- Advanced search
- Maximize
With all the post-election polling analysis, there are many
interesting outcomes that merit some soul-searching -- and not just
within the political parties.
Exit polls reveal that 54 percent of Catholic voters supported
President-elect Barack Obama, despite entreaties from Catholic
leadership to vote against Senator Obama because of his support for
abortion rights.
While this may come as a surprise to Catholic bishops who are
meeting this week to discuss the election, it is consistent with what
we know about the attitudes of Catholic voters.
In a poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood last year, Catholic
voters were asked to name their largest concerns around the issues of
abortion and family planning.
The number-one response was that there are "too many unwanted children in America whose parents can't take care of them."
Second, they said government was too quick to interfere with people's personal lives and private decisions.
And third, government was not doing enough to provide education and
resources to help people make responsible decisions about sexual
behavior and pregnancy.
In fact, Catholic voters are more likely to support comprehensive
sex education in schools (78 percent) than the general public (76
percent). And 86 percent of Catholics favor launching a major effort to
reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by both increasing the
availability of contraception for low-income women and by providing
teens with comprehensive sex education.
Put simply, Catholic voters, just like the rest of America, want
government to focus on solving problems for American families, such as
increasing access to affordable health care and helping children stay
healthy and safe and not become parents before they are ready.
And that is why President-elect Obama was elected by a majority of
Americans -- because he has a commonsense agenda to bring people
together, expand health care access, and focus on prevention.
The U.S. leads the world's most developed nations in teen pregnancy
rates and last year teen birth rates rose for the first time in 14
years. At Planned Parenthood, we work to prevent unintended and teen
pregnancy. We provide more than 2.4 million women each year with family
planning services -- but nearly another 15 million go unserved due to
lack of affordable access.
It's time all of us, including elected leaders and religious
leaders, listen to the voters, and get back to promoting the health of
women and young people -- healthy families make a healthy America. One
would hope this is an agenda that everyone, regardless of religious
beliefs, could rally behind.
Time reports that Mike Huckabee has a book coming out - and it looks as though the fiasco of Pastor...
Sharlet: I recently met an activist and memoirist named Michael Patrick McDonald, who for his second book, Easter Rising, got the only blurb I've ever truly been jealous of. He'd been trying to contact Patti Smith to win permission to quote a line from her amazing "Gloria" -- "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" in his memoir of punk and South Boston...
The best move of the year (so far) wears its Dickensian spirit and soaring optimism shamelessly and proudly on its tattered, slumdog sleeves. Slumdog Millionaire, director Danny Boyle’s cinematic triumph, demands and requires the audience to immediately believe in destiny. One that has already written the fated union of two slumdog lovers, Jamal and Latika, from an abundant inkwell overflowing with all the vibrancy, chaos, joy, despair and hope that defines modern day India. However, I warn the audience: you will have to abandon your inner cynic and 21st century nihilist to truly relish the movie’s sentiments. If not, then you won’t understand or appreciate its big-hearted intentions.
By Jake Rake
News you can use to avoid actually having to open a newspaper.
The Obama Administration plans to overhaul the Department of Justice.
The BBC profiled Jerusalem's new mayor, Nir Barkat.
Doctors in Germany appear to have cured HIV in one patient via bone marrow transplant.
A Kuwaiti court ordered the country's stock market to close.
The normally peaceful streets of Bogota, Columbia hosted violent riots in response to a perceived financial scam.
Barack Obama's Secret Service code ...
As Americans participated in
the historic election of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden as the next president
and vice president of the United States, Catholic voters also made a
significant statement about their willingness to ignore their bishops
when considering how to cast their ballot. Once again, Catholic voters
showed that as goes the Catholic vote, so goes the election. According
to exit polls, Catholics voted 54 percent for President-Elect Barack
Obama and 45 percent for Senator John McCain. As the bishops meet this
week in Baltimore at their annual fall assembly, we hope they will spend
some time reflecting on the will of Catholic voters and where those
few bishops who huffed and puffed their way through the election and
pushed a hard-line approach went wrong.
