Mississippi might be on the brink of a new sexual revolution - one that radically alters reproductive rights as we know it.

When Mississippi voters go to the polls tomorrow, they’re voting on when life begins.

Passage of Initiative 26 would grant “personhood” status to a fertilized egg. Proponents say it’s a way to protect life and end abortion. Opponents see it as one of the most broad-sweeping and under-handed pieces of legislation limiting reproductive rights.

Critics argue that the initiative would end hormonal birth control methods including the pill and the morning after pill; It could also lead to deaths of women because fertilized egg cells could not be removed during ectopic pregnancies. And abortion would be criminalized.

Interestingly enough, the word “abortion” won’t appear on the ballot in Mississippi at all. Instead, it will ask voters to redefine “person” to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof.” Changing the definition could block access to abortion by making it equivalent to murder and would make no exception for rape, incest or when a woman’s life is at stake.

There appear to be a lot of unintended consequences the way the initiative is written. So much so that pro-life backers of the proposed legislation are mostly quiet. Governor Haley Barbour (R-Miss) already voted in favor of the measure but cited the initiative's ambiguity. The Yes on 26 website lists supporters including politicians, religious leaders and medical professionals (though many doctors are speaking out against it).

So what does this all mean? Even if the initiative fails at the polls in Mississippi tomorrow, rest assured this won’t be the last you hear of it. Similar pieces of legislation are in the works in several states for 2012. That means politicians will be forced to take sides. In fact, Mitt Romney (R-Mass, and Presidential hopeful) recently announced his support for a constitutional ban on abortion based on the “personhood” model.

Before you give your kids another Snickers bar, decide if you're cool with them getting thrown into foster care.

Well... not exactly. But in an opinion piece published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, obesity expert Dr. David Ludwig and Harvard lawyer Lindsey Murtagh have suggested that parents of significantly obese children should lose custody for being criminally negligent for their children's health.

Despite the large controversy taking place about Ludwig and Martagh's suggestions, it seems clear that they are not talking about ripping every fat kid from their parent's dinner table and tossing them into the already overburdened foster care system. They're suggesting that states change policy regarding child abuse to include morbid obesity as a form of medical neglect.

"State intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors," Ludwig said in the editorial, which he co-wrote with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.

"In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint because of imminent health risks and the parents' chronic failure to address medical problems," the authors wrote.

Ludwig suggests that state intervention would be a last resort and used only in extreme cases. Currently, there are 12.5 million, about 17% of teens, who are considered obese. Some states, like Texas, Indiana, New York, and New Mexico, have already moved to include morbid child obesity as a form of abuse.

One has to wonder - would removing children from their parents and placing them into foster care really be effective? Wouldn't sending a health expert to the house or requiring that the parent and the child to attend health eating courses be cheaper on the taxpayer? And what about the consequences of tearing families apart? As a fierce personal liberty advocate, even the word "require" does not sit well with me - suggest seems more appropriate. Then again, if parents refuse to take steps toward healthier eating and exercise at the expense of a child's wellbeing, maybe the state should step in.

What sort of food will foster care programs serve to these kids? I mean, I went to public schools and our lunches were provided by companies like Sodexho and Aramark: heavily processed foods, low quality meats, pizza, cheeseburgers, french fries, tater tots, strawberry (sugar) milk - just stuff I couldn't imaging eating now (maybe that's because I moved to San Francisco and we're so smug we smell our own farts). I'm not convinced that sending kids to government run foster care centers will provide them with the nutritional needs to become healthy. In this video, this point is actually proven when one of Ludwig's own patients, a 3 year old child who weighed in at 90 lbs, was taken from her parents and placed into foster care for months where, you guessed it, she didn't lose any weight.

In South Carolina, a 14 year old boy who weighs in at 555 lbs has been taken from his mother's custody and placed into foster care. The mom says she tried to follow the nutritional guidelines set for her son by the state Department of Social Services, but that he got food on his own and from friends. Her lawyer says it's unfair to take away her child because she wasn't "force-feeding him" and she doesn't have the financial means to buy healthier foods.

We are at in a unique and strange place in our country's history and economy where the cheapest foods are those that are high calorie, resulting in some of our poorest citizens actually being our fattest.

