Human Trafficking, When the Slave is a Family Member

Seattle Women has an interesting article about Human Trafficking in its February issue.  One of the things I find interesting about it, is that, at least for the examples they provided, the instances of trafficking were not some big human trafficking ring, but intimate/familial relationships that were exploited. 

There’s the case of the “mail-order bride” who had an email exchange and he even came to Russia to meet her and her family.  But when she and her 10 year old son came to the States it wasn’t long before they were put in the role of servants/slaves where she was also expected to fulfill his sexual demands. 

Then there was the case of Moroccan girl who was brought the states by her uncle and his wife with the promise of an opportunity of school, instead she was put to work in their espresso stand. 

The article says that people trafficked by one individual or a couple are the most common types of clients seen at ReWA ( Refugee Women’s Alliance).  Like all forms of intimate violence, I will forever find this kind of violence the hardest to understand.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t understand the classic slavery system either, but how do you other your own nieces and nephews?  How do you so other someone you marry that you can treat them in this way?  How can you provide a space for someone in your home and then abuse them to such an extent? 

I also just don’t understand how we can be raised in today’s society that claims to be so anti-slavery and that there are people who think that their behavior is okay.  I have this question not just for when it’s one or two people in a familial situation of exploitation, but also in a larger context. 

Don’t get me wrong even as I say this I recognize how naive it sounds.  I know that when I go to Home Depot there are dozens of men, most visually look like they are probably from Mexico.  I assume that people will hire these men and pay them far below minimum wage for projects.  I volunteered in New Orleans and learned about how the H2B Visa can easily be used to make sure you have a form of indentured servitude/modern day slavery.  That H2B visas are set up in a way that almost encourages abuse.  They are connected to employment and legal status is revoked as soon as the job is gone, which provides an incredible amount of power for employers.  Employer who frequently exploit their power and who don’t pay, or pay far less than promised, or provide sub-standard housing conditions, or all of the above and so often people don’t have any recourse.  I know that employers are starting to recruit from Asian countries because too many people in the U.S. speak Spanish, making it too easy for Spanish-speaking employees to access resources to protect them. 

I know all these things, but knowing these things happen and understanding how any human being could enslave another human being are two very different concepts.

Revisiting Heterosexism

I was thinking about the definition of heterosexism in the context of the State of the Union Address, particularly the policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).  You wouldn’t know it by most of the spokespeople of DADT (i.e., gay soldiers bemoaning how they can’t fight in an unjust war), but women are disproportionately affected by DADT (14% of the Army and 46% of DADT discharges; 20% of the Air Force and 49% of those discharged).  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/washington/23pentagon.html?_r=1

If heterosexism is about keeping women in their place where does the DADT policy fit?  Part of me thinks that women who are in the military are already breaking the rules of their gender by joining, so why should heterosexism a greater role in their harassment?  Then I think of one of my law school classmates who is in the armed services along with her husband, and you wouldn’t know it.  There’s nothing particularly butch about her.  She’s just you’re run of the mill mom with two kids who believes in serving her country by joining the armed services (she’s also a super cool person, proving that while I am insanely anti-military and anti-war, I am not unreasonable, I do understand that good people engage in this behavior).

Obviously there is something anti-woman about the disproportion, which in some respects supports my theory.  It’s the men who get discharged that make me wonder what else is going on. Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time imagining a “sissy”/effeminate man wanting to join the armed services.  I admit fully that that could be a total bias.  Just like my law school friend, you could be a stereotypical flaming gay man and have some sort of deep profound belief of the importance of serving in the armed services.  But what about all those guys that are totally gay and butch as hell?

I know that some of the argument is somehow that the existence of out gay men will essentially have some sort of feminizing ripple effect and thus weaken the armed services.  This again falls into my homophobia/heterosexism has its root in sexism (props to people who get the root reference ;) ).

