Millions of Women in the US Lack Proper Access to Menstrual Supplies

Stephan:  In contrast to the two earlier stories, we have this from the U.S.. I had no idea of this social problem until I read this article. I have done some research since and it is quite accurate. I am  struck by how heartless and mean spirited, how sexist, this is. It's awful.  Is this what we have become as a country?

For many women, getting a period for 3 to 8 days every month can be hellish — everything from bleeding, cramps, and fatigue to the humiliating march to the local store for tampons and pads.

But these women are incredibly lucky compared to thousands of marginalized Americans who lack adequate access to these products so fundamental to women’s reproductive health.

In particular, women in prison face an uphill battle getting their hands on feminine hygiene products. Incarcerated people earn at most 75 cents a day, which has to be split between basic necessities like toothpaste and deodorant.

In prison, costs range from $2.63 for 24 pads to over $4 for eight tampons. That means giving up more than three days of wages for pads and nearly twice that much for tampons.

Most inmates simply can’t afford it, and lack of access to menstrual supplies creates toxic choices for women.

Prisoners frequently either go without supplies, bleeding onto clothes they’re then stuck with until the next laundry day, or end up using one tampon or pad for multiple days. Wearing an individual tampon or pad for more than the recommended maximum of eight hours increases the risk of bacterial or fungal infection as […]

Read the Full Article

No Comments

Many in U.S. Skeptical Trump Can Handle Presidential Duties

Stephan:  In all the decades I have been researching and writing about American politics I have never seen anything like this. We have a President elect who got three million less votes than his competitor, and now less than half the country thinks he is competent to handle his duties. All of which suggests we are headed for difficult and disturbing future.

PRINCETON, N.J. — As Donald Trump prepares to take the presidential oath on Jan. 20, less than half of Americans are confident in his ability to handle an international crisis (46%), to use military force wisely (47%) or to prevent major scandals in his administration (44%). At least seven in 10 Americans were confident in Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in these areas before they took office. (emphasis added)

Confidence in Presidents-Elect to Handle Presidential Responsibilities
Now I’d like you to think about […]’s ability to handle a number of things over the next four years. Please tell me whether you are very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident or not at all confident that […] can … ?
Trump
Obama
Bush
Clinton

%
%
%
%

Prevent major scandals in his administration
44
74
77
n/a

Handle an international crisis
46
73
71
70

Use military force wisely
47
71
78
n/a

Manage the executive branch effectively
53
84
77
n/a

Defend U.S. interests abroad as president
55
75
n/a
65

Handle the economy effectively
59
n/a
n/a
n/a

Work effectively with Congress to get things done
60
89
74
n/a

% Very/somewhat confident; poll dates: Trump (Dec. 7-11, 2016); Obama (Jan. 9-11, 2009); Bush (Jan. 15-16, 2001); Clinton (Nov. 10-11, 1992, and Jan. 8-11, 1993)

Gallup

Americans express somewhat more confidence in Trump to work effectively with Congress (60%), to handle the economy effectively (59%), to defend U.S. interests […]

Read the Full Article

3 Comments

Federal Judge Blocks Obamacare Abortion, Transgender Protections

Stephan:  In many ways the greatest and most lasting power a President has is the power to appoint Federal judges. They must be confirmed by the Senate however, and President Obama leaves office with nearly 100 vacancies on Federal benches, positions unfilled because of Senate obstructionism. But with the election of Donald Trump that will now all be changed, and the Republicans will be able to fill the federal bench with all manner of troglodytes. And that does not include what will probably be at least three Supreme Court appointments. What does that presage? Well, this story from Texas gives us a clue, and the net-net of all this is that we may see the most conservative Federal bench in living memory.  And, since these appointments are for life, it will shape American law for decades. A child born in 2017 may reach their majority living their entire lives under a brutally retrograde Federal judiciary.

Federal Judge Reed O’Connor

A federal judge in Texas on Saturday issued a court order barring enforcement of an Obama administration policy seeking to extend anti-discrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act to transgender health and abortion-related services.

The decision sides with Texas, seven other states and three Christian-affiliated healthcare groups challenging a rule that, according to the judge, defines sex bias to include “discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy.”

In granting an injunction one day before the new policy was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor held that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law governing rule-making practices.

The judge also ruled that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in court on their claim that the new policy infringes on the rights of private healthcare providers under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As explained in O’Connor’s 46-page opinion, the plaintiffs argued that the new regulation would “require them to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions and abortions, regardless of their contrary religious beliefs or medical judgment.”

The same judge issued a similar court order […]

Read the Full Article

No Comments

Curriculum Is the Cure

Stephan:  American students rank very poorly in things like math, reading, and science. But what really concerns me is that they seem to have no conception at all about the principles upon which the country was founded or even the structure of the government the Founders created.  A majority of young people cannot even name the branches of government. Here is a good evaluation of what is coming in American public education.

South Dakota classroom
Credit: Shutterstock

President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education has set off a new round in America’s long-running education wars. Teachers’ unions and progressive activists are warning of impending disaster—that DeVos and other “billionaire privatizers” are out to dismantle America’s public schools, the pillars of our democracy. Pro-choice education reformers, on the other hand, are cheering the DeVos appointment, and see great opportunities ahead for their movement. DeVos is one of the nation’s most tenacious advocates for (and generous funders of) the market approach to education. She likes charter schools, but is a true believer in vouchers—the policy of giving parents of children stuck in failing public schools tax dollars to pay tuition at the private schools of their choice. Even more encouraging, DeVos will presumably have the backing of a president who pledged on the campaign trail to use $20 billion in federal education funds to boost voucher programs in the states.

Unfortunately, hyperbole seems to be trumping reality (pun not intended) in this latest dust-up over the schools. Both sides ought to consider a ceasefire in order […]

Read the Full Article

No Comments

New York Times confirms GMO industry ties at National Academies of Sciences

Stephan:  The corruption in America has risen to levels where even certain areas of science are not to be trusted, as this report describes.  The sad truth is that even scientists who are supposed to be committed to facts are all too easily corrupted -- when it comes to integrity or funding all too many are willing to make a Faustian bargain.

Drawing on more than two years of Food & Water Watch research, The New York Times has published a damning account of the conflicts-of-interest culture that pervades the National Academies of Sciences’ (NAS) work on GMOs.

The Times notes the deeply one-sided panels of scientists that the Academies convenes to author its GMO reports, many of whom have undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. It also describes a troubling revolving door of staff between the NAS and the biotechnology industry.

This story validates years of Food & Water Watch and other advocates’ efforts to expose NAS’s far-reaching conflicts of interest, which introduce bias into science and also policy making—because the federal government uses taxpayer-funded NAS research to develop “science-based” rules and regulations.

The Times story should spark a Congressional investigation into the NAS and prompt the federal government to avoid utilizing any scientific advice produce by NAS about GMOs. Just as important, it should shape how we view the larger scientific discourse on GMOs, which has long be very heavily influenced by the biotechnology industry—at public universities, academic journals, or prominent non-profit groups.

In the summer of 2014, Food & Water Watch […]

Read the Full Article

1 Comment