The Best of 2013: Looking Back on a Year of Blogging

Did you know that only a handful of Planned Parenthood affiliates have blogs, and we’re one of them? Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona is so lucky to have such a talented and devoted group of volunteer bloggers, and thanks to them, 2013 was a great year! Check out our favorite pieces from 2013, which we present below in reverse alphabetical order.

GarnerAndLawrence 150Tori wrote about two landmark LGBTQ-related Supreme Court cases: Bowers v. Hardwick, which affirmed states’ rights to outlaw sodomy in 1986, and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws nationwide in 2003. First, we were all excited by Tori’s discussion of what happened during the 17 years between 1986 and 2003 to tip the balance in favor of sexual freedom. And then, in an exciting twist of fate, the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act on the 10th anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, just days after Tori’s piece was published! Can you believe that only a decade ago, states were allowed to criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults? We’ve come such a long way — although we still, sadly, have a ways to go toward securing true equality.

seasonalleRebecca is a long-time Planned Parenthood volunteer and a practicing pharmacist. She combines her interest in pharmacy with her passion for reproductive justice in her ongoing series Let’s Talk Contraception, which highlights different contraceptive methods and addresses common questions about birth control. Her most popular post this year was her piece about using the Pill to skip periods. Whether you’re interested in skipping a few periods or minimizing menstruation throughout the year, continuous contraception might be for you. What are the pros and cons to birth control methods that allow you to have a period just once or a few times per year? Is it safe? Is it natural? How many periods do we need, anyway? Rebecca’s answer is informative and fascinating!

tumblr_wattletonRachel conducted an interview with Faye Wattleton, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s first African-American — and youngest — president. Her conversation with Ms. Wattleton covered a range of topics, including religion, race and racism, anti-abortion violence, and the progress the movement for reproductive freedom has made over the decades. The entire series is worth a look — but our favorite installment is part 2, in which Ms. Wattleton discusses the connection between her religious upbringing and the work she did with family planning. The thread that ties these seemingly disparate aspects of her background together seems to be the Biblical admonishment against judging others: “Judge not that you be not judged,” as she put it. From a childhood religious tenet to a guiding principle in her interactions with family planning patients, being nonjudgmental is a grounding influence in her life’s work.

PP entranceMatt’s favorite pieces included a post about the FACE Act, which was enacted by President Clinton to curtail anti-abortion violence at clinics. Unfortunately, its uneven enforcement meant that the law hasn’t always lived up to its potential — and some point to that misstep as a factor in recent violence against abortion providers. President Bush’s lax enforcement of the law might have played a part in the 2009 assassination of Dr. Tiller, an abortion provider in Kansas. Matt brings together some great reporting to give you an informative and insightful piece — it’s no surprise that RH Reality Check blogger and Crow Before Roe author Robin Marty encouraged her fans to “Read this now!”

breast-examAnna’s favorite pieces were those that tackled pervasive myths about vaccines, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion. One of these posts dissected the origins of the claim that abortion can lead to breast cancer, which flies in the face of the scientific consensus. This idea is perpetuated by abortion opponents, who use junk science to promote their agenda. Unfortunately, despite a lack of credibility, this claim appears in mainstream publications; in literature offered to clients of crisis pregnancy centers; and in state laws that require pre-abortion counseling to include discredited warnings about a link between abortion and breast cancer. We all deserve accurate information to make informed decisions, but when ideology trumps science, we are robbed of this right.

Bonus: Stacey, our fabulous curator of links, put together a special edition of her regular Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown series, which rounds up the top stories of 2013!

Which posts stood out for you in 2013? Tell us about them in the comments!

Judging Sex: From Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence v. Texas

Tyron Garner, left, and John Lawrence, right, react to the decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

Tyron Garner, left, and John Lawrence, right, react to the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Image: Metro Weekly

This week, two related Supreme Court cases both mark anniversaries.

Twenty-seven years ago (and yes, I totally had to get out my calculator for that one), on June 30, 1986, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick. In it, the court concluded, “The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” That is, even though previous courts had established and upheld a constitutional right to privacy when it came to some matters of sexual health — such as in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade — states were free to enact laws that made it illegal for people to engage in “homosexual sodomy” — basically, outlawing same-sex couples from having oral or anal sex.


June 26 is the 10th anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws nationwide.


On its way to the Supreme Court, the relevant appeals court held that laws that discriminated against same-sex couples’ consensual sexual activities violated an individual’s “fundamental rights because his homosexual activity is a private and intimate association that is beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, other courts of appeals had issued rulings in conflict with that sentiment. When the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bowers, it explicitly rejected that same-sex sexual activity fell under the same constitutional right to privacy:

No connection between family, marriage, or procreation, on the one hand, and homosexual activity, on the other, has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent. Moreover, any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.

However, another date in June — the 26th, to be specific — marks the 10th anniversary of a different case involving gay rights: Lawrence v. Texas. That ruling reversed and overturned the court’s decision in Bowers.

So in those 17 years between Bowers and Lawrence, what changed? Continue reading

International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia

prideIDAHO.

That’s tomorrow — May 17.

The International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

Homophobia and transphobia — or rather, anti-gay and anti-trans thoughts, words, and actions — are deeply rooted in many cultures, including inside the United States. In reality, they need far more than one day of discussion and recognition. One day is not enough.

When I started thinking about this post, I thought of all the ways such sentiments show up in everyday life. It’s so much that I couldn’t possibly write everything. Then I thought some more — this was when Arizona SB1432, the “show your papers to pee” bill, was topping my newsfeeds — and it occurred to me how very much of this discrimination has been coded into law, is being encoded into law even now.

Even then, I had to narrow my search parameters — to the United States, to the relatively recent past. Otherwise, it’s just too much.

And even then, a lot of the bias remains in what’s not covered — people and situations for which the law does not provide. For groups of people who are still discriminated against, harassed, threatened, assaulted, killed by individual citizens or private organizations — this lack of necessary legislation still causes active harm.

This first set examines a number of laws — some national, some state — and Supreme Court rulings from the recent past.

1960 — Is as good a place to start as any. This is because in 1960, every state in the United States maintained laws against sodomy. Illinois was the first state to repeal its statute in 1961; Arizona followed suit 40 years later.

1967 — In Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States Supreme Court held that gay folk were included under those “afflicted with psychopathic personality.” They could thus be refused admission — or deported — simply for being gay. This remained in effect until immigration law was reformed in 1990. Continue reading