I’m also intrigued by the idea that eliminating DADT will change the culture of the military or even the level of outness (well particularly for men).  Look at professional sports, there have only been one or two out male athletes in professional sports, and I' can’t remember if any of those were out while actively playing sports.  If the pressure to hide in the closet as profound in this arena, I can’t help but imagine that it will be equally intense in the armed forces. 

Always comes back to the hearts and minds.  Until people believe that gay is okay, truly believe, for so many people all the laws in the world will only make minimal (although sometimes quite powerful) differences. 

Sexting

“Sexting” the phenomenon of sending naked pictures via text message.  It’s a stupid, stupid, behavior that teenagers in particular seem to be partaking in.  What is particularly troublesome about the fact that teenagers are participating in this behavior is that when they get caught, they’re getting charged with child porn.  An offense that will force them to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
Now, in general I have a bit of problem with the sex offender registration, but in particular this seems like an absurd response to stupid behavior, unless that behavior is intended to be hurtful (i.e., girl sends guy naked picture, they break-up he mass forwards).  We live in a different world then I think we ever imagined we could live in.  Who knew that one day, cameras would not only exist on phones that you would carry every where, but that these phones would have the ability to forward those pictures? 
Once this happened, we should have been able to foresee that irresponsible behavior would follow.  That our culture with its obsession of sex would create a situation where there might be peer pressure for girls to send naked pictures to guys and there might be peer pressure for guys to show those pictures.  It’s locker room talk with visual aids. 
Granted this is speculation, I’m not sure there’s been any research into who's sending naked pictures, but I suspect it’s primarily girls to guys, guys to guys, but not guys to girls or girls to girls (at least not at the same rates).  In this world of the internet, Facebook, and other methods of connecting and sharing info/pictures etc., it is undeniable that the consequences of these actions may haunt people forever. 
Unless there are some other creative tools to stop sexting, the reality is that kids won’t realize that their actions will have long term enormous consequences.  Shoot, I’m sure they are plenty of adults who will be lured into the idea that they are engaging in private behavior with someone they love/trust.  If there isn’t some sort of change in technology, society is probably going to have to be the thing that changes.  Our sensibilities are going to have to forgive people who send naked for being stupid. 
Don’t get me wrong if sexual pictures are forwarded as a form of harassment, this behavior should be punished, but it should be punished under our civil laws of Title IX and anti-bullying statutes, not child pornography laws.  Those laws should be saved for adults that exploit children for the sexual gratification of other adults.  Child pornography is a dirty, criminal, awful industry that exploits and dehumanizes children.  Sexting is not the same thing and it is inappropriate to treat it as such.

Heterosexism

I was at a presentation on GLBT Youth and suicide today and the topic of heterosexism came up.  The presenter asked for someone to define heterosexism.  My definition is that heterosexism is the assumption that everyone in society is heterosexual, but that it has a sexualized component to it to.  Heterosexism embodies a concept of the sexual availability of women.  It’s about more than just whether your gay or straight, it’s about why women make less, why they are marginalized in the workplace.  Why so many job/career books try to find a way to direct women to walk the line between looking good (re: attractive to men) without looking too slutty. 

The panelist wanted to focus on the presumption of heterosexuality.  And yes, this is undeniably a part of the it, but it’s not just the presumption of heterosexuality, it’s the power and privilege maintained by the system.  If there weren’t power and privilege embodied in the system there would be no reason to be invested in the system. 

Where does the power come from?  This gets back to a thought that I have that a huge part of homophobia is about controlling women’s bodies.  It’s about making sure that we continue to be subservient to men.  There’s this incredible investment into this idea that women are desperate for men, that women should settle (there was an Atlantic article about how women should settle).  Women are a commodity. A resource that should not be diminished by allowing control over their bodies or their sexual choices. 

Ensuring male power and privilege is also a reason for beating up on effeminate boys, who are the victims of male homophobia far more than boys/men who fit into more stereotypical male models. 