What do you think HeadCount? Is this a smart way to reduce child obesity? Or is this a nanny state approach to a complex problem that really requires education and cultural change?

Since it's inception in 1989, the Red Hot Organization has worked with everyone from David Byrne and Patti Smith to Wu Tang Clan, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Bon Iver and Grizzly Bear. Their catalogue of compilation albums includes genres from Bossa Nova to country, and to music legends like Cole Porter and Fela Kuti, as well as a tribute to love letters. All told, they've put out 15 albums and raised and donated $10 million for AIDS relief worldwide.

Now they are making their catalogue available to aspiring filmmakers with a contest to create short films and PSAs about HIV/AIDS. The winner will recieve $2,500 and a trip to New York City.

The organization issued this call:

More than two decades after the HIV/AIDS crisis began, our generation has its own stories to tell. Love stories and elegies, tales of quiet defiance, stigma, and public confrontation. Through short films and PSAs, the Red Hot+ contest aims to provide the catalyst (and the soundtrack) for a new conversation about HIV and AIDS. It's time to take a new look at HIV and AIDS through a contemporary lens. This is about young people. It's about you. It's about Red Hot + us.

More details about the contest can be found on Red Hot's website, but before you check that out, check this video of Mio Doi Todd and Jose Gonzalez performing a track off Red Hot's newest release, the tropicalia-inspired "Red Hot in Rio 2."

RH Loft Party: Mia Doi Todd + José González from Red Hot on Vimeo.

You’ve heard of the War on Drugs. The War on Terror. The War on Poverty. Well, get ready for the War on Pop (not music. For those of you outside the Heartland, I mean “Soda”). A serious controversy is starting to, er, bubble up. Warning labels are being proposed, taxes discussed, and food stamp recipients potentially turned away. All in an attempt to get Americans to stop pouring so much sugar down their gullets.

Most recently, the consumer advocacy group CSPI made a call for warning labels to be added to soda cans, citing overwhelming studies that show soda contributes to obesity, diabetes, tooth decay and overall diminished health.

This follows attempts in multiple states to levy a tax on sweetened beverages.  No surprise, soft drink companies are fighting back. Bloomberg reports that in Kansas, where legislators briefly considered adding a tax on soda, corporate lobbyists spent nearly $1.5 million, a 20 percent jump from a year ago. Nearly $400,000 of that came from the American Beverage Association.

A Republican state Senator who supported the tax lamented, "I just wish they'd spent $390,000 in preventing obesity. We'd all be better off. I think there will continue to be proposals into the future to try to fight obesity, and a tax on sugary drinks is just one way to do that."

Then there’s the controversy surrounding whether to eliminate soda from the food stamp program.  In 2009, food stamps bought $75-$135 million worth of soda and other sweetened beverages in New York City alone. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who requested that New York be allowed to ban soda from the list of products that can be purchased with food stamps, argued that “sugar-sweetened drinks are not worth the cost to our health, and government shouldn’t be promoting or subsidizing them.”   Public health advocates agree, but anti-hunger advocates believe food stamp recipients should have the freedom to buy as they choose, and that exempting soda puts forth the message that recipients are not capable of making good decisions.

The argument will go on. So the next time you pop open a can of Mountain Dew, or grab some fresh juice instead, just know that you are smack in the middle of one of the next great policy battles in America. Drink up.

Javelin is a tropical dance party duo spiced with infectious beats from the far reaches of your radio dial based out of Brooklyn. Luckily, the typical "cliches" end there. Cousins George Langford and Tom Van Buskirk have become known as "the guys with the boom boxes," employing a Flaming Lips meets Talking Heads-like technique that’s allowed them to break down the artist/audience wall at such tour stops as New York’s Museum of Modern Art and Lollapalooza. They've also gained a reputation as a thoughtful cultural observers who infuse consciousness into their music.

We caught up with them recently to talk about.... well, everything really. Everything but what you'd hear in a typical rock 'n roll interview.

HeadCount: What was the most interesting non music conversation you've had in the last few months and what was it about?

