#pregnancy prevention is theoretically my number one concern

[unpretty]

Hey, nexplanon is approved to prevent pregnancy for 5 years. They won't change the packaging because they want people to replace it every 3 years so they can get money. I work at a sexual wellness clinic. It's a whole thing with lots of long acting reversible contraceptives. Anyway that doesn't help you remember to remove your bandaging but it could happen less often!

I actually keep talking my ob/gyn into replacing mine every 2.5 years because that's when I start getting periods again >w>;;; but! this is good to know!! especially if i end up quitting my job to disappear into the woods and not have insurance, lmao

#original #pregnancy prevention is theoretically my number one concern #but my periods render me fully nonfunctional #when i went off bc for the first time in ten years for insurance reasons i. almost went to the er. before i remembered. #it's tolerable if i'm a writer hermit and can lay in bed with chamomile tea all day #but if i have to be capable of leaving the house then having periods is Not It

[brittanyyoungblog]

Pornography is Dangerous for Teens? Chill Out, The Kids are Going to be (Mostly) Alright

Americans have become increasingly fond of calling pornography a “public health crisis.” Those who claim this frequently cite adolescents’ “rampant access to pornography” as a central concern. Parents are encouraged to panic because “[p]orn is radically undermining the healthy development of children and youth, and contributing to increasing levels of sexual inequality, dysfunction, and violence.”  Of critical importance to this view is that the internet has allowed children to access pornography at increasingly younger ages and youth are especially vulnerable to its harmful effects. 

Is all of this panic justified, though? Is pornography really as dangerous as some claim? 

In early 2018, I was invited to join a group of hard-working sociologists in the Republic of Croatia to help them examine and publish data they had been collecting about adolescents’ pornography use. This was my first serious foray into the academic literature concerning teen porn use, but I tackled the work with gusto. I’ve since been reading and publishing as much as I can about this topic in academic channels; however, I’ve said very little about it in more public forums, where my take on this issue will likely be unsettling to many people because it conflicts with the popular narrative about the damaging effects of porn. When it comes to pornography, I genuinely think that the kids are going to be (mostly) alright. 

If you look beyond the rhetoric and take the time to read the actual research, it is very difficult to conclude that adolescents are in a state of crisis because of pornography. Whether we’re talking about pornography’s influence on sexual health, mental / psychological well-being, or rape-supportive attitudes and behaviors, there’s really not a whole lot going on. Sure, there’s tons of research one could cite to make the case that pornography is destroying adolescents, but much this work relies on overly simplified theoretical ideas and poor research practices designed to confirm morally-inspired presumptions about the harms of such materials. Critical analysis and reflection is often absent from this literature and inconsistent findings are typically ignored. 

It turns out that the effects of pornography, to the extent that they actually exist at all, are very subtle. So subtle in fact, that when it comes to real-world issues of societal import, like safer-sex, the effects are not consistently detected across studies. A quick review of the literature, for example, indicates that three studies find that pornography-using teens report less consistent condom use than teens who don’t use porn (Luder et al., 2011; Wingood et al., 2001; Wright, Tokunaga, & Kraus, 2016). Further reading, however, indicates that another three studies find no association between pornography consumption and condom use (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; Lim, Agius, Carrotte, Vella, & Hellard, 2017; Sinković et al., 2013). Moreover, recent Croatian research that I was involved in found no evidence that pornography use was associated with decreases in subsequent condom use in two groups of adolescents who were followed over time (Koletić, Štulhofer, & Kohut, 2019). 

When it comes to risky sex beyond condom use, the story is essentially the same. Whether we’re talking about condom use, age of first intercourse, or number of sexual partners, we really do not have firm evidence that pornography is clearly or strongly influencing sexual risk behaviors.

Given the modest—at best—and conflicting findings, it shouldn’t be surprising that post-internet adolescents are actually doing better on many markers of sexual risk taking than pre-internet teens. Condom use and age of first intercourse have both increased, while rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions have decreased among teens in the age of unrestricted access to explicit models of risky sexual behaviors. If there are negative impacts on pornography on the sexual health of adolescents, they are clearly not strong enough to counteract these societal trends.  