State of the Union Address

Thoughts on the Obama’s first state of the Union Address

• Bank Bail Out – He said one thing that united us all was that we hated the bank bail out.  He’s right.  Really would have loved to have seen that money go to people, pay off people’s mortgages, student loans, etc.  Imagine how much money people could put towards the economy if they didn’t have to worry about those debts.
• Tax Cuts – I seriously hate the concept of Tax Cuts and how much “Washington” thinks this is what we want.  I normally do not really see much benefit from any tax cuts and would so much rather have the government keep that money if they would provide something like universal health care.
• Recovery Act/Stimulus Package – After two years of recession the economy is growing again.  I hope that’s right because I need a new job as do several of my friends who’ve been unemployed forever.  And African American's are insanely negatively impacted by the “recession.” 
• New Jobs Bill – He’s calling for one, but what will it be? True engine of job creation will be America’s businesses – focus on small business.  Really wonder how that will happen, especially with the Supreme Court ruling giving so much power to big business.  Not really sure how we’re going to step away from this corporatocracy.
• Clean energy – ugh – this seems like a catch phrase that doesn’t mean anything.
• Slash tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and give tax breaks to companies who keep jobs in America
• House passed a jobs bill.  Urges Senate to do the same. Wow that gets happy excited standing ovations.
• Full employment – lay a foundation… can’t afford economic expansion – where jobs grew more slowly, income declined, education costs at an all time high, prosperity built on housing bubble and speculation. 
• How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?  (Hmm… sounds like a question all oppressed peoples in our country have been asking for centuries, yet I suspect we won’t really be addressing oppression and poverty.)
• Side note – is there some sort of sign when to stand up.  You can also tell party not only by standing, but by the irritated sarcastic looks the Republicans have.  When will we reach a place where we can respect the members of the opposing parties who are our leaders.  I’m just a guilty, I thought Bush was one of the biggest idiots ever.  I cried when Reagan was re-elected.  But it does seem like when you’re in Congress there is a level of deference you should pay to the President, especially during the State of the Union Address.
• No second place for America – is it so wrong that I dislike this kind of patriotism?  Can we not be a human race that thinks we all should have the ability to live in a world without violence, where basic needs are met, regardless of the country you were born in?
• Guard against recklessness that nearly brought down our economy.  We can’t allow financial institutions to take risks that threaten the whole economy. 
• House passed a bill lobbyists trying to kill it.
• Side note: the Senate needs to get off its ass and make similar progress as the house.  Stop wasting your majority and show that we can be a nation that looks out for its citizens.
• Back to clean energy – ugh – safe clean nuclear power plants in this country.  There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy.  Offshore oil and gas development – sucky.  Not so green solutions.
• Some disagree with the overwhelming evidence on climate change (nice dig).  Providing incentives are the right thing to do for our economy, the nation that leads clean energy will be the nation that leads the global economy and America must be that nation (again, I’m so not patriotic enough – this whole environment thing is a problem that must be addressed on a global level). 
• Double efforts – increase that will support 2 million jobs in America. Launching a national export initiative – help farmers increase their exports and something about national security.  Seek new markets aggressively.  Can’t sit by while others create trade deals.
• Enforce agreements so trading partners play by the rules (like forcing Canada to drill for oil despite the insane negative effectives it will have on their ecological system????)
• Invest in skills and education of our people
• Any chance you’ll forgive my student loans, because wow those are crippling and limit my ability to give back to the community.
• Turning around failing schools… Hmmm… Wonder if maybe youth in poor schools might have more incentive to perform if college could be an option – priced out of everything now.
• Revitalize community colleges
• Make college more affordable – but how?  Colleges are hurting.  Programs are being cut.  Businesses own research.
• Only required to pay 10% of income and forgive if you do 10 years of public service.  I like that.  10% of my income would be great.  But what about private education loans?  Colleges and Universities have to cut their own costs (hmm… seems like arts will be lost and not football programs).
• Homes – Take out loans and reduce payment, more affordable mortgages.  What about actually finding a way to lower the cost of home ownership.  Wasn’t too long ago that a family could afford to pay off a home in five years because the costs were more reasonable than they are now.
• Clear a few things up.  Health Care.
• Didn’t take it on because it’s good politics.  Took on Health Care because of stories he’s heard.  Patients denied coverage, families, even those with Health Care one illness away from financial ruin.  Protect from worst practices.  Choose affordable health care plan.
• Michele Obama attacking childhood obesity and make kids health.  (She seems a little uncomfortable in the spotlight).
• CBO – approach would bring down deficit by $1 trillion over next two decades.
• Complex issue, longer debated, taking blame for not explaining it better.  Process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for me.
• By the time he’s finished speaking more Americans will lose health care.  Will not walk away from these Americans and neither should the people in this chamber.  Republicans still sitting down.
• Doctors, nurses, etc., consider this a vast improvement, but if anyone has a better idea from either party let him know. 
• (There’s Loche, Washington’s former governor.)
• Don’t walk away, let’s find a way to come together and finish it for the American people, let’s get it done. Let’s get it done. 
• Massive Fiscal Hole – a challenge that makes all others more difficult to solve.
• Spending – at the beginning of 2000, America had a gov’t surpluss – by the time he took office, no longer there – not paying for two wars, tax cuts, prescription plan, recession – all this before he walked in the door (McCain making side talk).