As shown in our poll, "The Catholic
Voter in Summer 2008,"
Catholic voters, like all voters around the country, are most concerned
with the bread-and-butter issues that effect all Americans. Catholics
showed once again that the most important factors in their decision
about who should be the next president and the issues they want him
to focus on were improving the economy, affordable health care, ending
the war in Iraq and keeping the country safe from terrorism. Catholics
represented the largest swing in religious voters in this presidential
election, with seven percent more Catholics voting for the Democratic
candidate as compared to 2004.
Catholics voted their conscience
over the objections of their bishops who issued statements and lobbied
against the candidacy of Barack Obama because of his prochoice stance.
This wasn't always easy; on the eve of the election, Bishop Robert
Finn of Kansas City-St, Joseph, appearing on a radio show, said to Catholics
considering a vote for the Democratic candidate: "Give consideration
to your eternal salvation."
While it was a small minority
of the bishops across the country, there were several who pushed the
message that the issue of abortion should trump all others for Catholic
voters on Election Day. A letter from Fort Worth Bishop Kevin Vann and
Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell called abortion "intrinsically evil"
and said that it is "morally impermissible" for Catholics to vote
for prochoice candidates over pro-life candidates. Bishop Arthur J.
Serratelli from Patterson, NJ criticized President-Elect Obama's support
of the Freedom of Choice Act writing that, "We choose our leaders
who make our laws. Every vote counts. Today, either we choose to respect
and protect life, especially the life of the child in the womb of the
mother or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedoms. At this point,
we are still free to choose!"
Many Catholics were rightly
turned off by this overt electioneering. In our poll of likely Catholic
voters, 70 percent said that the views of Catholic bishops are unimportant
to them in deciding for whom to vote and 73 percent said they believe
they are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the
bishops recommend. On Election Day, Catholic voters held firm to those
views and showed just how misguided those few bishops and conservative
Catholics are who claimed the issue of abortion must trump all others.
Despite the hierarchy's claims
that abortion needed to be the one issue that Catholics voted on, and
in direct contradiction to alarmist claims made by a few reporters and
headline writers, Catholics overwhelmingly disagreed with the idea that
abortion should be the deciding factor this election. Those bishops
who didn't interfere in this election cycle are to be commended for
not going the old route of communion wars and threats of excommunications.
There is change in the air and more and more public officials recognize
that the views of the hierarchy do not reflect the views or votes of
their constituents.
Those few bishops who sought
to make the election about abortion, and abortion alone, showed how
out of touch they are with most Catholics. We hope that, as the bishops
come together this week, they do not bend to those ultra-conservative
bishops but instead temper the dialogue, seeking to bring their flocks
with them and not push them away. The bishops should not spend this
week attempting to spin doctor their way out of a crushing defeat. Instead
they should focus on a pastoral approach to the common good that speaks
to the majority of Catholics who voted in favor of a president who shares
their values on sexual and reproductive health-as well as many other
issues.
As prochoice Catholics, we
celebrate the election of a prochoice president who has been a strong
supporter of abortion rights, comprehensive sexuality education and
access to reproductive health care. The next administration will have
to work hard to repair the damage done to reproductive right during
the last eight years: the Global Gag Rule, abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs, subordinating science to personal belief, and a pervasive
program against family-planning efforts. Undoubtedly, concerns about
America's economic security and military engagements overseas will
garner a great deal of attention. However, we urge the next administration
and Congress to also work for advances in reproductive health care in
the US and abroad.
Catholic voters overwhelmingly
endorsed an agenda that includes access to family planning, comprehensive
age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs in order
to reduce the need for abortion. We will continue to stand with this
majority of Catholics worldwide who disagree with the dictates of the
Vatican on matters related to sexuality, contraception and parenthood.
We are excited about the prospect of working with the new administration
and Congress to effect change for the better on issues of sexual and
reproductive health and rights, both domestically and internationally.
Read the Catholics for Choice statement on the bishops' gathering in Baltimore here.
The 2008 election provides a significant occasion to rethink our assumptions about justice and politics---concepts we rarely link together, least of all during presidential campaigns and elections. [...]