With respect to sexual health (and many other presumed “harms”), porn has become a boogeyman. If you are legitimately worried about the sexual health of teens (and you should be, given the notably high level of STIs in this population), pointing the finger at porn is really a distraction from bigger issues. Research tells us that factors like recreational substance use, “abstinence only” sexual education, over-reliance on hormonal methods of birth control (which only protect against unintended pregnancy and not STIs), and the general lack of parental communication about safer sex, should all be much more concerning to you than teens’ access to online porn. 

Now, I often get the impression that people think of me as a porn apologist. I like to think that I’m not, or at least that I try not to be. In this spirit, I am going to suggest an important caveat about my conclusions. Scholars like me, that is, those in fields like psychology, communication science, or sociology, rely heavily on research practices that can only speak to what pornography might be doing “on average,” and can’t really speak to what porn might be doing for any given individual, in any given circumstance.  

With this point in mind, while I feel quite comfortable concluding that pornography is relatively harmless for teens “on average,” that doesn’t mean that pornography can’t have harmful impacts for specific people in specific circumstances. Just who those people and what those circumstances are, however, remain largely unanswered questions.

One important circumstance might be the typical lack of comprehensive sexuality education. A point on which we can probably all agree is that pornography should not be the sole or primary source of information about sexuality for kids. Porn is a fictionalized drama, and while many adolescents recognize this, some do not. In a social context of poor sexual education, both within the home and within schools, teens—and adults—who strongly believe that pornography offers an idealized template for sexual interactions are in for a world of problems. 

Let me leave you with a metaphor that I use in my human sexuality classes: Imagine if we lived in a world where Driver’s Education was more like your typical Sex Education class, replete with incomprehensible diagrams of the combustion engine and full of curious details like “pistons,” “crank-shafts,” and “exhaust manifolds.” Such complicated and incomprehensible instruction would almost always be accompanied by exposure to explicit visual reminders of the personal and social harms of unsafe driving. 

If you were a “lucky” student, a public health nurse might teach you how to properly apply your seatbelt across an oversized stuffed banana that roughly approximates the size and shape of the human body. Most importantly, at no time would you be allowed to look at, handle, or get into a car before you reach a magical and arbitrary age. Even then, you would only be allowed to do so once you’ve made a life-long commitment to a single car, and it would be expected that you would only use it for its intended purpose: to get you off somewhere.  

If this was the world in which we lived, illicit movies like Fast and Furious 8—which glorify the glistening curves of the automobile, the ecstatic cries of their engines, and the outright exhilaration of reckless and promiscuous (if a little unrealistic) driving—would give many of us cause for concern. In such a scenario, which of the following do you think best serves the public good: preventing teenagers from seeing a movie intended for adultsorgiving them frank, comprehensive, and effective Driver’s Education?

Thanks to Dr. Taylor Kohut for this guest post! Follow Taylor’s work here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Credits: 123RF/Stas Vulkanov

Check out these other interviews with authors: 

How Porn Changes The Way Teens Think About Sex, And Why We Need Porn Literacy

Porn Ed: What Happens When Porn Replaces Sex Education?

How Is Porn Use Linked To Relationship Satisfaction? It’s Complicated

from Meet Positives SMFeed 8 https://ift.tt/2PJzZVw via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Meet Positives SMFeed 8

[ellenlucasonlinedatingblog]

Pornography is Dangerous for Teens? Chill Out, The Kids are Going to be (Mostly) Alright

Americans have become increasingly fond of calling pornography a “public health crisis.” Those who claim this frequently cite adolescents’ “rampant access to pornography” as a central concern. Parents are encouraged to panic because “[p]orn is radically undermining the healthy development of children and youth, and contributing to increasing levels of sexual inequality, dysfunction, and violence.”  Of critical importance to this view is that the internet has allowed children to access pornography at increasingly younger ages and youth are especially vulnerable to its harmful effects. 

Is all of this panic justified, though? Is pornography really as dangerous as some claim? 

