The Latest from
@AmplifyTweets:
Facebook
Sometimes, as activists, we are forced to break out of our own comfort zones, to set aside our own fears for something bigger. I've found myself in this type of situation plenty of times, whether it be speaking in front of hundreds, or speaking in front of one. I'm sure we've all been there.
Last Friday, however, I wasn't obligated to speak or make a convincing argument; I had to let my blood do the talking.
It's healthy blood, really. Although I probably don't eat a balanced diet, or exercise enough, my blood's still red, and it's more than willing to come out of my body. I'm certain I have no blood-borne diseases—just ask my Doctor (she even says I have good veins).
Please, take some. It's a life-saver. If you hire a phlebotomist, and use it within 42 days, it's all yours. Unfortunately, this is how it must be done. The Food and Drug Administration does not allow “men who have had sex with men” (MSM) to donate blood. Despite my health-consciousness, my blood (and that of other gay/bisexual men) is considered too “at risk” for donation.
In abiding by this policy, donation centers, such as the Red Cross, are forced to deny willing donors the possibility of saving lives, and, in effect, they alienate a relatively large sector of the population, and place a greater strain on those who can donate because of shortages.
At a time when it is known that HIV (in particular) can be spread to anyone, gay or straight, and when there are more protections, screenings, and knowledge now, why must this policy live on? It is a question the FDA is looking into this week, and one we tried to answer for them when a group of concerned people got together to do a mock donation. A handful of gay, HIV-negative men donated several vials of blood, signaling the fact that it was unusable, yet could have saved 6-8 lives.
In response to an article written by Angela Townsend of The Plain Dealer, some say lift the ban, while others are much more reluctant (and ignorant, and...uhhh radical).
- This is completely disgusting. I would decline all blood from any homosexual. Because of this sickness, diseases have come into play. If I ever had a blood transfusion from a homosexual there would be one helluva a law suite!
- This means that our blood supply will be less safe. They are risking our lives by doing this. Errors happen in screenings and HIV/AIDS can lay dormant or miss the window for testing. You will be risking your life to draw from the blood supply if they remove this restriction.
- It's about as safe as the blood from the straight guy with the manicure and $1000.00 suit, who sleeps with whatever little skank he can pick up from "the club" every other night....Or the person who has recently discovered the fun of having a tattoos - and got them done at some unclean chop shop because he didn't know better, but who didn't report it to the donor registrar and gives anyhow,
- Why not just have a prohibition against anyone, male or female, having engaged in anal intercourse in some certain period of time? I would think that would solve all of the problems.
-
It's time for this ban to go. I am gay and have been in a completely monogamous relationship for 14 years, but am excluded from giving blood, but a straight guy who sleeps with prostitutes and has mistresses can give blood. Specific activities, not orientation, make you more of a risk for contracting HIV. How many straight guys have had sex with women who have had bisexual partners? This ban reinforces the stereotype that all gay men are promiscuous and have HIV.
- I am thankful too, to the blood donor whose blood saved my now 12 year old daughter's life when she was just 3 weeks old...I don't know or care either, about the race, sex, or sexual orientation of the person who donated the blood she received.
John Kerry, Kirstin Gillibrand, Dick Durbin, Daniel Akaka, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Frank Lautenberg, Bob Casey, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Mark Udall, Al Franken, Maria Cantwell, Carl Levin, Tom Harkin, Mark Begich, Rolland Burris, and Michael Bennet have already signed on!
Title: Ab-Only Sex Ed Activists Now Embark To Change Teen Driving Standards
Abstinence-only-until-marriage proponents have broadened the scope of their activism, with many now advocating for teenage driver reform. The sudden shift of focus comes from a recently published study analyzing statistical data and safety concerns relating to young drivers involved in automobile accidents.
