Doctor Pauline Chen wrote a great article in the New York Times last week about racial barriers in medicine, and it is well worth reading, if you haven’t read it already. I realize that not everyone trolls the Times websites looking for interesting articles, so you might not have spotted it, since it was kind of buried in the health section, for no discernible reason. (Or perhaps the same reason that articles about feminism are buried in the “Style” section and other articles about discrimination and prejudice somehow end up on the paper’s back 40*.)

I thought it was a really neat article because it looked at a couple of different perspectives. Dr. Chen wrote about the studies which have shown that minorities are less likely to receive topflight medical care, and she also talked about her experiences as an Asian-American doctor. The article really highlighted a lot of issues going on in medicine right now, and for people who think that racism is dead (not that any of you, dear readers, are that foolish), I think the article sounded a pretty resounding “no, it’s not.”

First, let’s talk about minority patients. Patients who are minorities are more likely to receive delayed care for treatable conditions. They often struggle to find coverage from insurance companies. They are belittled by their doctors, all of the options are not laid out for them, and they are often treated as second class citizens. Dr. Chen pointed out that most people report the most positive experience with a care provider of their own race, which I think says volumes about people of all races.

There is a huge disparity in this country when it comes to healthcare in many ways. But I think it’s really shameful that people with darker skin don’t get the same treatment as people with lighter skin, even when the people with darker skin have more power, economic clout, or education. The white high school dropout meth head will get better treatment than the black professional. That, my friends, is sick. All patients should be treated equally. Period. End of discussion.

Dr. Chen also illuminated the problems that minority doctors face. Now, I grew up under the care of an Asian-American doctor, so I’m pretty familiar with the idea that people other than white people can be doctors too, but apparently this fact is new to some Americans. Minority doctors are routinely ignored or treated like hospital staff (not that hospital staff don’t deserve respect from patients, mind you), and some patients may even request a doctor of a different skin color, as though you get to pick doctors like you pick ponies. This even holds true when the minority doctor is a renowned specialist, and he or she really is the best person the patient could want on his or her case.

I think that the American “health care” system needs to confront a lot of issues, and I’m hoping that many of these issues get confronted under the Obama Administration. But the fact that people of different colors can’t even get along bodes ill, if you ask me.

*For my foreign readers, “back 40″ is an Americanism referring to the “back 40 acres,” as in, the part of the ranch where no one goes if they can help it.

Proposition 4, for those of you who are not aware of it, is yet another parental notification proposition. These seem to come up on the ballot repeatedly, and they repeatedly get voted down. However, you should still go out and register a resounding “NO” on four, because it is a bad proposition, and because a lot of conservatives are going to be out and about in this election, which means that every vote counts.

Under the terms of Proposition 4, abortions for unemancipated minors are put on hold “until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.” There are a few key exceptions, and there’s a clause that the minor must consent to the abortion (the very thought of forced abortion is just repellent to me, so I guess it’s good to have that in there), and it includes mandatory reporting requirements. Big Brother wants to keep an eye on your uterus.

So, there are a couple of reasons why I think this is a bad proposition, and why I think that even people who are opposed to abortion should vote no on it. I think that both sides of this debate can agree that abortion really sucks, and it is something we would all like to see less of. However, if abortion is going to happen, I think (and I hope anti-abortion advocates agree) that it should take place in a clean, sterile, safe environment. Mandatory reporting requirements are going to drive minors in search of abortion underground (or across state lines) and into some potentially very dangerous situations. Including suicide. Teenage girls will die if Proposition 4 passes, and that’s a cold fact.

I would love it if all minors could discuss their abortions with their parents or guardians, and receive support from their families. But mandatory reporting is not the way to do it. What if the minor is trying to abort the result of incest or molestation? What if her family is extremely conservative, and they throw her out of her home?