In early 2018, I was invited to join a group of hard-working sociologists in the Republic of Croatia to help them examine and publish data they had been collecting about adolescents’ pornography use. This was my first serious foray into the academic literature concerning teen porn use, but I tackled the work with gusto. I’ve since been reading and publishing as much as I can about this topic in academic channels; however, I’ve said very little about it in more public forums, where my take on this issue will likely be unsettling to many people because it conflicts with the popular narrative about the damaging effects of porn. When it comes to pornography, I genuinely think that the kids are going to be (mostly) alright. 

If you look beyond the rhetoric and take the time to read the actual research, it is very difficult to conclude that adolescents are in a state of crisis because of pornography. Whether we’re talking about pornography’s influence on sexual health, mental / psychological well-being, or rape-supportive attitudes and behaviors, there’s really not a whole lot going on. Sure, there’s tons of research one could cite to make the case that pornography is destroying adolescents, but much this work relies on overly simplified theoretical ideas and poor research practices designed to confirm morally-inspired presumptions about the harms of such materials. Critical analysis and reflection is often absent from this literature and inconsistent findings are typically ignored. 

It turns out that the effects of pornography, to the extent that they actually exist at all, are very subtle. So subtle in fact, that when it comes to real-world issues of societal import, like safer-sex, the effects are not consistently detected across studies. A quick review of the literature, for example, indicates that three studies find that pornography-using teens report less consistent condom use than teens who don’t use porn (Luder et al., 2011; Wingood et al., 2001; Wright, Tokunaga, & Kraus, 2016). Further reading, however, indicates that another three studies find no association between pornography consumption and condom use (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; Lim, Agius, Carrotte, Vella, & Hellard, 2017; Sinković et al., 2013). Moreover, recent Croatian research that I was involved in found no evidence that pornography use was associated with decreases in subsequent condom use in two groups of adolescents who were followed over time (Koletić, Štulhofer, & Kohut, 2019). 

When it comes to risky sex beyond condom use, the story is essentially the same. Whether we’re talking about condom use, age of first intercourse, or number of sexual partners, we really do not have firm evidence that pornography is clearly or strongly influencing sexual risk behaviors.

Given the modest—at best—and conflicting findings, it shouldn’t be surprising that post-internet adolescents are actually doing better on many markers of sexual risk taking than pre-internet teens. Condom use and age of first intercourse have both increased, while rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions have decreased among teens in the age of unrestricted access to explicit models of risky sexual behaviors. If there are negative impacts on pornography on the sexual health of adolescents, they are clearly not strong enough to counteract these societal trends.  

With respect to sexual health (and many other presumed “harms”), porn has become a boogeyman. If you are legitimately worried about the sexual health of teens (and you should be, given the notably high level of STIs in this population), pointing the finger at porn is really a distraction from bigger issues. Research tells us that factors like recreational substance use, “abstinence only” sexual education, over-reliance on hormonal methods of birth control (which only protect against unintended pregnancy and not STIs), and the general lack of parental communication about safer sex, should all be much more concerning to you than teens’ access to online porn. 

Now, I often get the impression that people think of me as a porn apologist. I like to think that I’m not, or at least that I try not to be. In this spirit, I am going to suggest an important caveat about my conclusions. Scholars like me, that is, those in fields like psychology, communication science, or sociology, rely heavily on research practices that can only speak to what pornography might be doing “on average,” and can’t really speak to what porn might be doing for any given individual, in any given circumstance.  

With this point in mind, while I feel quite comfortable concluding that pornography is relatively harmless for teens “on average,” that doesn’t mean that pornography can’t have harmful impacts for specific people in specific circumstances. Just who those people and what those circumstances are, however, remain largely unanswered questions.

One important circumstance might be the typical lack of comprehensive sexuality education. A point on which we can probably all agree is that pornography should not be the sole or primary source of information about sexuality for kids. Porn is a fictionalized drama, and while many adolescents recognize this, some do not. In a social context of poor sexual education, both within the home and within schools, teens—and adults—who strongly believe that pornography offers an idealized template for sexual interactions are in for a world of problems. 

Let me leave you with a metaphor that I use in my human sexuality classes: Imagine if we lived in a world where Driver’s Education was more like your typical Sex Education class, replete with incomprehensible diagrams of the combustion engine and full of curious details like “pistons,” “crank-shafts,” and “exhaust manifolds.” Such complicated and incomprehensible instruction would almost always be accompanied by exposure to explicit visual reminders of the personal and social harms of unsafe driving. 

