In case it isn't obvious from the message boards and our peer-written content on the site, peer-based sex education and support is really important to and at Scarleteen. While I love my job as a sex educator who is an older adult, and think there's a lot of value in my doing this work, at the same time I feel like there's an extra power and a special kind of support with peer-to-peer education and interaction that I can't do. I also consider that part of what I do in educating young people about sexuality is not only helping them to have accurate information for themselves, but helping them to pass that accuracy on to their friends and partners.

We all know that peers are where teens and young adults often get most of their sex information from: the problem is that so often that information isn't accurate. It's often hearsay, based only on a given person's own experiences or the experiences of one peer group; or it's sourced from places that might look accurate, like mainstream magazines, but which often really are not, or that can come with a lot of hidden biases in tow. If I trace my career in sex ed as far back as I can, I can identify it starting with my being the go-to girl for friends about sex in junior high and high school. And I can assure you that I, too, probably unknowingly passed as much incorrect as correct information around, particularly given my enthusiasm for the subject.

So, we're rolling out an experiment starting on July 13th, which I hope will become something we do several times a year on an ongoing basis. I'm going to start training small groups of want-to-be peer educators (or who already are, but want some new or alternative training), ages 13-24, online through Scarleteen. Consider it our version of summer school.

This program will run for six weeks, from July 14th through August 21st, and will involve things like:
• Reading assignments on sexuality, relationships, health and related issues, as well as some reading around compassionate listening and other theory when it comes to education, presentation and interacting with people about sexuality.
• Researching your own community and basic peer group so you know their needs well and can serve them best; researching local laws and policies in your area which may or do impact teens or young adults when it comes to sexuality or sexual health.
• Going out into your community to find resources like STI testing sites, places to get contraception (including ways it may be discounted for young people), GLBT youth centers or organizations and to know how things like getting Plan B, STI tests, or reporting rape tend to go in your community or area.
• Compiling a big, bodacious binder you'll be able to use as a reference when planning or doing peer-to-peer education.
• Group message board discussions and brainstorming sessions. We'll also do some role-play in those discussion to help walk you through some typical questions and answers, and common issues that can come up when doing sex education, and discuss certain subjects, topics or issues that can be tough to handle or create conflict. Additionally, as a group we'll help everyone develop their own plans for doing peer-to-peer sex education.
• The opportunity to talk with other awesome sex educators and activists who will participate in some of the message board discussions as guest mentors.

My philosophy as an educator does not include busywork, and is strongly tethered in anything learned, and the way anyone learns, being useful and having a practical application. So, any work you do in the program will be work that has you learning information or skills you need to to do peer-to-peer education well. Nothing you'll do in this will be done just to give you something to do or to prove me with something to review. There will be no tests of any kind, either. It will be a pass-fail course, based on your participation as demonstrated by showing up and participating in the group discussions, finishing your binder and doing the in-person work, and your overall investment throughout the process. I also prefer education to be accessible to as many people as possible, so I'll be doing my level best to give you reading you can find online or in most libraries (and as any kind of sex educator, if you can't purchase lots of books to build your own reference library, you're going to need to spend time at the library).

This training will be in alignment with the core values and mission of Scarleteen. The approach and information will be as inclusive as possible (in terms of age, gender, orientation, race, class, sexual choices, the works), it will be fact-based, sex-positive and feminist, and my aim will be to give everyone the benefit of my own experience and approach, which is very oriented to what a particular person or group expresses or shows they want and need -- more than what any outside person or agency thinks they need.

For those who complete the training, what you'll walk away from it with besides the process of the training is:
• The in-depth, peer-specific resource you created as part of the program
• A copy of my book, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College, to work with and keep
• A certificate that makes clear that you've completed the program through Scarleteen
• And a phone, post or email reference from me, should you need it, for doing peer sex education or other jobs

This is a free program for all participants, though you will need to have internet access, and be able to obtain some basic supplies, like a binder, paper and access to a printer. You may need to transport yourself in your own community, as well, so be sure you have a means of transportation and whatever funds you may need to get around. I expect work for and participation in the course to require around ten to fifteen hours a week, but what hours you do this in are your own. No one will have to show up at Scarleteen at any specific times, so what country or time-zone anyone is in shouldn't make a difference, and you should be able to do this even if you have a other commitments or plans this summer which have specific hours.

We will need some basic information from you so, should you complete the course, we can make that certificate for you and get it into your hot little hands. This does not require parental permission however, I'd suggest that if you are a minor and you feel your parents would disapprove or feel uncomfortable with this, that you discuss it with them in advance. I'm happy to communicate with anyone's parents or guardians about this if you'd like or prefer. Doing both the training and peer sex education is generally not something that's going to work if you're sneaking around or needing to hide this.

Lastly, this first time, I expect the training to be more freeform than it will be once I/we have done it a few times. So, I'd say that if you feel more drawn to ways of learning that are more anarchistic and loosely structured, this would be a great time to do this. If you prefer things to be more structured and finessed, then you might want to wait until I've done this a couple times before enrolling.

Interested? This first round has room for fifteen trainees, and we'll take people in on a first-come first-served basis. Just be sure (so you don't take an opportunity away from someone else who may want it) that you will be able to be around and in touch for those six weeks and have at least ten hours each week open to do this with, that you do feel you'll be comfortable working with sexuality as a whole, and that you also feel you are the kind of person who really likes, or can at least handle, being very self-motivated and doesn't need to be kicked in the bottom to get things done.

To get on the list, use the contact form at Scarleteen here. Please include your first name and the best email address to reach you at. If you have any questions or concerns, put those in the email and I'll get back to you about them.

I will send an email to everyone who has expressed interest by July 8th with more information, some links and a brief form for you to get into my hands so we can all get started. For those who contact me after we have already reached capacity, I'll go ahead and hold your name and email and contact you the next time we're getting ready to do this.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you and working with you!

- Heather Corinna, Founder & Director, Scarleteen

Note: We have not only already filled up for this round, but given the level of response, I have expanded the group size to 20! (So many highly enthusiastic educators-to-be! How could I say no?) But if you do still have interest in this, go on ahead and still send an email, and I will keep your name in queue, in the order I have received your mail, for the next round, which I anticipate doing in October. Thanks!

When it comes to your average American sex education class, for all the talk about possible risks associated with sex, people seem to forget to mention all the positive aspects, the crazy-sexy-cool things that can make sex fun and enjoyable!

Obviously, sex must not be all bad if the vast majority of people have sex at some point in their adult lives; in fact, it must be pretty darn good. However, even in settings that offer comprehensive sex ed, the idea that sex can be fun and pleasurable often gets downplayed.

Not unsurprisingly, a lot of people are having unfulfilling, displeasurable, guilt-ridden and downright bad sex. Fortunately, there is a lot of support out there to help people overcome all the negativity. As important as these services may be, if sex ed were more sex-positive, I would imagine we could vastly reduce the need for repairs and revisions: We would know what a positive sexual relationship looks like and not settle for any less. We'd know how to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STIs so we could focus on the pleasure and partnership. Instead of a band-aid to patch up an old wound, we could avoid many such pains in the first place.

Scarleteen aims to do just that: We seek to educate and empower young people to become familiar and comfortable with their unique sexualities so we all can make the decisions to have a healthy and happy sexual life right from the start, whether it's with a long-term partner, a one-night-stand or even just ourselves. With resources such as the Ready or Not? The Scarleteen Sex Readiness Checklist (now also available auf Deutsch thanks to volunteer Joey), we provide you with the tools for positive sex life.

So, let's get it on...

Let's get on with listing of sex-positive articles, blog entries, and message board threads here at Scarleteen for your aural and ocular pleasure!

Articles

- 10 of the Best Things You Can Do for Your Sexual Self (at Any Age)
- An Immodest Proposal
- A Calm View from the Eye of the Storm: Hysteria, Youth and Sexuality
- Reciprocity, Reloaded
- Safe, Sound & Sexy: A Safer Sex How-To
- Supermodel: Creating & Nurturing Your Own Best Relationship Models
- To Be... AWESOME or Just Be –– Tips on Making the Most of Your Life Right Now!
- Yield for Pleasure

Blog entries

- Shameless
Scarleteen founder Heather Corinna packs a punch with the statement, "When I was a teenager, having sex wasn't really part of my rebellion. Having GOOD sex was." And those are just the first two lines of this powerful piece.