• If we had taken office in ordinary times, would have liked to bring down the deficit, and efforts to address crisis have added $1trillion – right thing to do.  Federal government needs to tighten its belt.  Here’s the thing, the government should always be looking to make sure that it isn’t wasting money, but it should never give up it’s responsibility of being the safety net to people. 
• Discretionary funding will be curbed.  Work within a budget to get what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.  Washington politics again.  All one has to do is look at the stimulus package to see that when it comes to trying to get votes people will be able to pork barrel and all the pretty talk in the world isn’t going to change that.
• Cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket.  Can’t be a Washington gimmick to solve problem, commission will have to solve problems by a deadline.  But Senate blocked a bill – but he’ll create through executive order because he refuses to pass the problem onto another generation of Americans.
• Senate should restore the pay as you go law.
• Some will argue that we can’t address while so many still hurting – he agrees that’s why it won’t take place till next year.  But how on earth do we know where we’ll be next year.  I really don’t see that many improvements yet, I’m still scared about what will happen any day now that will make me without a job and no way to fill it.  I just got an email from a friend about a friend of hers who was laid off.  We’re not in a better place yet. 
• We face more than a deficit of dollars, face a deficit of trust, deep corrosive doubts about how Washington works, take action on both ends, reduce impact of lobbyists, do work openly, give people to government they deserve.
• White House posts visitors on line, excluded lobbyists from boards or commissions.  Require lobbyists to disclose each contact, curb ability to spend.
• Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that will open flood gates.  Supreme Court focused in on for that comment, they’re not standing.  Urge Congress to pass a bill that corrects problems
• Continue down path that addresses ear mark reforms.  Will that ever be possible?  Publish all earmarks online for a vote.  Really, like that makes a difference.  Like seeing it will make much of a difference.  The thing about earmarks is that they are designed to benefit the state the Congressional Representative comes from.  Murray gets Boeing money, that benefits Washington State.  Posting it is just proof about working for her state, the people who vote her in.
• We can’t wage a perpetual campaign – to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side.  Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.  The confirmation of well qualified public officials shouldn’t be held hostage to pet projects or a few individual senators. These politics stop either party from helping the American people.  Does anyone hear this?  Are Congressional representatives really care?  Are they there to help the American people?  If they can’t pass health care because so many or in the pockets of the insurance industry are they really representing us? 
• If Republicans are going to insist that there is a super majority, then the responsibility is yours to govern, we were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.  Show let’s show the American people we can do it together.  Wants to begin monthly meetings with Democrats and Republicans.
• No issues has united this country more than our security.  Wow am I so far at the margins, that this seems like bullshit?  It united us in trying to help each other, but not in policy.  Not in figuring out how to recover and respond.  I was not united in the detention centers where the main criteria seemed to be racial profiling.  I was so far from on board for the wars.  I do not believe in these wars.  I do not believe in torture.  I do not think it’s cool to talk about success in terms of killing Al Queda.  I want justice, the justice that comes through fair trials, through reconciliation, through finding ways to improve the lives of all people so that the temptation to resort to violence is eliminated.
• Obama promised to end this war and that’s what he’s doing as president.  Combat troops will be out by August.  Yeah, I’ll believe that when I see it, like we’ll ever really be out.  Like all of our troops will come home.  Like we’re going to end imperialism and not keep bases everywhere, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Need resources in war and when they come home.  Neither of which is or has ever been provided.  Make no mistake, our military is also about a class war, send the poor off to die, bring them home and leave them homeless and without resources to address the incredible psychological harm that occurs from the military industrial complex and taking of a human life.
• Reduce stock piles and launches.  Arms control treaties – farthest reaching in nearly two decades.  April’s nuclear summit – securing all vulnerable nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.  I totally hate the obscure idea of terrorists- who defines what a terrorist is anyway.  Just look at Israel and Palestine to see how hard knowing who is a terrorist and who is a legitimate government engaging in legitimate government actions.
•  America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.  Gotta love ideals. Greatest strength is our ideals.  That’s kind of scary given how much ideals vary on political ideology. 
• Civil Rights division – once again prosecuting civil rights violations. 
• Finally strengthened laws for hate crimes (oooh goodies lock more people up).
• Going to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell this year. 
• Crack down on violations of Equal Pay Laws
• Fix broken immigration system. Vaguey vaguerson
• Ideals and values built America (slavery, indentured servitude, a class system that only allowed certain people to vote, exclusion of women into the political sphere – so many great ideals… )
• More that t.v. pundits reduce serious issues into soundbites… no wonder there is so much cynicism out there.  Seriously don’t blame the media, if government would get some shit done, that would totally combat the media’s cynicism.
• Shouldn’t focus on poll numbers, but doing what’s best for the next generation.  If people who made those decisions 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or 200 years ago.  Seriously dude, you’re a history buff, people haven’t looked towards the future and people.  Again slavery, segregation, gender discrimination and violence allowed.  The failure to pass health care reform for more than a decade.  The insane gap between what we will spend to kill versus the amount will spend on education and basic human services.
• Spirit lives on in you, its people. A new year, a new decade, we don’t quit. Seize the moment.