I wish that we all lived in a world where teenage girls had open, safe relationships with their parents and guardians. A world where teens felt comfortable talking about the issues going on in their lives, and could feel confident going to an adult authority figure for help. But, unfortunately, we don’t live in that world, and I think that we need to think about girls who are not fortunate enough to have a good relationship with their parents.

Proponents of Proposition 4 want you to think that it protects teens, and they are marching out a tired old story about “Sarah,” a 15 year old who died after a botched abortion, to support their argument. What they didn’t tell you about Sarah is that she was in Texas, not California, and she was married, and therefore would have been exempt from notification laws. What happened to Sarah was tragic, but a notification law would not have prevented it.

They also tell a story in the voter guide about a girl who was abducted, abused, and taken for a “secret abortion,” claiming that Planned Parenthood didn’t report the abuse. Medical providers are mandated reporters, people. If a doctor treats a 14 year old girl who is obviously being sexually molested and held captive, that doctor must report it. Proposition 4 doesn’t change that, because doctors are already obliged to report suspected cases of sexual/physical abuse of children.

Proposition 4 is also a slippery slope, because anything which undermines safe and legal access to abortion is something which undermines women’s rights and control over their own bodies. After parental notification, are we going to see spousal notification? Rapist notification?

What we need is better sexual education for young women, and a focus on providing safe spaces for women to talk with counselors about sexuality, birth control, and other issues. We could cut down on teen abortions by empowering girls with the information they need to make better choices, but instead we want to treat them like property.

Vote no on four, people. It’s wrong for California, and it’s wrong for women.

So there’s a section of the debate that I wanted to address in a more in-depth fashion, because I think it was pretty important. It’s the part where the moderator asked about Supreme Court justices, and the discussion devolved into a conversation about Roe v Wade. (Which, while an important Supreme Court decision, was far from the only decision, although it is on the line.)

Specifically, let’s take a look at this selection of quotes from John McCain (I was going to excerpt the whole section, except that it’s very long. To see the quotes without editing, here’s the debate transcript.)

I would never and have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do…I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.

Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it’s got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who’s facing this terribly difficult decision..I don’t know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America…Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.” But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We’ll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country. But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it’s vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we’ll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we’ll help take care of it.

So, there are a couple of issues going on here. The first paragraph I excerpted above is part of his discussion of “litmus tests” for the Supreme Court. He actually went a whole long thing about how you can’t use a “litmus test” to judge qualifications, yet states that support of Roe v Wade would make someone’s qualifications questionable. Doesn’t that kind of mean that you are, uhm, imposing your ideology onto your choices for the Supreme Court?

The second paragraph has a whole lot of things going on, and all of them need to be talked about. First, he says that he wants to give women “courage” to make a hard choice, yet he actually supports abrogating that “choice” altogether by making abortion impossible to obtain. How is that a choice? How it is courageous to be forced to keep a baby you don’t want? Including, yes, a baby that threatens your own life, which is when we get into the health of the mother issue.

You don’t see it in the transcript, but in the debate, McCain put the word “health” in quotes, scare quotes, with a huge sneer on his face, as though women’s health isn’t something which needs to be protected. He blathers on about the rights of the unborn, and apparently has no respect for the already born. He belittles the horrible situations in which being pregnant is, in fact, a health threat, and a woman must indeed have the courage to make a difficult choice. An incredibly difficult, awful choice. Women do not wake up and decide not to be pregnant when they get late term abortions.

How is it compassionate to belittle women’s health? How is supporting women’s choices not compassionate? How is encouraging women to think about all of their options lacking in compassion? You know what’s not compassionate? Forcing rape victims to have babies. Forcing young girls who have been raped by their fathers to carry the results of that rape to term. Telling women that, in a time of medical crisis, the life of the very much wanted and loved baby inside is worth more than theirs.