- From Closeted to Comfortable
In her blog debut, Maryc talks about going from creeped-out to crazy about her sexuality (and how's not afraid to safety first and modesty second when washing vibrators!)

- "This Information will Not Kill You" or, How Our Whole Lives Changed My Life"
Owls are considered to be wise animals; likewise, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist-developed OWL sexuality education program offers a wise and refreshing take on sex ed for teens. Find out why Annakohl gives a hoot about OWL!

- Good Sex in non-zero
Site volunteer and engineer-to-be Jacob does the math to show that good sex is no mystery equation.

Message Board Threads

Are you one of the over 41,500-and-counting users on the Scarleteen message boards? If not, there's no better time than now to join in on the conversation! Sure, a lot of people come to the boards for advice but there are also ample opportunities to exchange experiences and share ideas. What's your take on...

- How do you feel about sex being...fun?
Read the thread that is the inspiration for this Spotlight! See what Heather, curiousitykat5869, StrangePudding, Jill2000Plus, libertinedreamer, Bragorien, Onionpie, So_Very_Nieve, Asian, nanswer4me, Anne Marie, Hohum, gluegun, meladie, and OneQuestion have said about what makes sex fun for them. What makes sex fun for you?

- What does a healthy relationship look and feel like?
Scarleteen volunteer orca encourages us to think positively and wax ecstatic on how happy a healthy relationship can be and how to know what to look for.

- I Love You
Those three little words that can have so much meaning. Find out what users have said about saying them and say your bit, too!

- Scarleteen Testimonials
Simply share the love for this site!

--------------------------------------------------------

What is Spotlight on Scarleteen? Find out more by clicking here.

At twenty years old, I have by no means conquered all of my personal anxieties or insecurities about sex and sexuality. But after spending years trying to deny it, I can say that I have finally come to terms with the fact that I am a sexual being.

For most of my life, I have conceptualized my sexuality as separate from the rest of my body, intellect, and soul. This schism between my sexuality and the idea I had of my ‘Self’ cut me deeply during some of what could have been the best years of my life.

Too many years have passed me by in which I have struggled to hide my sexuality not only form those around me but from myself.

I can still remember the first time I masturbated. I was in sixth grade and I think I got the idea from an episode of Friends.

It took weeks of me masturbating against pillows and objects for me realize that I could use my own bare finger.

“But it’s so gross,” I would think. “I can’t touch there!”

Even as I pleasured myself, I hated my body. And each time I climaxed, I promised myself not to do it ever again before falling asleep with guilt weighing heavy on my heart.

My first sexual relationships with partners were just as fraught with shame and reluctance. I went to a small, private school in North Texas where sex was rarely discussed, even in health class. What I did learn about sex was that boys wanted it all the time and that girls should never give in because then we would grow up to be bad wives and mothers.

So last night as I cleaned my vibrator at my sink while chatting with a friend through the open bathroom door, I realized how far I’ve come as an individual with regards to accepting my own sexuality.

But the comfort I have finally achieved did not come without the help of others. I am indebted to resources like Scarleteen for reminding me that my sex life is not my defining characteristic and that being kinky doesn’t equate to being degenerate.

The open arms of the sex-positive movement welcomed me when I felt at my lowest and most closeted. Most importantly, the comforting embrace of the sex-positive movement has taught me that none of the my sexual desires have any bearing on my ability to be an intellectual and a decent human being. No matter how kinky I may be, I know that I can be a wonderful wife and mother, if I so choose.

I remember visiting Scarleteen.com when I was still in high school and I blushed at words like “masturbation”. But curiosity coupled with my desire to find out if I was indeed a “pervert” (a possibility that sincerely scared me) kept me coming back to Scarleteen.

When I finally got to college, I made it a point to try to help other young people who felt like I had in high school: that they had to keep tabs on their sexuality in order to be "good people".

Now I talk about sexuality constantly. Whether it be with my friends or through my positions as a sex columnist, peer educator, and activist for gender equality, sex has become a hot topic in my life and I can't see my passion for it dwindling any time soon. I could never have come so far in my journey as a sexual being if I hadn’t found the unbelievable friends, advocates, and resources that have encouraged me along the way.

Today I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to Scarleteen.com, the very place where I began my journey to understand sexuality. I hope some of my words can help you and provide you with perspective and comfort at a time when you may be struggling with some of the questions that I had to come to terms with.

Don’t worry: I’m not going to tell you not to post pictures of yourself drunk or exposed on Facebook because future employers might look at your profile, or tell you not to write about how "totally wasted” you got last night on your Wall because, again, prospective employers might read it. There are other articles you can read on that, and I do suggest considering the advice given in those articles. What I want to talk about is the other side of Facebook, the side that allows creeps to spy on you.

I got into FB about halfway through my freshman year of college. I didn’t use it much; mostly I just kept in contact with distant family and a couple of people FB called ‘friends’ but whom I had no plans to see anytime in the near future. At the time, I listed myself as being in a relationship. It felt a little dorky, and I certainly wasn’t planning on writing overtures to my ‘sweetheart’ like other people do on their Walls, but it was the truth. A year later, my status changed to single, and I added a couple more friends and family, but still didn’t use it much. The only profile picture was something silly, like a cat or a dog I’d never met but found on Google.

Another year later, and I was using FB to look at pictures of my niece and nephew. Their parents were horribly lazy about posting new pictures and instead hogged all of them on their hard-drives, so my use was still pretty limited. I’d learned about Pete’s new career choice, Anna’s almost marriage, Holly’s niece, Catie’s law classes, and Alex’s new beau. I also heard from my brothers how each of their kids were doing, how many steps they’d taken that day, what words they were saying, what hand signs they knew. Phone conversations with my brothers tend to be difficult as one is usually on-call and the other is running after his daughter, so FB allowed us to talk more leisurely, and often after the kids were already in bed and phone calls could no longer be made to ensure the kids slept through the night. It also saved a lot of money in calls to Canada to talk to my sister.

I think I’m beginning to sound like a rep for Facebook. Of course, there are also things I dislike about FB, or rather the culture that exists inside it: the pseudo-familiarity people have with one another as they have even former 'enemies' and people they’ve never met or spoken to as ‘friends;’ the competition to have the most ‘friends;’ the way it’s been used in the past (and present) for bullying; the voyeuristic nature of FB, as people can see what you did today, what you had for dinner, and even how much you dislike a certain class. I still have my account, though, as I still enjoy most aspects of FB, even while I dislike others.

But there are other, more unsavory aspects of Facebook. Like nuclear fission, FB can be used for evil as well as good. I’d heard other people talk about using FB to ‘stalk’ people they went to school with or used to date, but the term was always used lightly, jokingly, and perhaps embarrassedly. They weren’t actually stalking, but were just curious about how those people were doing, even though they had no desire to contact them and may not have even been friends with them. It’s a desire I’ve felt before and acted on once or twice. This morning, though, I saw just how ugly that ‘stalking’ can be when my (abusive) ex—yes, the one from earlier—sent me a message. His last name had been spelled differently, leaving me uncertain who it was. The message was something stupid, and yet had an air of creepiness to it. He wanted me to put up a profile picture (I’d still not put one up and had even taken down the silly ones from before) to show people “how cute [I] look.”

Reading it, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a friend about the pictures people post on FB. In many of the pictures people post, they don’t look glamorous, but have disheveled hair and are wearing dirty clothes. The way I grew up, pictures were supposed to be taken when you looked your best. The idea of taking a picture when you look…not your best was completely foreign and incomprehensible to me. My friend told me that pictures aren’t about looking your best, but about capturing a particular moment in time. The purpose of the pictures isn’t to prove to others how great you can look, but to remind yourself of that moment.

My ex’s message left me feeling rather sick. I’ve spent the better part of the last year and a half since I left him trying to work through the trauma he caused, and have had great success. His contacts have been few but terrifying. Finding that one of the places I use to connect and keep in touch with others is also used by him to spy on me, I was angry and annoyed. I took action, though, and I blocked him from viewing my profile, and then changed my privacy settings so only friends can view my profile, and people who search for me cannot see my friends or my profile, but only my name and the blank space that is my profile picture.

This may seem like paranoia to some, but those who have left abusers will understand why I took those precautions. The fact is if you don’t have privacy settings on your account, anyone can look at your profile, whether it’s someone you went to school with and were not very fond of, or a prospective employer, or a past partner you don’t want to talk to. There are many privacy settings to use, and Facebook also has a new feature that lets its users create a screen name for themselves, which can add more safety while also allowing family and friends to find you more easily (especially true if your last name happens to be Smith and your first name is John or Mary).

