After Oregon, California Pharmacists Can Prescribe Birth Control Pills to Women

world-population-through-history-to-2025

http://mainenewsonline.com/content/16048198-after-oregon-california-pharmacists-can-prescribe-birth-control

California has finally cleared the way for women to get and easy access to birth control pills, without needing a prescription from a doctor. California has become the second state in the United States to allow pharmacists to offer birth control pills to women.

Oregon as the only state which gives right to its pharmacists to prescribe birth control to women will be joined by California. A 2013 law that allows California pharmacists to directly provide prescription contraceptives went into effect. However, there are some critics who oppose the newly introduced practice.

Senate Bill 493, introduced by Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, allows pharmacists the authority to furnish oral (the pill), transdermal (the patch), vaginal (the ring), and Depo-Provera injection prescription birth control methods for women. This means that there is no more need to fix appointment with gynecologist to seek the best prescription for birth control. This could also give wrong message to the teens according to opponents of the law.

“Community pharmacies are the face of neighborhood healthcare — open beyond normal business hours, and patients do not need an appointment to see their pharmacist. That means pharmacists providing contraception will go a long way to expand women’s birth control,” said Jon Roth, CEO of the California Pharmacists Association, which sponsored the original legislation on behalf of the state’s 6,500 community pharmacies.

There are certain things pharmacies have to be prepared for. Some pharmacies have even started training their employees for the new challenge. It is mandatory for pharmacists to ask a patient to complete a health questionnaire and to consult with the patient about the most appropriate form of birth control. In some cases, taking a patient’s blood pressure is required by pharmacists.

Among the opponents is California Right to Life. They say that availability of birth control from another source could not benefit young people and would build gap between a mother and a child communication over the matter.

A report published in LA Times said, “Many public health advocates and doctors say that birth control is extremely safe and point to studies that show that women can generally choose one that works well for them. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the largest group representing OB/GYNs, supports legislation that would make birth control truly over-the-counter.”

Women requesting birth control will have to complete a health questionnaire. A pharmacist will also consult with the patient about the most suitable form of birth control. In some cases, they will have to take the woman’s blood pressure before issuing a prescription.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration can decide if a medicine can be available over-the-counter. The most state legislators can do to increase access to birth control is to allow medical providers other than doctors, such as pharmacists, to furnish the medication.

 

Why Ted Cruz Is Unfit to Be President

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34653-why-ted-cruz-is-unfit-to-be-president

Tuesday, 02 February 2016 00:00


Written by
The Daily Take Team By The Daily Take Team, The Thom Hartmann Program

Ted Cruz isn't just winning the support of religious extremists; he's celebrating their support, and in some cases, hiring them to work for his campaign.Ted Cruz isn’t just winning the support of religious extremists; he’s celebrating their support, and in some cases, hiring them to work for his campaign. (Photo: CJ Hanevy / Shutterstock.com)

One of the most disturbing developments of the 2016 Republican race for president has been Donald Trump’s popularity among the most racist elements in US society. The New Yorker, for example, had lengthy piece over the summer detailing the excitement he has generated in the neo-Nazi movement. But here’s the thing: Trump isn’t the only guy with dangerous supporters.

The media don’t talk about it as much, but Ted Cruz – Trump’s closest competitor for GOP front-runner status – has also won the backing of some downright terrifying people. Take, for example, anti-choice activist Troy Newman, who the Cruz campaign just tapped to head up “pro-lifers for Cruz.”

As the head of the radical male supremacist group Operation Rescue, Newman straddles the very thin line between “activism” and domestic terrorism – and I mean really straddles it. His organization harasses abortion providers and their patients, and some of its members have been involved in plots to blow up women’s health clinics. Newman himself has called for the murder of abortion doctors, said AIDS is a warning from God and believes that drought is God’s revenge for abortion.

See more news and opinion from Thom Hartmann at Truthout here.

Seems like a great guy, huh? Well, he’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Ted Cruz’s supporters.

