Here's a little would-be-funny-if-it-were-not-real-life news from across the pond:
According to The Press Association a recent poll in the UK has revealed some common misconceptions about sex :
The poll of 2,000 individuals ages 16-50 revealed the following:
Sign the petition to remind the 20 Pro-Choice Democrats what happen when women were denied access to abortion.
"We know what happens when women are denied access to reproductive health care including abortion. And we can't go back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions. Reconsider your vote on the Stupak amendment. Tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the final health care bill that emerges from the conference committee can't turn the clock back on women's rights."

To sign the petition, click here.
So here's some news that may make your vagina and your pocketbook smile!
According to ABC News The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released new guidlines regarding annual pap smears and cervical cancer screenings. Women can now wait until 21 for their first cervical cancer screening, instead of 18 or after becoming sexually active, as I am sure most of us have been advised to do so by our primary care physicians.
In addition to starting cervical cancer screenings at a later age, ACOG also recommends that women with normal pap smears can go two years between pelvic exams, and that women in their 30 can go as long as three years between exams granted they have had three consecutive normal exams.
Of course, this news does not come without controversy. Let's break it down:
The Good:
-Recommending less frequent screenings can free up doctors for other services
-Fewer screenings can allow women to avoid unneccesary treatment for HPV that may clear up on its own before causing cervical cancer. (ACOG claims that 90% of infections caused by HPV clear up on their own).
-The smaller incidents of unecessary screenings can also reduce the need for diagnostic surgery which may cause complications during pregnancy.
-Reduce over-testing and over-treating.
-Fewer screenings means women do not have to spend as much money on these check ups. Cha-ching for your cha-cha!
The Bad:
-Some OB/GYNs feel like the age recommendation is still too young, and that women do not need to start screenings until 25, for the reasons listed above.
-Some Physicians also feel as if this will cause women to neglect their overall health, since a lot of OB/GYNs are where many women get their primary care as well.
-Other OB/GYNs feel that this is a step in the right direction, but will not solve the problem with what is really causing cervical abnormalities to go unnoticed: not getting exams at all.
I personally think this is great news, mostly for the cost aspect and the risk of over-treatment/over-testing. Also, with the increased use of the HPV vaccine, I think this is the next logical step.
What do you think?
In the news recently there has been media scrutiny against the newly crowned Miss California Carrie Prejean, who's been taking harsh heat for responding to a gay marriage question, but saying, " I think Marriage is between a Man and a Women."
Many newspapers, television shows, and gay rights organizations have been relentlessly bashing the fallen princess by playing up the recent discovery of her six sex tapes and the candid photos taken by a "mean photographer", that took advantage of the situation, says Prejean.
If you watch Larry King, the video posted above, he interviews many of the Miss California Executive Directors and Former beauty queens to question how they felt about the answer and the situation with Prejean.
When Larry King asked her what she was thinking after she was asked the question by Perez Hilton, she responded:
"Honestly, I felt as though Satan was--and I don't want to say that this person represented Satan--but I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking this question. And then God was in my heart saying, 'Carrie Do Not Compromise this. You NEED to Stand Up for Me.'"
Is it wrong for the fallen beauty queen to be scrutinized because she doesn't share the beliefs of a certain group of people? Is it right for everyone to bash this women's beliefs because she gave an honest answer to a difficult question?
Let's just imagine for a second that Prejean didn't have any sex tapes, she had a clean background, would people still discredit her beliefs and thoughts?
My thoughts....
I want to touch on a subject that most people don't like to discuss, Gay Marriage. I would really like some feedback on this subject because it is always interesting to see how society reacts when someone doesn't support a specific group opinion. There are lots of people who don't believe in Gay Marriage, but they support "civil union", does that make them less of an allie because they won't go the extra mile?
I come from a pentecostal background where it is taught to congregations that marriage is between a man and women, and if I was asked this question, how would you have wanted me to answer? Would you have wanted me to follow my heart and say how I truly felt or lie to save face and get on the good graces of part of society or be hated by those who knew how I truly felt? I want to ask these questions because I'm not going to tell you how I feel, I want to see how people feel about those that can't support Gay Marriage, but want to participate in the struggle of Gay Rights. Is it impossible to support one and dislike the other?