I could add in here some scary stories from newspaper articles about people who stalk through Facebook or murderers who find their targets through the site, but that kind of sensationalism feels a little cheap. The point is we have to consider who might be seeing us when we use a social networking site. For all the ways I love and hate FB, I know to be cautious with it.

The murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31st has resulted in a lot of conversation about abortion. It’s a topic frequently hushed, or spoken about more around its politics than the actual procedure, the experience itself and the real women who have abortions. So this increased discussion is certainly something potentially positive happening because of something horribly tragic. More discussion around anything which is or may be treated as unspeakable is always a good thing.

However, often in these conversations and news stories, language is used that's confusing or inaccurate, and some statements are made about abortion or women who choose abortion which are false, unrepresentative or misleading. And any of this can come from either “side” of abortion debates or discussions, due to political aims or motivations, ideological ideas or agendas or just out of plain old ignorance. Just like a whole lot of people don't know the finer points of open-heart surgery, a lot of people just don't know what goes on with an abortion procedure, especially from a provider's point of view. If inaccurate, misleading or ideologically-loaded language is being used, or myths are being held as truths, our communication and understanding is always going to be limited. And that’s never a good thing, unless we don't really want to understand something at all.

Let’s start with a few typical language issues. When the politics of abortion are discussed, often language is used in talking about abortion that doesn’t actually exist in the practice itself, that providers don’t usually use or have any practical use for, and some of which is absolutely meaningless or invented only to try and misrepresent abortion or pregnancy.

“Late-term abortion”

Plenty of you have probably heard the term “late-term abortion,” lately because Dr. Tiller was one of the few providers who provided abortions for women past 24 weeks. “Late-term” is a phrase that we don’t use in practice because it doesn’t mean anything solid, practical or medical. Even in common use it’s pretty meaningless: when some people say that they mean an abortion from the 20th week through the current legal limit (which in some states is up to 28 weeks), others mean the whole second trimester, and some are talking about abortions into a period of time when legal abortions can no longer even be performed (past that 28th week or less in some states) except when the life or health of the mother is in danger, as determined by her doctor.

Whether a doctor or healthcare worker is talking about a pregnancy that ends in a birth, miscarriage or with an abortion, we talk about the timing of pregnancy either in weeks (as in, labor and delivery usually happen around the 40th week) or in trimesters. The first trimester of pregnancy is from gestation (from the date of a woman’s last menstrual period) through 12 weeks, the second from weeks 13-28, and the third from week 29 until a full-term, which is generally considered to be between the 37th and 42nd week, even though some women may deliver earlier or later.

Viability is more of a legal term than one used in healthcare, and in legal use has been defined as a fetus “potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.” In other words, for much of pregnancy, even with amazing care and medical technology, a fetus cannot survive outside a mother’s uterus. But at a certain point, even if it has not fully developed yet, it can or may be able to.

What viability is considered to be, in terms of at what number of weeks, varies from state to state and has also changed over time. When Roe Vs. Wade was decided, viability was considered to be around 28 weeks, but since that time, it has changed in some areas or countries to be as early as 22 weeks. However, in practice, viability is generally determined more by unique development, like lung development (which will vary some from fetus to fetus) rather than by weeks.

An astute bit of commentary in the Wiki on pregnancy adds about the increasing time period of viability that, “Unfortunately, there has been a profound increase in morbidity and mortality associated with the increased survival to the extent it has led some to question the ethics and morality of resuscitating at the edge of viability.”

Babies and conception

“Baby” is another term we don’t use in medical practice: it’s an infant or newborn when we’re talking about a live birth. Before birth, we are talking about an embryo, around two weeks after gestation, or a fetus, from the end of the tenth week of gestation onward. This language is not meaningless or just about semantics: we’re talking about very different phases of development when we talk about a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus and an infant. But for those of us working in abortion, embryo or fetus are the only terms we’re using: anything before an embryo is to early for a termination (and often even for a pregnancy test), and an infant at or post-birth is not something we ever see in our practice.

Conception is also not a term we use in abortion. We don’t have any need to argue when conception does or doesn’t start, or to use this term at all because it doesn’t give us any information we need. What we need to know is if a woman is pregnant, and if so, what the size (via an ultrasound) of the fetus or embryo is, and, for legal purposes, how many weeks pregnant she is based on that size and her last menstrual period.

“Partial-birth abortion”

This this is not a medical term, and there is no such medical procedure that exists by this name. Rather, it was a term invented by Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right-to-Life Committee in 1995.

We have a legal ban -- put in place during the Bush administration, and which remains in place now -- on something by this name, even though it has no meaning in actual practice. Incidentally, the law itself also contains some pretty strange language for a law or policy. (In fact, if you also click the link to Roe V. Wade on that page, check out how different the language is. It’s a pretty major difference.)

What people using this term usually mean is a termination which is done around or after the legal limit for elective (as in, chosen, and with no need for a doctor’s order) abortions. The actual medical practice often being called “partial-birth” is an intact dilation and extraction (an ID&X, which is very different than a standard D&E), which is almost exclusively done for health reasons, stillbirth or profound fetal abnormalities, and/or also if the mother or parents would like the fetus to remain intact (for their own emotional process or for burial) or an autopsy is recommended. I won’t go into depth here about all that procedure can involve, but now that you know the right term, you can look it up for yourself, or take a look here, here or here for some sound general information.

Abortion procedures done at this time make up less than 2% of all abortions every year: they are exceptionally rare. An ID&X is not usually the procedure used for second-trimester procedures, and never for first-trimester procedures. ID&X is a type of abortion procedure for women who, very late in the game (usually in the third trimester) discover that either their fetus has very serious problems, that their health or life will be or is in grave danger with a birth or continued pregnancy, and/or if a fetus was already was stillborn (had died in the womb). A termination done like this and at this time can spare the mother the physical risks and emotional pain of going through the rest of her pregnancy, then labor and delivery with an infant absolutely known to be born still (to be dead before birth), or which would die shortly after birth. An ID&X can also be done more quickly than an induced labor and delivery, and with life or health at stake, that’s another reason why it has sometimes been done.

“Abortion doctor”

I don’t know of anyone with a doctorate degree in abortion, nor of any programs where you can get a doctorate in abortion. “Abortionist” is also a problematic term for this reason. “Abortion provider” is the preferred term by most. Many doctors who provide abortions are OB/GYNs: they are obstetricians and gynecologists. Some nurses also administer medical abortions.

With those linguistic foibles cleared up, let’s take a brief look at some common statements you may have heard before the last few weeks, but may be hearing more of now. Nearly all of these statements are either false, misleading or only represent one group of women or one kind of experience while rendering another invisible. And all or some of them have been used by more than just one “side” of debates around abortion, too. Some of these phrases are used by those who are pro-choice (who support every woman's right to choose parenting, adoption or abortion, whichever a woman feels is best for her), some by those who are antichoice (who do not support a woman's right to choose all three of her options), some by both.

Some of the statements or my responses to them may make you uncomfortable. I don’t state or respond to them to vilify anyone, to call out one group any more than another, to put anyone’s rights at risk or to enable these statements or ideas. I make them because I think it is so important that we do our best to tell the truth about abortion and about women. All too often I hear even some pro-choice people who are not being truthful: sometimes out of ignorance, limited exposure to abortion and the diversity of women who terminate, sometimes because they seem to be trying to simply walk the party-line and limit talk to those situations or women where abortion is the least challenged out of a fear of losing our reproductive rights.

The thing is, when it comes to reproductive rights, choice and experience, something as simple as a glib party line is too simple, because women’s lives and reproductive experiences are not at all easily simplified. We cannot be easily reduced down to one or two groups when it comes to our experiences with pregnancy, any choice we make around a pregnancy, or mothering. Those experiences and situations are just much too varied for that.

If we deny or hide some truths – and usually the ones that challenge us the most -- I don’t think we’re helping anyone. If our rights are based on falsehoods, or are only about one group of women and exclude others, then they may not actually give everyone rights or be rights which are particularly solid, rather than arbitrary or mercurial.

In my responses to these statements, I’m coming at them from a few spheres of experience: from the decade and some I have run Scarleteen and talked with or read women talking about abortion, from the year and a half I have worked part-time at an abortion clinic (which provides abortions up to 24 weeks), from a lot of academic reading on the subject, both in terms of the medical aspects and the first-person experience of pregnancy, decision-making and abortion, as well as from my own life: my experiences and those of my friends and family.

