From the SF Chronicle:
Enhanced romance The G-Shot -- Is it the latest panacea to improve your love life?
Justin Berton, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, June 3, 2007

"Karen Roberts scheduled an appointment with her plastic surgeon at the end of a long day. The 22-year-old student at Solano Community College attended morning classes, caught up with homework and took her 4-year-old daughter to a matinee.

By 4 p.m. she sat inside Dr. Justin Salerno's office, readying to become the surgeon's first patient to receive an injection called a G-Shot, also known as G-spot Amplification. With a 3 1/2-inch needle, Salerno would pump a small dose of collagen into his patient's Grafenberg Spot and make it swell to the size of a quarter.

The G-spot has been the subject of lore and controversy since it was first identified in 1950 by the German gynecologist Ernst Gräfenberg. Some sexologists believe the small area behind the pubic bone and accessible through the anterior wall of the vagina is an erogenous zone that when stimulated leads to heightened sexual arousal and powerful orgasms. Others dispute the zone's very existence, arguing that studies have turned up no scientific evidence of the G-spot's location, or only highly questionable results.

In the case of Roberts (a pseudonym used at her request to protect her privacy), she was unsure whether the G-spot existed, and if it truly held the key to a vibrant sex life. But she was willing to find out. "If I could come home like my husband, have sex and feel that release," Roberts said before her appointment, "I'd be one happy woman. But instead I come home, I spend all this time concentrating, hoping something will happen and I just end up frustrated."

The procedure, which has been performed on approximately 250 women nationally in the past two years at a cost of $1,850 each, appealed to Roberts because she felt life's rigmarole had left her fatigued by the end of the day, hardly in an amorous mood. Even when she felt the surge of excitement, reaching an orgasm was a time-consuming endeavor that took more effort and energy than she and her husband had to offer."

Oh my god! - Instead of a shot that costs almost two grand for goodness sakes, this girl need a vibrator! As we say in A Piece of Cake - women's orgasms are not hard to achieve, nor do they take more time than men's. A vibrator is the perfect tool to stimulate the clitoris and your pleasure system, including if you choose, your g-spot. Please ladies, no injection is needed.

Take action now and urge your members of Congress to cosponsor the Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Responsibility, and Opportunity Act (S.1137/H.R.2097). This commonsense bill would help schools set up programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity and help parents communicate with their children about sex.

The recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report demonstrates that "abstinence-only" programs don't work. The Menendez/Rothman bill, on the other hand, would actually help prevent teen pregnancy and increase family communication. The Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Responsibility, and Opportunity Act would help schools set up programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity and help parents communicate with their children about sex. In addition, the proposal would increase funding for essential after-school programs that keep young people out of trouble and on the road to success.

Ask your members of Congress to help prevent teen pregnancy today!

The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act would ensure that every individual has a fundamental right to privacy with respect to personal decisions about contraception and abortion.

New York's current law, enacted before the 1973 Roe decision, is outdated. Now, after the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw a specific abortion procedure that saves women's lives, is the time for New York's legislators to strengthen our law and protect the fundamental right of a woman and her doctor - not politicians - to make private medical decisions.

While we can't stop the Federal Abortion Ban from being enforced in New York, we must strengthen the protections that now exist. New York must remain a leader on reproductive rights and a safe haven for women across our nation.

Please click here and tell Governor Spitzer thanks for your leadership on reproductive rights.

According to the NY Times, next month the FDA is expected to approve the first contraceptive pill that is designed to eliminate periods as long as a woman takes it. Doctors say they know of no extra risk to the new regimen, but also say there are no studies on its long-term effects.

Frankly we like getting our periods - they are reassuring, and symbolize our bodies hormonal ebb and flow (wink, wink.) On the flipside, we also understand why some women would want to be rid of them for good - the pain, the mess, the hassle of those several days a month can be less than pleasant. So we are all for the choice, but once again the medical community has to shove a pill down our throats - for a profit - before doing its duty to make sure it is ok for us. Come on it is a bit counterintuitive to stop something altogether, no?

What do you think? If given the chance, would you take a pill to end your period for good?

In a stunning reversal of over 35 years under Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has ruled that a specific abortion procedure used in late, non-viable pregnancies is illegal and may no longer be used by doctors.

From the NY Times: Under the modest-sounding guise of following existing precedent, the majority opinion — written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — gutted a host of thoughtful lower federal court rulings, not to mention past Supreme Court rulings.

It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman’s health.

As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases.

Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman’s place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited.