Photo courtesy of tonrulkens on flickr
With the release of and subsequent media frenzy surrounding Pope Benedict XVI’s published comments on condom use has come a renewed debate about religion, sexuality and public health. And it’s not just about “male prostitutes.” While the Pope’s original declaration referred to the fact that condom use may be a moral act for male prostitutes wishing to prevent against sexually transmitted infections, the Vatican later clarified that — oh, wait a minute — women, men and transsexuals also may use condoms to protect themselves against transmission of disease, thank you very much.
Many progressive Catholics and organizations say these statements have opened the door to the potential to have a more realistic conversation about the role condoms play in protecting the health and lives of women, men and young people globally.
But, of course, the conversation has been happening for years between public health experts, advocates and those who use condoms. We already know that condoms are the only sure-fire contraceptive method for women who want to prevent both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. However, Catholics for Choice say that many Catholic health providers working for Catholic aid agencies in developing nations are secretly handing out condoms while fearing for their jobs since condom use is still unacceptable as a tenet of the Church. Catholic groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States have stood in the way of ensuring access to condoms, as well as to the funding of other HIV/AIDS prevention strategies that work — like comprehensive sex education in developing nations — for too long.
The best way we can “use” the Pope’s comments on condoms, in this country, is to put pressure on Catholic health agencies working on the ground in these poor nations to formally integrate condoms into their prevention strategies.
Nothing gets my blood pumping like a good congressional hearing.
On the New York City Council, a paid sick leave bill has support from 35 out of 51 council members. That’s not just a majority, it’s a veto-proof majority. Yet the bill still hasn’t passed. Why not? In order for council members to vote in favor of the legislation, there has to be, well, a vote. And Council Speaker Christine Quinn is standing in the way.
The days of making clothes for the people who will buy them is long gone or, perhaps, never existed. Case-in-point: Levi’s has launched an ad campaign not-so-cleverly titled, “
Woe to women, 