To say that caring about women’s health is “extreme” or that the pro-choice movement is “pro-abortion” is awful. Caring about women’s health, or anybody’s health, is a great, natural, human thing. It’s a good thing. We should be all about caring about women’s health. And, as someone who is very proudly pro-choice, let me tell you that I am most certainly not pro-abortion. I think that abortion is a very difficult, awful, and ultimately personal decision, and I would never tell a woman that she should or shouldn’t get an abortion. I’ve accompanied women on abortions, supported women during abortion recovery, and talked with women about their options, but I don’t promote abortion. And most people in the pro-choice movement feel the same way. Abortion is just one choice on the table.

Which made it all the more awful that when Mr. Obama said that both sides could probably agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies was a good thing, McCain interrupted and was incredibly snide and rude. Because, you know what? We should be reducing unwanted pregnancies. I think that this is something both sides of the movement should be able to come together on. I would love to live in a country where there were no abortions except in cases where the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother because all babies were wanted babies, and women were never raped, and women were never victims of incest. That’s probably not going to happen, but we could at least try. Hey, we’ve reduced the number of unwanted dogs and cats radically, why not do the same for people?

And I would like to note that abortions declined during the Clinton Administration, and rose in the Bush Administration. Why? Because Clinton focused on women’s health, sexual education, and benefits for low-income pregnant women. Bush took that all away and replaced it with shrill rhetoric about abortion.

And yes, by all means, let’s provide the support for women who want to carry their children to term. Let’s overhaul the foster system so that it actually works, allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt, provide pre-natal care for all women for free, support post-partum care and benefits for women who want to keep their babies. Let’s promote healthy babies, and adoption as an option, and healthy mothers. Let’s provide all those benefits you and your cronies regularly deny, Mr. McCain, and make women’s health a priority.

McCain, and his radical anti-choice running mate, are not pro-woman. As Obama rightly pointed out, McCain opposes equal pay for equal work. His running mate believes that abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape and incest. Mr. McCain thinks that women’s health is “radical.” His running mate thinks that being pregnant as a teen makes you “grow up real quick,” and that women should throw their potential and lives away to fulfill some sick, twisted religious belief.

The McCain campaign thinks that working for equal rights is working for the “liberal feminist agenda.” Feminists have an agenda all right, but it’s not liberal or conservative. The desire for equal treatment under the law, equal rights, and equal access transcends partisan lines. I would fight to the death for a woman’s right to vote Republican, carry an unwanted baby to term, and put it up for adoption, just like I’d fight for a woman who votes green and sues her employer for equal compensation.

You might not agree with me on the abortion issue, but I’d like to imagine that you can agree with me on these poits:

1. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.
2. Women’s health is not a “radical” issue, but in fact a very basic right.
3. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing.

One of the topics that came up in the debate last week was healthcare, with both candidates being asked whether they thought healthcare was a right or a responsibility. McCain kind of blathered on abstractedly for a while, finally settling on “responsibility,” while Obama blathered for a shorter while, and then said “right,” fairly firmly, causing me to cheer.

In the last week, there’s been a lot of discussion (in some circles, anyway) about this question. Personally, I think healthcare is a right, and I thought I might take the time to articulate why I think that. The dictionary has a lot of definitions for “right,” including “that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.,” which is where I think healthcare falls.

Everyone is entitled to good healthcare, because everyone is entitled to lead a healthy life. By good healthcare, I mean access to qualified physicians, safe prescription drugs, and appropriately-maintained medical facilities. If a woman has breast cancer, she should be able to receive the best treatment available. If a man has AIDS, he should have access to the care he needs. I’m talking about basic, thorough treatment for conditions which threaten life and well-being. I am not talking about voluntary procedures and drugs (breast augmentation, for example, or Viagra, which I do not think should be covered by a nationalized healthcare system).

My believe that healthcare is a right is part of a larger framework, that people deserve to be healthy and happy. If we say that healthcare is not a right, we say that people don’t have a right to be healthy, and I think you can see how that’s a little absurd. And if we’re going to argue that “children deserve healthcare,” where does that leave adults? (Now, one could argue that children need assistance because they can’t make life choices, which differentiates them from adults, but I personally think that children and adults should be treated equally, which means that if I have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for medications I need, so should children/their parents.)