There’s also Dick Black, who the Cruz campaign has appointed as the co-chair of its Virginia campaign. In addition to advocating for the total criminalization of homosexuality, Black is also a rape truther. Back when he was a Virginia state delegate, Black openly questioned the existence of marital rape, something one of his opponents hammered him on in a campaign ad.

So much for family values, huh?

Cynthia Dunbar, Black’s fellow co-chair of the Ted Cruz campaign in Virginia, isn’t much better. She’s compared women having reproductive rights to the Holocaust, fought to make far-right Christianity part of the public school curriculum and believes that elected officials should have to pass a “biblical litmus test.” She also says that politicians “don’t have the freedom to make any laws if they are contrary to what God has said in his Holy Scripture.”

Swap out the words “Holy Scripture” for “Qu’ran” and that speech could have been made by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS.

Another Ted Cruz supporter, Iowa conservative and head of The Family Leader, Bob Vander Plaats, also says the US should be a Saudi Arabia-style theocracy. Here he is just a couple of years ago talking about why our government should be based on “Godly principles” – i.e. far-right evangelical Christianity.

As unsettling as that kind of talk is, it’s nothing compared to what Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson, another big-time Ted Cruz supporter, said about homosexuality this summer: that it was worthy of the death penalty.

Amazingly, it gets even worse than that.

Ted Cruz supporter and Texas preacher Mike Bickle believes that Jews should be forcibly converted to Christianity and says that if they refuse to do so, God will send a “hunter” like “Adolf Hitler” to get them to change their minds.

Now, it’d be one thing if Mike Bickle was just some random guy with bigoted views who just happens to support Ted Cruz, but he’s not, or at least not according to the Cruz campaign.

When Bickle announced last week that he was endorsing Ted Cruz for president, the Cruz campaign published a statement on its official website saying in big bold letters, “CRUZ FOR PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES ENDORSEMENT OF MIKE BICKLE.”

There’s an old saying that says you are the company you keep, and if Ted Cruz is the company he keeps, that’s downright terrifying.

He’s just not winning the support of people like Mike Bickle and Dick Black; he’s celebrating their support, and in some cases, hiring them to work for his campaign.

Of course, there’s always the case that this is just one big cynical ploy to win the Evangelical vote, but even if it is, it says a lot about Ted Cruz as a person and as a leader that he’d willingly associate himself with people who are pretty much the US version of ISIS.

This is one of the biggest stories of the 2016 race for president, but the really disturbing thing is that the media almost completely ignore it.

Turn on CNN or any of the other major networks and you’re more likely to hear about poll numbers than the fact that the potential Republican nominee for president has been endorsed by a guy who thinks Hitler was sent by God. It’s almost like the media think it’s acceptable that someone running for president likes to pal around with Christian extremists and theocrats.

Well, it’s not acceptable; it’s a direct threat to our democracy, which is why it’s time for the media to start taking Cruz and his extremist endorsements seriously. Based on everything we’ve seen up to this point, we have every reason to believe that a Ted Cruz presidency could mean the start of a Saudi Arabia-style theocracy right here in the US. The media should function as the fourth estate and wake the American people up to this before it’s too late.

“Every person you add to the planet adds more greenhouse gases…” Paul Ehrlich

Date: Tuesday – November 17, 2015
Host: George Noory
“Every person you add to the planet adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and so worsens climate disruption. Every person you add to the planet, means we have to grow more food…” Paul Ehrlich

 

 http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2015/11/17

In the first half, Prof. Paul R. Ehrlich discussed his work on population theory and mass extinction. He argues that many species of birds and mammals are being annihilated due to the human population explosion, along with commercial endeavors and the continuing development of natural areas. “Every person you add to the planet adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and so worsens climate disruption. Every person you add to the planet, means we have to grow more food…and the biggest enemy of the climate is agriculture– about 30% of the greenhouse gases…come from our food system,” he noted. We’re running out of soil, and toxifying the entire planet, he added.

