14th Amendment, all State and Federal anti-abortion laws that outlawed abortion were overturned.

In this ruling, the Supreme Court established a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body - at least up to the point in which the fetus is able to live outside the mother's womb. And in the case where a woman's health is endangered, even a viable fetus may be aborted.

My personal feelings about abortion is that it should be rendered unnecessary. If I were given a magic wand to wave, I'd give every woman the biological ability to physically reverse a pregnancy and reabsorb a viable fetus - at any point, at will.

But since I can't do that, I want to do the next best thing. I advocate safe contraceptives that would make it darned hard for a woman to become pregnant until she decides to do so. I advocate teaching men and women about contraceptives and contraceptive methods before they grow to child-bearing age, so they can be prepared to make those decisions.

I also advocate that abortion must be kept safe, legal and affordable for all women.


That this basic human right - the woman's right to choose - is under attack is really no surprise. Protests, graphic images, pharmacists refusing to fill emergency and standard contraceptives, even religious whackos physically attacking and killing abortion providers and their staff - all of these actions have become matter-of-fact, prosaic.

But there is another front on this war against woman's rights. Anti-abortionists are actively working to prevent medical students from receiving education in abortion methods. This isn't good - this isn't just a denial of women's rights - but it is also dangerous to women's health. The medical techniques involved are not just about abortion, but also include therapeutic procedures such as a D&C or Vacuum Aspiration.

Blocking training in these methods is as stupid as blocking training in cosmetic surgery - because only self-centered people would ever get cosmetic surgery, right?


Pesky Apostrophe is one of my favorite blogs. It's on my "must read" daily list of blogs. "Pesky Mac" talks about a lot of things on her blog, including woman's reproductive rights. She has a lot to say about religious people who work against abortion. I think it is well worth your time to read her blog.

Pesky Mac has asked her friends, family and acquaintances, in a personal email, to take a look at non-profit organizations that promote training in all aspects of women's medicine - including abortion. I agree. I think this deserves the attention of my readers.

So no matter what your view is toward abortion, take a moment to look at my favorite organization - Medical Students for Choice. Read about the shortage of abortion providers, and what the lack of training means to everyone.

I'm asking you to also consider donating. And who knows, you might become a small part of an important discovery - maybe even the invention of a perfect contraceptive.

If abortion is murder, then coffee is manslaughter.

Don't ask me how it happened, but for some strange reason last night, my computer became a sort of time machine. Instead of the Internet of 2008, for about an hour I was connected to the Internet of 2015. (I think it had something to do with leaving that can of Bean Dip on my overheated wireless router.)

It's difficult to get the tenses correct when talking about future events, so pardon any lapses.

So, being the curious type of person that I am, I decided to peruse several online news sites. Right away, I found out that Roe V. Wade had been overturned in 2012. After that ruling, several sweeping changes were made to “support the rights of the unborn.”

From an article in the New York Times online I found out that there was a Supreme Court ruling on Scheidler V. California where life was determined to start from the moment of conception – at the point where the sperm met the egg. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito wrote in this majority ruling, “... and so the right to life is finally extended to all humans, from the moment of conception, and these smallest of humans must now be extended equal protection by law.”

I then wandered into someone's blog who has been documenting the massive fallout of litigation that has come from these Supreme Court rulings. For example, most radical right to life groups have always asserted that “the pill” was an abortificant in that it would, in a few cases, cause a fertilized ovum (or blastocyst) to fail to implant in a woman's uterine wall. With the overthrow of Roe V. Wade and the new definition of life that includes conception, they decided to test this case. Although there are many pharmaceutical manufacturers that produce estrogen and progestogen oral contraceptives, Wyeth was selected as the pharmaceutical company to sue, probably due to having headquarters in New Jersey.

In this case (Donna Schinder V. Wyeth, Morris County courthouse) Schinder won an immediate injunction against Wyeth, preventing them from manufacturing, transporting, or selling “the pill”. Wyeth appealed to the State, and finally to the Supreme Court, and lost. The Supreme Court ruling handed a further win to pro-life supporters by saying that the willful use of “abortificants” was tantamount to murder.

At about this same time, bills were introduced jointly in the House and Senate that made it illegal to manufacture, transport or sell any products that were intended to interfere with the normal progression of embryo development, starting from the point of conception. This joint bill was quickly signed into law by President Huckabee, and all oral contraceptives became immediately illegal in the United States. Along with illegal narcotics, customs agents started searching for illegal birth control pills. (I couldn't figure out if they started training “contraceptive dogs” or not.)

There were still forms of legal contraceptives available. Condoms, spermicide, diaphragms. And as usual, groups like the American Family Association and the Family Research Council campaigned against them, somewhat successfully. For example, Condoms were then sold “behind the counter” by law in many states. In a few Southern states they can only be sold to those older than 21, with a valid ID.

In 2014, the first cases of “embryo death or endangerment” under these new laws were opened against women in several states. There have been cases prosecuted in the past involving "Fetal Rights", and the use of drugs like cocaine, but under the new fetus protection laws the cases took a different course.

The first of these happened in Charlotte, North Carolina, where a manager of a Starbucks coffee shop called the police on a pregnant woman for ordering and consuming three “Doppio Espresso” drinks on premises. The case, “The City of Charlotte V. Linda Johnson” ruled against the defendant, who was charged with “willful child endangerment” for “knowingly using a substance likely to cause miscarriage.” Mrs. Johnson, in her first trimester, was in divorce proceedings at the time of her arrest, and admitted during interrogation that she no longer wanted “that bastard's baby.” She was sentenced to 18 months in jail, and she was required to forfeit her newborn to Child Protective Services upon birth.

There were a lot of cases like this across the USA.

But I found I was more disturbed by other cases.

For example, In Vitro Fertilization in the United States will come to an abrupt halt. This is because IVF is a sort of 'gamble' wherein several of a woman's eggs are fertilized and introduced to the womb in the hopes that a couple of them implant. Those that do not implant are 'washed out' naturally. This was called “gambling with life” in a popular prime-time news show that also had an in-depth expose on the rate of death of embryos frozen for future implantation, called “Snowflake Babies”. Overnight medical insurers refused to cover IVF, and a team of Federal Prosecutors was formed to look into the IVF industry.

Another disturbing case (still in the works as of my connection to the year 2015) involved a high profile Texas state prosecutor as the defendant. Mrs. Jerri Lancaster is being investigated in 2015 by the State Attorney's Office (her employer) for publicly acknowledging that she is attempting to conceive while in a high-stress job. Even today we know that stress is a risk factor for pregnancy, in some cases a blastocyst will fail to implant in the uterine wall due to stress in the mother. Mrs. Lancaster's public announcement was seen by Texans to be a sign of “negligence” toward her future unborn child.

The fallout of this case may have a profound affect on the types of jobs that women of child-bearing years are allowed to hold.

This really started to worry me. Were women going to be forced out of the workplace and back into the home, so they wouldn't be guilty of possible “negligence”? How would the state reduce the numerous risk factors for the epidemic of "spontaneous abortions"? How would the State be able to ensure that an active woman of child-bearing years with a stressful life wasn't pregnant?

I tried to find out, but at that point my wireless router failed, and there was an acrid smell of burnt bean dip in the house. I went to bed and dreamed about the complete loss of Woman's reproductive rights - it looked like something from "The Handmaid's Tale".

It wasn't until this morning that I realized that I could have downloaded 7 years of future stock market trends and sports scores. Somehow I don't think it's much of a loss – wealth wouldn't make me happy in this future world.

More support for Abstinence Plus sex education

Remember Linda Klepacki, the analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action? She's been having a bad time of it lately. I just got another Citizen Link alert from her trying desperately to spin the latest blow to funding the Federally supported Abstinence Only sex education program. The Title V block grant program that supplies almost 88 million dollars a year toward Abstinence Only education is due to expire at the end of June, and the many recent setbacks to Abstinence Only education seem to indicate that the possibility of renewal is doomed.

Abstinence Only sex eduction, as you may recall, promotes abstaining from sex until marriage, and discourages the use of contraceptives – either by not mentioning them at all, or by exaggerating their risks and failure rates. Abstinence Only sex education teaches that sex outside of marriage is not only immoral, but that severe emotional and physical costs may also result. Proponents of Abstinence Only sex education claim that Abstinence Plus sex education (which stresses abstinence, but includes information about safe sex and contraceptives) actually encourages teenage premarital sexual activity.

No one denies that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease. It is clear, however, that teaching abstinence does not seem to result in increasing the practice of abstinence among teens.

The latest blow against Abstinence Only sex education is a new study to be published Thursday in the American Journal of Sociology. This study, released by the University of Minnesota sociology department, strikes down the claim that premarital sex always results in severe emotional trauma. From the Minnesota Daily:

... while some girls who became sexually active without being in a committed relationship before the age of 15 suffer from depression in their lives, a majority did not. Researchers found the same for boys under the age of 14.

From USA Today:

The latest analysis by Ann Meier, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, found that those who are most vulnerable to depression or low self-esteem are girls who had their first sex before 15 and boys under 14.

Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health of 8,563 students in grades seven through 12 during the mid-1990s, Meier compared mental health measures of teens who were virgins during the study with teens who lost their virginity during the study.

"Among those who had sex, only about 14% experienced increases in depression or decreases in self-esteem," she says. "In terms of depression, these are relatively modest increases. For 86%, it had no big effect."

Meier points out that this study does not, by any means, give a “green light” to premarital / teen sex. From the Minnesota Daily:

[Meier] said there are no positive effects from losing virginity early, and although the section of people who have mental problems is lower than once expected, it is still a relatively large number of young people.

... the broader implications of the study are that early sex can have a negative psychological effect on girls, and schools should have more comprehensive sexual education.

Linda Klepacki spins the study in this way:

For this study to state that teens 15 and younger tend to be less committed in sexual relationships demonstrates its incredible disconnect from reality. Research shows us that young girls are much more likely to be pressured into sex by much older boys than older teen girls. The term 'statutory rape' is more apropos for 14-year-olds having sex than the term 'committed.'

