I’m having a hard time wondering whether this headline is deliberately facetious:

News Flash: Mandatory waiting periods for abortion are related to higher rates of unintended teen births.

Really.

From CBC News…

The Canada Revenue Agency has given up on any further action against abortion protester David Little.

Little, who has spent the last few years moving back and forth between P.E.I. and New Brunswick, has refused to file tax returns since 2000 in protest of government-funded abortions. He was due in court in Fredericton this week to face a charge of refusing a court order to file them.

Little was found guilty in 2007 on three counts of failing to file, and eventually was sentenced to 66 days in jail for refusing to pay the $3,000 fine. He believes it’s his religious right to refuse to pay taxes because he doesn’t want his money funding abortions.

Now, I realize my tax dollars fund many wonderful things, and I realize I’m not in the position to stop paying them. However, there are a few things I can do to fund the pro life cause in an attempt to level the playing field.

When raising funds for Chernobyl Lifeline in Ireland, we would offer businesses a certificate to hang on their entrance stating they were supporters of the organization. Shoppers, especially in small communities, were more willing to part with their hard earned money when they felt they were supporting a good cause. Recently, I came across an ad for Real Estate for Life online, which had me wondering what other pro life and pro woman companies were out there. (Steve Jobs made me a loyal customer when he took a stand against pornography in the App Store.)

With a little research, you can find your own local pro life businesses (on-line directories, church bulletins, billboards, yellow pages etc.). If you look for the pro life certificate hanging in the window, you’ll be surprised just how many are out there. So while you may not want to stop paying your taxes, you can support the cause by becoming an educated consumer.

Why do women still need a prescription for the birth-control pill?

When I was 21, I went to my local walk-in clinic to get birth control. The experience began just like any other doctor’s visit. The nurse, wearing a blue plastic ring looped onto a string around her neck, asked me a few basic questions to start the process. She asked me when my last exam had been, I told her I had never had one. She then requested I come back to the clinic in a few weeks to have one. I did not have a pelvic exam during this appointment.

I expected her to explain birth control pills to me, but as she pulled on the blue ring with her index finger she told (sold) me about a product called NuvaRing (new on the market at that time). I looked around and saw a NuvaRing calendar hanging on the wall, a NuvaRing clipboard she was jotting notes on, and a NuvaRing clock hanging in the waiting room as I left the building. I left the clinic, with a 1 year prescription for NuvaRing in hand, a NuvaRing CD case (my free gift with purchase) and two packets of PlanB that the nurse told me to use after intercourse if I had any within the first two months of using my new prescription “Just in case.” She did not explain to me what PlanB was or what it did, it was simply described as a back-up birth control.

Today, I feel very ignorant of having not known what I was putting in my body, but I still believe a health care employee has a duty to explain these things before writing a prescription. This is why I am against over the counter birth control access, because even with so-called educated medical staff at our side, we’re still very much in the dark when it comes to contraception. I don’t want the responsibility of education to be left to pharmaceutical companies, because they might take the job even less seriously.

But the prospect of women gaining unfettered access to the pill has some doctors and sexual health counsellors uneasy. Would women still see their doctor for Pap smears? Could they safely screen themselves for contraindications – conditions under which the pill should not be used? Would it unleash a marketing bonanza for drug-makers and a huge increase in users?

Nevertheless, a Canadian leader in reproductive medicine and editor of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada says it seems wrong and paternalistic that, half a century after the pill’s debut in the U.S. and 41 years after coming to Canada, women still cannot get access to the most effective, self-administered birth control on the market without a doctor’s blessing.

Men aren’t required to have a testicular or prostate exam before using condoms, Dr. Tim Rowe has argued in the pages of his own journal.

Condoms, for better or for worse, aren’t chemical contraception. Men don’t gain weight, have mood swings or get blood clots from wearing a condom (regardless of what your boyfriend tells you). I wish the process of obtaining birth control, for myself, had been more in depth than it was.

It’s not like they don’t need to smile sometimes…

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqbkT3PnwkQ]

Epidural may be good for you.