On November 4, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida approved ballot measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. The initiatives amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby barring the state from recognizing marriages that do not meet this criteria. Similar measures have passed in eighteen other states since 2004, contributing to a growing national movement to introduce a federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide. The surprising success of these initiatives makes it likely that similar proposals will continue to be introduced in other states and ensures that the controversy over same-sex marriage will continue for years to come. When confronted with this issue, many Muslim-Americans may instinctively support such initiatives, citing Islam's clear stance against homosexual lifestyles. However, should Muslims' position on this and other political issues be dictated solely by their moral views on homosexuality? Taking a deeper look into these initiatives and their implications suggests that the answer may not be so simple.
A broad array of religious
groups and faith communities have come together to urge President-elect
Barack Obama to make reproductive health a priority in the first months
of his administration. Decisions about whether or when to have children
are among the most sacred and monumental that people consider in their
life. It is important that they have access to the reproductive
health care information and services they need for such decisions.
For many families across the globe, access to reproductive health care
is the difference between being able to fulfill dreams and struggling
to survive.
In this country,
more than 17 million women cannot afford reproductive health care services.
Internationally,
each year, half a million women die and 10-15 million women suffer chronic
disability from preventable complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
In this country,
one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted infection and nearly
60,000 new HIV infections occurred in 2006.
We have a moral responsibility
to heal our ailing communities. A new administration and the 111th
Congress will be sworn in to office in January. We are hopeful that
the New Year will shine a light on the morality and value of addressing
these issues and that the administration makes them an immediate priority.
Our letter to the new President:
Dear President-elect Obama,
Our faith communities, comprising
millions of Americans, unite in a shared moral commitment to preserve
the reproductive health of our nation. Though traditionally cast
as a woman's issue, we maintain that prioritizing reproductive health
and justice is an integral part of achieving greater social justice
for all. The ability to plan and care for one's family is central
to addressing the myriad social, political and economic concerns we
face. Accessing comprehensive health care services safely and legally
is inextricably linked to the ability of our country's citizens and
families to thrive. This is why we urge you to make these issues a priority
in your administration.
Reproductive health is critical
at every stage of development: from routine gynecological exams, to
comprehensive and accurate sex education and disease prevention information,
to access to the full range of contraceptive options, to obtaining nondirective
counseling and proper obstetrical services during pregnancy.
Furthermore, access to reproductive
health information and services builds a foundation for healthier families
and communities, reduces maternal and infant mortality and improves
the health of women and their families. It allows women to continue
their education, thereby improving their economic status and the well-being
of their families and their communities. Additionally, it is critical
in preventing unintended pregnancies and in ensuring the blessing that
every child is a wanted child.
The following three issues
are among the social justice priorities of our faith communities, access
to: comprehensive sex education, abortion services and contraceptive
information and options.
Access to
Comprehensive Sex Education
As faith communities, we are
committed to sex education in our public schools that empowers and protects
young people, honors diverse values, and promotes the highest ethical
standards. Religious Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible sex
education that is complete, age appropriate and includes accurate information
about abstinence and contraception.
Federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs are often based on incomplete information, fear, shame and
exclusivity, denying basic civil rights to young people. They withhold
information about pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and frequently
distort other health information. There is also a growing body of evidence
that shows abstinence-only programs do not impact teens' decisions
to abstain from sexual activity, while comprehensive programs can effectively
do this.
In addition to compromising
ethical and public health standards, many abstinence-only programs currently
funded by the federal government and taught in public schools use messages
that are couched in religious rhetoric. As faith-based organizations
committed to the separation of religion and state, we believe it is
critical that public health and medically accurate methodology - not
restrictive views or ideologies - inform the sex education that young
people receive in our country's public schools.
Therefore, we urge you to:
Ensure that, as
they grow, young people in public schools receive comprehensive, medically
accurate, scientifically sound sex education that includes the unbiased
health information about abstinence and contraception necessary to help
them make responsible and safe life decisions.
Ensure that young
people from other countries are not barred from accessing the full range
of information because of restrictive, ineffective, ideologically motivated
policies that put youth in HIV ravaged nations at higher risk. Remove
funding requirements for dangerously ineffective abstinence-only programs
in US global HIV/AIDS policy.