No woman wants to have an abortion.

Many women, if not most, who choose an abortion want to have one. If a woman freely chooses abortion for herself, rather than being pressured or coerced into it, then an abortion is absolutely what she wants.

And let’s be real about that: women are pressured or coerced into all of the possible choices with a pregnancy with some frequency. Sometimes that pressure is direct, from family, partners, friends. Sometimes that also comes from communities, cultures, religions, politics. No matter WHAT choice a woman is making about her pregnancy, from a pro-choice perspective, pressure, coercion or force is absolutely unacceptable.

By all means, some women have pregnancies they do NOT want to terminate, where the last thing they want is an abortion, yet they still decide to terminate, usually based on very serious or grave circumstances. Some women feel that of the three choices available they don’t want to make any of those choices: but one has to be made, even if none of them are wanted.

There is a range in this: for some, abortion is an ideal choice, what is most wanted, full-stop and without any feelings of conflict. For others, neither abortion nor childbirth are wanted outcomes, but abortion is the more wanted choice and what seems best to that woman with her pregnancy. For many, feelings lie somewhere in between those two poles.

Every woman who chooses abortion does so with sadness, or finds the decision to abort one that is exceptionally difficult.

In the United States (and many other areas) abortion is legal. And there is no legal requirement that a woman must feel a certain way in order to have or retain the right to terminate her pregnancy.

There is no way all women feel with the end of every or any pregnancy: all women who terminate do not experience feelings of pain or deep sadness, just as all women who give birth do not experience bliss and perfect joy (a myth which is propagated just as much as the opposite around abortion has been). Women’s feelings vary widely with every pregnancy, every termination, every delivery. There is not a “right” way to feel with any of these choices, with any part or experience of pregnancy, nor if a woman does or doesn’t feel a given way is she any more or less entitled to her own choices with her pregnancy.

No woman has an abortion casually.

Just as the case is with the great range of experiences with how a woman feels about abortion, so it is with the motivation for, or decision-making process with abortion. Some women DO have abortions in a way you or I – or even they – might call or see as “casual.” For some women, having an abortion is not a big deal, is not upsetting, is not something she feels carries a lot of weight for her. It should also be noted -- though this is not to say if a woman is "casual" about abortion it is only for this reason -- that certain developmental disabilities, addictions, traumatic life experiences or psychological conditions can cause a woman to give any number of things, like death, abuse or pregnancy, less gravity than others might give them or feel about them.

Having talked to a lot of women about their abortions, would I say there are many women who feel casually about abortion or take it lightly? No, I would not: in my experience, that’s the exception rather than the rule. In fact, I think we can go one step further and say few women feel casual about a pregnancy, period. But again, we have to be very careful not to deny any woman’s real experience, even if the reason we might be tempted to do so is in an effort to try and retain her/our rights.

Abortions in the second-trimester are only done in cases of rape, incest or when the health of the mother and/or fetus are at risk.

That is not true. While in the third trimester, past viability, abortion procedures can only be done when the mother's life is at risk, this is not so for most or all of the second trimester. While second-trimester procedures are much less common than those done in the first trimester, many second-trimester abortions are chosen electively, and it is absolutely legal to do so.

Why do women terminate in the second trimester? Well, this is a big topic, because we’d need to address the myriad of reasons why a woman has an abortion at any time. We’d also be irresponsible if we didn’t explore why it is that second-trimester procedures are considered so different than first-trimester procedures by many people, even though that doesn't fit everyone's experience of pregnancy. So, I'll have to shortcut a bit here to avoid writing a thesis.

There are some common reasons why women do not terminate by the end of the first trimester, but in the second: because she didn’t accept or know she was pregnant until later (remember that not all women have regular periods, and some women experience bleeding during pregnancy they mistake for a period), because she couldn’t afford a termination until later, because she couldn’t get access to an abortion in her area earlier, because she originally wanted a pregnancy, but then changed her mind, often based on something major changing in her life (loss of a home or job, loss of healthcare, a natural disaster, another child or family member becoming ill or in need, loss of a spouse or husband or of a partner’s support for a pregnancy or child, a relationship becoming abusive or existing abuse increasing, etc.), and also because of maternal or fetal health issues or abnormalities (often these can’t be identified until later in a pregnancy).

If you want to know more about women who have had later terminations, some sites have recently been compiling first-person stories. RH Reality Check has a bunch here, and The Atlantic has a good round-up of some from their site here. And for general first-person abortion stories from women at all stages, the clinic I work for has kept a story archive for a long time right here.

If everyone had access to birth control and all the methods we had were 100% effective, all pregnancies would be wanted and we would have no abortions.

While some women have very firm and consistent feelings before and during the whole of a pregnancy that a pregnancy is wanted, not everyone feels that way. Given how much pressure expectant mothers are under to express nothing but joy about a pregnancy, we can’t even accurately say how many women have mixed or mutable feelings: we just don’t live in a world yet which allows women that kind of honesty around pregnancy.

Even if every wanted pregnancy remained wanted, we can be certain that many women would still want and need abortion. Life doesn’t just stay put while we’re pregnant, so our circumstances can always change, like some of the changes I talked about above, and some of those changes can seriously alter our plans, previous wants and needs or the status of our pregnancy. In fact, I think it’s pretty strange to talk about a process which is about nothing but constant change – for a developing, as well as for a pregnant woman – as if it could be unchanging.

That said, birth control access and efficacy is a huge issue, and given that in America alone, nearly half of all pregnancies which end in abortion are unintended, we know that lack of access to methods, not knowing how to use methods properly or having a lack of cooperation around contraception in sexual partnerships and the level of effectiveness methods provide does very much contribute to more abortion than we would see otherwise. Those earnestly looking to help reduce the number of abortions drastically should absolutely be working to increase birth control access, awareness and the development of reliable methods of contraception, since this is the one thing we know would make a huge difference which does not in any way diminish or remove women's reproductive rights.

Women who have abortions don’t like or love children.

In the United States around 60% of women who have abortions are already mothers; mothers who love their children no more or less than anyone else. Often already being a mother informs much of their choice: they know, after all, without having to guess, what parenting requires and what their children need, and if they can or cannot meet those needs. Lower-income women have always had more abortions than higher income, and that’s part of this piece, too: many women know when we cannot afford any children or are already finding it very difficult to provide care for existing children. Some women choose abortion in part or entirely out of love for the children they already have: they know when another mouth to feed and child to care for will make providing good care for all their children impossible.

There’s an old pro-choice slogan which is “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” It’s been pretty popular because it feels so true for so many women. When women make decisions around pregnancy, they usually are not just about either themselves or a child, but about the welfare of both. Mothering is not an easy business and mothers have to make choices for their children every day, often many times a day, and some of those choices are tough ones. Deciding to be a mother or not is one of those choices, potentially the biggest and most important of all of them.

Abortion is a bloody, ugly, brutal, painful -- insert any other words here used to make a surgery sound like a world war -- procedure.

I spent a lot of my childhood in a hospital: my mother was a nurse and a single parent, the hospital was often my after-school hangout, and I was a curious kid. I probably saw more blood and guts than most children do for that reason. I was also an adventurous child who got injured a lot: I severed two of my fingers when I was seven, scraped the mush of them off the sidewalk, and carried them rather casually back to our apartment. (Some of my ability to do that without flinching was likely shock, mind you, but some was probably because I was used to dealing with or seeing injuries.) I also personally have seen blood and violence in my personal life outside medical situations, and have lived through a few incidents of brutality, as have other members of my family. And I have observed a number of abortion procedures, both in the first and second-trimester. I’ve also had a termination myself, and did so only with a local anesthetic.

Certainly, to some people, any surgery seems or looks bloody and brutal, especially those who get queasy around this stuff. Too, not everyone can manage emotions well around blood and other things involved in surgery and healthcare.

However, ANY surgical procedure usually involves blood. Most involve pain or discomfort, either before, during and/or in recovery from the surgery, and when a surgery is not painful, it’s usually because anesthetic and/or sedation was used: some abortion providers offer both, others just one. Are abortions more bloody than most other procedures? No. More bloody or physically (or emotionally, though that, varies very widely from women to women and birth to birth) intense for a woman than childbirth? Not usually. I have to wonder sometimes if the people who call abortion things like bloody or brutal have ever witnessed a birth or even listened to honest accounts of birthing.