And then the end.  Can’t lie, I can’t bring myself to watch the Republican response. 

Massachusetts Elects a Replublican to Replace Kennedy - Does Gender Play a Role?

Massachusetts elected Scott Brown today over Martha Coakley. Watching Rachel Maddow right now and she's discussing the fact that Massachusetts has not elected women in strong leadership positions. The person she's interviewing is saying that how bad Coakley's campaign was was the problem and it's not a gender issue. I find it so problematic that women in particular, but anyone in general thinks gender doesn't play a huge role. It's also intriguing that she said gender doesn't matter but is criticizing Coakley for not appealing more to women. Such a Catch 22, damned if you make gender an issue, damned if you don't. And the guy elected joked about the sexual availability of his daughters in his acceptance speech. He also is against Health Reform and for waterboarding.
I was out with an intelligent woman last night who also thought that gender didn't really matter. That women (which really meant white women), have lots of privilege and should focus on their privilege. While I hear her point of view and understand that there are many a valid points in trying to create greater bridges between movements and understanding our privilege and how our privilege can help others.
The thing is, gender is insanely important. Sexism and heterosexism greatly impact every facet of our lives and the lives of women globally. We still aren't even 20% of Congress and the numbers are lower for women leaders in business (although women are leading in the creation of small businesses). Women are also lagging behind in participation in hard sciences and trust me, from the experiences of my friends who were math majors, it's not because they're not smart enough or women aren't good at math - it's because there's only so much sexism a person can take before they opt-out and decide to use their intelligence in fields where they can spend the energy on the field and not overcoming / dealing with the hostility and the discrimination.
Anyway, I can go on and will go on, but I should do other things.
I'm also again totally distracted by the tragedy of Haiti. Here is a place where devastation seems to know no gender. But it would be wrong to say it doesn't know race. It flies in the face of history to not understand that this country has been exploited, often by the white north. The debt of the country, corruption in leadership, made it a poor country with terrible physical infrastructure that compounded the devastation. My heart goes out these people.

