After spending 12 hours in front of a computer yesterday, my body ached as I was trying to go to sleep. Thank goodness I’ll never be a computer programmer. This HTML course is over! Now I’m so close to summer! One portfolio to compile and one more exam!

(via evolveandrevolt)

PS that was my last editorial/commentary of the year! 

When our protective measures hurt more than help

The recent debate that has sprung up over emergency contraception has been filled with everything a medication shouldn’t—politics and confusion.

The recent federal court decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman that required pharmacies to sell emergency contraception over the counter without an age restriction was a way to fix this issue. It was simpler and backed by science—everything medication should be.

But the appeal by the Obama Administration—and the FDA announcement just hours prior approving Plan B One Step to be sold without a prescription to people age 15 and older—created a more inflated, messier situation than what was certainly needed. With multiple age restrictions and different variations of the drug thrown around, it’s easy for a young person—the most affected by any recent changes—to get lost in the semantics.

The 111^th Congress, which took office in 2009, was the oldest Congress in U.S. history, with ages averaging at 57 in the House and 63 in the Senate. Today’s sitting legislative branch is only slightly younger. Plan B was legalized in 1999, so perhaps it’s important to consider, without undermining our politicians, their need for or personal experience with emergency contraception, compared to the young people that fall closer to the age restrictions. It’s likely those experiences are not that similar.

The need for a morning-after pill is not that comparable to the need for most other medications. It’s not like antibiotics, which can wait a few days for a doctor’s appointment and a pharmacy visit. Emergency contraception is needed soon after intercourse, and the longer one waits to take it, the less effective it is.

Confusing age restrictions can make obtaining a time-sensitive drug very stressful. The announcement by the FDA, and the subsequent support by the Obama Administration, requires 15-year-olds to provide identification, verifying their age in order to purchase the drug—a significant step up, supporters say, from the previous age restriction at 17. But, this change has it’s own set of resulting issues.

Most adults use a driver’s license in order to buy age-restricted medication, but the District requires young people to wait until they’re at least 16 before they can get a learner’s permit. So alternative means for identification are needed, such as a passport or birth certificate, as suggested by FDA Spokeswoman Stephanie Yao.

But birth certificates aren’t always easily accessible for some teens, and they can get lost. Getting a new copy in the District and Virginia is a rather swift, twenty-minute process if you’re lucky. But in Maryland, getting a new birth certificate, much like applying for a passport, takes 6-8 weeks. This isn’t okay for a pill that must be taken no later than 72 hours after intercourse.

The complicated steps call attention to the need for an age restriction at all. In 2011, when Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius overruled a decision by the FDA allowing emergency contraception to be sold without an age restriction, she cited a lack of scientific evidence for young girls who might take the drug.

However, that decision has been ridiculed by many doctor’s organizations, like the American Academy of Pediatrics, who say that the morning-after pill is safe to use at all child-bearing ages. So why keep the youngest from obtaining the pill? Congressmen and women and others passionate on the issue have said that access to emergency contraception increases the likelihood that adolescents will have sex, but some doctors and research firms are increasingly denying that claim. 

Results from a 2008 National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the Center for Disease Control, indicate that adolescents under 14 rarely, if ever, engage in sexual activity. But when they do, there is a higher probability that it is nonconsensual.

As a society that still grapples with victim blaming in cases of rape, should we add an unwanted child to the load our most unfortunate bear at ages as young as 14? 12?

It’s can be difficult to take in that kind of scenario, but that doesn’t mean it never happens. In efforts to protect our most vulnerable, age restrictions to emergency contraception hurt them more than help. It’s time for Congress to accept the painful truth that sometimes young people need this medication, and putting up barriers is counterproductive. The science is on our side. Set aside politics; fight this uncomfortable reality in ways that don’t add to the problem. 

MY LIFE. 

(Source: theyuniversity)

The past 18 hours have been a stressful, sleep-deprived whirlwind of DreamWeaver, spending the night in the library, sitting in the Comcast Center for a long time and getting soaked to the bone. 

But I watched and listened while His Holiness the Dalai Lama spoke and giggled about inner peace, interfaith dialogue and oneness of humanity. And I just had some apple pie. All in all, good day. 

soulpancake:

Macklemore, Ryan Lewis + Kid President…best combination…or best combination?

