Image via Tumblr

Hormonal contraception expert Ema of The Well-Timed Period says the whiny "the stores are out of Plan B so I can't have sex" piece by the so-called Humor "Health Editor" at XO Jane has to be satire because... well... she's more generous than I'd be.

The upshot being that there's an exceedingly good reason why nobody can get Plan B anymore, in New York City or pretty much anywhere else once current supplies are gone.

Plan B isn't pining for the fjords, it's no more

Pharmacies are out of Plan B because Plan B has been discontinued by its manufacturer quite some time ago. So forget about Plan B and familiarize yourselves with the available emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) brands.

Source: The Well-Timed Period

Go read Ema's post for a nice, reassuringly long list of new and improved Emergency Contraceptives.

While there's been considerable back and forth about the "morality," sensibility, responsibility, and cost of using a $50-per-use method of contraception, Ema avoids all that and points out exactly why "morning after" type pills aren't a good idea:

ECP postcoital birth control is only to be used in an emergency for the simple reason that it's not as effective as the other available methods when used on a regular basis.

And then there's her bottom line:

Forget Plan B, remember Plan B One-Step, Nextime, Next Choice, Postinor, Postinor 1/Postinor2 Unidosis, and ella. Don't substitute ECP for regular birth control. And, last but not least, even in emergencies avoid attempts at satirical articles on birth control.

I love me that Ema-style expertise.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

So the video above the question for Texas Governor Rick Perry was "Why does Texas continue with Abstinence Only education programs when they don't seem to be working. In fact I think we have the third highest teen pregnancy rate in the country."

It basically totally stumped him.

His first answer, couched in a perfect imitation of George W. Bush's sullen syntax and body language, was "well... abstinence works."

When pressed further he says, well, it would work if it was taught better. Or something.

When pressed still further, though, he stops, thinks for a really long time, and comes up with possibly the stupidest answer I think I've ever heard a nominally fiscal conservative propose.

He says look, we spent however many dollars testing all high-school athletes for steroid use and "We found what? Seven? Fifteen? And we spent X number of....? .... I'm saying if that was a good expenditure then I would suggest dollars we're spending on abstinence education is a good expenditure."

Um. Fuck you? It's a really stupid comparison because, however inefficient or scare-monger-y broad screening for steroid use might be, doing the screening almost certainly won't result in more steroid use: there's no way that such a screening program is likely to cause three, or five, or ten new steroid users for every one steroid user found.

On the other hand the problem with Abstinence Only education in the face of stubbornly high rates of unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, STI transmission, sexual coercion, and sexual and marital dysfunction not just among currently-enrolled teens but, more to the point, among adult graduates is that for every seven, or fifteen students one successfully impresses in to abstinence one evidently risks losing seventy, or fifteen hundred students and, later, adults for whom the message falls short.

And I'd just add that this falls particularly short in light of the fact that good comprehensive sex education also facilitates abstinence. For instance chances are extremely good that those same seven or fifteen students Perry waves to would be abstinent in any case! Whereas those for whom it doesn't work wouldn't have worse outcomes, as seems to consistently be the case for abstinence-only curricula.

Via Em & Lo Jennifer Hafer, a PhD candidate at the University of Arkansas Walton School of Business working under the supervision of Prof. Amy Farmer, has done a non-gonzo, non-freakonomics analysis of women's entry into prostitution.

Contrary to assumptions that women enter the prostitution market only because they are desperate – that they need money to pay bills or buy drugs – the study indicates that many women, especially educated, affluent women, are making a rational decision to enter certain segments of the prostitution market. However, the research confirmed that women do not explicitly choose to enter the streetwalking segment of the prostitution market.

“Our model demonstrated that the prostitution market may be pulling educated women – these so-called ‘high-opportunity-cost’ women – out of the conventional labor market and the marriage market, in many cases,” said Jennifer Hafer, a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Business at the University of Arkansas. “The findings suggest that these women are not forced into the prostitution market but rather choose to enter it for many of the same reasons that people enter the conventional job market – money, stability, autonomy and even job satisfaction.”

Source: University of Arkansas Newswire

(Quick note: Obviously not all prostitutes are women, but since women are the subset Hafer chose to study that's what I'm going to talk about here.)

What I like about Hafer's work is that it just is what it is, an academic analysis of a poorly-understood category of work, minus all the eye-rolling, breathlessness, nervous chuckling, heart-of-golding, or you-go-girling that goes with too much other reporting on prostitution.

Another thing I like about her work is her entirely non-controversial division of prostitution into categories that conform to one traditional side's version of the story -- subsistence/street prostitution which people with other options would generally avoid, and the other traditional side's version -- work that is undertaken with greater or lesser degrees of enthusiasms but that is also undertaken voluntarily and optionally.

The problem with most conventional debates being that if you can't agree on your definitions then you can't have an argument.  And one of the problems with definition is that in most people's minds "prostitution" equals "street/subsistence prostitution."  That's significant because a) street/subsistence prostitutes are the most visible to passers by, b) they're the most-often depicted in pop-culture references, and c) as Hafer says, it's most often a job for people who'd rather be doing anything else (possibly but not necessarily including other, non-street prostitution.)

It's problematic because despite its visibility, and despite the fact that mainstream opponents frame that category of prostitution accounts for only about 15% of all prostitution.

The article ends with (gasp!) Hafer's discussion of intelligent policy implications.  (In my experience policy recommendations are fairly rare in research papers.  Intelligent ones even less so.)  There's something in it for everyone... or possibly something for everyone to object to depending on their prior assumptions:

Hafer discussed the findings’ potential impact on policy. Due to negative externalities, streetwalking should remain illegal with continued enforcement, she said. Based purely on the outcomes of the model, brothel prostitution should be legalized and regulated in expanded locations. Her policy attention to escort and Internet prostitution focused on regulation, such as licensing, health testing and possibly taxation, as a means to ensure safety and security for both the prostitute and the consumer. For the escort and Internet markets to be regulated, they must be legalized.

“The major question concerning policy is what is the overall goal?” Hafer said. “Is it better for society to make prostitution illegal in all circumstances? Legalize prostitution subject to regulation? If the demand for prostitution is present, there will always be supply.”

I think that's about right.  Street/subsistence prostitution is extraordinarily risky, and subject to incredible violence from pimps, traffickers, police, customers, passers by, and of course serial predators.  Whether it becomes legal or remains illegal it should still be vigorously policed and, to the extent possible, community organized.  I'm actually extremely wary of brothels.  I agree they should be legal but also think they should be heavily regulated in order to make sure first that they're not employing coerced or financially abused workers but also to make sure they're not the owner-friendly slut-shamed-employee hell holes they are in Nevada or Australia.  And middle and professional class prostitutes probably don't need to be regulated any more than any other sole-proprietor business or independent contractors are.

Finally, Hafer's final line seems like the key to a lot of the prostitution controversy.  As long as the demand is present supply will be present.  Since prostitution is by-definition transactional sex, and since transactional sex remains the dominant paradigm for all heterosexual sex, policing either prostitutes or customers only serves to increase the transaction cost... but leaves the transactional model completely intact.  It's my strong feeling that overturning the dominant paradigm would not only benefit all of heterosexuality in general, it would also reduce the role of prostitution, and the demand, to roughly the level of Arthur Murray dance instructors.

So a bunch of clowns at something called "ProLifeBlogs" gives a whole two and a half lines, plus a link to another website, for a new report about stillbirth.

More than 2 million babies are stillborn every year worldwide and about half could be saved if their mothers had better medical care, according to research estimates published Thursday in the medical journal Lancet. ...

Source: "ProLifeBlogs"

Two and a half lines? Is this the best a "pro-life" organization can do?

Their blog's search feature turns up exactly four other posts about stillbirth, only a handful about miscarriage, none more recent than 2007. None are actually relevant to the millions of unanswered stillbirths every year, the tens of millions more unanswered miscarriages and spontaneous abortions, and... just all kinds of stuff about how "pro-life" those folks imagine they are.

There's only one way to measure whether someone's interest is authentically "pro-life" or if instead they just want to control women: what they do about stillbirth, miscarriage, and spontaneous abortion. If they don't do anything about it, but still call themselves "pro-life" they're liars.

You know why the pro-choice movement calls itself "pro-choice?" Do you know why it fights against forced abortion in places like China even as it fights for the right to choose to terminate an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy in the United States? Because it's not about forced pregnancy, and it's not about forced abortion (and it's sure as heck not about the "sanctity" of forced sex!) Instead it's about *choice!*

A stillbirth stops a *wanted* beating heart. A miscarriage almost always stops a wanted beating heart too. Miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth are almost as prevalent worldwide as induced abortion and yet "pro-life" organizations do, what? Nothing!

You know that old quip about the pro-life movement? "Caring about children from conception to birth but not a minute after?" That's not even true is it? Because they're doing exactly what? Sure, they're willing to gun down a doctor in his church or kitchen, willing to waive banners, splash blood, "ex-communicate" honest legislators, put out vaguely racist ads, to celebrate this imposition on a clinic, that imposition on women, the other "tough minded" choice to extend a rape victims nightmare from minutes to nine months.

But a minute later they're willing to... waive bye-bye to two million stillborn babies a year with a flipping two and a half line post?  Yeah, that's "pro-life" alright.

You know what will happen to the "pro-life" movement when the Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade? Every last one of them (those who don't turn their attention to outlawing condoms) will pack up their bags, say "that'll teach those hoors and floozies" and never again trouble their little brains with another thought about "unborn life."

Meanwhile? Two million unanswered stillbirths will still happen every year. Between tens and hundreds of millions of unanswered miscarriages and spontaneous abortions a year will still happen every year. Every one of them an "unborn life" that not a one of them ever has, or ever will care about.

Because really? If they did care then someone, somewhere in the "pro-life" movement would have already stepped up their game.

If you follow the link in that casually tossed-off post you know who it turns out helped fund that Lancet Stillbirth study? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. You know who were still pro choice last time I looked? Bill and Melinda Gates. You know why they're putting time and money into this instead of a "pro-life" organization? Because unlike "pro-life" agitators they aren't just into this to punish women. They're not into this "pro-life" business to use fetuses to smack women back into line. Unlike some people. They're into it because they believe that if you make the choice to have a baby, as most people actually do, then we should all do everything we can to support that choice. Just as we should support every reproductive choice.

Instead of la-dee-daing two million stillbirths into oblivion with a miserly two and a half lines. No surprise though. That's is about what one ever expects from a bunch of lazy, immoral, unethical, inconsiderate, and hateful liars.

Update: My mistake!  A bit more research suggests that "pro-life" organizations have been agitating to... send "birth" certificates to grieving parents after stillbirth.  Because, after a hard day of defunding prenatal-care providers and imposing capricious restrictions on women's healthcare decisions what else could one possibly do about stillbirth?