George: I've been having a lot of conversations about childbirth in this country and how the medical industry and insurance companies have mutated our perception of the most fundamental and natural human function into something dangerous that usually requires surgical intervention. There's a bottom-line mentality that has really changed what people (going back a few generations now) think of as a "normal" or "safe" birth.

Tom:  We were sitting around a table at a diner talking about the political climate in America.  For the first time, I could reliably admit to myself how close to our own version of fascism we have come in this country.  When you use media as propaganda to stir-up the masses to essentially violence-inciting levels for political and economic gains, other kinds of violence are never far away.  Of course calling the Right "fascistic" is a bit like calling the Left "Socialistic" -- it's not precisely right -- but we are creating our own definition in this country.

What is your favorite non music website and why?

George: I'm a creature of habit. From looking at my browser history, apparently my favorite website is the text-based global flea market that is Craigslist. I like browsing for barns in the real estate section.

Tom:  Gmail

What issue gets you guys most fired up? Anything you bothl feel strongly about? Or anything you disagree about and debate?

George:  Well, it's certainly not the most important thing in the world, but I'm freaked out by the threat of our open and unregulated internet soon becoming not so open and unregulated.

Tom: Global Health politics tends to threaten my own health when I think about it too hard

What do you think about the recent election?

George: I'm sure every generation thinks that their era is the most frustrating and dismal in terms of its political climate. But damn, this the most frustrating and dismal...Opinion is fact if you can shout it loud enough at your opposing politico on any cable news channel.

Tom:  See my answer to the first question...

What was the last documentary you watched? did it reinforce or change how you felt about the subject?

George: The Business of Being Born (see question #1)

Tom:  Burma VJ is incredibly moving and well done.  It makes you appreciate the power personal media can have on extremely oppressive governments, and it also makes you empathize with those living under such.

Where do you glean most of your news and current events?

George: NPR, I guess.

Tom:  BBC / NPR

What was the first charity you ever gave money to and when did you do it?

George: I think I gave my allowance to Greenpeace when I was little. I'm a fan of Oxfam's gifts for Christmas (x amount of dollars buys a goat for a family or mosquito netting for a baby, etc...)

Tom:  Mine was environmental too, Save The Bay (in Rhode Island), when I was a kid.

If you were given $1 million dollars tomorrow, on the condition that  you had to spend it only on one cause what would it be?

George: That's tough, but it'd probably go to sex education somewhere in the world where such resources are unavailable.

Tom:  Water.  Clean water technologies that work anywhere on the globe, regardless of infrastructural/cultural setting.

If you could add an amendment to the constitution would you? and what it would it be?

George: Yes. It would be a multi-pack though. Probably something like: no guns for anybody, free healthcare for all, teachers are to be paid more than baseball players, religion has nothing to do with this government.

Tom:  It would be to right the wrongs an historical oversight-- the governing capitol of this country should have been NEW YORK, NY.  Alexander Hamilton gave it away to make Jefferson happy, basically to make Monticello as sweet as possible.  Instead of their unbridled obsession with money, we could have had the best minds of American history working on GOVERNING instead of faking the numbers on the stock market.  But I guess this is more of a Bill and Ted's type expedition than an actual amendment to our existing Constitution.

Could drinking from a plastic container lower a man’s sperm count? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but according to a just-released study reported by USA Today, “men with higher levels of BPA, or bisphenol A, were two to four times more likely than others to have problems with sperm quality and quantity.” This comes just two months after the California State Senate did away with plans to ban the chemical in products geared toward children.

BPA? Most Americans have never even heard of it. But it’s used in plastic drink containers and many other forms of consumer packaging. According to the Center for Disease Control, there’s a 95% chance that detectable levels are sitting in your body. Some studies say it also causes lots of fun things like Diabetes, early puberty and even Down Syndrome.

Just over a year ago, the California State Assembly and Senate voted to ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and infant formula packaging, following the lead of seven states (CT, MD, MA, MN, VT, WI, and WA) and 5 countries (Canada, France, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand) that already have laws limiting BPA in items used by small children. Canada bans it outright.

But fast forward a year and the state’s Senate – which had to vote on the measure again due to some procedural requirement - rejected it by one vote.  Two Senators who previously voted for it abstained due to medical reasons.

