Up until the time I came to college, my life revolved around basketball. As the youngest of three, I watched my brother and sister play. When my father coached my sister, he brought me along and let me participate in the drills. I could not wait to grow up and be big enough to play on a team. Sports are a fundamental part of our society and are essential to character development. Today is National Girls and Women in Sports Day, and this year marks the 40th anniversary of Title IX, which addresses sexism in public education, including athletics program.

I cannot imagine my life without sports. Playing on a team has taught me crucial life skills that you do not learn in the classroom. Sports introduce children to the concepts of teamwork and a common goal. As they get older, they learn how to respect their coach, teammates, officials, and opposing players. They learn about rules and fairness. They learn how to deal with conflict on and off the court. They see the value of hard work and determination. And most importantly, they have fun.

Playing sports has been a critical component of my life so far. It was the deciding factor when I chose high schools and is the deciding factor for a lot of athletics when choosing a college. Never during my seven years of playing on a school team did I realize the significance of Title IX. Looking back, it saddens me that it took so long for Title IX to happen, almost fifty years after women won the right to vote.

Since the initiation of Title IX, there have been vast improvements in collegiate and high school athletics, however, not nearly enough. Young women in high school still have 1.3 million fewer participation opportunities than their counterparts. Moreover, women are still facing disparity in pay, healthcare, and constitutional equality. While we celebrate National Girls and Women in Sports Day and the 40th anniversary of Title IX, we continue to work for true equality.

According to the media, the public holds the bickering, do-nothing Congress in unprecedented low esteem. But here's some good news: In the weeks and months ahead, there is one area where our legislators can redeem themselves. The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization, and if Congress passes a strong bill, millions of girls and women will have a better chance to escape and heal from sexual, domestic, dating and stalking violence.

We only have to read the latest headlines to know that our nation must continue its work to prevent and respond to the cruel sexual violence, lethal battery and assault that lead to murder and destruction in whole families. Shockingly, three women are killed every day in domestic violence incidents.

VAWA was originally passed in 1994 and currently has the bipartisan support of almost a third of the full Senate. In a nod to harsh economic times, the money authorized has been lowered to the 2000 level, programs have been consolidated, budgets tightened and accountability emphasized.

So why have two of VAWA's former champions failed to sponsor this year's bill? Senators Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley are missing in action, and we all know that sexual and domestic violence still occur all across the nation, including Utah and Iowa.

It isn't just the shelters and crisis centers calling for full Senate support -- the religious, health care and civil rights communities are behind VAWA as well. Most important, the law enforcement community joins our call to sponsor and pass VAWA, with 47 state attorneys general adding their voices, including Utah AG Mark Shurtleff and Iowa's Tom Miller.

Unfortunately, conservatives in the Senate are attempting to drastically reduce VAWA funding through a matching funds scheme that would effectively shut down many smaller anti-violence programs and seriously impact services in larger programs. NOW cautions that this could be the first step toward eventually eliminating federal support.

As both a public health and human rights issue, ending violence against women is a responsibility we all share. If we truly want a nation free of sexual and domestic violence, we must commit to this goal at every level -- as individuals, in our communities, in state legislatures and at the federal level.

This post is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival on reauthorizing VAWA.

It is my first day at NOW. I have been waiting for this day since I heard I got the internship. I am armed with topics and ideas, but none of them seem good enough for my first blog post. So like any other twenty-something I take to the Internet. I want to write an uplifting piece about loving one's self. Disclaimer: This is not that piece. Like any other twenty-something, I am easily distracted when on the Internet, and I stumble upon a whole different issue.

Love yourself. Sounds simple and complex all at the same time but fear not WikiHow has 10 simple steps for you to love yourself better. While I don't have a problem with Wiki's tips, I do have a problem with the ads on the page. Immediately, after step 1, "Treat others with love and respect," appears an ad for relationship advice directed only at women entitled "Why Men Pull Away-10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That Ruins Any Chances of a Relationship." Oh, the irony. As if that is not offensive enough, there are two more ads at the end of the article. One entitled "Make Him Addicted to You" and the other offered symptoms for depression, which leads the reader to believe that only sad, depressed women are interested in loving themselves. Why is that? Do men already love themselves? Do they not care to love themselves better? Or are they born and raised in a society that accepts and loves them already and that should be enough for them?

Not only is it offensive that the male-dominated advertising world assumes only women need to love themselves better, but the ads themselves are just plain offensive. I would not be as put off if the ads were for shoes or clothes. Honestly, I probably would not have even noticed. It is, however, hard to ignore these ads. The fact that women need to change or to avoid certain behaviors to keep a man seems contradictory to a page dedicated to loving oneself better.