I am using Carrie Prejean as a subject because she has been ruthlessly slandered in the media due to an honest answer, and of course the multiple sex tapes, but I want to cause some discussion 'cause I think it's about time!
Who and What is a good allie for Gay Rights? When does religion get blurred and human compassion come in?
What are your thoughts? Be Brutally honest.
Remember, I'm going to go into this discussion neutral because I want to see how people from all backgrounds tackle these tough questions.
Talk about educating, encouraging, uplifting, empowering and just doing the damn thang! Well this is the case when it comes to a young man on my campus. I first spotted him at orientation before starting my freshman year of college in 08 and I knew he would be shaking things up. He did NOT fail to deliever. People may have their own little issues with homosexuals but you just absolutely cannot deny Bootz his respect. His presence is demanding and I may not know him personally but please believe I do know exactly who Bootz Durango is. In the spring of this year Bootz started his own modeling group entitled House of Durango.
A House with which my goal is to give women the same confidence as I have while living in this society, as well as to educate heterosexuals on the homosexual lifestyle to provoke change within the microcosm I call my life!
- Description of House of Durango by THE Bootz Durango :]
And when I say this is one confident person…I mean it! Just watching him encourages me and I’m proud to say watching an openly gay male do whatever it is he wants and do it well, uplifts me as a straight woman. I’m excited for him and everything he will do in life…this video he did of the induction ceremony of the “niece and son line” that went down this past Friday the 13th, (which he did the choreography for) only proves to me even more Bootz will be heard. And I felt that this is something everyone on Amplify needed to see.
Make sure you subscribe to his YouTube channel!! His videos are hilarious and he keeps it real. [ALSO WATCH PART 2!!]
According to a new study by the George Washington School of Public Health and Health Services adds some expert imprimatur to what many progressives have been saying all along: The Stupak amendment to the House health care bill--which will prevent millions of women from buying health insurance policies that cover abortion--is likely to have consequences that reach far beyond its supposedly intended scope."
No words...no words at all....

The report concludes :
"the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."
WHAT?
In other words, If the Stupak Amendement passes over time the insurance companies will scale down their abortion options until eventually they will not offer them at all.
I know the title seems a little far-fetched, especially given the history of the Fallen Miss America, Carrie Prejean.
You can relive the answer she gave to Perez Hilton concerning Gay Marriage:
As you heard from the video she is indeed against gay marriage, but is that a reason to hate the fallen beauty queen?

According to the Huffington Post, "Apparently, yes! Hollywood gossip-mongers TMZ report today that Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was recently talking bullishly on Prejean's political prospects:
"[Carrie] has the ability to draw crowds and if she has a strong message to go with that, who knows what she can do? She has star power which can open doors."
It doesn't matter that Prejean may have numerous sex tapes floating out in Internet land, she has the ability to draw crowds, and that is all that should matter, right?
Chaffetz suggests that it will be "an impediment" but "we've all made mistakes when we were 17."
CUE THE NATIONWIDE SEARCH FOR THE JASON CHAFFETZ SEX TAPE, according to the Huffington Post.
Hahahaha..thought that comment was hilarious...but anyways, back to the goods!
Chaffetz went on to suggest that "people are excited about [Prejean's] convictions and beliefs," which led me, naturally to itemize said convictions and beliefs:1. Carrie Prejean
doesnot support gay marriage.
2. Carrie Prejean thinks Perez Hilton is an insufferable, howling jerkface. (No argument here!)
3. Carrie Prejean thinks the media makes way too big a deal about 1 and 2.
4. Carrie Prejean will relentlessly bombard the media on that third point.
So see, she is well on her way to becoming a great political candidate, don't you think? Maybe we need a change? right?
What if the 2012 ticket had Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean? Would you vote? Sounds like a hott ticket right?
To read more on this article, click here.