A huge variety of creatures are being eliminated under current conditions. For example, he cited how the orange-bellied parrot in Australia is disappearing largely because of habitat destruction, passenger pigeons in North America, that once numbered in the millions, are now extinct due to hunting, and many types of bats, which eat a lot of problematic insects, are dwindling down in numbers. Ehrlich estimated that the human population is 4-6 times too high, and for the planet to be able to support us, we should have no more than 2-3 billion people. For those interested in fostering change, and making the Earth more sustainable, he suggested getting involved with the organization MAHB (The Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere).

Vegans Should Care About Overpopulation

1451324_650954518277931_1616731734_n

Yesterday a commenter here suggested that vegans (animal rightsists) don’t care about the problem of overpopulation. That may seem true for some, but it’s certainly not my experience. Those animal-rightsists that I know who are adamantly opposed to human overpopulation are so in part because they have seen animals suffering from their overpopulation.

A friend who is unwaveringly against human overpopulation remarked, “I don’t understand why people want to have babies in this day and age.” I’ve often pondered that. I went to bed last night ruminating on the question. I don’t know that I found the answer, but ironically I read about that same subject in a book about a woman (Diane Downs) who loved having babies, but then paradoxically shot her three kids.

The book goes on to depict her motive for having kids—as she put it, she was “lonely.” Normally, I would advise someone who is lonely to get a dog or cat, but I would hate to see the animal be shot or otherwise mistreated. Oh, sure, there was more to it than just being lonely. In this case, she wanted someone to have control (authority) over.  These reasons only scratch the surface and of course don’t apply to everyone.

Here’s a list a vegan friend put together of why she chose not to have kids…

For me it was:

  • No different than animal overpopulation. If I don’t feel that I can ethically breed my cat, why is it any better for ME to contribute to an overburdened planet? I mean, come on…are my genes really that special?
  • If I want a child that badly, why wouldn’t I adopt one of the countless hurting children looking for a home?
  • Choosing not to be consumed for two decades by parenting allows me instead to be a productive activist, fully, my entire life.
  • I’ve spared my never-to-be-born child the horrors of a world that is quickly becoming uninhabitable (because of human overpopulation, warfare, environmental degradation, etc.).
  • Cost effective! [If a person can barely afford to feed themselves, what business do they have bringing another human into this world?]
  • Finally, there’s no guarantee that a child I raised would embrace my vegan pacifist values. How would I feel if my child became a school bully or butcher or political warmonger or turkey sandwich eater? Devastating

So, why would a male want to procreate in such an overcrowded world? Maybe it’s the desire to have a “mini me” to do your bidding or to go on after you’re gone, thus creating a sense of immortality. But a person would have to really have a lot of faith in the future in order to buy into that.

Have Denialists Reached Their Carrying Capacity?

by Jim Robertson

Denial seems to be the fallback position for those who don’t understand a particular science and/or have a political motive not to believe said science. Lately we’ve been hearing much about the denial of anthropogenic climate change, but willful ignorance can be employed for everything from evolution to overpopulation.

Generally speaking, denialists want to hold humans harmless of something they’re clearly responsible for, whether it’s having a carbon footprint—or a literal footprint. But no one is innocent of the ultimate crime of being born a human. (An aberration. An abnormality. An irregularity. A meat-eating monkey.)

Some still cling to the denial that tobacco (or meat) can cause cancer. Others just don’t care. Many would probably balk at the analogy that humans are a cancer to the Earth.

Historically, it was deniers of the obvious–gravity, astronomy and evolution (literal flat-Earthers)—who we heard the most from. Today’s deniers still include a few who question the “theory” of gravity, evolution and other realities.