Are most women I have observed in horrible pain during their abortions? No. All of our pain thresholds vary, so what a woman experiences varies, but again, we’re not talking about a birth here (birth is usually painful, but we hardly suggest that's a reason women should not give birth), and remember, too, that most abortion procedures only take a few minutes, not hours and hours. Most abortions are not highly painful procedures, and pain can also be managed with medications, as with any surgery. While like other aspects of abortion, experiences of pain vary, some women even report that their monthly menstrual cramps or some sex they have in their lives had has been more painful than an abortion was.

I have yet to see an abortion procedure I’d describe as brutal or violent. As someone who has observed procedures first-hand, I’m always amazed by how many people who have NOT done so will tell me how things happen, or how awful everything is, apparently forgetting that of the two of us, I’m the only one who actually knows and has experienced how abortions are performed.

By no means is this an inclusive list of either the language used or misused with and around abortion or the various mythologies around abortion and women who have abortions. But it’s a place to start, and we truly are long overdue at even just starting truthful collective conversation about abortion. If we truly can do that, I strongly suspect that it can play a part in both reducing clinic violence and in everyone starting to see women’s lives more clearly, accurately, fully and compassionately.

(Like I said, I think good discussion around abortion is very important. If you're commenting, just please just bear in mind Scarleteen’s pro-choice policy and the guidelines around it. Any comments or questions which don't abide by our policies will be deleted or will not be published.)

All of us who work at clinics that provide abortion, or as abortion or reproductive rights educators or advocates know we do so at substantial risk. Women who come to our clinics as clients also know that they, too, may be at risk. The slaying of Dr. Tiller yesterday is tragic and upsetting, but it is not surprising or new. We didn’t become scared for the first time yesterday. We’ve always been scared, and we have always had cause to be scared.

The independent clinic I work for part-time had a branch firebombed three times in 1983 until it shut down. In 1988, via Operation Rescue, unending and intense harassment of children from demonstrators in another of our clinics forced us to close our on-site clinic childcare center for clients and staff. And our clinic, despite being one of the 40 or so in the U.S. which provides procedures through the second trimester like Tiller's did (though Tiller’s was one of but three to go past 25 weeks to 28 weeks, the legal limit), could very well be counted as one which has it easy. We haven't had an incident of violence for some time, most days we have but a few protestors, and we do not wear Kevlar to work. None of our providers have been murdered. Yet.

But all of us who work in the field live either with the threat or actuality of domestic antiabortion terrorism daily: at work, at home or anywhere at all. Let's refuse sugarcoating or denials that merely call it violence or paint it as random or isolated: what happens around abortion is not the same violence as someone shot during a minimart robbery.

Terrorism is generally defined as an act intended to create fear, perpetrated for an ideological goal. The Patriot Act is not something I support, but antiabortion violence fits squarely in its definition of domestic terrorism. Vandalizing or bombing clinics; stalking, threatening or harassing staff, clients or providers and/or organizing or aiding others to do so; publicly publishing the home addresses of providers or staff, names, photos and school addresses of their children; outcries for a war: all of this and more could be easily classed as terrorism by the definitions our government has used for other violence or threats.

The murder of Dr. George Tiller at his church yesterday morning -- based on the information we have so far – was domestic terrorism, and terrorism which has been known and prevalent for some time.

It’s been going on in the United States since we have had legal abortion, and typically increases during times when our federal government is not outright antiabortion. As Christina Page points out, the number of harassing phone calls to clinics since Obama took office has massively increased. She also notes that the murder of Dr. Tiller is eerily similar to the murder of Dr. David Gunn in 1993: that, too, happened only a few months into a new administration which was not antiabortion. Dr. Tiller was also shot the first time in that same year. Rachel Maddow gives a good overview of the history of clinic violence here.

Some antichoice groups will call Tiller’s assailant a vigilante. But for those who use incendiary speech, who provided him with the information and comraderie that fueled him, it's going to be tough to uphold that stance with anyone of intelligence. We all have freedom of speech, to be sure, but as with any freedom, that comes with responsibility.

Current Operation Rescue president Troy Newman says they denounce vigilantism, but the raging enticements provided en masse through their organization has always told a different tale. The organization’s founder, Randall Terry, says his movement “should not tone down its rhetoric despite the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller,” and that Tiller was "a mass murderer and horrifically, he reaped what he sowed."

When someone like Bill O’Reilly provocatively says again and again and again, that an abortion provider is a butcher who the law refuses to punish (nevermind that abortion is legal), when he calls abortion "execution" or talks about providers as those who "kill babies for money," (as if all surgeries did not cost money); calls abortion clinics "death mills," or reports (falsely) that Tiller will terminate pregnancies up to the due-date, he is NOT denouncing vigilantism, just like someone constantly and intentionally pouring gasoline on rising flames is not denouncing fire.

This kind of rhetoric and harassment and the fear it creates is something we’re faced with every day. And it has serious impact, even when no one is murdered.

It purposefully scares, intimidates and upsets the women who come to our clinics. It intentionally clouds their decision-making. If one reproductive choice may or does involve things like being harassed, stalked or assaulted, you’re obviously going to take that into consideration in your a choice, even though fear or harassment should have no place in choices as important, personal and complex as those of reproduction. Even for those unswayed by these actions, abortion in a context of shame and blame can make a choice one’d otherwise felt was best one of guilt and remorse.

The threat of harassment and violence can even keep women from coming to clinics when they were not seeking out abortion services at all. Here in the states, clinics like mine are where many women – particularly low-income, immigrant and teen women -- also get their well-woman care, contraception or pregnancy tests, as many women are without health insurance or a private OB/GYN.

The threats, intimidation, vandalism and assault and the fear of them makes staffing clinics difficult, and make a job which is already emotionally demanding far tougher. Anyone getting any kind of surgery ideally needs a centered, relaxed and stable staff and a safe environment during their surgery: that’s no minor feat in this culture. Clinic staff work long hours, often at low pay and with few or limited benefits. Even without clinic violence or the threat of it, it’s not an easy job: abortion isn’t just any surgery, and as with anything to do with the end of a pregnancy, whether it tends in termination or a live birth, our clients emotional needs can be great.

With all of this violence and intimidation so constant and pervasive, and with the actuality of the job itself often being less-than-ideal, why do so many of us stick around?

We stay is because we know that women need us to. Many of us have been those women ourselves at one time or another. We know from women: we understand our own needs. And we’re scared sometimes, but not scared enough to leave women without choice and care.

A sign at Tiller’s clinic read, “Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is an issue of the heart. Until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all.” Dr. Tiller knew us, too. No one going back to work a day after having both arms shot, knowing it could happen again, is going to take that risk for cash or because they want to win. Only someone who cares deeply for and about women, and has a very real grasp of the realities of women’s lives, is going to do that.

Obviously, the threat of something is not the same as that threat made real. Some of the shared upset the reproductive health and abortion communities have right now is because we do feel even more unsafe than usual. For those who knew Dr. Tiller personally, their personal loss is profound. But even for those of us who never met him or were not close to him, even for those fear has not increased, the loss is enormous.

It's obviously important for the women receiving abortion and other reproductive healthcare to have as fantastic a doctor as possible, but it's also very important for those of us working in the field to have our Dr. Tillers.

Like any field of practice, abortion has those who are adequate (and some less-than-adequate), some who are very good, and a few who are simply exceptional. Dr. Tiller wasn't just any doctor; just any abortion provider or advocate: he was an exceptional and inspirational doctor, provider and advocate. He was someone who set and held high standards of care, a quality of healthcare we all want to receive, especially when we are in crisis. He chose to work with some of the toughest cases; to include providing for a group of women with some of the greatest emotional needs, women who also had few other places to turn, despite that choice creating additional risks for him and resulting in greater harassment. His commitment to helping women never wavered in over thirty years of his practice. Just like anyone in any field, we have our heroes, and we all looked up to George Tiller. Just like anyone in any field, having our heroes assassinated is devastating, particularly when they are assassinated for being so exceptional.

Ginny Cassidy-Brinn, an ANRP and the author of Woman-Centered Pregnancy and Birth, works at my clinic, and is someone I look up to the way I have Dr. Tiller. I want to leave you with words she shared with me yesterday. I think they’re the way Dr. Tiller would want us to best use our sadness or fear and the way he so bravely used his own. I think they are what those of us in the field, as well as those who want to understand or support us or the women we serve, need to hear.