If you were a “lucky” student, a public health nurse might teach you how to properly apply your seatbelt across an oversized stuffed banana that roughly approximates the size and shape of the human body. Most importantly, at no time would you be allowed to look at, handle, or get into a car before you reach a magical and arbitrary age. Even then, you would only be allowed to do so once you’ve made a life-long commitment to a single car, and it would be expected that you would only use it for its intended purpose: to get you off somewhere.  

If this was the world in which we lived, illicit movies like Fast and Furious 8—which glorify the glistening curves of the automobile, the ecstatic cries of their engines, and the outright exhilaration of reckless and promiscuous (if a little unrealistic) driving—would give many of us cause for concern. In such a scenario, which of the following do you think best serves the public good: preventing teenagers from seeing a movie intended for adultsorgiving them frank, comprehensive, and effective Driver’s Education?

Thanks to Dr. Taylor Kohut for this guest post! Follow Taylor’s work here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Credits: 123RF/Stas Vulkanov

Check out these other interviews with authors: 

How Porn Changes The Way Teens Think About Sex, And Why We Need Porn Literacy

Porn Ed: What Happens When Porn Replaces Sex Education?

How Is Porn Use Linked To Relationship Satisfaction? It’s Complicated

from MeetPositives SM Feed 4 https://ift.tt/2PJzZVw via IFTTT

#IFTTT #MeetPositives SM Feed 4

[robbiemeadow]

Pornography is Dangerous for Teens? Chill Out, The Kids are Going to be (Mostly) Alright

Americans have become increasingly fond of calling pornography a “public health crisis.” Those who claim this frequently cite adolescents’ “rampant access to pornography” as a central concern. Parents are encouraged to panic because “[p]orn is radically undermining the healthy development of children and youth, and contributing to increasing levels of sexual inequality, dysfunction, and violence.”  Of critical importance to this view is that the internet has allowed children to access pornography at increasingly younger ages and youth are especially vulnerable to its harmful effects. 

Is all of this panic justified, though? Is pornography really as dangerous as some claim? 

In early 2018, I was invited to join a group of hard-working sociologists in the Republic of Croatia to help them examine and publish data they had been collecting about adolescents’ pornography use. This was my first serious foray into the academic literature concerning teen porn use, but I tackled the work with gusto. I’ve since been reading and publishing as much as I can about this topic in academic channels; however, I’ve said very little about it in more public forums, where my take on this issue will likely be unsettling to many people because it conflicts with the popular narrative about the damaging effects of porn. When it comes to pornography, I genuinely think that the kids are going to be (mostly) alright. 

If you look beyond the rhetoric and take the time to read the actual research, it is very difficult to conclude that adolescents are in a state of crisis because of pornography. Whether we’re talking about pornography’s influence on sexual health, mental / psychological well-being, or rape-supportive attitudes and behaviors, there’s really not a whole lot going on. Sure, there’s tons of research one could cite to make the case that pornography is destroying adolescents, but much this work relies on overly simplified theoretical ideas and poor research practices designed to confirm morally-inspired presumptions about the harms of such materials. Critical analysis and reflection is often absent from this literature and inconsistent findings are typically ignored. 

It turns out that the effects of pornography, to the extent that they actually exist at all, are very subtle. So subtle in fact, that when it comes to real-world issues of societal import, like safer-sex, the effects are not consistently detected across studies. A quick review of the literature, for example, indicates that three studies find that pornography-using teens report less consistent condom use than teens who don’t use porn (Luder et al., 2011; Wingood et al., 2001; Wright, Tokunaga, & Kraus, 2016). Further reading, however, indicates that another three studies find no association between pornography consumption and condom use (Braun-Courville & Rojas, 2009; Lim, Agius, Carrotte, Vella, & Hellard, 2017; Sinković et al., 2013). Moreover, recent Croatian research that I was involved in found no evidence that pornography use was associated with decreases in subsequent condom use in two groups of adolescents who were followed over time (Koletić, Štulhofer, & Kohut, 2019). 