But few have gone so far as to call for a de facto book ban as Laurie Mazur did recently in a Los Angeles Times op-ed entitled, “China drops its ‘one-child’ policy, now let’s ban the ‘population bomb’,” featuring the irrational statement, “Let’s be clear: slowing population growth is not a panacea for the challenges of the 21st century.” I’m sure biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book she attacks in her article, would challenge that statement. Let’s be real: slowing our population growth is the only lasting remedy, assuming we care about the rest of life on Earth at all.

Has Ms. Mazur ever heard of the term carrying capacity? In Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s 1996 book, Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future, they write in answer to the naïve notion that there is no overpopulation:

“To understand how fallacious this statement is requires recognizing that overpopulation can be reached very quickly by exponentially growing populations in situations of seeming abundance. There is overpopulation when organisms (people in this case) become so numerous that they degrade the ability of the environment to support their kind of animal in the future. The number of people Earth can support in the long term (without degrading the environment)—given existing socioeconomic systems, consumption patterns, and technological abilities—is called the human carrying capacity of the planet at the time. And carrying capacity can be exceeded without causing immediate effects obvious to the untutored observer. ‘Overshoots’ commonly occur in nature with all kinds of organisms. A population has an ‘outbreak,’ grows far beyond its carrying capacity, consumes its resources (for animals, usually food), and crashes to a size far below the previous carrying capacity.”

Homo sapiens has never been a light-touch or low-impact type of creature. Once you realize that, it’s easier to believe they’re overpopulated and have been actually changing the planet’s climate. Whether or not our species has peopled the Earth to the point of saturation, the denialists have undeniably reached their carrying capacity.

1451324_650954518277931_1616731734_n

Talk about Denialism

1451324_650954518277931_1616731734_n

 

There are many forms of denial; denial of human overpopulation is coming into vogue. Get a load of this OP/ED in today’s L.A. Times, reminiscent of 1984:

China drops its ‘one-child’ policy, now let’s ban the ‘population bomb’

OP/ED by Laurie Mazur L.A. Times

Now that China has laid to rest its infamous “one-child” rule, it’s time to retire the “population bomb” fears that inspired it.

The one-child rule grew from a population panic in the 20th century, when human numbers were growing at a faster rate than ever before (or since). The increase conjured a dystopian hell of environmental destruction, resource shortages and massive human suffering.

[Not to mention, non-human species extinctions. Then there’s carbon pollution (both of which Paul Ehrlich mentioned in his book and are directly related to overpopulation) . Has this editor tried to drive the LA freeway lately?…]

How Much Bad News Can We Take?

Yesterday was a bad day—news wise. It’s not like World War III broke out—yet—but with Russian jets flying over our ships off Syria, and with headlines like, “China naval chief says minor incident could spark war in South China Sea,” it sounds like we’re getting a couple of steps closer.

Meanwhile, unless you were tucked away safely under a rock somewhere, you probably ryanwaxheard that bowhunter Paul Ryan is the new Speaker of the House (just two heartbeats away from the White House). Funny, I didn’t get a chance to vote for him, not that I would have. What’s this we hear about democracy? Is this how Nazi Germany got its start? (Hopefully this means he’ll be too busy to wait in his tree stand for a passing deer to recreationally-impale.)

And the last piece of bad news announced yesterday was that China coincidentally is ending its one-child policy. The media cited numerous reasons but stopped short of telling us that their population has decreased since the 1970s when they implemented the policy.

Having their population increase from 818 million in 1970 to 1.36 billion and counting (even under the one-child policy), it seems a strange time to decide to double their allowable birth rate. Of course, you need a lot of replacement babies if you want to be a major player in the world market—or declare World War III.

1451324_650954518277931_1616731734_n

World Vasectomy Day

Sent via email from Center for Biological Diversity

1451324_650954518277931_1616731734_n

World Vasectomy Day
http://www.worldvasectomyday.org
November 13

One of the calendar’s most underappreciated awareness days is fast approaching: World Vasectomy Day, Nov. 13. The population conversation often revolves around the need for reproductive justice and access to healthcare for women, but the other half of the population has an important role to play, too. World Vasectomy Day, started by filmmaker Jonathan Stack, is the perfect opportunity to talk about why men get vasectomies and celebrate those who have already made the choice as an act of love — love for their families, their partners and, of course, the planet.