Like anyone who knew him even slightly, I know that he was very brave. He faced so much hatred on a daily basis: he knew the risks he was taking. But he simply thought that women's being allowed to decide whether to carry a pregnancy or not was an essential, basic human right. So, he continued despite the attacks and threats. He was diligent in protecting himself, -- I don't think he had any desire to be a martyr -- but he continued. He was very careful as a physician: using the safest, best techniques. He did a lot to foster communication amongst abortion providers to make abortion safer.

I keep thinking about the old Joe Hill quote, "Don't mourn, organize." I intend to mourn, but I also intend to carry on his legacy--to try to be as brave, loving, politically savvy and competent in my work as he was. And to try, to the best of my ability, to inspire others as well.

Originally published at The Guardian, June 3rd, 2009

Very sad news: A prominent abortion provider, George Tiller, was shot and killed this morning inside his church in Wichita, Kansas. He was one of the few remaining doctors in the US who perform therapeutic late-term abortions after 25 weeks (to 28 LMP). Unfortunately, Dr. Tiller was regularly targeted by radical anti-abortion groups; his clinic was bombed in 1986 and he was shot and wounded in 1993.

Dr. Tiller's death is a loss for not only for those close to him but for the entire pro-choice and women's health movement, not to mention the countless people he has helped over the years and would have helped in the future. We send our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and staff.

For more information, here are breaking-news newspaper articles from the Washington Post and New York Times. RH Reality Check also has extensive coverage of the murder and the issues surrounding it.

Click here for Scarleteen's statement on Why We're Pro-Choice

A new photo book entitled 'American Youth' was recently released. This glossy, 240-page photographic document features snapshots and extended photo essays on young people from all across the United States, from all walks of life: races and ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, socioeconomic backgrounds, and more. The subjects' commonality is their age (those who come of age this decade a.k.a. people born between 1982-1991) and their country of residence. You'll see strippers and students, Mormon missionaries and leftist activists, farmers and frat boys, debutantes and superdelegates. The photos' subjects seem all to be presented in an interesting way that intrigues the viewer while respecting the people being featured. In a day and age where youth are often unjustly portrayed as irresponsible, unaware, and even dangerous by adults who themselves are relying on stereotypes and fears (while forgetting their own teen years), the 'American Youth' photo book sheds light on the positive, unique diversity amongst teenagers in the USA.

I have yet to see the book itself but I have seen many of its pictures online and various print sources; I cannot wait to see more! The book is priced modestly but I have found its online presence to be very, very good. The 'American Youth' website is a wonderful resource worth checking out with its very extensive, interactive photo gallery; many other online media outlets feature selected photos as well. The photos are divided into the four categories of "Love", "Live", "Work", and "Play". Personally, some of my favorite -- and very Scarleteen-appropriate-- photos can be found under the "Love" heading. So, if you're a fan of photography or just want to see how you and your peers are being portrayed, check out this new photography book (for free!) by clicking here.

Please note: This is neither an ad for buying the book nor an endorsement of it by Scarleteen but rather my personal recommendation to check out its neat photographic presence online. That said, if you do take a look, we'd love to hear what you think of it by posting in the comments section below!

It's amazing how well my generation - those in their late teens and early 20's - can distance themselves from topics that have everything to do with us. For example, driving fatalities and alcohol abuse. It's staggering the number of teens who die from car accidents related to substance abuse, as well as those who spend their high school and college years with a beer bottle in hand.

It's even scarier to look at how many teenagers don't know BASIC FACTS about sex and sexuality. This is something I've known for a long time as a Scarleteen staff member, but it doesn't change reality.

I have countless close friends who come to me for sex advice. No, I don't walk around with Cosmo magazine in my bag and I don't give out advice on the 10 best position to achieve an orgasm or what your man REALLY wants you to know about pleasuring him. I'm talking basic, fundamental information. I haven't been taking my birth control on time for a week, should I be worried about pregnancy? I've been having weird discharge, what does that mean? My boyfriend wants to try anal sex, but the idea makes me nervous. What can I do to better prepare myself?

I had one question from one of my best friends a few months ago, however, that left me without words.

The scene: my dorm room, early evening, during a study session that turned out to be less studying than originally planned. My phone rang and the caller ID showed my friend K's* number, so I left the room and answered in the hall.

Me: "Hey, K, where are you? We've been planning on studying all week."
K: "Abbie, something is really wrong. I need you to bring me to the hospital."

Before I continue, I'd like to mention that I've brought K to the hospital before; she has, for lack of a better term, some odd health issues that arise when she's stressed. It didn't surprise me, given the recent relationship stress she'd be under (breaking up with a long time boyfriend who was borderline emotionally abusive and manipulative, falling into a depressive state because of it, hooking up with several guys as a means of dealing, more depressive states...I think you get the picture) that she was feeling crappy, so I was more than willing to help.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I drove K to the hospital almost an hour away. She was complaining of lower abdominal pain stemming from her ovaries. A CT scan and two ultrasounds later, they diagnosed her with ovarian cysts caused by her birth control. That wasn't, however, the real issue. The doctor had also done a pap smear, pelvic exam and cultures for an STI panel. He told K that she likely had an infection of some sort, and that the cultures would come up in a few days. We stayed at her house that weekend and waited.

Monday morning came, and the call that came from the hospital was not a welcome one. K had contracted chlamydia from one her more recent sexual partners.

As far as bad news goes, chlamydia is one of the better ones. Though it can cause serious health problems and infertility if not caught, it's very treatable with antibiotics, and does not remain in your system once treated, unlike other diseases, which can be suppressed or remain dormant but can never be completely gotten rid of. Still, I sat and listened to K as she was given the news, I saw the tears streaming down her face. "How could I have been so stupid," she said. "I was only worried about pregnancy. I never thought anything like this would happen to me. I was always careful. I've been tested before, and I made my partners get tested, too. I just don't understand. What am I going to do, Abbie?" That was one question I simply didn't have answer to, and it absolutely killed me.

Maybe it's because I knew what had happened. Maybe it was because she is a close friend. Maybe it was because 1 in 4 teens in the United States have an STI or will contract one. For whatever reason, I felt my eyes wet as I hugged her.

The chlamydia has been cleared from K's system now. But the fact that she became part of another teen sex statistic can never be changed. She blames herself for being stupid, ignorant, and for not insisting on condoms. "It was just sex," she said. "There weren't supposed to be any strings attached."

There is no such thing as sex without strings. Though angry and hurt, K contacted the sexual partners she'd had while at school to tell them they needed to be tested. The responses were mixed. One thanked her, one called her things I can't in good faith repeat, and the other denied it and hung up. Which one gave her chlamydia in the first place is probably something she'll never know, but at this point, it doesn't really matter anyway.

Case and point: this happens. It's real. Someone you know might be living with an sexually transmitted infection and not even know it. Or maybe they do, and are too ashamed to say anything. Either way, this is one of the few instances where you can and should be adamant about taking precautionary measures. Know your STI status and insist that your partners be tested before you engage in sexual activity. Use condoms whenever possible (this includes oral and manual sex) if you don't know your partner's status (and even if you do, they are never a bad idea). The economy is in the toilet, and money is tight, but take care of yourself NOW and you can avoid costly medical bills later down the road. The few dollars you put toward a box of a condoms and an STI panel may save a lot more than just your money.

And if you are tight on cash, look for a free clinic. Many health clinics offer free or sliding-scale testing. Check out Planned Parenthood's website (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/) to find a clinic near you.

*I got K's permission to share her story, but her named has been changed to make some anonymity possible.

I hate, hate, hate that phrase. Nearly everywhere I go or look as a young adult sexuality educator anymore, I run into it incessantly.

Let me be clear: I don't hate doing all that we can, to help people of every age to avoid pregnancies or parenting they do not want or do not feel ready for. I'm so glad to do that, and it's a big part of my job at Scarleteen and elsewhere when I work as a sexuality and contraception educator and activist.

I don't hate doing what we can to help women who want help to determine when the best possible time is for them to become pregnant and parent (for those women who want to do so at all), and to do what we can to be realistic about pregnancy and parenting when counseling those who are considering either or both. In addition, I'm totally in support of making sure young women know all their options with the whole of their lives; aren't choosing to become pregnant or parent at a time that's too soon for them to both discover and reach their own goals and dreams, or too soon for them to be able to learn and provide good care of themselves. All good stuff, all terribly important, and all things that many young women seek help with which we can provide.