Access to
Abortion Services
As faith communities, we believe
that each individual is capable of making complex moral decisions. Our
faith traditions and American law entrust patients with autonomy in
making health care decisions, free from government interference. We
assert that in a diverse democracy each person has the liberty to draw
upon his or her own faith for guidance, and not be subject to a single
religion's views.
The landmark 1973 Supreme Court
decision in Roe v. Wade affirmed a woman's right to terminate
a pregnancy. However, since then, many anti-choice, ideologically-driven
organizations, religious groups and elected and appointed officials
have tried to restrict, if not eliminate, the ability to exercise this
right, effectively codifying their own beliefs. This infringes upon
the entire country's guarantee of religious freedom and personal liberty.
Furthermore, these efforts endanger women's health and lives and intrude
upon a woman's right to decide what is right for her.
Therefore, we urge you to improve access to abortion
services:
Support the Freedom
of Choice Act, which reaffirms a woman's right to choose to bear a child
or terminate a pregnancy, and urge its passage in Congress.
Repeal the Hyde
Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion services. Low-income
women and women of color are disproportionately affected by this restrictive
law. These women are not abstract entities, but members of our faiths,
who often depend on the government for their health care. Restrictions
on local and federal government funds force them to risk their health
by delaying or even foregoing reproductive health care. Striking
funding restrictions will help eliminate this unjust denial of vital
care and the resulting disparity in access to care.
Access to
Contraceptive Information and Options
As faith communities, we believe
access to affordable and comprehensive contraceptive information and
services is an essential part of basic health care. Restrictions to
contraceptive access lead to more unintended pregnancies and significantly
contribute to the alarming rates of sexually transmitted infections
and disease, posing a serious threat to our nation's public health.
Access to family planning faces
ongoing attacks by individuals and organizations attempting to impose
their own political and ideological views, instead of respecting women's
and families' reproductive health and religious freedom. We believe
in the autonomy of women as moral decision makers. All women should
be able to choose whether, when, or if they have children.
Therefore, we urge you to:
Ensure contraceptive
access for all women and men by increasing support and funding for Title
X family planning clinics and for voluntary international family planning
assistance. All individuals, regardless of age, income, religion, race,
or geographic location need access to the full range of contraceptive
options.
Protect and strengthen
access to birth control, including emergency contraception. Implement
safeguards so that no one religious practice or belief denies women
the freedom to make personal decisions about their own health.
Restore funding
to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), so that the most vulnerable
women and families around the world have access to vital reproductive
health services. In addition, for many women, family planning
clinics serve as the entry point to access health care services. Fully
coordinate and integrate family planning with HIV prevention, care,
and treatment programs.
Repeal the Global
Gag Rule (Mexico City Policy), which withholds much needed aid from
family planning agencies that even mention abortion. Allowing international
health clinics to provide comprehensive services would enhance the efficacy
and efficiency of their work, saving the lives of women around the world.
We welcome the opportunity
to work together to preserve the reproductive health of our women and
girls and strengthen our nation's families and communities.
Sincerely,
American Friends Service Committee
Catholics for Choice
Christian Lesbians Out
Disciples for Choice
Disciples Justice Action Network
Hadassah
Jewish Women International
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Lutheran Women's Caucus
National Council of Jewish
Women
NA'AMAT USA
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory
Board
Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice
Religious
Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing
Unitarian Universalist Association
of Congregations
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church, General
Board of Church & Society
Union for Reform Judaism
Women's Alliance for Theology,
Ethics and Ritual
With California Jews lining up on either side of a heated gay marriage debate, those opposed to gay nuptials were vindicated November 5 when a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage passed by a narrow margin.
By Jeffrey Goldberg
The news that Rahm Emanuel has accepted Barack Obama's request to be
his chief of staff is fascinating on many levels, not least of which is
Rahm's deep Israel credentials. First, in the interest of full
disclosure, I've known Rahm for a long time, and he's yelled at me for
no good reason on many occasions. This, of course, is the way he
expresses affection. I do believe, despite the yelling, that Rahm is an
excellent choice to run the White House, and I'll get into that later.Rahm ...