Is healthcare a civil rights issue? Well, sometimes. When a black woman can’t get medical treatment because of her color, economic status, or social ranking, yeah, that’s a civil rights issue. When a fat man is denied respectful medical treatment because of his weight, that’s a civil rights issue. Issues can intersect in the big bad world, and nothing exists in a vacuum.

But the right to healthcare doesn’t just benefit people on a personal level. Like other rights, it also benefits society as a whole, making a country stronger and more productive. Nations with nationalized healthcare have healther citizens, much more productive workplaces, and lower healthcare expenditures. When you focus on preventative care and encourage people to seek treatment early, before a situation becomes a problem, it lowers costs, which is good for everyone, and increases the amount of time people can spend working and being productive, which is also good for everyone. Let me say that again: comprehensive national healthcare is cheaper than private systems like ours.

Rights come in a lot of flavors. Liberty, for example, is an oft-touted right here in the States, as is freedom of speech/association. Likewise, a lot of people cite “the right to pursue happiness” as an American value. How can you pursue happiness when you are crippled by a disease you can’t afford to treat? When all of your income is sunk into expensive drugs? When you’re stuck in a job you hate to ensure that your sick partner has health insurance? Healthcare is a fundamental necessity, just like housing, education, and other “external” things, but that doesn’t make it any less of a right.

Until we recognize this, I really don’t see how we can fix the American healthcare system. Because, if you don’t think that healthcare is a right, than nothing’s broken.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, which means that the world is asea in pink, and people are being told that if they buy special branded crap, it will help people with breast cancer. Obviously, there are some serious problems with this, and it’s unfortunate that people don’t explore the issues a little more.

I’m not a fan of breast cancer, or cancer in general. I think that researching cancer is important, as is educating people about cancer so that they can detect early signs, and protect themselves from potential carcinogens. But the thought of dedicating a whole month to breast cancer awareness seems a bit disingenuous.

Breast cancer is a huge industry. And numerous organizations have started “pinkwashing” their products to take advantage of this industry, because they have learned that people will buy things as long as they are pink. Most of the products sold to promote breast cancer research? Only a small proportion of the funds gathered actually goes to breast cancer organizations, and, of that, only a tiny portion goes to actual research, prevention, and education.

Buying plastic crap is not the way to address the issue of cancer. Donating directly to reputable organizations is a good start. Being personally informed, and informing others, is also a good way to combat cancer. Women should be doing breast self exams, they should be getting routine mammograms when they reach an appropriate age, and they should be avoiding potential carcinogens. (Like, say, pink plastic crap.)

How did breast cancer get to be such a huge industry, when there are tons of other cancers and diseases out there that also urgently need research? I suspect it’s the symbolism. Breasts are a potent and visible emblem of femininity, and they make a great, easily-accessible symbol for cancer education and targeted campaigns.

Instead of buying pink stuff, maybe we should be talking about why  breast cancer is on the rise in industrialized nations. Why the culture of treatment expects women to be strong and perky, rather than sick and pissed off. Why it is that we have our heads in the sand about cancer while women and men die.

For some reason, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about my first pair of glasses. I think it may be because Baxt and I had a conversation not that long ago about glasses, and perhaps because my current glasses (acquired last year, as some may recall), may be due for a new prescription. I’ve noticed that I start thinking about glasses a lot when I start to have trouble seeing things I used to be able to see, perhaps as a subtle nudge from my subconscious. The decline is so gradual, however, that it’s hard to tell if my vision is always like this, or if it really is getting bad enough to require a new prescription.

But I digress.