So, what happened?  Well it probably comes as no surprise that the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical and chemical industries went all out to defeat the bill.

According to a piece in Food Quality News…

Politicians, as well as health and environmental activists in favour of outlawing the substance condemned the outcome – accusing the chemical and pharmaceutical industries of waging "an expensive and shamefully deceptive lobbying campaign".

Sen Pavley said industry lobbyists had told lawmakers that food production plants... would close even though such facilities do not produce any baby food or baby products... Industry representatives also allegedly sent direct mail shots claiming that a BPA ban would be too costly for lower-income families and deprive consumers of access to canned goods, said the senator, adding she believed that all the claims were untrue.

The piece also said that the Trade association the American Chemistry Council (ACC) welcomed the vote, saying that decisions on such scientific issues as the safety of BPA should be made by regulatory authorities.

"We agree with legislators in California who stated that chemical issues of this type are best addressed by the state’s own Green Chemistry Initiate and by the federal government’s regulatory authorities.”

So score one for the lobbyists this time around. Next time, I hope the influence of money will not overpower health and safety.

It's no surprise that we tip our hat to rock stars that use their celebrity for good. The Smashing Pumpkins are doing just that by offering an exclusive free download to raise awareness and funds for musicians without quality healthcare.

Founded in the 90's, Sweet Relief was started as a way to help pay the medical bills of singer/songwriter Victoria Williams, who was diagnosed with Multiple Scerlosis shortly after beginning a tour with Neil Young. As some of you may know, being a full-time musician is not cheap, and when it comes to purchasing health insurance in those early stages of your career... there is just no money for those "luxuries." Fortunately, several musicians were sympathetic to the cause and jumped on board to help Victoria out in her time of need. The current roster of artists who are affiliated with Sweet Relief includes Pearl Jam, Cold Play, Dave Matthews, Phish, David Bowie and a lot more.

Now, Smashing Pumpkins have partnered up with Sweet Relief for an awesome giveaway and a contest. Anyone who visits SweetRelief.org can download a new S.P. song, titled "Spangled," just for visiting the website. Additionally, Corgan and Co. are also offering donors at all levels a chance to win a signed Fender Stratocaster.

Whether or not you have the cash to enter the guitar raffle yourself, the download is free and the cause is an admirable one.

Despite the administration's efforts to talk it up, the American public is not readily warming up to the new health bill. When polled in August, the percentage of Americans who had a favorable impression of the law had dropped by 7%, in just one month! As a hot topic for mid-term elections, it could sway voting patterns. Changes in the makeup of congress could dramatically change the future of health care reform, so let's look at why public opinion and the HCR temperatures are dropping:

• One reason may be the mandate - the rule that each individual must obtain health insurance of some kind, like a vehicle owner with car insurance. If a citizen chooses to ignore the mandate, he or she will be fined. Some do not believe that setting fines for a lack of insurance is a legitimate use of Congress' power. Also, the mandate recently triggered another state vs. federal debate, as Missouri and other states' Congressmen fight for exceptions to the federal rule due to what they identify as the unique needs of their states.
• The bill is putting some industry players, namely agents, brokers and small firms, out of business. While this could be chalked up to changing needs within a free market, public opinion demands job creation, not destruction.
• People vote with their wallets and their hearts, so if they aren't feeling immediate benefits, they start asking, "What have you done for me lately?" To address the dissatisfaction, the Obama administration has amended Medicare benefits to include tobacco cessation counseling and has just released a state-specific report on the immediate benefits of HCR, which describes the impact on families, women, young adults, small businesses, etc. It is a useful tool for public education but for most folks there's a major disconnect between benefits "reported" vs. benefits "felt."
• One of the most touted benefits of the reform bill is that people with particularly bad health, previously hopeless in the private market, can get affordable insurance through a federal program known as the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. It intends to offer coverage to the uninsurable until 2014 when people should be able to choose from affordable policies available on an "Exchange." This plan isn't fully operational and has yet to deliver on promises made: 3,600 individuals have applied and only 1,200 of those have been approved for benefits.
• For details on other perks, The National Center for Policy Analysis just published one of the most readily understandable consumer's guides to the new health law. It covers all the main FAQs including what's in the bill, costs, resources and sufficient situational responses for universal applicability.