The Citizen Link alert then states:

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 63 percent of sexually experienced 12- to 19-year-olds wish they had waited longer before having sexual intercourse.

To which Klepacki responds, "Is this statement not a direct result of an emotional response?”


There are a couple of odd things here. Klepacki and Citizen Link are willing to identify the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, but they don't identify who did the “research” that young girls are pressured into sex by older boys. Instead she goes straight on to use the emotionally laden word “rape”. It took me almost a minute to realize that she didn't back up her assertion of the likelihood of rape.


I can almost feel sorry for religious conservatives on this issue. They've suffered a lot of setbacks lately. The 8 year study by the Mathematica Policy Research corporation which was commissioned by Congress to find the effectiveness of Abstinence Only education showed that:

... youth in the four evaluated programs were no more likely than youth not in the programs to have abstained from sex in the four to six years after they began participating in the study. Youth in both groups who reported having had sex also had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same average age.

After the report was released, Democratic leaders in Congress indicated that they would probably drop funding for Abstinence Only sex education, labeling it a “colossal failure.”

I've already blogged that on May 24th, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the overwhelming majority of Californians prefer that comprehensive sex education be taught to their kids in school.

However, that shouldn't be surprising since a January 2004 survey of the general public and of parents by the Kaiser Foundation over the subject of Sex Education in America found that the 94% of parents thought it was appropriate to teach school age kids about methods of birth control. The same study indicated overwhelming agreement by parents that it was appropriate to teach about abortion, how to use a condom, masturbation, homosexuality, and oral sex. (link to PDF)

To add insult to injury, a new book written by Mark Regnerus, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, shows that teens that profess evangelical beliefs and who have pledged to remain virgins until marriage manage to delay sex for only a period of 18 months, on average. Slate's article on the professor's book states:

Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.

Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and other proponents of Abstinence Only are clearly out of touch here. They are out of touch with scientific reality and with popular parental opinion. Most parents remember what it was like to be a teen, and so they do the smart thing of taking a “belt and suspenders” approach toward teaching their children about sex. They want to teach their kids to abstain, and at the same time they want to reduce and control the possible consequences of sex.

The Abstinence Only crowd keeps telling the parents that they don't need the suspenders – but that just doesn't make any sense.

Fundamentalists eating their own over global warming

Evangelical lobbyist Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is getting his hand slapped by members of the Arlington Group for his statements about Global Climate Change and Population Control. Cizik recently told the media that it is indisputable that human activity has contributed to global warming and has encouraged evangelicals to make it a top issue.

The NAE president used to be, until very recently, the Reverend Ted Haggard, who you may recall stepped down after being exposed as an idiot by Richard Dawkins and as a hypocrite by a male prostitute. Haggard’s knowledge of nature and the scientific method were both shown to be lacking in his talk with Dawkins, so I’m not surprised that the NAE has shown similar scholarship and has chastised Cizik for saying that climate change and overpopulation were things that we should all worry about.

But the NAE isn’t doing enough, so yesterday our fun loving Arlington Group members wrote a polite letter to the NAE calling for Cizik’s resignation. From the letter: (PDF link)

Mr. Cizik not only believes that global warming is an indisputable fact, but he also holds related views that he has not been willing to reveal to the membership at large. In an alarming speech he delivered to the World Bank in May of 2006, he said: “I’d like to take on the population issue, but in my community global warming is the third rail issue. I’ve touched the third rail but still have a job. And I’ll still have a job after my talk here today. But population is a much more dangerous issue to touch. We need to confront population control and we can -- we’re not Roman Catholics, after all, but it’s too hot to handle now.” We ask, how is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?

Finally, Cizik’s disturbing views seem to be contributing to growing confusion about the very term, “evangelical.” As a recent USA Today article notes: “Evangelical was the label of choice of Christians with conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality. Now the word may be losing its moorings, sliding toward the same linguistic demise that “fundamentalist” met decades ago because it has been misunderstood, misappropriated and maligned.” We believe some of that misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its “conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality” can be laid at Richard Cizik’s door.

Infanticide? Okay, yes I know that the "one child" rule in China has resulted in infanticide for baby girls, but honestly, are these people asking if Cizik will promote infanticide? What kind of slippery-slope mudslinging is that? Still it's nice to see Christians flinging mud at each other for a change.

Oh dear. The fundamentalists don’t like the label anymore, and now they are worried that Cizik will mess up their cherished label of “evangelical”. I’ve got news; fundamental religious groups are going to be seen as nutty as long as they continue to preach against science, against human rights, and as long as they keep turning a blind eye toward the environment while sitting in the hip pocket of political leaders who successfully pander to religion and big oil at the same time.

There is no misunderstanding about evangelical fundamentalists – I understand quite well that you have “faith” in knowing what is best for me. Who knew Big Brother would carry a cross?

I can only hope that these religious groups continue to attack each other like this. It helps me in my small bid to make the world a better place when these religious groups start eating their own.