Currently, many states allow teenagers to obtain a driver's license at the age of 16 upon the receipt of a driver's education certificate. Abstinence-only advocates, however, have begun rethinking this system. Leslee Unruh, the current director the Abstinence Clearinghouse, believes that young people, and teenagers in particular, are being taught wrongfully that driving can be a safe and acceptable practice at a young age. She believes that teaching young people that driving can be done safely, especially at a time when they are most vulnerable, is destroying American families, and that states are responsible for increases in teenage fatalities.
“Kids are smart. They respond. They respond negatively to a mixed message. They don't want to be told 'Ok, wear a seat belt, and you'll be fine.' They want to know 'should I drive and risk my life, my emotions,' or 'should I should I just wait,'” stated Leslee. “There's only one safe choice, and that's to wait.”
To Leslee's credit, her belief has been supported by a report recently published by The Christian Science Research Institute. The study found that upwards of 50% of teenage fatalities occurred because of safety belt complications, leading many ab-only advocates to rally for their removal. The study concluded further that other issues, such as drinking, drug use, suicide, and depression can all be linked to the confusion young people are faced with when they are on the road. The report criticized state governments for their “so-called comprehensive driver's education mandates,” citing that this poor policy has led to millions of teenage deaths and and an unreasonable amount of risky behavior.
Leslee and others have now began taking their argument to state legislatures, urging them to draft and pass legislation that would make it necessary to be in a committed, strong marriage before a driver's license will be issued to the patriarch of the family. This legislation would also eliminate the notion that driving can be safe before adulthood.
Leslee and others have made some success in persuading corporate America to join them in their crusade as well. Automaker Toyota, in light of their recent safety scandal, announced that they would begin phasing out their safety belts in an attempt to not only eliminate risk, but also to reduce customer costs significantly.
In response to backlash, Leslee stated that “[w]e don't want to limit a young person's abilities by encouraging them to drive.” Instead, she insists that we teach alternatives to driving, such as riding a bike, roller skating, walking, or skipping. She, and many others, envision an America where all young people are free from the dangers of driving unsafely at a young age —an America where children are out of vehicles, and are instead playing preciously in the street.
Finally, leadership is visible in the Parma City School District.
A few weeks ago, the Ohio Advocates hosted a community information night in Parma to discuss the state of sexual health education. We were very unsure of how many people were going to be at this meeting—we thought ten, maybe—and we were extremely surprised when we had a packed table full of very diverse community members. From students to parents, to staff from the AIDS Taskforce, and even a representative from the Parma City Schools, the turnout and discussion were very diverse, to say the least.
The meeting was a true example of democracy, for, while there were many comprehensive sex ed supporters in the room, there were also some skeptics, and as hosts of the meeting, we did our best to educate those who challenged our positions. In a group of 16-40+ in age, we managed to discuss sex, sex education, oral sex, communication, abstinence, state legislation, the state of the district, and had some very healthy debate about what young people are doing and what they should be taught. Although we had planned the meeting to be a spring board from which our community efforts would begin to mobilize, it turned out to be more successful in spurring discussion and question about what works, and obviously replacing what doesn't.
Much to our surprise, the Direct of Academic Services for the school district was one of those sitting around the table. At first apprehensive about why exactly she was there, and having to reframe our position so as to not insult anyone's lack of action, the Director's input proved very worthy. It was at this meeting that we learned that the Parma City School District has dis-invited Operation Keepsake from entering the school district, and O.K. will not be serving students effective this semester. Despite their lack of action earlier, we took this public statement as a positive reflection of where the district is heading.
Within the next few weeks, we hope to hear from the school district about their development of a community taskforce of professionals, parents, and students, to discuss, evaluate, and impement a new sexual health education curriculum by January of 2011. In ensuring that this taskforce is composed at least somewhat of health minded individuals, we presented the district with a list of a dozen or so people who have implied interest in committing to the taskforce. The superintendent has told us the she will consider those on the list as they develop the members.
Would I have believed you if you'd told me that I would be writing this just last November? This is progress.