When it comes to risky sex beyond condom use, the story is essentially the same. Whether we’re talking about condom use, age of first intercourse, or number of sexual partners, we really do not have firm evidence that pornography is clearly or strongly influencing sexual risk behaviors.

Given the modest—at best—and conflicting findings, it shouldn’t be surprising that post-internet adolescents are actually doing better on many markers of sexual risk taking than pre-internet teens. Condom use and age of first intercourse have both increased, while rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions have decreased among teens in the age of unrestricted access to explicit models of risky sexual behaviors. If there are negative impacts on pornography on the sexual health of adolescents, they are clearly not strong enough to counteract these societal trends.  

With respect to sexual health (and many other presumed “harms”), porn has become a boogeyman. If you are legitimately worried about the sexual health of teens (and you should be, given the notably high level of STIs in this population), pointing the finger at porn is really a distraction from bigger issues. Research tells us that factors like recreational substance use, “abstinence only” sexual education, over-reliance on hormonal methods of birth control (which only protect against unintended pregnancy and not STIs), and the general lack of parental communication about safer sex, should all be much more concerning to you than teens’ access to online porn. 

Now, I often get the impression that people think of me as a porn apologist. I like to think that I’m not, or at least that I try not to be. In this spirit, I am going to suggest an important caveat about my conclusions. Scholars like me, that is, those in fields like psychology, communication science, or sociology, rely heavily on research practices that can only speak to what pornography might be doing “on average,” and can’t really speak to what porn might be doing for any given individual, in any given circumstance.  

With this point in mind, while I feel quite comfortable concluding that pornography is relatively harmless for teens “on average,” that doesn’t mean that pornography can’t have harmful impacts for specific people in specific circumstances. Just who those people and what those circumstances are, however, remain largely unanswered questions.

One important circumstance might be the typical lack of comprehensive sexuality education. A point on which we can probably all agree is that pornography should not be the sole or primary source of information about sexuality for kids. Porn is a fictionalized drama, and while many adolescents recognize this, some do not. In a social context of poor sexual education, both within the home and within schools, teens—and adults—who strongly believe that pornography offers an idealized template for sexual interactions are in for a world of problems. 

Let me leave you with a metaphor that I use in my human sexuality classes: Imagine if we lived in a world where Driver’s Education was more like your typical Sex Education class, replete with incomprehensible diagrams of the combustion engine and full of curious details like “pistons,” “crank-shafts,” and “exhaust manifolds.” Such complicated and incomprehensible instruction would almost always be accompanied by exposure to explicit visual reminders of the personal and social harms of unsafe driving. 

If you were a “lucky” student, a public health nurse might teach you how to properly apply your seatbelt across an oversized stuffed banana that roughly approximates the size and shape of the human body. Most importantly, at no time would you be allowed to look at, handle, or get into a car before you reach a magical and arbitrary age. Even then, you would only be allowed to do so once you’ve made a life-long commitment to a single car, and it would be expected that you would only use it for its intended purpose: to get you off somewhere.  

If this was the world in which we lived, illicit movies like Fast and Furious 8—which glorify the glistening curves of the automobile, the ecstatic cries of their engines, and the outright exhilaration of reckless and promiscuous (if a little unrealistic) driving—would give many of us cause for concern. In such a scenario, which of the following do you think best serves the public good: preventing teenagers from seeing a movie intended for adultsorgiving them frank, comprehensive, and effective Driver’s Education?

Thanks to Dr. Taylor Kohut for this guest post! Follow Taylor’s work here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Credits: 123RF/Stas Vulkanov

Check out these other interviews with authors: 

How Porn Changes The Way Teens Think About Sex, And Why We Need Porn Literacy

Porn Ed: What Happens When Porn Replaces Sex Education?