I'm on board with parents of teens or twentysomethings who don't want to pay the costs for their teen's pregnancy or the child of their teen, or don't want a new infant in the house. I'm not down with any young person assuming that their parent should automatically be a co-parent, an instant babysitter, or will bankroll a pregnancy. Co-parenting with anyone is something to be discussed and negotiated, not assumed. When we're talking about consensual sex, if a young person has the maturity to have sex, to have sex which carries a risk of pregnancy, and to consider parenting themselves, I think it's reasonable and appropriate to also then require the maturity to discuss and negotiate any contributions they want from their own parents with pregnancy or parenting.

I certainly understand parents wanting their youth to be able to have a childhood and adolescence that is not fraught with more responsibility and stress than a young person is able to manage, or which is likely to cause them unhappiness: that's plain old love, and I don't see a thing wrong with that.

I understand wanting children in the world to have parents who are capable of parenting, and for those children to have their most basic needs met. I worked in early childhood education for years before moving on to run Scarleteen, and I continue to feel very strongly about quality care and parenting for children. I also came from two young, unprepared parents, so I know firsthand what some of the downsides and struggles can feel like to a child.

I'm also absolutely on the bus when it comes to all of us, doing all we can to make our soundest decisions around pregnancy and parenting, and the idea that we should all be held accountable when it comes to only choosing to parent if and when we think we can be parents who can provide what children need. It is in part because I am on board with that that I am 39 and childfree, despite being someone who has always liked kids a whole lot, to the degree that I've been teaching my whole adult life. Part of why I also work at an abortion clinic is because I strongly support the right of every woman to decide if a given time is or is not right for her to remain pregnant, and to have the option to decide a given time is not right.

(For the record, I do not understand that "we shouldn't have to pay taxes that support other people's children," stuff. I have to pay taxes for all kinds of things I don't support or like, but I've never had a problem with the idea that some of my income goes to help and support the children of the world. It's one of the few things my taxes go to that I do feel good about. I have chosen not to reproduce myself, however, I'm of the mind that we all share some collective responsibility for caring for everyone else on our planet. So that one? I don't get or sympathize with.)

Here's what I'm not okay with.

What I hate about that phrase is the patronizing, disrespectful and ignorant presumption that all teen pregnancy is unwanted or unplanned: it isn't, and while young women may have less information about and access to contraception than older adults so may have more unplanned pregnancies than older adults (teens do have more unplanned pregnancies than older women, but the highest unplanned pregnancy rate right now is for those 18-24, poverty is as much a determinant as age is, and close to 50% of pregnancies for all women are unplanned), that part certainly isn't their fault or doing. Ask a young person what they want in sex education or contraception access, and you'll find it does not resemble what we, the adults who have withheld power from them in these policies, have usually provided.

I hate the shaming or demonization of teen parents or teens who become or are pregnant, the widespread assumption that all of that is always bad or always wrong, and must always be prevented based on anyone's standards but those of young people themselves. I hate teen pregnancy being presented as if it were a pandemic, and teen parents presented as automatically incapable of parenting just as well as anyone else. I hate the often-dishonest moralizing that often goes with all of this, and teens being told that all sex = pregnancy and that the only way to prevent pregnancy is to avoid all kinds of sex, and/or that choosing to be sexually active means choosing to be pregnant. I hate the other words so often used around this topic, which make teen pregnancy sound like Hurricane Katrina. I hate the defeatist messages we give teens or young women who have become pregnant and who are deciding to parent. I hate that we seem to hold teen or young mothers to higher standards of parenting than we hold older parents.

I hate that our culture has no problem recruiting young people into the military before the age of majority (for enlistment at 18, but the efforts start before then, contracts are often signed before then), suggesting that they have the capacity to make that kind of potentially life-altering decision, one that can often involve choices around life and death, and yet suggests they have no capacity to make this one. I hate that in many states and areas young women can be legally married at 16 or younger, and even though for the youngest teens, that often requires parental consent or a pregnancy, I hate that it's thought by so many that marriage at the age of 16 somehow makes young parenting easier, better or more socially acceptable, or that for a 16-year-old woman, a legally binding marriage contract is somehow less of a big deal, less of a limitation on her life, than a social contract to care for a child. I hate that there are states and areas which don't allow a young woman the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy of her own volition, and some which don't allow her access to contraception, and yet in some areas -- especially when we are talking about nonconsensual sex -- remaining pregnant is the only option we allow young women to have within their own control.

I hate the presumption that it is anyone's place BUT the teen in question to actually prevent a teen pregnancy. Can it be our place to help those who want help in that aim? Absolutely, and I hope that when and if any of us are asked for that help, we'll provide it. But it's not our place to do the preventing, because it ain't our body or our life. It's theirs.

Perhaps even more than that, I hate some of the attitude that seems to inform that presumption, which feels to me a whole lot like older people saying that it is okay for older women to become pregnant, but not for younger women. Which is a pretty odd thing to say about women who both have actively working reproductive systems, who both have the ability to become pregnant and to parent, or to make other reproductive choices. In fact, it sounds a whole lot like eugenics to me.

I'm not going to beat around the bush (as it were) here. In a whole lot of ways, women in their late teens and early twenties are in a better position than women in their thirties or forties are to reproduce, whether anyone likes it or not. They are more fertile, their bodies will bounce back more quickly from a pregnancy, and they have more energy both for pregnancy and for keeping up with small children. A 19-year-old woman and a 39-year-old woman, on average are not in the same space physiologically when it comes to bearing children. The younger woman, in general, is in the better, healthier position, and the same is likely so for her fetus, particularly if she has healthcare of the same quality the older woman has. And for most of human history -- though there are certainly aspects of this, such as gender inequality and sexual violence, very worthy of critique and change -- teen or young adult mothers have been who so many of our mothers were.

There is another side of that coin, which is that young women are without some things many older women have. They more frequently will have less financial resources to care for children, their partnerships (if they are co-parenting) can tend to be less stable or shorter-lived, and they have less access to things like day care at school or work, good transportation, health insurance and the like. Obviously, too, a younger person has often had less life experience, and an older person may have greater perspective in certain areas which can be of great benefit when it comes to good parenting. But there are corrections for those inequalities. So many of the troubling statistics that we have on teen pregnancy and parenting aren't around the pregnancy or parenting itself, or the age of a parent, but instead, arise from many inequalities young people suffer because we have set things up so that they do.

For instance, it's not likely because someone is 16 when they become pregnant that they will be less able to finish high school, but because so many opportunities for schooling are cut off to young, pregnant women, and so few concessions are made to help a pregnant or parenting teen finish high school or enter college. Given the higher teen pregnancy statistics when it comes to young women of color, immigrant women and rural women, the fact that our culture often doesn't privilege education for those groups in the first place is no minor detail. It's not likely because someone is a teen that their child can be more likely to wind up in the corrections system, but because someone is a parent of any age who is without the resources they need to actively parent. Older people can help younger parents by sharing life experience and perspective gleaned with them rather than hoarding it or lording it over them.

Given that we know that that lack of resources is a central issue, why do we see so much money and so much effort put into "preventing teen pregnancy" yet so relatively little put into efforts to get free or affordable daycare into high schools and colleges, providing counseling, schooling and housing for young mothers? Why do we hear so much about preventing teen pregnancy yet meet so much resistance when it comes to contraceptive and abortion access for teen and young adult women? Why does the left and right alike tend to have so much to say and offer before or while a teen is pregnant, yet so little post-pregnancy or when a teen has become a parent?

Why is so much money put into developing and doing fertility therapies for women moving outside of their reproductive years, and so little for supporting women at the dawn of them; women of an age where even the best contraceptive methods, used perfectly, fail most often? Why are the celebrity teens or those of fame and wealth "speaking out against teen pregnancy" so often the loudest voices we hear? Why are the representatives of teen pregnancy and parenting so often so non-representative? Knowing about the disparities between white women and women of color with teen pregnancy, those between women in poverty and those who are affluent, and about the achievement limitations teens who choose to become parents so often feel they have, what the heck is up with the vast majority of those representing teen pregnancy being so wealthy, white and pampered (or male!?!) all the time?

Knowing that for some teens who do choose to become pregnant, or risk pregnancy needlessly, it can come out of loneliness, the desire to cement a relationship, low self-esteem or the feeling that they have little opportunity for a breadth of life achievement, why do we shame them, blame them and put them down so often, further isolating those already isolated and low-feeling teens even more? (At the same time, it's important to recognize these are also often motivations or feelings of older women with pregnancy or parenting, too. They do not only belong to teens.)

