The government (FDA) recently approved Seasonale, a form of birth control pill designed so that women only menstruate once every 3 months.  Research suggests that until girls reach puberty, they perform better in school than boys.  Girls talk earlier, read earlier, count earlier. In preschool, they score higher on IQ tests than boys. They usually receive better grades in elementary school than boys, yet in public schools far more gifted boys than gifted girls are identified by fifth grade. Girls tend to start falling behind in their talents and abilities sometime between the fifth and ninth grades.

Obviously menstruation is only one of the difficulties for girls as they reach puberty, but it seems like it would affect their ability to pay attention in class, how the do on tests, etc.  I’m wondering, will the time come where parents place they daughters on Seasonale or some equivalent in order to help them perform better in school?  Do parents now have a loophole where they can teach abstinence while supplying birth control?

Sounds like Bush’s Faith based Initiative is moving forward. I was going to write a long rant on why I am opposed to this, but I would just be joining a long list of detractors:

* http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/raasch/r084.htm

* http://www.au.org/press/pr22001.htm

* http://slate.msn.com/id/2086617/

So I decided instead to offer constructive criticism. If the Federal Government thinks that these groups need more money, why not offer additional tax credits to those who donate to charities. Trust that people will donate to the organizations that deserve the funding. There is no need to make the Federal Government the middle man. By passing the money through the government, less money ends up getting to the charities (money must be spent deciding which groups deserve funding and distributing that money to the groups).