How Is Porn Use Linked To Relationship Satisfaction? It’s Complicated

from Meet Positives SM Feed 5 https://ift.tt/2PJzZVw via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Meet Positives SM Feed 5

[positivelydefiant]

Urgent letter from your constituent

Here's a letter I sent to AL State Sen. Melson re: SB185, the bill that would let a Dr. or pharmacy deny you healthcare if they objected based on their personal religious beliefs. I'm pasting it below in case someone might find it helpful in lobbying their own Representative. It contains some great links, including a link to interviews done for Samantha Bee that are a must-see. [I x'ed out my personal info for posting publicly]

March 7, 2017

Hi Senator Melson, my name is Lori Xxxxxx and I am a constituent of yours, living at xxxx xxxxxx xx., Florence AL 35633. I spoke with you briefly in Montgomery following a meeting of the Senate Health Committee in February. We had a great conversation where I mentioned that I didn’t drive down from Florence to protest you, or to lobby you, but just to talk to you, to touch base about some upcoming legislation that I’m very concerned about.

 SB185 is heading right to your committee on Wednesday. Please forgive the informality and length of this letter, but for the sake of limited time, I wanted to convey my concerns as directly and completely as possible. For ease of reference, here’s a link directly to the bill: http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2017RS/PrintFiles/SB185-int.pdf  

 Please, please, please take a moment to read this letter!!! I recognize that you might end up supporting SB185 anyway, but in representing us in Montgomery, you have to know what this bill will mean for us.

 The issue of RURAL ACCESS is real

(and it’s a real pain in the behind!)

 The reality for women (and people in general) in rural areas --- there are limited options for where you can receive medical care.��

 ·      If you are a struggling mother of 3 who needs birth control to prevent becoming pregnant and having a child you and your husband just cannot afford, and you can financially only take a few hours off of work to see a doctor, and your only option of a doctor within a couple hours drive refuses to provide treatment that you desperately need because of their religious belief, what do you do? 

 ·      If the only pharmacy in your town refuses to sell you birth control, what do you do? 

 ·      If you are a girl in your 20s whose doctor refuses to prescribe her birth control and shames her from ever asking for it again, the likelihood of her having an unplanned pregnancy skyrockets, as does the likelihood of her seeking out an abortion, all of which would have been avoided had she had access to the birth control she was seeking.

 ·      What if you are a man wanting Viagra, but no pharmacy in your region is willing to dispense it?

 ·      What if you live in a town that has one pharmacy and it is run by a Jewish pharmacist that refuses to dispense any medication that is not certified Kosher? --- I know, unlikely in AL, but as a Jewish person who lives here, I wanted to include an example that illustrates what it’s like to be forced to have your medical treatment contingent on somebody else’s religious belief.

 Examples of the problems people will face should SB185 pass are too many to list here. Lauderdale and Colbert Counties, where you and I live, is filled with small towns and rural areas. I have friends just like the struggling mother of 3, who will face the very situation I described above, if SB185 passes, and the one doctor she can reasonably see denies her the medication she needs. In fact, 65 of 67 counties in Alabama are considered “rural” with many, many men and women throughout the state who don’t have access to more than one choice of doctor or pharmacy.

  What constitutes an “emergency situation”

 The bill states the following: "in a life-threatening situation where no other health care provider is available or capable of providing or participating in a health care or medical service, a health care provider shall provide and participate in diagnosis, medical treatment, medical care, and medical procedures until an alternate health care provider capable of providing or participating in the emergency medical treatment, medical care, or medical procedures is found or otherwise becomes available." 

 That implies that the only types of medical emergencies that exist are ones that are "life-threatening." Perhaps you have debilitating endometriosis, but live in a rural community where the doctor won't prescribe you the birth control pills that science proves would bring you relief. Though this is not technically "life threatening," I'm sure women who experience incapacitating pain each month might argue otherwise.

  This type of legislation has played out in other states, with DISASTROUS results for both doctors and their patients

 Alabama is one of few states that has yet to pass legislation like this, but we have a litany of stories from other states where similar legislation has led to disastrous results. Here are some stories about doctors being forced to make decisions against their best medical opinion:

 1.         Describing a Catholic hospital’s request that he receive a septic patient, one doctor said – “Because the fetus was still alive, they wouldn’t intervene.  And she was hemorrhaging, and they called me and wanted to transport her, and I said, ‘It sounds like she’s unstable, and it sounds like you need to take care of her there.’  But, despite the emergency nature of the situation, the doctor from the Catholic hospital said, ‘This isn’t something we can take of.’” From  When There’s a Heartbeat: Miscarriage Management in Catholic-Owned Hospitals

