CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 10, 1987
My curiosity is itching me. Why is it there are advertisements for women's contraceptives and none for men's? Our society is telling its people that it's mandatory for women to take precautions because they can get pregnant. They are saying don't get pregnant in loud messages, but they don't say how to the men. I hope they know they are responsible too for the increase of population. LISA K. YU Sherman Oaks
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 26, 1993
Not since former California Supt. of Schools Bill Honig referred to parents as a "special interest group" have I been so concerned about the perception of school boards and some administrators of parents as "meddlesome." Any disagreement about the proposed sex/contraception education is viewed as the opinion of the "outspoken few." Recent news articles tell us that in Simi Valley, a committee has been formed comprised of teachers, administrators, school nurses and community members, but that their intent is not to discuss "if" but "how" the curriculum is to be delivered.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 12, 1993 |
San Fernando High School is believed to be one of only a handful of school-based health clinics in the nation to offer teen-age girls the contraceptive Norplant. What makes Norplant unique is that the system requires no effort on the recipient's part. Six matchstick-sized plastic capsules implanted under the skin of the upper arm release birth-control chemicals into the bloodstream for up to five years. The school gives parents the option of refusing reproductive services for their children.
February 7, 2013
Re "New plan for birth-control coverage," Feb. 2 If men want to make it difficult for women to prevent pregnancy, it's only fair that they make it difficult for men to cause it. One could hope the men of Roman Catholic or Republican persuasion would strive for equality and insist that Viagra and similar medications be treated the same as they want contraceptives treated - that is, not covered by insurance. Tom Egan Costa Mesa ALSO: Letters: Keep on dancing Letters: Jail isn't for the mentally ill Letters: The GOP's sudden conversion
March 28, 2012 |
In 1957, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first birth-control pills, it wasn't for birth control. The contraceptives won approval as a treatment for severe menstrual disorders; temporary infertility was a side effect. Funny, women across the country suddenly started complaining in droves about severe menstrual disorders. As religiously-affiliated organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, continue to complain about federal policies that would require that health insurance cover family planning (President Obama worked out a compromise deal under which the insurance companies would absorb the cost, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops still sees this as undue interference)
December 7, 2012 |
It has been decades since the last major breakthrough of a popular, easy-to-use and effective form of birth control. The pill has been available since 1960 and the IUD since 1965. Condoms have been around for centuries, although today's latex versions are improvements over those fashioned from sheep guts. But some innovative research is underway in Kim Woodrow 's bioengineering lab at the University of Washington. She and her students have produced electrically spun cloth with nanometer-sized fibers that can quickly dissolve and release drugs to prevent unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
March 3, 2012 |
Rush Limbaugh has lost another advertiser on his radio talk show as the fallout continued from his use of the terms “slut” and “prostitute” to ridicule a woman who has advocated for expanded access to birth control. Quicken Loans Inc. has suspended its advertising on the Limbaugh show, the company said in a statement posted to its website. It was a reversal for the Detroit-based online mortgage lender, which had initially issued a statement in support of Limbaugh's right to express himself.
February 7, 2014
Re "The rights of the religious," Editorial, Feb. 4 The Times rightly defends but wrongly interprets a federal law that forbids the government from imposing "substantial burdens" on the exercise of religious convictions and requires federal officials to pursue the "least restrictive means" of achieving any "compelling interest. " The Times neglects 1st Amendment principles in defending the administration's attempts to force employers with conscientious objections to bow to the government's edict to have employee insurance policies that provide controversial contraceptives.
February 12, 2012 |
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed Sunday to fight the administration's requirement that insurers provide contraceptive coverage for faith-based employers. McConnell said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he would press legislation to exempt all employers from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections. "We'll be voting on that in the Senate, and you can anticipate that would happen as soon as possible.…This issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down," he said.
February 12, 2012 |
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said Sunday that President Obama had found the “right balance” in mandating birth control coverage while protecting religious liberty, and he said the administration would now press ahead to adopt a final rule requiring health insurers to make contraceptives available to all policyholders at no cost. This is “the right policy” and a “very good resolution” of the dispute that had flared between Catholic leaders and the White House, Lew said in a series of appearances on the Sunday talk shows. “We didn't expect there would be universal acceptance” of the compromise announced Friday, but a “broad range of groups” had applauded Obama's plan, he said.