According to Salon.com, ""Good Morning America's" preview Tuesday of the ex-governor's interview with "20/20" delivered a real surprise -- and I'm not talking about the fact that she said "bullcrap" to Barbara Walters' face. When asked about her response to finding out that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant, she answered:
"There was that feeling of 'Bristol, why? Didn't you know there are things you could do to prevent this -- or not do it at all?'"
Huh?
Sarah Palin has always been scrutinized in the media for her love of "abstinence only" education and hockey mom persona.
Did Sarah Palin promote contraceptives?
According to Salon.com,
Walters followed up by asking whether she had taught Bristol about abstinence or birth control. "Yeah and, you know, it was just that assumption that, well, pfft, good, I'm glad you're not doing it, Bristol," she said, "because it's a very dangerous thing to be doing at age 17 -- you could get pregnant or worse." (We're left to guess at what she means by "worse.")Walters, determined to run this play into the end zone, continued: "You're not against birth control?" And you know what the Thrilla from Wasilla did? She rolled her eyes and said: "Nooo, not at all!"
"only public mission is to remind her sisters and other girls, her peers, that there are consequences to unprotected sex.""Girls, wait, your entire future will change if you become pregnant."
Still, taken as a whole, the message was shockingly rational: Wait to have sex -- but if you don't, use protection.
According to Salon.com, Sarah Palin says,
"Bristol’s focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence." In such a worldview, Bristol didn't fail to use protection, she failed to abstain from sex. And, as promised, Bristol became an "abstinence ambassador."
To read this article, click here.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has a new ad against the Stupak-Pitts ban on abortion, watch below:
The Female comedian opens in a night club, here is how the joke goes:
"So, this woman goes to her doctor.
She says: 'Doc, my back is killing me, does my insurance cover a breast reduction?'
And the doctor says, 'Yes it does.'” The audience giggles.She goes on: "A guy goes to his doctor. He says: 'Doc, I can't breathe out of this side of my nose. Does my insurance cover a nose job?
And the doctor says: 'Yes, it does.'" Again, laughter.She continues: "Another woman walks into her doctor’s office.
She says: 'Doc, I’m 11 weeks pregnant -- my baby has anencephaly, parts of its brain and skull are missing. It’s fatal. Does my insurance cover an abortion?'
And the doctor says: 'Oooh, no it does not.'”Cue deafening silence, audience members shifting uncomfortably in their seats.
According to The Center for Reproductive Rights here are some key facts:
1.) "A majority of private health insurance plans now provide coverage for abortion services," 2.) "One in 3 women will have an abortion within her lifetime," 3.) "Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures." Under Stupak-Pitts, however, neither the new private plans nor the more affordable public option would cover abortion
Fed up?
You can tell congress how unhappy you are...
Visit NoAbortionBan.org and it will take 30 seconds to tell Congress how you truly feel....
According to Salon.com, "Roughly a month before the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, the FBI received an anonymous letter warning that suspected killer Scott Roeder "would do physical harm" to the abortion provider, the Associated Press reports.
The letter didn't offer any specific details, but it just said that he would hurt the doctor.
So, I know your wondering, Why didn't the FBI act?

The crazy thing about this story is that the tipster is Mark Archer of Tunkhannock, Pa. He and his wife were fighting for custody of Roeder's 7 year-old daughter. According to Salon.com, "The wife got pregnant by Roeder before she met Archer!"
A mess right?
Mark Archer is no way a biased party, is intentions were to get Roeder listed as a domestic terrorist so that he couldn't fly from Kansas to Pennsylvania to visit his daughter.
Despite being especially motivated to find dirt on Roeder, though, Archer was drawing conclusions based on facts, not fancy. There was Roeder's arrest in 1996 for possessing explosives; the comment he made to Archer's wife about being perfectly capable of blowing up an abortion clinic; and the numerous blog posts he allegedly wrote about putting an end to Tiller's work. The conclusion was rather obvious: Roeder was determined to harm the doctor, according to Salon.com
It's quite strange that an average guy could put the pieces together to figure out this man was a threat, but the FBI couldn't do it. Take it, the FBI gets numerous calls a day from tipsters that threaten important people in our society, but maybe things should be looked at closely.
To read more about this article, click here.
To read the article by the Associated Press, click here