 2.         “I had one of my partners accept this patient at 19 weeks.  The pregnancy was in the vagina.  It was over . . . [S]he’s septic to the point that I’m pushing pressors on labor and delivery trying to keep her blood pressure up, and I have her on a cooling blanket because she’s 106 degrees.  And I needed to get everything out.  And so I put the ultrasound machine on and there was still a heartbeat, and [the hospital ethics committee] wouldn’t let me [continue providing the care she needed] because there was still a heartbeat.  This woman [was] dying before our eyes, I went in to examine her, and I was able to find the umbilical cord through the membranes and just snapped the umbilical cord …so that I could put the ultrasound – ‘Oh look.  No heartbeat.  Let’s go.’  She was so sick she was in the [intensive care unit] for about 10 days and very nearly died . . . Her bleeding was so bad that the sclera, the white of her eyes, were red, filled with blood.” From When There’s a Heartbeat: Miscarriage Management in Catholic-Owned Hospitals

  And the personal experiences of patients who have suffered life-changing consequences because of policy like SB185. As a doctor yourself, you must know how stories such as these will play out all throughout Alabama! Just a few examples…

 Please read this! --- This NBC News article describes the experience of a woman who was raped and then denied the morning after pill: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19190916/ns/health-womens_health/t/doctors-beliefs-can-hinder-patient-care/#.WL8FY-lbq9F

 A mother of 6 goes to a local Walgreens to get a morning after pill. The pharmacist yells at her - in front of other customers - about how he will not help her kill her baby and that she is a murderer. The mother left in shame, became pregnant, and later had an abortion. This is just one of MANY stories in an article about pharmacies refusing patients: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pharmacy_refusals_101_july_2011.pdf

  The horror stories of women who have suffered and died because of religious-affiliated (Catholic) hospitals will break your heart. These very real stories SCARE THE HELL OUT OF ME! And SB185 will extend that dogma-over-medicine situation to ALL HEALTHCARE IN THE STATE OF AL. Please, as a doctor, take a look at this: 

 Health Care Denied: Patients and Physicians speak out about Catholic Hospitals and the threat to women’s health and lives https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/healthcaredenied.pdf

 The comedian Samantha Bee did a segment on Catholic hospitals, and while I in no way suggest you watch her segment (something tells me it won’t be your taste in humor, as I am liberal and she often goes too far for even me :) ), online she provides a page with the interviews of real women who shared their stories. One doctor and several patients. These videos, which are quick and to the point, so effectively illustrate the disastrous outcomes when well-meaning people place their religious belief over the care of patients. https://medium.com/@fullfrontalsamb/catholic-hospitals-extended-interviews-df52109a2dd5#.qupsikyol

  There’s a movement that has been growing rapidly in your district. People have been coming together on Facebook, and then in organized meetings, and word is spreading fast. People are NOT happy with what’s playing out on the national stage. And their outrage has been transforming into a kind of civic vigilance. With each gathering, numbers have grown significantly! I don’t tell you this in order to threaten your job should you not vote our way!! 

 I tell you this because, having spoken to you, I found you to be intelligent, reasonable, and because you’re not a career politician, you seem to vote for what you genuinely feel is the right thing to do. I respect that enormously (being a person of strong convictions myself :) ). I want to work with you, have a dialogue with you. Not as a representative of some movement, but just as a regular old constituent who believes it is her duty to stand up when she sees that someone’s convictions are literally threatening the health and safety of the women in our district.

 I really do appreciate the work you put into being our Senator! So very many issues of importance cross your desk, and you are charged with the difficult job of making tough decisions. 

 I hope you will take a moment to read/hear some of these stories of real people dealing with the fallout of very theoretically-designed legislation. I am personally scared to live in a place where my experience of physical and emotional pain and suffering is less important than the private religious beliefs of those who have the power over my health care.

 All the best to you and your family,

 Lori Xxxxxxxx

 xxx xxxxx xx.

Florence, AL 35633

[email protected]

xxx-xxx-xxxx

#lobbying