Things are still happening in Parma, but just to recap:
- We have been trying for around 20 months to get into contact with "the" decision-maker for sex education policy/curriculum, all with little to no result.
- After being directed from one person to another, and after reaching out to like a hundred people (not literally), we decided that we had exhausted all of our avenues of communication with the district. There was simply nothing else we could do.
- So, we decided that our next step could only entail bringing this issue to the school board--and that's what we did. Myself and a fellow advocated addressed the Parma School Board, not only blasting abstinence-only programming in the district, but also the lack of responsiblity in communicating with us.
- Needless to say, we've finnaly gotten some response. And I can't help but thank all of the media attention we received, all of which perhaps encouraged the district to take us more seriously.
- The Plain Dealer, National Public Radio, The Gay People's Chronicle, countless blogs and websites, and *gasp* The Advocate--all covered a story about two teens from Parma!
We weren't on the agenda, but we made our plea for sex education to the Parma School Board and Administration Monday night! I could explain how it went, but take a look for yourself:
Danny (aka me)
and
Jelena Loncar, a fellow Parma Student.
This meeting was an amazing stepping stone for our future efforts in Parma. We got the meeting we asked for, and so much more:
Coverage on the story by awesome columnist Connie Schultz (who happens to be married to Senator Sherrod Brown):
www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf/2010/02/teens_make_a_request_for_real.html
WCPN, 90.3:
www.wcpn.org/WCPN/news/29778/
After nineteen months, it is our turn to be heard! Look forward to updates!
We've sent the letters, the emails. We've made the phone calls. We've even hand-delivered “lost” mail. I won't say we've done it all, but we finally have a meeting with The Director of Student Services/Curriculum, Laura Watson, next week in the Parma City School District!
**chants over small victory**
It's been a difficult road to something so simple: over a year of communication (and lack thereof) for an afternoon meeting. Although the PCSD doesn't know this, over that year and a half, the Ohio Advocates have met with individuals whose decision-making power is exponential in comparison: Sherrod Brown, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Strickland, Peter Lawson Jones, Tim Hagan, Ohio School Board Memers, Ohio Senators and Representatives; we may be young, but our network of contact proves that we have the leverage over the decisions that are being made.
I hope to carry this message to Parma next Thursday. I mean business, and I feel I have a right as a student and consumer to ask (and then demand) that they take Operation Keepsake out of their district. One problem we've noticed is that there is no cohesion between schools, and sometimes even between teachers—they are teaching whatever they decide, which is not the right way to do things. Someone from one school might be taught something different at another—so after we get OK out of there (because we will), we're gonna ask for a streamlined and universal district sex education curriculum that is, obviously, comprehensive.
While it began over a year ago, the real start (should I say battle?) is next week with Laura. The fate of the meeting remains unknown, but our actions afterward, regardless of her decision, have been mapped out. May the conversation finally begin!
Updates to follow!
I'm extremely excited that last Friday (I know I'm late), Ohio state Rep. Steve Slesnick introduced the Act For Our Children's Future, one of the most important pieces of legislation in the State of Ohio--regarding sex ed of course. After much talk and anticipation, we can finally go to our state house with "introduced" legislation to discuss.
The Act would provide that if a school district decides to teach sex education, then it must be comprehensive based, meaning that while the message of abstinence will still exist, abstinence-only programs will no longer be allowed.
I received the initial update as a forward from my coordinator with her only word being "Yay!!!" It has been introduced year after year, but this one is special; over the past year, we have established in the state a small, yet powerful, youth activist network (Ohio Advocates), and it is one that will surely influence our legislators to support this legislation. Our voices--the voices from the Urban Retreat--are going to be heard! Updates to come.
"It is time to stop-- stop the masses of students leaving abstinence-only-until-marriage programs unphased and vulnerable to the happenings of unsafe sex; it is time to stop teaching about values when it will be of more value to students and to our communities if we are taught how to be safe; it is time to stop being abstinent for marriage and start being abstinent for our bodies, our minds, our emotions, our health; and its time to stop thinking abstinence is the end; sex is inevitable, so please teach me how to avoid compromising my health."
