You see, in Palin's eyes, anyone who supports a woman's right to choose apparently might have "the mind-set" that allows them to pull the plug on Grandma or force women to terminate pregnancies if the baby is not, in Palin's words "normal or perfect." It is, of course, another attempt on Palin's behalf to scare the shit out of people with her "death panel" nonsense, and her attempt to step it up a notch by tying in her stance on abortion rights (or, rather, lack thereof) just makes things more repulsive. "In order to save government money, government health care has to be rationed," Palin told the crowd, "[so] than this elderly person that perhaps could be seen as costing taxpayers to pay for a non-productive life? Do you think our elderly will be first in line for limited health care?"

Palin also took the time to drop this laughable statement: "It is so bogus that society is sending a message right now and has been for probably the last 40 years that a woman isn't strong enough or smart enough to be able to pursue an education, a career and her rights and still let her baby live." You know what else is bogus? That Sarah Palin continues to position herself as a savior of women's rights when her entire platform essentially rests on taking them away.

Palin Rallies Thousands Of Abortion Supporters [Politico]

I can rationalize my arrested financial status, my rental, my inability to drive. But staring at that row of expensive, alpha-hydroxy-boosting bottles, I knew I was in denial. Anti-aging products are scary and overwhelming, their labels full of vaguely-threatening pseudoscience. According to the most extreme dermatologists, we should all start using them at 18. And while generations of women seem to have gotten by perfectly well without a battery of pricey snake-oils, the fear campaign has done its work well: I feel anxious, guilty, terrified - and paralyzed with choice. Even as I know my collagen production is slowing down, my skin losing its youthful elasticity, the lines and wrinkles multiplying, I'm as frozen as I was when a 10th-grade chemistry test was set before me.

New findings suggest that, at the end of the day, we all become our mothers anyway: as in most things biological, you can't fight the DNA, and one's mother's face is, apparently, a preview of coming attractions. Says Reuters, "these findings may act as a further guideline for cosmetic rejuvenation of the eye region." Great. My own mom looks just fine. She's never used an antiaging product in her life, and for someone who was apparently never told that not sporting at least double-digit SPF every day is the worst sin in the entire world, well, she's certainly not the Dorothea Lange portrait ladymags are always insinuating. That said, she looks like what she is: an attractive woman of 60. And that isn't what we're supposed to want. We should be defying our age, not giving into it!

I gave my mom a call and asked her what she thought about all the age-defying tech out there. "Well," she said, "it's really much more defiant not to give into that, isn't it?" And she was right. Although I bought her some lotion with SPF and I think she's using it. "Health," she says, "I'll do. Vanity is very unattractive." I could have a worse blueprint.

It's Like Mother, Like Daughter When It Comes To Aging [Reuters]

In fact, it's not as ineffective at preventing pregnancy as we might think.

The best available estimates indicate that with "perfect use," 4% of couples relying on withdrawal will become pregnant within a year, compared with 2% of couples relying on the male condom. More realistic estimates suggest that with "typical use," 18% of couples relying on withdrawal will become pregnant within a year, compared with 17% of those using the male condom. In other words, with either method, more than eight in 10 avoid pregnancy.

So, if it's just pregnancy we're concerned with avoiding, it's actually not the worst choice.

Which is a fact not lost by the majority of women who have used it at one time or another.

A majority of sexually experienced women rely on withdrawal at some point in their life-56%, according to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. (By comparison, 82% have ever used the pill, and 90% the male condom.)

Notice, please, that it doesn't say that the majority of women have used it in monogamous relationships (or that women who rely on hormonal birth control use condoms for that purpose). But there is often a lot of finger-pointing at women who practice withdrawal, as though they're just playing Russian roulette with their reproductive systems, despite this fact:

A smaller study, the Women's Well-Being and Sexuality Study, found that 21% of younger and more educated women were using withdrawal.

So you can be smart and educated and practice withdrawal?

In fact, women who practice withdrawal aren't the only ones taking pregnancy tests — and they're not even the majority.

However, only 5% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy currently use the method (11% when those who use it in conjunction with another method are included).

Jones thinks it's time to stop utterly stigmatizing women who practice withdrawal.

Also, we're hearing anecdotally that because of the current economy, fewer women are able to afford these more effective methods, yet many cannot afford to have another child right now. For these couples, withdrawal may be a good backup option when used in conjunction with condoms. Withdrawal can provide ‘extra insurance' against pregnancy for all couples, even those using hormonal methods. And withdrawal is far more effective at preventing pregnancy than use of no method at all.

She's not, however, advocating that everyone use it, or use it instead of more effective methods of birth control (and actually-effective methods of disease-prevention, like condoms). She's just suggesting that health providers start talking about it in a scientific fashion with their patients, and that they stop telling women who use it that they might as well use nothing at all — which is both inaccurate and unhelpful.

Does Withdrawal Deserve Another Look? [Guttmacher Institute via Feministing]

[Image via BBPANTONE]

The average American eats about 4,500 calories and 229 grams of fat on Thanksgiving. "It's like a tsunami of fat," says Dr. Pamela Peeke, assistant clinical professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. That's right! Just like the tsunami devastated Sri Lanka, your insides will be drowning in fat! Oh, and you think you're going to avoid some of that fat, because you eat white meat and not dark? There's barely any difference in fat and calories between white meat and dark meat, researchers report.

Even if you eat so much you fear your stomach will explode, it probably won't. Or will it? "In a study of people who had died with Prader-Willi syndrome, which causes excessive overeating, about 3 percent of the deaths were due to stomach rupture, said Dr. David Stevenson, an assistant professor at the University of Utah." Well, yeah, a three percent chance is slim, but it exists! And if you eat so much that you feel sleepy, know that "food coma" can be a serious problem — "food fatigue, along with holiday alcohol consumption, the monotony of driving and a natural circadian dip late in the day all make for a lethal combination behind the wheel." Lethal! As in deadly!

Suggestions for coping with the temptation to overeat are simple: Keep serving dishes off the table, so you don't mindlessly take extra servings; use smaller serving spoons and plates; contribute to dinner conversation ("The more you talk, the less you'll eat"). Hey, why not tell your family the great news: The meal they're eating might make them kick the bucket!

Ate Too Much? Tight Pants May Be the Smallest Worry,
The Claim: White Meat Is Healthier Than Dark Meat [NY Times]