Despite strong attempts by some religious leaders, fundamentalists and far right extremists pushing extreme ballot measures, to coerce Catholics into voting for Senator McCain solely for his anti-choice policy stance, the majority of Catholics opted for a more moderate religious compass and voted for Barack Obama.
54% of Catholics supported President-Elect Obama and his Catholic running mate, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden. Obama and Biden are both strong supporters of reproductive health access, widespread access to prevention methods and comprehensive sexuality education.
According to an excellent article in The Boston Globe today that explores the Catholic vote as well as anti-choice Catholic leaders exploration of that vote,
There must be a lot of disappointed Catholic bishops this morning -- dozens of them issued statements over the last few weeks suggesting that abortion should be the primary issue for Catholic voters, and yet it appears that a majority of Catholic voters opted for the abortion-rights supporting candidate in the race, Barack Obama, and helped him win the presidency.
Catholics didn't just break from the shackles a group of religious leaders have burdened them with over the last eight years in particular, they rallied behind Obama in spite of Obama's strong pro-choice stance. Why?
Reproductive health advocates might attribute it to Obama's ability to broaden the reproductive and sexual health conversation beyond the pro vs. anti-choice discourse that never seems to evolve into anything but more division. Instead Obama has been able to redirect the conversation, nationally, to focus on the importance of giving women and families the tools to plan for the families they want and care for the families they have with access to contraception and preventive measures. He also publicly supports, and was angrily attacked by his opponent for, comprehensive sex-ed - programs that are proven to provide a strong foundation to our young people so they can make the best decisions they can for their health and lives. These are also programs overwhelmingly supported by U.S. parents. These are issues Americans feel secure in supporting and they are issues that do not so bitterly divide the electorate.
The Reverend Thomas J. Reese of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University tells The Boston Globe that he attributes the Catholic support of Obama, in part, to "a few anti-abortion, high profile, lay Catholic intellectuals." He is, no doubt, speaking of people Doug Kmiec, a known pro-life scholar who strongly and vocally supported Barack Obama despite their differences of opinion on abortion and other reproductive health issues.
But we should not doubt the power that progressive religious figures who support reproductive health and rights, played in encouraging Catholic voters to expand their perspective on these issues. Rev. Carlton Veazy of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice says of Obama's win, "We are a nation that believes in the right to make decisions according to our faith and conscience – and reproductive choice is the embodiment of that fundamental principle."
Some Catholic leaders are not happy. They clearly see the Catholic vote for Obama as a betrayal of Catholic principals according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' "Faithful Citizenship" document which outlines the ways in which Catholics should make political decisions, particularly with voting; the core issue in the document being "the right to life for the unborn."
Of utmost importance, public policy wise, to this group of extremely religious, far right Catholic leaders, is the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) - a bill that President-Elect Obama has promised to sign into law as one of his first acts. FOCA federally codifies that which Roe v. Wade allows and essentially would override any anti-choice state legislation that bars access to legal abortion outlined in Roe v. Wade. This will clearly be the focus for the religious right over the coming months. It remains to be seen whether President-Elect Obama will choose to pass a sweeping bill like FOCA immediately or whether this is something, in the midst of a dismal economic environment, and two wars, most Catholic voters will feel the need to challenge. But Reese is looking for that magic bullet to bring Catholic voters "back into the fold":
"Will the abortion debate rise up again in four years at the next presidential election? A lot depends on President Obama and the Democratic Congress. If they push through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), then they will have betrayed their pro-life Catholic supporters. This will make it nearly impossible for these people to support them again. On the other hand, if they make a priority the enactment of an abortion reduction bill, then it will be more difficult for the bishops and the Republicans to portray the Democrats as the pro-abortion party."
A few days ago, I happened to see Fox News "analyst" Dick Morris announce that there would be a $6...
At an Obama rally in Columbus, Ohio, ANP asked
Obama supporters how they would feel if they wake up on November 5th to find
that John McCain has won the election. Produced with Patricia Foulkrod, director of The Ground Truth.
By Jake RakeIn the mid-90’s, Chris Rock famously joked that there could never be a black Vice President because some black guy was liable to kill the President and would be hailed as a hero in the black community for his involvement in putting the first black President in office. By 2009, Rock’s joke will have become obsolete for two reasons:Not quite...
a.) The first black President will take office without any overtly related murders
b.) Killing the President of the United States is nearly ...