(via coastiewsass)

tastefullyoffensive:

“Don’t drive too fast or someone might think you’re… up to something.”

[via]

(via wonderwhale)

to do:

Finish philosophy paper by midnight (practically done)

Watch movie for ethics

Write ethics paper

Write final editorial on Plan B

Take editorial final 

Write, film, edit Spanish “video” on gun control

Complete ethics take-home final

Compile works and write reflection for spanish electronic portfolio

Find a Mobile Market and conduct interviews/take pictures&audio

Take philosophy final

Finish designing website for enterprise story

Take Spanish final

Then I can sleep. 

View high resolution

India fest is my favorite fest.

View high resolution

Fire tornados at #MarylandDay

The immigration reform bill: the good, the bad & the ugly

In a Congress known for its partisanship and what seems like an inability to compromise, the bipartisan immigration reform bill has beat the odds by just being drafted. The bill proposes quality ideas for a severely broken system, but it still needs some serious work. And with the growing support and opposition by members of Congress for this potentially monumental legislation, could immigration reform be the new ObamaCare?

Let’s start with the good—the bill offers a path to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, who before the drafted bill, couldn’t realistically dream of obtaining legal status.

 The bill more than doubles the amount of annual worker visas, shifting the yearly immigrant base toward an equal allotment of visas for workers and family members. (The current system gives roughly 75 percent of visas to family members of American citizens. We are the only developed country to focus immigration on family rather than workers.)

 The backlog of 4.7 million immigrants legally waiting for green cards will obtain legal status by the raising of green card caps per year and exempting spouses and children from the cap. 

Previously deported individuals will be eligible to apply to return if they have a spouse of child in the country, reuniting families. And, arguably the best aspect of the bill, the path to citizenship is shortened to five years for the “Dreamers” or immigrants brought to the country as children, regardless of their current age. 

But there’s the bad. We’ll spend $6.5 billion over the next 10 years on surveillance drones and fences to enhance border security. While this is a necessary step in improving the immigration process, it perhaps emphasizes the wrong reasons as to why illegal immigration is the issue it is today. It’s also unsure as to how long it will take to “secure” the border before the citizenship process can begin.

Adding the bad is the fact that not everyone is included. Same-sex couples are not recognized in the bill, which is hardly surprising. And undocumented immigrants who entered the country after Dec. 31, 2011 cutoff date are just out of luck. They don’t qualify and will be deported.

But the ugly—the real meat of the issue—is the proposed citizenship process. It’s long, very expensive, and it requires too much. Undocumented immigrants will apply for “registered provisional immigrant status” which is a middle ground between undocumented and green card holder. For 10 years, people with this status will not qualify for ObamaCare or federal benefits. Then they can apply for a green card, which they must hold for another three years before applying for citizenship.

The process’ shiny price tag is the kicker—$2,000 per person plus any outstanding taxes. If the Gang of 8 thinks that undocumented immigrants will be able to easily supply that much money by working less that minimum wage jobs, especially for multiple family members, they’re missing the picture.

The bill also calls for immigrants to have strong knowledge of English and civics, and they must be able to prove that they’ve had a continuous physical presence in the country. However, that can be mighty difficult for someone who has been living in the shadows since they arrived in the country.

With all its shortfalls, the drafted bill is still far better than what is in place today. Application and petition fees fund the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, meaning it’s overworked and understaffed. The process is longer, more expensive and an absolute nightmarish escapade of phone calls and isolated bureaucratic meetings that run in circles with little accomplished at each step. Imagine not speaking English strongly—game over. 

Today’s process also costs the economy an estimated $30 billion and 98.8 million hours a year, according a study by the American Action Forum, a center-right think-tank. If the actual process isn’t a big enough reason to reform, those figures should be the tipping point. What is in place today is not sufficient for the needs of the people, including the needs of Americans who are assisting family members in naturalization.

The Economist published an article last month comparing the push for immigration reform to gay marriage. The author predicts that immigration will likely mirror the growing acceptance of gay marriage throughout the Republican Party, because people are people and many of us empathize whether we want to or not. Hopefully, the author is correct. The U.S. can’t support this broken system any longer, and the people are calling for modernization.

tastefullyoffensive:

How to Exercise With Your Cats [video]

(Source: togifs)

(Source: crewnex, via pickmeuplove)