A vasectomy is one of the best ways to avoid unplanned pregnancy, reduce your carbon legacy and help leave space for wildlife. If you chose to get a vasectomy — or are thinking about it — for the sake of the environment, we want to hear from you. Send us a few sentences about why you “got whacked for wildlife” and we’ll send you our conversation-starting “Get whacked for wildlife” T-shirt. We’ll share your story online (first name and state only) to help inspire other men.

World Vasectomy Day isn’t all talk. On Nov. 13 more than 650 doctors around the world will be performing thousands of vasectomies, many of them for free or at a reduced cost. The Center is supporting New York City doctors working to expand access to the procedure by sponsoring 20 vasectomies next month.

The Progressive Pope’s Regressive Stance on Birth Control

http://www.populationconnectionaction.org/site/PageNavigator/ActionFund/AFBlogArticle57.html

By John Seager, President

September 25, 2015

Pope_Francis_Photo_2.jpg

I get why people like Pope Francis—he is charismatic, humble, and has an awfully contagious smile. He’s also radical by papal standards; being the first pope to dominate the social media realm and the first to be named “Person of the Year’ by an LGBT magazine. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t admire his cool tenacity.

But as crowds gather to catch a glimpse of Pope Francis—the religious rock star—on his East Coast tour, I can’t help but wonder about the fans who praise him for his enlightened stance on poverty, inequality, and climate change. Because, unless Francis ends his backwards proscription of birth control, it will be impossible for him to make any long-lasting improvements in those arenas.

From championing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to speaking out against economic disparity, the pope’s attempts to make the world a better place are futile alongside his reluctance to endorse access to the full range of contraceptives as a necessary and moral good.

Contraception, quite literally, saves lives—especially those of women and girls in the developing world who are deprived of antenatal services. Mothers and babies perish when women are prevented from delaying, spacing, or avoiding pregnancies. And young children whose mothers die during pregnancy and childbirth are cruelly left to fend for themselves.

In fact, if every single woman living in the developing world used modern contraception, the number of unintended pregnancies would be reduced by 70 percent and unsafe abortions would drop by 74 percent. Imagine how much that would enable women and girls to obtain an education and career; not to mention boost entire economies.

Increasing universal access to contraceptives is also central to addressing the challenge of climate change—a cause that the pope considers so important that he revolved his entire encyclical around it. While it’s a welcome step in the right direction, Francis remains opposed to breaking the doctrinal chains that prevent the Vatican from recognizing the environmental impacts of unintended pregnancy and, in turn, unsustainable population growth.

According to a recent study, slowing population growth could significantly reduce carbon emissions and diminish the onslaught of dangerous climate change. It truly is a matter of life and death for millions of, what Francis would term, God’s creatures.

Having the ability to choose when and whether to have children gives people—especially women and girls living in poor nations—a greater shot at enduring and recovering from extreme weather events. Families that can prevent unintended pregnancies are usually much better equipped, financially and otherwise, to counter the effects of climate change.

But, for Francis, science and facts take a backseat to doctrine. It’s a fact that eliminating the barriers that prevent women from accessing birth control reduces the rate of abortion—one of the greatest “sins” in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It’s also a fact that increased use of birth control is crucial for attaining many of the proposed UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as empowering women and girls. Yet, even those basic truths are not enough to sway the pope’s edict on modern contraception.

While reformism may have its limits in the Vatican, the championing of human rights shouldn’t. Planning and preventing pregnancy not only saves lives; it helps to fight poverty, close the inequality gap, and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that get pumped into the atmosphere.

It’s time for His Holiness to cease his condemnation of modern contraception and live up to his reputation as a progressive, egalitarian pope. Otherwise, Francis, the rock star, may become Francis, the one-hit wonder.

