by Nikki Serapio, Manager, New Media Strategies

Imagine that a school administrator fired a teacher for being a woman. Imagine that this administrator publicly defended their decision by citing their personal objections to women being teachers in any capacity.

Probably, this kind of bigotry would become national news right away. And that's why I think it's sad that no major news media have headlined the story of Dr. Rachel Tudor, a professor at Southeastern Oklahoma State University who was recently fired because she is a transgender woman.

Are you a young person (14-24 years old) who is

- Passionate about fighting for young people's rights to sexual health information and services?
-  Interested in connecting with youth leaders from across the country?
 - Dedicated to developing skills to make a difference in your community?

Consider applying for one of Advocates for Youth's programs!

If selected, you will have opportunities to: develop new organizing and leadership skills; become informed on sexual and reproductive health issues; connect with passionate young people from across the country; and have a lasting impact on your communities.

Last week, the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee took the first step towards eliminating evidence-based comprehensive sex education programs (PREP: Personal Responsibility Education Programs) while protecting Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs already found to have “no impact on teen behavior”. Tomorrow the full committee will take similar action.

If deficit hypocrisy were an Olympic event, I think the Republicans on the Health Subcommittee won the gold medal – and the silver and bronze as well! It is astounding that they would classify as a “slush fund” a government sex education program requiring grantees to base their programs on scientific evidence while continuing to champion Title V abstinence-only programs proven ineffective by a ten-year Congressionally-mandated independent evaluation released four years ago.

By Martha Kempner

Editor's Note: This post was originally published on RH Reality Check.

In a Wall Street Journal column over the weekend, Jennifer Moses accuses teens of dressing like prostitutes but blames their mothers for allowing, and funding, it.  Moses, author of Food and Whine: Confessions of a New Millennium Mom, posits two theories about why moms give in to their daughters' demands for skimpy clothing and high heels.

The first is a certain sort of pride in their child's appearance and a desire to help one's daughter gain the popularity she so desperately wants.  "In my own case," she writes, "when I see my daughter in drop-dead gorgeous mode, I experience something akin to a thrill—especially since I myself am somewhat past the age to turn heads."  Her friend agrees: "It's almost like they're saying ‘Look how hot my daughter is.'"  I suppose I can understand this, I beam with pride every time a stranger stops us on the street to say how cute my four-year old is with her curly blond hair, lip gloss, and plastic high heels. Though I know that someday the soon the glitter eye shadow we bought at Claire's will seem less cute to passersby.

The second part of Moses's theory, however, is much more disturbing.  She seems to think that all women of her generation are living in a constant state of regret for their own sexual behavior when they were young.