Title IX Suit in NY

Title IX is my pet law. Title IX is the ban on sex discrimination in education. It is most widely known for the impact it has had on providing girls and women with opportunities to play sports. This is huge for so many important reasons. There are simple reasons like equality and then the reasons related to the benefits it provides. Girls who play sports are more likely to leave abusive relationships, have sex later, less likely to get pregnant, decreases the risk of breast cancer, more likely to succeed in business. But even with all those benefits, that is not the part of Title IX that gets me totally excited.
The part of Title IX that gets me excited is the connection of sex discrimination to sexual harassment, banning gender stereotyping, etc. The spirit of Title IX could mean that teachers who suspect teen dating violence would be mandated to report that in the same way they are mandated to report suspicions of parental abuse. It would mean that when boys create lists of girls to sleep with and games about sleeping with girls, that schools would be expected to interrupt that behavior. That when anyone is bullied in a manner that is based on sex stereotyping or sexual behavior schools would be expected to stop the behavior and make sure everyone has a safe learning atmosphere.
There has been some debate about how same-sex sexual harassment should fall in Title IX and Title VII (the workplace version of Title IX). Some people want to create laws that outline specific protections for harassment based on sexual orientation. I think this is redundant. I think it misses the point that harassment based on gender identity or effeminate boys or butch girls is about sex. It's about our expectations of people to conform with a specific expression of gender. Boys are supposed to behave a certain way, as are girls. Part of the expectation includes expressions of masculinity and femininity. Part of the expectation is also the sexual availability of girls/women and for boys to want to be sexually prolific with girls. These expectations are burdensome for everyone, regardless of orientation. Focusing on sexual orientation or gender identity (meaning trans) ignores the broader implications and reduces the impact of fighting sex discrimination.
Okay more later. I'm distracted by the Rachel Maddow show and the discussion of Haiti and it's late so as much as I love Title IX and the fact the Justice Department is going to pursue a sexual harassment case based on sexual orientation, I'm going to have to comment more later.

Adoption, Abortion & Changing the Debate

One of my biggest frustrations with the Abortion Debate is the way that it has been framed. It has become this overly simplified rhetoric war, mainly by the far right labeling people as murderers and baby killers. I'm not sure why I am so concerned with this rhetoric and wondering what we can do to reposition this debate away from this "Pro-Choice" vs "Pro-Life" dichotomy. But I believe our politicians and leaders have to find a different approach to this rhetoric war so that we can move beyond this division in our society. This idea shouldn't be seen as all that radical - look at the death of Dr. Tiller, something has to change, reason and compassion have to find a way to prevail.

The attempt to rethink the abortion debate took a different twist for me when one of my best friends committed suicide. My friend was adopted. Her adoptive family is and were amazing. She had the love of her parents and wide array of extended family. Despite all this, she was always disturbed by the fact that she was adopted. She hated not knowing what happened to her during the first six months of her life. She hated that she showed signs of attachment disorder when she was first brought home and the thoughts of what had happened to her during this time plagued her. She could also never get over the idea that her biological mother gave her up to be adopted. This radically altered what I think if the idea that women should not have abortions because if they do not want children, or don't want children at this time, or don't want this child because of the circumstances, they can just give the child up for adoption. The reality is that adoption is not painless process. In fact, the scars that result from feeling rejected by your parents, particularly your mother, are the kinds of scars that may never heal.