Smoke from Indonesia fires puts Singapore’s air at ‘hazardous’ level

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/24/singapore-air-quality-worsens-to-hazardous-levels.html

Pollution hits worst level this year as Indonesia land-clearing fires pump smoke into other parts of Southeast Asia

Air quality deteriorated to officially “hazardous” levels Thursday in Singapore — a key Southeast Asian business and transit hub — as choking smog blew in from Indonesia’s neighboring island of Sumatra, where forests and brush are being illegally burned to clear land for oil palm plantations and other farming.

The Singapore government’s three-hour Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) hit 319, its highest level so far this year, around midnight local time. The country’s National Environment Agency lists a level of 201-300 as “very unhealthy,” and above 300 as “hazardous.” Thick gray smoke shrouded the island city-state’s gleaming skyscrapers and crept into homes, even as many residents were staying indoors in attempt to escape the pollution.

Singapore, which prides itself on its clean environment, has been cloaked by the haze in varying degrees this year for about three weeks, the worst such episode since mid-2013.

“The hazy conditions in Singapore have further deteriorated since last night, as denser haze from Sumatra has been blown in by the prevailing southerly winds,” Singapore’s National Environment Agency said in an advisory.

The agency advised healthy persons to “avoid prolonged or strenuous outdoor physical exertion,” and urged the elderly, pregnant women and children to minimize outdoor exposure.

The conditions also cast a shadow over festivities for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, as people headed to mosques to celebrate the culmination of the annual Hajj pilgrimage. While some covered their mouths to block out the haze, none wore masks, as prayers conducted inside the mosque required them to wash their faces. Mustafa Muhamad, 61, said the bad air quality was causing some of his friends to say prayers at home instead for the festival of sacrifice.

“The haze is very bad, there are less people in the mosque this year. Coming to the mosque to pray used to be very nice because we would mingle around after,” the teacher explained. Housewife Asnah Mohamad, 62, said she and a friend used their headscarves to cover their faces as they travelled to a mosque.

“My husband cannot leave the house because he has a heart condition so I represented him to collect the meat offerings,” she told news agency Agence France-Presse, referring to the traditional practice of sharing the meat of a sacrificed goat or sheep. “We hope it gets better soon. But what can you do? Go over there (to Indonesia) and pour water on the fire?”

Businesses complained of low customer turnout, especially for a holiday, local media reported. The Singapore Sports Hub complex suspended all outdoor activities.

Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin called for calm in a Facebook post late Thursday.

“At all times refer only to official channels for information and do not circulate speculations,” he wrote.

For the past two decades, smoke from Indonesia has been spreading to other parts of Southeast Asia during the region’s annual mid-year dry season, when plantation owners and other farmers deliberately start brush and forest fires to clear land.

Southeast Asia’s most damaging cross-border haze came in 1997 and 1998, when the smog caused an estimated $9 billion in losses in economic activity across the region. Parts of Malaysia and Thailand have also occasionally been affected.

The haze situation has been made worse this year by an El Niño weather system, which produces tinder-dry conditions.

Under pressure from neighboring countries, Indonesian President Joko Widodo has pledged to crack down on companies and individuals behind the burning —a cheap but illegal way of clearing large tracts of land. During a visit to the haze-stricken islands of Borneo and Sumatra this week, Widodo called on local residents to do their part.

“I’m taking this opportunity to ask the community not to carry out burning, whether at the farms, in their own yards or on the streets,” Widodo told reporters.

He said the government was trying its best to extinguish the fires by dropping water from helicopters and inducing rain through cloud-seeding.

Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency told AFP that 2,081 fire “hotspots” were recorded on Thursday in the worst-affected region of Indonesia’s Kalimantan territory on Borneo, and 290 on Sumatra.

A total of 27 companies are being investigated in connection with the forest fires, Indonesian authorities said, while 140 individuals are being questioned. A Singapore-listed company is among those under investigation.