It’s that time again, when university students filter back into the HRM and fill the streets with rucksack heavy bodies and iPod-laden heads. College is an important time in the lives of our young women, so Health News Digest is offering their advice for female students this year.

In particular, women need to understand the dangers involved in binge-drinking and the unique health risks that may be posed, including: date rape, unwanted pregnancies and unprotected sexual encounters. According to numerous studies, over 90% of date rapes on college campuses involve the use of alcohol.

“New freedom may mean that [students] end up engaging in behaviors that pose significant health risks,” says Diaz, “having sex, using drugs or alcohol, or maybe just getting too little sleep, eating too much junk food, or otherwise neglecting areas of [their] health [their] parents previously made sure [they] took care of. The consequences of these risky behaviors can potentially cause problems for the rest of [their] lives.”

Now, the phrasing isn’t perfect, but I like the general message. Think before you act.

Teen mother charged with newborn’s murder. What a difference a few days can make. If the baby had died 26 days before birth (heck, even 26 minutes before), there would be no charges. 26 days after birth, it’s a murder charge. Either way it’s a tragedy.

Recently, Nebraska failed to pass its legislation requiring higher standards of practice for abortion clinics, but where Nebraska has failed, Virginia has prevailed.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion yesterday that empowers the Virginia Board of Health to require women’s health clinics that offer abortion procedures to meet hospital-like standards.

The new regulations will cover medical investigating to rule out coerced abortion and statutory rape possibilities prior to an abortion. It is up to the Health Board now to enforce them.

The reason for the many inconsistencies in patient treatment at abortion clinics versus those in a hospital is down to the fact that abortion is considered an out-patient procedure. So, like getting Botox injections on your lunch break, it’s too simple and quick a procedure to require all the paperwork, patient screening and face time with medical staff. The difference is the effects of Botox wear off over a few months.

Clinics view these regulations as an attempt to close them down, but the arguments for them consider how these patients’ lives will be effected physically and mentally after the procedure. Hospitals are required to know their patients’ history, and they are held accountable for a failure to do so. There is no reason an abortion clinic shouldn’t be required to do the same.

You don’t need to be pro-life to donate to the Faith and Freedom Alliance, through which John Carpay, a Calgary-based lawyer, can continue to defend the rights of pro-lifers to voice their views on campus as he has done so effectively in the past.

Here’s a recent Interim interview with John.

Those interested in supporting campus free speech should make a cheque payable to “Faith and Freedom Alliance” and mail it to John Carpay.

In Canada,

Under the Assisted Human Reproduction Technology Act passed in 2004, a surrogate who carries a fetus for others may be reimbursed for expenses such as prenatal vitamins and costs of travelling to the doctor. She cannot receive any sort of wage for carrying the child.

Few women and even fewer couples, are willing to undergo surrogacy within these guidelines. The law has been criticized for being ambiguous.

The law is vague, and no one is sure which expenses are legitimate, said Stephanie Scott, who runs a surrogacy agency in Texas, where surrogates who work for her may be paid up to $25,000 US plus expenses for carrying the child.

The uncertainty surrounding the Canadian law has created a chill among infertile couples, Scott said.

“They’re afraid to do it in Canada. A lot of people think they’re going to go to jail,” said Scott. “If they send their surrogate, you know, $600 for her rent or whatever, they try to pay it in cash, under the table, so there’s no paper trails.”

This has pushed the search for couples desiring surrogacy outside the continent, looking primarily in countries like India.

You can outsource just about any work to India these days, including making babies. Reproductive tourism in India is now a half-a-billion-dollar-a-year industry, with surrogacy services offered in 350 clinics across the country since it was legalized in 2002. The primary appeal of India is that it is cheap, hardly regulated, and relatively safe. Surrogacy can cost up to $100,000 in the United States, while many Indian clinics charge $22,000 or less. Very few questions are asked.

But this doesn’t mean there is a consensus in India. The debate is complex. Opponents argue that surrogacy further perpetuates a social pressure for women to have children and exploits the economic situation of Indian women living in poverty, while the advocates argue that surrogacy is a right that poor women should be allowed to financially benefit from. For many, there is no easy answer.

If you have the time, this talk show has a great debate about the issue (running time approx. 50 minutes).