While this may not be as glaring as a problem as other issues, the problem lies in its subtlety. It lies in the fact that no one in the male-dominated advertising world was trying to be offensive, but that they just didn't think about it. Before there can be a change in society there needs to be a change in thinking. That is what is so damaging from these ads. It perpetuates the idea that a woman can only really love herself if she catches a man and changes to keep that man.

My glowing memories of childhood playtime are filled with Playmobil villages strewn across my basement floor and of pretending to be space explorers with friends, flying my swingset to distant galaxies. My dream job has always been to work at the toy and game store near my house -- I wanted to get lost in the aisles of brightly colored boxes inviting me become an expert jewelry-maker or fight a pirate battle. So when The Washington Post published a holiday gift guide in the Kidspost a few weeks ago, I snuck a peek ["Best toys for the holiday season, as picked by local kids," November 17]. To my utter disappointment, two of the sections stated in bold print: JUST FOR BOYS and JUST FOR GIRLS. I might expect this kind of gender essentialism from toy corporations like Wal-Mart or Toys R Us, but my beloved Washington Post? How could they do such a thing?

Apparently, making clay beads and pipe cleaner animals is "just for girls," and playing with marble ramps and fancy tops is "just for boys." The Post redeemed themselves minutely in my eyes by publishing a letter to the editor with the same views as myself. Still, I have questions for this journalist. Did she decide which toys were appropriate for which gender, or did the children pick them? Were the testers forbidden from trying out the toys assigned to the other gender? It's unfair that the Beyblades Triple Battle Set, which one (male) tester called "the best toy ever," is considered a boys only toy.

I decided to investigate Wal-Mart's marketing of toys to girls and boys this holiday season to see how the country's largest toy seller handles this issue. Interestingly, Wal-Mart breaks some stereotypical gender divides. Most of the toys in their 100 Hottest Gifts for Girls list are arts and crafts, baby dolls, and other pink items, but included as well are Nerf guns shaped like real firearms and rugged bikes in shades of bright green and red, like the Huffy Green Machine 20X (although the full description of this item calls it a "20 inch boys' extreme machine"). The Hottest Gifts for Boys list includes kitchen play sets, jewelry making kits, and a dollhouse.

Don't think I'm jumping up and down for Wal-Mart, however. Shortly after the Supreme Court responded to proof of systematic sex discrimination against women associates in pay and promotion with an opinion declaring the retailer "too big to sue" using class-action status, Wal-Mart unveiled a Global Women's Economic Empowerment Initiative that is an insulting façade of progress toward equality for women. I'm curious to know whether the Nerf guns for girls and dollhouses for boys is part of this "look, now we're so women-friendly" tactic.

I'd like to see toy companies and reviewers let kids and parents decide for themselves which toys they prefer, rather than dividing them into "just for girls" and "just for boys." It's acceptable for someone to point out that one gender tended to prefer a particular toy, but no one should limit a child's options by saying that a toy is absolutely not for them. Being a kid was fun because we could play however we wanted and make anything we imagined become real, so let's stop limiting the next generation's choices and imaginations.

President Obama has come forward and said he did "not get involved" in Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' unusual overrule of the Food and Drug Administration's recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available to all women on an over-the-counter basis, regardless of age.

In supporting her decision while still leaving a little wiggle room for others to perhaps have her take the fall for justifiable outrage from the medical community, the scientific community and women's rights supporters, he also went on to perpetuate the secretary's specious argument that "a 10 year-old or an 11 year-old" might be able to purchase the medication and experience an adverse effect. He went on to argue that "most parents probably feel the same way."

First, it's ridiculous to single out 10 and 11 year-olds as a supposed way to contradict medical evidence that the drug is safe for all, on an over-the-counter basis, regardless of age. Nearly all 10 and 11 year-olds are not having sex. Even if they are, is stopping a sexually active 10 or 11 year-old with up to 72 hours to safely prevent an unintended preganancy a wise public health move? No. Preying on fears about pre-teen youth and sexuality to justify denying safe emergency contraception on an over-the-counter basis to teenage women (those who will be really hurt by the administration's overreach) is cowardice. Further, this means that everyone, even women who are 40, will have to speak to a pharmacist to get emergency contraception.

In addition, hearing President Obama stand behind this condescending, disempowering overreach of young women (and all women) with a nod to the feelings of parents doesn't feel any better. Reproductive justice includes the fundamental right to self-determination. No one, the church, the state, the president, a cabinet secretary, and not even parents or family members, should have the ability to decide for any woman if, whether and when she should be pregnant.

Who did what when is not of importance in the ideological and wrong decision to overrule the FDA's recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available to all women on an over-the-counter basis, regardless of age. At this moment in many somewheres there are many women, of varying ages, who cannot purchase emergency contraception without producing a medically unneccessary form of identification and/or doctor's prescription. There are two words for putting hoops between women and the fundamental right to self-determination: sex discrimination.

Shame on President Obama.