Sundown for Colorado Fundamentalists
Salon.com's Mike Madden attended the New Life evangelical Christian church in Colorado Springs yesterday and filed a report that considers the waning political power of religious fundamentalists in America on the eve of the 2008 election. New Life was, not too long ago, at the vanguard of the evangelical Christian churches' rise in political power:
New Life isn't just any megachurch. Its founding pastor, the Rev. Ted
Haggard, once led the National Association of Evangelicals. He helped
rally his flock -- and conservative Christians around the country --
behind George W. Bush's reelection campaign four years ago. For a time
it seemed New Life, the largest church in Colorado, was set to be the
vanguard of a political movement that would put the Bible into
policymaking for years to come, as Karl Rove and evangelical leaders
like Haggard teamed up to turn the country red.
But that was before the fall of its founder and before the 2006 midterm elections that swept Democrats into Republican Congressional seats all over America:
But that was before Haggard was forced out
of his post after a scandal involving methamphetamines and a gay
hooker, two elements that don't go over that well among
fundamentalists, and especially not when mixed together. Two days
later, Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Now,
two days before another election, with the polls pointing toward a
Barack Obama victory both in Colorado and nationwide, the country no
longer quite seems to be going New Life's way.
Though Boyd did not make much mention of politics in his sermon yesterday he did take time to implore his congregants to vote yes on Amendment 48 that would redefine the word 'person' in the Colorado constitution to include zygotes at the moment of fertilization. That amendment, which has been supported since the inception of its campaign by the leadership at evangelical churches like New Life, will likely fail tomorrow:
The same polls that show most Colorado voters will reject Boyd's advice on the abortion amendment also show Obama leading in the state. Independent voters, who make up 26 percent of the ballots cast in early and absentee voting, appear to be breaking heavily for Obama. A Senate race, between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer, is considered a virtual lock for Udall.
Tomorrow could also turn out to be firther evidence that the political power of the social conservatives and the evangelical Christian movement that are so closely tied is waning:
Should places like Colorado, and Ohio,
and North Carolina and Virginia -- all states with more than their fair
share of evangelical Christian conservatives -- go blue on Tuesday, it
will be a clear sign that the sun may be setting on the political
influence of fundamentalist churches like New Life.
Study Finds Significant Link Between TV Sex and Teen Pregnancies
A study, published today in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years and found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about
twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the
least:
"Watching this kind of sexual content on television is a powerful
factor in increasing the likelihood of a teen pregnancy," said lead
researcher Anita Chandra. "We found a strong association."
Studies have found a link between watching television shows with sexual
content and becoming sexually active earlier, and between sexually
explicit music videos and an increased risk of sexually transmitted
diseases. And many studies have shown that TV violence seems to make
children more aggressive. But the new research is the first to show an
association between TV watching and pregnancy among teens.
"This finding underscores the importance of evidence-based sex
education that helps young people delay sex and use prevention when
they become sexually active," said James Wagoner of Advocates for
Youth. "The absolutely last thing we should do in response is bury our
heads in the sand and promote failed abstinence-only programs."
Time and MSNBC also cover the study.
Almost Half of Women Have Sexual Problems
A recent study by Dr. Jan Shifren, an associate professor of obstetrics,
gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and
director of the Vincent Menopause Program at Massachusetts General
Hospital, found that about 43 percent of women report sexual problems and about 12 percent of women reports distress accompanying that problem:
Overall, 43.1 percent of those surveyed reported some kind of sexual
problem: 39 percent reported diminished desire, 26 percent reported
problems with arousal, and 21 percent problems with achieving orgasm.
Only 12 percent, however, reported significant personal distress associated with this problem.
And there were age differences. "The highest prevalence of sexual
dysfunction was in older women, but they experienced less associated
distress," Shifren said. "The most distress occurred at mid-life, and
the youngest women had the lowest prevalence of problems and of
associated distress."
