SURPRISE!

Plastic surgery on your labia is harmful! The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons are both saying that vaginal rejuvenation and cosmetic methods of altering the vagina "are unproven and potentially risky, and that medical claims about results are exaggerated."

"To do this for cosmetic reasons, and to say it will improve sexual fulfillment is totally absurd," says Thomas Stovall, past president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and a clinical professor at the University of Tennessee at Memphis.

They cite Dr. 90210's David Matlock for popularizing cosmetic surgery for female genitals. It's a little beyond me why anyone would really want to undergo a procedure that quite often leads to "infection, scarring, nerve damage and loss of sensation," but let's keep in mind that Dr. David Matlock is the same doctor that:

• almost had his license revoked by The Medical Board of California in 1998 for alleged "insurance fraud, dishonesty and negligent care to two patients" (State Records of California)

• Was placed on probation for four years in 2000

Are we really surprised that this is the man who's performed over 3,000 surgeries, and trained 140 doctors?

so hey, it may be your uterus, but legally, it could belong to your ex-boyfriend

A quick snapshot: seeking a first-time abortion? Well, if a new Ohio law passes (H.B. No. 207), women in the state will have to provide their abortion providers with "written, informed consent" of the father. Additionally, women will have to provide paternity tests to prove that the written, informed consent is actually from the father. So, not sure who the father is? Pay for paternity tests! And if you lie about it? It's now called "abortion fraud," and that's a first degree misdemeanor. Commit "abortion fraud" twice, and it's a felony. And the icing on the cake? If you've been raped, you have to prove it. No, really, you have to provide your abortion provider with proof you've been raped.

It all just strikes me as terribly wrong.

This is a news story that has caught my attention frequently in the past few weeks:

Cassandra Hernandez, a 20-year-old Air Force Airman, First-Class, attended a party in the on-base dormitory, where she was raped by three of her fellow airmen. She reported the attack and a formal inquiry into the incident was launched by the Air Force, and the three airmen were charged with raping her.

She and her family report that they have been harassed by the Air Force and those involved with the case during the legal process. One of the airmen decided not to accept the Article 31, and decided to go through with a trial (this means that the other two airmen DID accept the article, which means that they accepted that they were guilty of gang raping Hernandez). An attorney representing the accused airman, set up a series of interviews with Hernandez, not allowing her on-base victim's advocate to be present. Hernandez consequently decided that she did not want to testify in the trial, and the Air Force dropped the charges against the airmen, citing "factual inconsistencies," and her desire not to testify against the three airmen.

Months later, Hernandez and the three men she says attacked her were charged with Article 15s (indecent acts). Hernandez declined to accept the nonjudicial decision that she had committed 'indecent acts' when she had been raped, and requested a hearing. She has since been court-martialed, and the three airmen she says attacked her have been given immunity in exchange for testifying against her.

So, let's get this straight -

Hernandez reported that she was raped.
She was subjected to interrogations without her victim's advocate present, which is ILLEGAL.
She chose not to testify, and the charges were dropped.
She was court-martialed, and the men who raped her face no consequences for their actions in exchange for testifying that sex was consensual.

Lovely.