For the many older men involved in these prevention initiatives, given the rate of sexual violence and coercion involved in so many teen pregnancies, given how often young men don't cooperate with sound contraception, and given the fact that no cisgendered man has any experience with being pregnant himself, why are their efforts not put on talking to young men about sexual violence, sound sexual decision-making of their own and contraceptive cooperation rather than in moralizing at young women? And yes, I'm talking to guys like you, Neil Cole.

(FYI, I don't think Cole's commercial or ad should be suppressed. However, I'd like to bring your attention to who the infant is given to in the ad, and who is the one really being talked to, who the big issue is left with while the male partner is taken out of the car and out of the issue. Check out the ad: the only thing directed at young men is about marriage. Cole's language around teen pregnancy with the Candie's campaign, and who so much of it is aimed at is seriously not okay in my book, particularly as a male person. While he seems to put so much of this on young women, he also doesn't seem to recognize what actually does belong only to young women: "kids" don't have babies, women do. Yet, all of the negative outcomes of teen pregnancy are apparently, based on his language, only about women.)

I'm also not entirely certain that there isn't, possibly, for some, some measure of envy at play here. It's tough to talk about, especially as a feminist, but I have had enough friends trying to reproduce at later ages now to know how incredibly frustrating the process can be for them. I also have friends honest enough with themselves and others that they will share that they do feel jealousy and anger when they see other women able to become pregnant as easily as breathing, and that's often the case with the youngest women. Some older women -- not all or even most, but some -- struggling to get pregnant now may even feel resentment about all the strong social messages they got about childbearing that they had to wait for later, should wait for later. If and when those feelings exist, they are valid and real, but don't have a place, covertly or overtly, in the discourse around teen pregnancy.

When older people and/or those of means are those creating the movements to "prevent teen pregnancy," -- and that is overwhelmingly who is -- the onus is us to evaluate and keep in check any bias we may have, and to be very sure those are not influencing how we treat teen pregnancy, planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted. And that's what I think hasn't been done very well: that's what I see when I see phrases like "preventing teen pregnancy." I see a whole lot of bias, a whole lot of carelessness and a whole lot of disrespect.

Time to check-in

So, are we all checking in to be sure that older people aren't trying to claim some sort of ownership over pregnancy and parenting and who has the "right" to parent; who can and cannot be a good parent based on age alone -- and nothing else -- something we know has little basis in reality? Are we sure that some of the messages we're sending aren't about our own frustration or resentment; aren't coming from a place where we might feel like young mothers now are taking liberties we wish we would have? As well, are we sure that for those of us who felt that our lives went best because we did not procreate or do so at a given age aren't projecting our own goals and desires unto a generation which may be radically different than ours? Might we even be projecting some of what we saw and heard -- and disliked -- from our mothers generations unto this one?

Ageism is alive and well and teens are a very common -- and often thought to be acceptable -- target for it. We, as adults, make lousy policies for or around teens without allowing them input or control, and then we point the finger at teens when those policies we made or supported fail them, such as the poor sexuality education we've given them (especially in the last ten years here stateside), the awful relationship modeling, the glamorization, romanticism and commercialization of things like motherhood, vaginal intercourse, marriage and being sexually "attractive." The only real power we give them of late is in the commercial marketplace, and then adults whine about how youth are fixated on money and acquisition. Uh, okay.

Their sexual and reproductive lives are two of the areas where ageism is exercised constantly, and often without any resistance from even progressive adults. Are we sure that ageism and classism (not to mention racism and sexism) aren't playing a part in our discourse around teen and young adult pregnancy?

Are we also sure, that as can happen, that older people are not harboring a desire for their children do do as well as them, but not to surpass them? In other words, what if -- just what if -- a young teen mother really could "have it all?" What if she could be a good parent AND finish high school, finish college, have the career she wanted, have all she envisions her life to be? By all means, that scenario might feel mighty frustrating for generations before who did not have the cultural or interpersonal supports or resources to achieve all of that, but not if we can see making things better for the generations that follow us as one of our great successes, not as something we were robbed of or must grudgingly provide.

It stands to mention that some of this approach likely comes out of attitudes that are not just about young people or young women, but about pregnancy and pregnant women, period. We have long had a cultural problem with women's bodies and reproductive systems being treated like collective property; with laws, policies, practices and initiatives around pregnancy being led by everyone but those who actually are or will be pregnant. To some degree, the way we have been treating teen pregnancy is highly indicative of those attitudes, which isn't all that surprising.

But if we're serious about being pro-choice, if we're serious about wanting to help others make decisions in real alignment with respect and self-respect, the most basic foundation we have to hold is that every woman has the inarguable right to make choices about her own body for anything that happens to or inside of her own body, and that no one but that woman is most qualified to do so. Once we start talking about preventing a given choice someone else may make, we take that person's ownership of their choice away.

When our bodies are of an age where they can reproduce, any of us then -- be we 16 or 36 -- has the right to choose to do that with our bodies if we want to. By all means, once a child is born, we're talking about someone else, someone outside of a woman's body, and not our own body. That's a huge and tangled discussion of its own, especially given the way children are so often framed as the property of their parents, rather than as the responsibility of parents and all the rest of us. But until there is an actual child born and independently present? We are talking about a woman and her own body. Not ours, hers.

For the record, I also have a problem with the notion of "preventing unplanned pregnancy." A LOT of wanted children, children who are loved, children who are parented well, come from unplanned pregnancies: at least half of us have. As a sexuality educator who knows very well how many people don't understand how reproduction works, and as someone who has a good handle on human history per how long most people didn't know, it's safe to say MOST pregnancies throughout history have been unplanned to at least some degree. Even now when we do know more, when far more people are educated, when we have many contraceptive methods which are highly effective, a lot of people approach pregnancy not as something they exactly plan, but leave themselves more or less open to at given times depending on how okay they are with pregnancy. For sure, we do want to fill people in on the things which might make a pregnancy more or less healthy when it happens, make parenting go better or worse for everyone involved, but while planning can certainly contribute to healthy pregnancy and sound parenting, it really isn't a requirement or a reality for many people.

Words matter.

This really isn't all that complicated. Words matter. The phraseology we use for things matters, especially when we're talking about subjects like this. Especially when we are talking about choices which are not ours to make, about the lives of others and the bodies of others. Especially when we are talking about something as nuanced, complex and wildly individual as pregnancy and parenting. Especially when we are coming to something and saying that it is about quality of life and respect.

May I suggest some easy lingusitic corrections?

If your heart is in the right place, what you want to do is to not to prevent anything. Rather, you want to nurture and support conscious conception and contraception, conscious birthing; to enable wanted and healthy pregnancy, wanted and healthy parenting. You want to help support all of us in having exactly the reproductive life we want and feel is best for us to the degree that we can control that.

If you're still stuck on prevention as an approach, why not try making it about helping teens to prevent unwanted pregnancy or unwanted parenting?

Is age really even relevant? Only so much. An unwanted pregnancy has the capacity to disrupt or cause hardship in a woman's life whether she is 17 or 37. A parent who is unprepared for parenting, who doesn't want to parent, or who just can't parent can do damage to a child no matter how old they are or are not.

What you really want to do -- I hope -- is to help women of all ages to understand what all their possible choices are for their whole lives, to have a good idea of what making any given choice can entail, the possible positives and negatives alike, and how it could impact them and others. What you probably really want to do is to help young people, all people, make choices around sex, pregnancy and parenting which are most likely to result in a happy, healthy life, and the life any given person most wants for themselves and those in their lives. What you also probably want to do is work just as much towards creating a culture of support for those who do become pregnant -- by choice or by accident -- and choose to parent as you work to support those making different choices. And if you really want to help to prevent unwanted teen pregnancy, you need to make sure your efforts are directed just as much towards young men as they are towards young women.

I know for a fact that many of the people who use the current language around teen pregnancy are people whose intentions are stellar, totally laudable, and all about the good things I'm talking about here. So, why diminish or mislead those great intentions with words and phrases that undermine them and disrespect the population we're claiming to care so much about? Why use the negative when you're trying to support the positive?

P.S. This rant is dedicated to my friend and volunteer Alice, and all of the other teen and young mothers who get as validly angry about this stuff as she does.