Recently I picked up a book: The Girls Who Went Away: The hidden history of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v. Wade. The book basically tells the stories of women who got pregnant and were forced into giving their children up for adoption by a variety of factors: society, family, lack of financial and emotional support for raising children. This book made me realize that the idea that adoption might somehow be easier for women emotionally and psychologically is a total myth. I will concede that for some women, abortion is difficult and they feel guilt, the thing is, I don't think it is any more difficult than living with the decision to give your child up for adoption. In fact it seems like it could be a lot easier to live aborting a fetus than to live with allowing a baby to grow from a few random cells into an actual baby, giving birth, and then giving the child away. Unlike a woman who knows what age her child would have been but for an abortion, a woman who gives a child up for adoption, knows its birthday. She knows that somewhere out there this kid is growing older. Allowing her child to be raised by people who are at a place in their lives where s/he/they are ready for a child, does not change knowing that a child born from you is in this world. It will not somehow make it easy to deal with the question from that child, should you ever meet, why didn't you love me enough to keep me? Which may not be the overt question asked, but it is the question behind the question: "Why did you give me up for adoption?" No matter what the reason and no matter how much better the child's live may have been in their adoptive home, for a birth mother, the pain of being asked that question has to be at least as harmful as the worst stories of women who have regretted their abortion (of which there are a some, but far more do not). My point is not to say adoption or abortion is bad. Or that one is better than the other. Just that so often in this debate, giving a child up for adoption is provided as an option that contains none of the emotional pain that may be involved for some people in an abortion. That is simply not true.

The other alternative, keeping a child, is also often thwarted most by those who claim to be "Pro-Life." That's the idea of providing government support for women who are raising children. From fair start breakfast and free-lunch programs, to food stamps, to other welfare programs, pro-lifers tend to be the people who most resist these "government handouts." The term welfare mother conjures up all sorts of negativity. Including sometimes radical responses, like advocating forced sterilization of women on welfare.

Of course, the best alternative, increasing awareness of and access to contraception and other safer sex tools, is also vehemently resisted. When you put all these things together, what is left is an understanding that much of this rhetoric seems to be much more about controlling the lives of women than caring about children.

Many of the women in the book I'm reading had no knowledge of how to use safer sex methods that could greatly reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, and if they had, it wan't legal either - remember, married women where only allowed access to contraception in 1965 with the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut ruling identifying the right to contraception as being part of the private sphere of life the government couldn't infringe upon. It wasn't until 1972 in Eisenstadt v. Baird that this right was extended to unmarried women. Then a year later abortion was found to be a constitutional right. This is a rapid sea change in the sexual freedom of heterosexual couples, and particularly women.

This anti-sex education stance seems all bound up in this idea that if you teach it kids will have sex sooner (or they'll have sex outside marriage). In all honesty, I think having sex before you're at least 18 is probably not the healthiest decision. I think the endorphins and artificial intimacy that sex creates complicates relationships and that it is better to wait until you're older so that things don't confused until after you have a better sense of self. But believing it is psychologically better for people to wait, doesn't mean (1) people will wait, (2) people won't eventually be engaging in sexual behavior and school is the best place to try to teach best practices, and (3) that my opinions should matter in someone else's decision about what to do with their bodies.

Who knows, maybe this means every time anti-abortion questions come up in political debates, that it is the responsibility of all of us who believe in women's full equality and in every person's ability what to do with their bodies, especially in the privacy of their own bedroom, to make sure that we always tie abortion to sex-education. That we constantly point out that the most effective deterrent to abortion is not laws - laws have not and will not ever stop women from having abortions. What will have the greatest influence is if everyone is trained that unless you're trying to have children, you should always have sex with a condom. Maybe you can use other birth control options if you're in a monogamous heterosexual relationship (like the pill or a diaphragm) and you've both been tested for STIs. I'm not saying that condoms are a 100% guarantee against pregnancy, but used correctly, they are probably the closest thing there is. And their lack of a 100% guarantee is no reason to allow ignorance to prevail and not advocate their use, because not using a condom has a much lower rate of walking away without an STI or a pregnancy.