If you can’t beat the shit out of your own child who can you beat the shit out of?

CBC reports on a new study to be published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that physical punishment of children (such as spanking) has severe negative health consequences, and that the exemption in the Criminal Code that allows it should be repealed. The issue of spanking was covered by the Supreme Court in 2004, which allowed the exemption to stand.

Children who have experienced physical punishment tend to be more aggressive toward parents, siblings, peers and, later, spouses, and are more likely to develop antisocial behaviour, said Joan Durrant, of the department of family social sciences at the University of Manitoba and Ron Ensom of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa.

Physical punishment is also associated with a variety of mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety and use of drugs and alcohol.

[...]

They noted that when parents in more than 500 families were trained to reduce their use of physical punishment, the difficult behaviours in the children also declined.

[....]

Although working to outlaw spanking is the correct move, one shouldn’t focus so much on corporal punishment that one neglects to target other forms of child abuse. There are destructive things that parents can do to their kids that don’t involve any hitting. For example, Clarissa has mentioned force–feeding. Another example is arbitrarily denying healthcare.

The title of this post is taken from a comment by Jake Squid at an old Pandagon thread.

A good ruling from the Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that Vancouver’s safe injection site, Insite, can stay open indefinitely. It also ordered the Minister of Health, Leona Aglukkaq, grant the site an exemption from Canada’s drug laws. The specific legal rationale was that the failure to grant an exemption violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the correct ruling. Harm reduction, which safe injection sites are part of, and the general practice of treating drug addiction as a medical problem than a legal problem, has been far more cost–effective than the failed War on (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs. In addition, harm reduction and the liberalization of drug laws are far more effective at reducing crime, improving public health, and reducing drug use than caving to the appalling prison–industrial complex.

No co-pay birth control coming

The US Department of Health and Human Services has announced that several of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. Therefore, health insurance companies will now have to cover birth control, testing for some sexually transmitted diseases, breast pumps, counseling for domestic violence, without deductibles or copays.

For reasons I have mentioned before, this is excellent news.

Coverage of contraception recommended

The health care reform law passed last year required coverage of preventative care, and a report by the Institutes of Medicine has been released, and recommends covering birth control without copays or deductibles. From the Washington Post:

Virtually all health insurance plans could soon be required to offer female patients free coverage of prescription birth control, breast-pump rentals, counseling for domestic violence, and annual wellness exams and HIV tests as a result of recommendations released Tuesday by an independent advisory panel of health experts.

This is excellent news. Birth control should be covered by health insurance. And no one should be allowed to prevent women from accessing it, not pharmacists who refuse to do their jobs, and not parents abusing their children by denying them something they have the right to use.

Besides contraception, the recommendation to cover interpersonal violence counseling, breast pump rentals, screening for cancer and STDs, and wellness exams is also really good news.

And to what should be no one’s surprise, anti–choicers are freaking out. When will the people learn that the abortion debate is not really about abortion, but rather about controlling female sexuality.

Via RH Reality Check and Echidne.

The study does not say what you claim it says

Wingnut, socon, and sexophobe types are using a new study to claim that access to contraception does not reduce the abortion rate. In reality, the study does not support those people’s conclusions.

The study in question was published in the journal Contraception, and you can read the abstract here. (You can also read the abstract at the official journal website, but that requires cookies.) If you read the abstract, you’ll find the following passage (emphasis added):

CONCLUSIONS: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.

In other words, the study says that the reasons for the increase in the abortion rate are unknown. It expressly disclaims offering any explanation for it. This, along with the fact that correlation does not imply causation, shows that it is incorrect to use this study to claim that access to contraception increases or does not reduce the abortion rate.

Despite this study, other studies have shown that access to contraception reduces the abortion rate (cite, cite, cite). How could discrepancies between these studies be reconciled? I predict that the first study differs because of confounding factors or lurking variables.

Believe it or not, the Pope okays rubbers (Updated)

A condom angel

It looks like hell has frozen over, as the Condom Angel has managed to touch the Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that condoms can be justified for male prostitutes seeking to stop HIV, a stunning turnaround for a church that has long opposed condoms and a pontiff who has blamed them for making the AIDS crisis worse.

[...]

Catholic Church teaching has opposed condoms because they’re a form of artificial contraception, although the church has never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. The Vatican has been harshly criticized in light of the AIDS crisis.

Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn’t the central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they could be justified “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.”

He called it “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality.”

[....]

The Catholic Church has done much to hinder the cause of reproductive rights, and its general view of condoms has likely contributed to the AIDS pandemic. Nevertheless, this is a good move, and credit goes where credit is due.

However, I don’t think this is really that much of a good move. First of all, it applies specifically to male prostitutes engaging in sex with men. In such a case, reproduction is impossible, and hence the Church’s ridiculous doctrine that the One True Purpose™ of sex is procreation. This admission of the potential benefit of condoms does not apply to heterosexual couples. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church still believes that it is more important to be open to reproduction (every sperm is still sacred!) than to take action to prevent the spread of a disease.

I don’t think this will have much impact on Catholic couples using contraception in their marriages. First of all, they already do so (the RCA is one of the least successful institutions in getting its members to follow one of its doctrines). And second, since it does not in any way alter previous church doctrine, it does not in any way permit Catholic couples to suddenly use birth control; there is still no loophole.

In other words, the RCA has an idiotic doctrine, but this improves it slightly.

Click the photo for pic link from PunkassBlog.

---

Update (2010–11–23): The RCA has issued a clarification (h/t to Jen):

VATICAN CITY — Using a condom is a lesser evil than transmitting HIV to a sexual partner — even if that means a woman averts a possible pregnancy, the Vatican said Tuesday, signaling a significant shift in papal teaching as it explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments.

The Vatican has long been criticized for its patent opposition to condom use, particularly in Africa where AIDS is rampant. But the latest interpretation of Benedict’s comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn’t justify putting someone’s life at risk.

Well, the announcement is now better than it seemed when released. It also provides a loophole allowing couples to use condoms as birth control, while claiming that they are merely using it to prevent the spread of AIDS. This specifically won’t make much as a difference, as Catholic couples already use birth control. This just provides a “justification”. While only referring to AIDS, I have difficulty seeing a relevant distinction between AIDS and other STDs.

Don’t tell me it isn’t about controlling women’s sex lives

The Daily Beast reports that a part of the recently–passed health care reform law may require employers and health insurers to offer birth control to their employees without being able to charge co–pay. The net effect of this would be that birth control becomes free for most American women (via).

Conservative (of course!) organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation and the National Abstinence Ignorance Education Foundation, are opposed. Noting that unintended pregnancies cause abortions, and that pushing birth control endlessly prevents unintended pregnancies, it becomes clear that the Heritage Foundation and the Abstinence Ignorance Education Foundation don’t think the United States’ unintended pregnancy rate is fucking high enough. To use their own rhetoric, conservatives sure are pro–abortion.

Update (2010-07-14): According to Feministing, the actual free services won’t include birth control. If that is the case no sort of political battle would arise. Despite that, not including birth control is the wrong decision.