Like most people who wear glasses, I remember my first pair of glasses very distinctly. Actually, I first got contacts, and switched to glasses in 2000, when I attended the Democratic National Convention and was afraid of getting peppersprayed in the eyes. I had worn glasses periodically before 2000, usually at night after I took my contacts out and on days of periodic contact shortage, and while I had intended to go back to contacts after the convention, glasses somehow became part of my identity, and I haven’t gone back since.

At any rate, and I really am starting to ramble here, I went to Ukiah for my contacts, and I remember missing a day of school to go over the hill with my father. I’m not quite sure why we went to Ukiah; it must have been cheaper to see an eye doctor over there or something. I got the full battery of basic tests which are familiar to the glasses-wearing among my readers, and then the doctor showed me how to clean my contacts, and then how to put them in.

For someone who doesn’t wear glasses, it’s kind of hard to describe your first experience of corrected vision. Imagine moving through an underwater world for most of your life, a world in which things are murky, blurred, and sometimes dangerous. It’s a world where you feel three steps behind everyone else, where you know something is off, but you don’t quite know what.

And then, suddenly, everything just snaps into focus, and it’s an epiphany. My first words, on glancing out the window, were “trees have leaves!” The doctor must have tested my vision again after that, and checked to make sure that the contacts fit, but I don’t really remember that. What I remember is driving over the hill with my face glued to the window, looking at the whole world which had suddenly opened up before me. That blurry green mass by the side of the road had turned into individual blades of grass, needles on pine trees, quivering leaves of alders. I could see veins of quartz in the rocks, the crisp edges of clouds wafting across the sky.

It was one of the top ten most exciting experiences of my entire life. You see, with most of us, our vision declines so slowly that we don’t really realize what is happening. We get the sense that we used to see better once, but it seems like we have always seen that way. To awaken and suddenly realize that in fact your eyes are totally defective, but completely correctable, is quite a heady experience.

A few years ago, I went on a trip to Hawaii, and I intended to do some snorkeling, but made the stupid mistake of not renting a prescription snorkle mask. I think I didn’t realize how bad my vision is without glasses, so I thought I would be able to tough it out, and cheerfully dove into the water, only to realize that I was totally disoriented. I had no idea what I was seeing, which way was up, and what was going on. I collided with coral, rocks, and my unfortunate co-snorkeling aunt. I saw vague flashes of color which might have been fish, but I was too busy trying to figure out what was going on.

I spent the rest of the trip on the beach reading a book.

Those of you who wear glasses: what do you remember about your first day with corrected vision?

Now, quick, go protect women’s reproductive rights!

As many of you (I hope) are aware, the Department of Health and Human Services is in the process of reviewing a set of regulations which would allow health providers to refuse to participate in medical services they object to. Basically, this is designed to give to the fetus-fundamentalists an out, although I suppose it could potentially be extended to other health services as well, ranging from providing hormones to transsexuals to heaven-knows-what.

The big concern here is that providers could refuse to give out birth control, emergency contraception, and condoms in the name of personal ethics. The claim is that the regulations will protect service providers from having to be involved in abortions and sterilizations, but, quite frankly, I think that’s bunk. Medical providers who object to abortion and sterilization don’t work for clinics that provide these services, and I can’t think of many doctors who would force their staffs to participate in them.

If you don’t want to provide services you have an ethical disagreement with, then don’t work in an environment where you might be obliged to provide those services, people, it’s that simple. I, for example, will never work as a realtor because I hate the real estate market with a passion, and I can’t imagine myself selling overpriced second homes to rich yuppies from the city. I’m making a personal choice to avoid a situation where I might be forced to compromise my values, and, guess what, SO CAN YOU!

What’s really going on here is a sinister attempt to undermine reproductive rights, and you should be very angry about it. The comment period for the proposed regulations closes on 25 September, so we only have a few more days to make our voices known. And the ACLU has made it easy for you: all you have to do is pop over to their website, and they have a pre-written letter all ready to go. They encourage you to modify it a bit, and then you click “send,” and they make sure it gets to the right place. Planned Parenthood has a similar page.