13-Year-Onld Rape Victim Stoned to Death in Somalia for Adultery
HuffingtonPost.com reports on a tragedy that belies words:
A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in
Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human
rights group said.
Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a
stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of
Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing
witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of
adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights
group said.
Initial local media reports said Duhulow
was 23, but her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of
the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told
Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her
physical appearance.
Calls to Somali government officials and the local administration in Kismayo rang unanswered Saturday.
"This child suffered a horrendous death at the behest of the armed
opposition groups who currently control Kismayo," David Copeman,
Amnesty International's Somalia campaigner, said in a statement Friday.
Man on a Mission: John Chittick Walks the World Talking to Teens About HIV/AIDS
A former art-gallery owner turned HIV/AIDS education expert and lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health has been walking the world's streets for over a decade and estimates he has spoken with over 300,000 teens all over the world about HIV/AIDS:
In 1997, he launched TeenAIDS, created what he says was the Web's first site for teens and HIV, teenaids.org,
and started his "World Walks." He operates on a shoestring budget from
private donations, and has avoided government funding because he
doesn't "want any strings attached." (He shakes his head at the Bush
administration's abstinence-only education.)
By Donna Abu-Nasr (AP, October 26, 2008)
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - The ruler of conservative Saudi Arabia said he plans to attend a meeting at the United Nations next month to discuss his initiative to promote interfaith dialogue, the official Saudi Press Agency reported.
By Jeffrey GoldbergI've only watched the 12-minute version of "Obsession," the film sent
to more than 28 million people in various swing states, apparently by
associates and partisans of the Jewish movement known as Aish HaTorah,
or "Fire of the Torah," but it was enough for to understand that it is
the work of hysterics. One of my favorite hysterics, the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, is featured prominently, pieces of the sky falling about her head as she rants about the End of ...
In his NYT column, Milton scholar Stanley Fish offers the first Obama/Jesus comparison that actually makes sense. Meanwhile, NYT's in-house pop conservative, David Brooks, tells The New Republic that he's thrilled that Bono is joining the papers stable of columnists...
By Jake Rake
Two Tennessee skinheads have been arrested for allegedly conspiring to kill Barack Obama.
A federal judge has protected convicted sex offenders' right to celebrate halloween.
The head of Iraq's puppet government has condemned the United States' raid into Syria.
A prominant Alaskan Republican who looks nothing like Tina Fey was convicted on seven felony counts of lying on financial disclosure forms, and now faces up to five years in prison.
Charles Barkley tells CNN's ...
The New Apostolics' Spiritual Warfare against Catholics and the Amish (or Rick Santorum's Close Call) Palin's Churches and the Third...
Author:
Shmuel Rosner
Posted to Jewcy: October 21, 2008 11:34 am=====
[Note: This post is part of an ongoing dialogue between Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic and Shmuel Rosner of Slate
on the need for U.S. national candidates to stop invoking the Jewish
state every chance they get. Rosner's first letter can be read here; Goldberg's reply to it, here.]
Dear Jeffrey,
Since I'm on my way back to the east coast, where I'll spend the next two and a half weeks -- watching election returns somewhere in Ohio or Florida -- I'll soon also have an opportunity to de-sharpen those re-sharpened edges. Or maybe the sharper the better?
I guess our discussion can only move forward if we somewhat abandon our initial topic (why Israel should not be mentioned as mach) and try different angles with which to entertain our Jewcy readers. You asked about Israeli government officials, so I'll start with them, and generally speaking, I think these can be divided into three main groups.
A. Those supporting Obama for a while now. They include Democratic-leaning Israeli officials -- most supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton's and switching to Obama, few supporting Obama from the start. These officials generally believe that a Democrat will make America stronger - hence, will benefit Israel. Some also believe that Obama will get involved in the Israel-Arab peace process and help advance it in ways that Bush could or would not. The more realistic among them think this is mostly true for the Syria-track. There's a fair number of Israelis unhappy with Bush's tendency to oppose -- or not to encourage -- an Israeli Syrian dialogue. Anyway - these pro-Obama supporters consist the smallest of the three groups I was mentioning.
...
Read this article in its entirety at: http://www.jewcy.com/post/how_israeli_officials_view_obama_and_mccain