Ann Friedman

Ann Friedman is a columnist for New York magazine's website and for the Columbia Journalism Review. She also makes pie charts for The Hairpin and Los Angeles magazine. Her work has appeared in ELLE, Esquire, Newsweek, The Observer, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and many other outlets. She lives in Los Angeles, but travels so often the best place to find her is online at annfriedman.com.

Recent Articles

HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT.

HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT. What great timing! The same day my column calling for universal HPV vaccination is published, World Net Daily brings the crazy with this column from Jill Stanek (of "abortion providers eat fetuses !" fame). She writes, There is only one good reason a virtuous young woman should consider getting the HPV vaccination. That is if the man she plans to marry has had sex with other women, meaning he could be infected with HPV or an array of other STDs. I don't know why a virtuous young woman would want to marry such a man, but there you go. The rest of you dirty sluts deserve to die of cervical cancer! (Of course, this argument is nothing new ... ) In totally unrelated (but hilarious) WND news...

Our Best Shot

State legislatures across the country have begun debating whether to make vaccination against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) mandatory for all sixth-grade girls. And most local coverage of the debate has included stories about parents considering whether to vaccinate their daughters. Such Oprah-style tales of educated mothers and their wide-eyed tweens having heart-to-heart chats behind closed bedroom doors never mention that these girls are at very low risk for dying from HPV-related cervical cancer. It's the daughters of lower-income, minority families who are really at risk. Cervical cancer has a high survival rate if treated early, but early treatment depends on regular screenings. Lower-income women are less likely to receive annual pap smears -- and so for them, the disease is more likely to be deadly. More than half of all U.S. women diagnosed with cervical cancer have not had a pap test in the last three years, and the incidence of cervical cancer is...

"PRO-WOMAN," ANTI-CHOICE.

"PRO-WOMAN," ANTI-CHOICE. If you read the October issue of the Prospect , then much of this week's New York Times Magazine cover story wasn't news to you. Like Sarah Blustain and Reva Siegel did months ago, writer Emily Bazelon explores the anti-abortion movement's move toward an "abortion hurts women" rather than an "abortion kills babies" argument. The piece is still worth a read, as Bazelon goes into greater detail about the invention of "post-abortion syndrome," (which, by the way, research shows does not exist), and has some fascinating details about the anti-abortion activists who "minister" to women. Plus, on TAP Online today, we've got a breakdown of recently introduced "pro-woman" abortion-ban legislation in Georgia. --Ann Friedman

CELEBRATING ROE, ANTI-CHOICE...

CELEBRATING ROE , ANTI-CHOICE STYLE. I marked the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade by attending the Blogs4Life conference this morning at the Family Research Council HQ. A couple observations: The majority of anti-choice bloggers, judging by the attendance, are 50-year-old men, several of whom brought their young sons along. Nearly every younger woman I noticed there was attending as a reporter. They love to equate the anti-abortion movement with the civil rights struggle. There were a lot of power-point slides featuring Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes and fuzzy photos of smiling black people. See, if you ask Sam Brownback, one of the problems with America is that we treat fetuses as second-class citizens, much like African-Americans were treated in the pre-civil rights era. Does this seem more than a little insulting to anyone else? Saying that black people and fetuses (and really, embryos) should be considered "equally human"? Wow. Peter Samuelson, of Americans United for Life (which...

SEXISM: SADLY, ALWAYS IN STYLE.

SEXISM: SADLY, ALWAYS IN STYLE. Apparently it's time once again to over-analyze the fashion choices made by female members of Congress. At least this story appears, appropriately, in the Style section. (It's particularly maddening when the Times chooses to put basic coverage of women politicians in this section , as if they were still the "Women's Pages." Or when the paper chooses to cover women's fashion in the politics section.) But this is exasperating. We're STILL talking about what female politicians wear just as often as we talk about what they accomplish in the political arena? Women in politics are still operating in a male world and don�t want to appear as lacking gravitas. That's true. Men will get called out if they wear something totally inappropriate (see: Cheney 's parka at the Holocaust remembrance ceremony), not really for simple fashion choices. It's easy for them (if they want) to avoid calling attention to their clothing. Women, on the other hand, are " marked " no...

Pages