Whether or not you support abortion, I would like to think that you are a huge fan of women’s health. Providers which offer abortion and birth control counseling also offer prenatal care and counseling, along with regular women’s health exams. This law would threaten these providers, making it very hard for them to do their work. If you are opposed to abortion, I humbly disagree with you, but I can’t see how you could rationalize a wholesale selling out of women’s health in the guise of preventing abortions from occurring.

In this country, nothing is certain, and that includes women’s rights. The people most likely to suffer under these regulations are women in rural areas, who may not have many choices when it comes to providers, and poor women/women of color, who often have restricted options as well. There is already a huge class divide when it comes to access to medical treatment in the United States, and it’s a divide that shocks the rest of the world, so let’s not give them any more ammunition, ok?

Women in this country already have a lot to contend with: don’t make it impossible for them to get the medical care they need.

Let’s talk about sex for a moment, since Mr. McCain seems so determined to bring it up in his attack ads against Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama, McCain tells us, wants to teach kindergartners about sex before they can read, clearly as part of some complex liberal scheme which will be revealed at some point in the future. McCain, of course, supports abstinence-only sex education.

First of all, McCain totally misrepresented comprehensive sex education, which is what Obama was supporting, and, in the process, he totally dismissed a very serious issue. This seems to be pretty typical of the kind of politics the McCain campaign is engaging in, which apparently involves creating trumped-up charges to skirt actual issues. I realize that this is pretty common in politics, but I hope Mr. Obama can get Mr. McCain back on track with the issues soon, because we’re in some pretty darn muddy waters at the moment.

So what is comprehensive sex education? Well, for kindergartners, it’s basically about learning that bodies come in all shapes and sizes, that there are some differences between boy bodies and girl bodies, that you should love and respect and care for your body, oh, and that sometimes people want to violate your body. For kindergartners, that basically boils down to good touching and bad touching, and a discussion of stranger danger, and when you should go to an adult for help. (And which adults you should seek help from.)

McCain apparently thinks that we shouldn’t be empowering kindergartners with tools they could use to resist predators. Mr. Obama disagrees, and released a great comment on it (which I linked to last week), in which he discussed the fact that, unfortunately, child predators do go after kindergartners, and that sexual abuse of children is a very real issue, and that, therefore, we do need to talk to young children about these issues. Personally, I think that if comprehensive sex education saves one child in a class of 30, it’s worth it.

Does Obama support handing out condoms to kindergartners and discussing anal sex? No, of course not, because that is not age-appropriate sex education. But he does support laying the groundwork early, so that when children do start to receive more direct sex-ed in middle school, they are prepared for it, and they can make educated choices about the issues which will face them as they grow up. So that children know that their bodies should be respected, and that they do have the power to enforce personal boundaries (and to save themselves thousands in therapy bills later).

McCain just wants us to say “close your legs,” and leave it at that.

Needless to say, I support Obama’s stance on sex education, because I think that comprehensive sex education has proved to be for more effective, valuable, and useful. I was talking to a gynecologist recently who was telling me that in her practice, she’s run into young women who barely understand what a menstrual cycle is, let alone how they can become pregnant. I find this deeply disturbing. Abstinence-only sex education harms young men and women pretty directly, and it also promotes body shame and embarrassment, rather than telling people that their bodies are pretty cool things.

McCain is missing the point if he thinks that sexual education is just about sexuality. A good sex education program is about physical and psychological health, gender, and a variety of social issues. Graduates of abstinence-only programs are really missing out, and I think that’s a fundamental failing that could bite America in the ass later.

As a follow-up on Sunday’s discussion of Bristol’s pregnancy, I thought I ought to talk about this Los Angeles Times article, which discusses statements by Governor Palin which seem to suggest that she is “pro-contraception,” or at least pro-condom education, which is astonishing. For one thing, if she really does feel that way, I think that’s a good sign, and, for another, it shows that she disagrees with McCain on a pretty fundamental issue, because he’s all about the abstinence-only.

So here’s the thing. I think that abstinence should be taught in sexual education programs. It is the 100% guaranteed way to avoid getting STIs, including pregnancy, the worst STI of all. That said, I am fundamentally opposed to abstinence-only education, because I believe that people need to have all the available tools to make educated choices. (Hey, there’s that “choice” word again.) All manner of birth control/STI avoidance tactics should be discussed, along with their failure rates, so that kids can make their own decisions about what is best for them.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of young men and women (some of whom, in my opinion, are a bit too young), are engaging in sexual activity. That fact is not going to go away, and rather than punishing people for it, we should be talking about it. I know that sexuality is tied up in values for a lot of people, and I certainly respect kids who abstain for religious reasons, and who do manage to remain true to that personal pledge, but denying educational opportunities to others seems a bit unfair to me.

Which is why I was stoked to see that Palin (at least theoretically) supports condom education, because condoms are a terrific tool to avoid STIs and pregnancy. If you’re only going to teach kids about one option in addition to abstinence, condoms are definitely it, in my opinion. And I’m glad to see that Palin (at least at one point) recognized this.

What’s less clear is whether or not Palin supported the distribution of condoms, in addition to discussion of how to use them properly. Depending on where one is, condoms can be easy or difficult to obtain. Sometimes they are readily available through outreach programs, and sometimes you have to go and seek them out, occasionally from snooty pharmacists who are going to pass a value judgment. (And uhm kids, if you are embarrassed to buy condoms, you are not mature enough to be making humpies.)

Furthermore, I’m curious to know about Palin’s stance on hormonal birth control. A lot of fundies believe that by preventing implantation, options like the pill are simply another form of abortion, so they do not support them as options for women. When Palin said she is “pro-contraception,” did she really just mean “pro-condom,” or did she mean to indicate support for the full array of choices, including IUDs and hormonal birth control? Inquiring minds want to know.

Palin is clearly anti-abortion, but how much is she willing to commit to in order to prevent abortions? And, as always, how can you claim to be “pro-life” while slashing programs designed to help teen mothers, special needs children, and all children under 18? If you think fetuses are important, how come babies and kids aren’t?

Look, there are a lot of problems with Palin, but I think it’s important to discuss it when she seems to be getting an issue right, at least partially. Making a balanced decision in November is all about having all the facts, and this is just one more piece of the puzzle.

I may not be a huge fan of the Olympics, and the direction they are taking, but it’s kind of hard not to follow the Olympic coverage, since it is everywhere. And, I admit, I am actually rather interested in the pure intent of the Olympics, which is seeing athletes at the top of their field competing with each other. Olympic athletes are on such a high level that it is pretty damn awe inspiring.

Poking through the Times, I discovered an Olympic athlete who may be my new personal hero: Natalie du Toit.

Natalie du Toit is a swimmer who competes for South Africa. That’s not terribly remarkable. What is remarkable is the fact that Natalie is an amputee, competing in an able-bodied Olympics, and that, in my opinion, makes her a complete bad-ass.

See, the thing is, to compete in the Olympics, you need to be able to dominate a series of preliminaries, and to prove that you really are among the best of the best. I would hazard a guess that swimming with one leg is, uhm, REALLY HARD, and the fact that Natalie has managed to train herself to compete at the top level with one leg in only seven years is pretty much amazing. She’s a serious competitor.

I love that we are starting to see more disabled athletes in the Olympics, and I personally find it rather inspiring. Disabled Olympians rise above hardship to become among the most talented athletes in the world, and I would love to see more coverage on competitors like Natalie. Michael Phelps may be a dolphin in the pool, but in a way, I find her accomplishment much more notable. It sounds rather corny, but she proves that it really is possible to be all you can be, if you are focused enough.