What impact will this all have on elections? Well it will probably have a lot according to bloggers, pundits, and political wonks. Republicans are making healthcare reform a wedge issue, spending $24 million on anti-health care reform TV commercials. This has Democrats hot and bothered, and new strategies for effective pro-reform messaging are now being debated internally. At this point in the game, strategists are counseling candidates to talk about other issues on the campaign trail.

As with most reform, implementation takes time. In the meantime, HeadCount is keeping politics fresh and exciting with a new video featuring HeadCount artists like Ben Harper and The National for election season. No matter what: VOTE AGAIN in 2010.

The big debate about Health Care Reform simmered down with the passage of the bill, but it continues to be the core of a nationwide ideological battle over the role government should play. The special interests are also battling it out over how to interpret - or in some cases, I'd say misinterpret - the new law. Here are some recent highlights:

• A pair of Congressmen say some states might have to secede from the union if the health care bill isn't overturned. Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) both say the law puts some states in an untenable position and may force them to go the way of the Confederate States if it isn't repealed. Wamp, who is running for governor in Tennessee, said: "I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government." He has also promised to refuse to implement the law at the state level if he is elected.
• Some insurers, faced with the realities of health care reform, are offering lower cost plans that narrow the number of doctors from which patients can choose. This isn't the only area in which they're looking for loopholes. The bill states that $.80 of every dollar will be spent on actual health care. Are the insurers cool with that? Not so much. Some want to include the costs of checking doctors' credentials and ferreting out fraud as "patient care," and think commissions collected by insurance brokers shouldn't be part of the calculation at all.
• Within the parameters of the new bill, "preventative services" will be free. However, the foggy definition of "preventative care" remains an issue. Immunization and mammograms are among things classified as "preventative," but one item notably not included is birth control, which some feel is "the very definition of a preventative service." And, fellas don't duck out of this debate: you could be a consumer of birth control in the near future too. An Israeli professor has developed the Bright Pill for men, and says it could be on the market in the next five years.
• What about dental? If you were waiting for health care reform to visit a dentist, (which I wouldn't recommend) the new bill offers no relief. Right now, it is estimated that around 132 million don't have any dental plan. Is that bad? This guy thinks it is "white collar robbery."  What's your opinion?
• While the debate rages, the fact is that the lion's share of the laws won't come into effect until 2014. In the meantime, maybe your favorite pastime is good for your health after all: treehugging turns out to be an immunity booster.  If treehugging or rainbows aren't meeting your needs, and like me you're in the market for an affordable health plan, check out these helpful websites to compare costs and apply for insurance.

There are all sorts of ways to stay informed and active as the election season nears and HeadCount wants YOU in the mix! So follow our daily headlines on Twitter or check out our Health Care Reform Issue page.

One teen blogger is "freaking pissed" over retailer Forever 21's recently launched maternity line--marketed specifically in states with the highest teen pregnancy rates. Julie Z. writes, "Having a clothing line specified for teen pregnancy brings the normalization to an all time high, and capitalizing on this 'phenomenon' is gross. Now we don’t even have to give up fashion to be a mommy, not to mention that every time we go into that store we are again hit with the idea 'teen pregnancy is just not that big a deal.'"

Julie Z., understandably, has her own (hilariously described) motivations for waiting to have children, but does that mean that she (or anyone) should be calling another girl’s choice “gross?” Because choice is really what this should be about, right?  Reproductive rights advocates work tirelessly to protect unfettered access to birth control, abortion services, and education about both so that teenage and adult women can educate themselves about their options, so they can choose the best one available.

Although she says she’s not denouncing teen-mothers, “(they shouldn’t be written off from society just because they have kids, y’hear?),” Julie Z. seems to be arguing that teen mothers shouldn’t have access to the hottest sweat-shop produced fashions from Forever 21 by virtue of their burgeoning belly.

What do you think--is Forever 21’s new line evilly and opportunistically fueling unrealistic fantasies of teen-motherhood or simply offering another fit option that now, thanks to years of abstinence-only education, is in high demand?