Its time to start, too.
During the Urban Retreat, I remember thinking, "When I get home, I'm going to go to every lunch table in my cafeteria to recruit new activists; I'm going talk and convince with ease and confidence; and I'm going to get swarms of students to march to the board offices to demand comp. sex ed. (ok, not really that last one--but nonetheless). Once I was home, I found the situation in Parma, Ohio to be quite different.
I made two mistakes: not considering the vastness of a cafeteria or the intimidation of noise. Wait...I'm supposed to go around this place and talk about sex ed. (imagine hundreds of students, loud students) and me, dramatically in the center, wondering where to go first. Perhaps its yet another problem with abstinence-only education, but it can be very awkward to talk about sex. I'm totally comfortable, but I've found some that are less than interested in the issue and more so in the 'sex'. One girl told me I was very bold for talking so openly; another told me "I know its an issue, but I don't know..." If only they'd had comp. sex ed., this whole battle for comp. sex ed. in Parma would be easier--they'd know exactly what they're missing. This is a hard issue to explain to someone unknowing.
Nonetheless, they didn't have comp. sex ed., and I've found that at times in our activism we're more so advocates than organizers. I often find myself speaking for my peers that don't have a voice--yet. I won't get to every lunch table (it makes me nervous and I've only gone to a few), but I will talk about sex and sex ed. whenever I can. I will penetrate my peers with information, either directly or indirectly. I do prefer to speak quietly, but I will not be silenced by intimidation.
After reading Joe's recent post about sex (or moral) education in Ohio, I thought I'd share my own thoughts as an Operation Keepsake alumnus.
Let's think about. In Parma, a suburb of Cleveland, and one of the largest school districts in Cuyahoga County, there are a large number of married parents. But there are also a large number of divorced parents, of single parents, of step-parents, of parents that aren't married, and of single parents that date. So the question here is: "Do Operation Keepsake students really get their ideas of marriage from television?" Probably not. There is a bigger chance that a parent's failed marriage is more impactful. And are all the single parents in Parma abstinent? Well, I'll let you decide."Think about Marriage: What is it? Realistically, a lot of us have not seen a good example of marriage. Most of us get our ideas about marriage from television and movies. How helpful is this? What does the media say about marriage? I mean, how many faithful, loving, and committed marriages can you think of on television or in the movies?"
What sense am I making here? It seems to me that Operation Keepsake is telling students that if you're parents are married, that's great; but if they aren't, don't be like them. I mean, hello single parents, shout after me: renewed abstinence.
There was a college girl that came into the class and talked about how she and her boyfriend don't frech kiss, and no touching happens in places covered by a bathing suit. Now, do we honestly think that this is realisitic of a college student? Now, what if she never marries? I guess no kissing for her.
I knew it. I knew having intimate, satisfying sex with a great partner was going to lead me to...kill myself?
Or so The Heritage Foundation says. Its an old article, but it proves a point: some abstinence-only organizations will manipulate facts (and thus nullify them) to convince the public that they are right. Its to no suprise that an abstinence-only until marriage used this statistic in a grant proposal for federal funds. Take a look at what THF wrote:
The study survey asked whether or not students have ever had "sexual intercourse." For different people, this definition could mean different things, making the results all the more unreliable. Not to metion the fact that you could have had "sexualy intercourse" last night or five years ago. The survey went on to ask "how often, in the past week, did you feel depressed?" There were four possible answers: never or rarely; sometimes; a lot of the time; or most of/ all of the time. Talk about in-depth. For all we know, the number of respodents who answered no to sexually active could have been happy...that day, anyway."When compared to teens who are not sexually active, teenage boys and girls who are sexually active are significantly less likely to be happy and more likely to feel depessed.
"When compared to teens who are not sexually active, teenage boys and girls who are sexually active are significantly more likely to attempt suicide."
