I'm about to have a stroke I think.

[ICLori]

Honestly, I'm so angry about this I don't know what to do.
Blessings, and may God protect us women from those who view us as nothing but incubators with legs...

Lori

##################################################
The Care And Maintenance of the Aquarium

The Washington Post honors the recently passed Mother's Day by a most interesting article on the health of the newborn:

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

While most of these recommendations are well known to women who are pregnant or seeking to get pregnant, experts say it's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed.


Are you prepared for this, ladies between the ages of fifteen and fifty-five? You are now in the state of pre-pregnancy! Like a lovely empty aquarium, which needs to be kept ready for any goldfish someone might slip into it. It is not really your own health that concerns your physician, no. It's the potential health of any potential fetus that somehow might appear in your uterus. You must keep your uterus healthy. You should maintain a healthy weight not because it's good for your heart but because it's good for some future imaginary fetus. And these instructions apply to every single woman theoretically able to get pregnant, including nuns. It. Does. Not. Matter. If. The. Woman. Does. Not. Plan. To. Have. Children. Any. Time. Soon. Or. Even. Ever. Because women can't decide for themselves, you know. And because potential future children are much more important than already existing women. And because women exist for the purpose to breed children, just as aquaria exist for the goldfish.

So, my dear aquaria, remember these easy steps: Your boyfriends and husbands and other potential inseminators can do whatever they please: smoke, drink, take up hazardous jobs. But you are the precious aquarium in which their goldfish will one day swim and as nobody knows exactly when they will slip the fish in you better be always prepared. Like a new kind of girl scout.

Or like the women in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Those women also were urged to eat healthy foods, to exercize and to refrain from smoking and drinking, because they were handmaids: women intended for the breeding of babies. Atwood's book is about a dystopia. It's a little frightening that we have something slightly similar in a government recommendation today, with the difference that our program is still voluntary. For how long it will stay that way remains to be seen.

The reactions in the lefty blogosphere have largely been like mine: shock and fear. Later on I will spell out very clearly why I felt both shock and fear, but some of the reasons have been better stated elsewhere. The Broadsheet, for example, comments on the real reasons for the high infant mortality rates in the United States and how the recommendations of this report largely ignore those: poverty and no access to the health care system:


But that's because we have a sick and failing healthcare system that leaves millions of disadvantaged Americans without anything resembling the care they require. Almost 17 million women lack health insurance.

Pretending that we're going to solve this problem by instituting guidelines that treat women as baby incubators is not the solution. All it does is reinforce an attitude that problems women have with reproduction are the only ones worth worrying about. How about federal recommendations about using birth control to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases? How about federal guidelines that require doctors to talk to women about the dangers smoking, poor nutrition, unprotected sex, drug use, lack of exercise, and heavy drinking can pose for them, and not just their precious potential cargo?

Dressing up this "pre-conception care" crap -- which is supposed to be administered by every doctor a woman sees, from her G.P. to her gynecologist, perhaps even her podiatrist -- as "a reproductive health plan" to help women shut out of the healthcare system doesn't track.

Even the report itself notes that women who already cannot afford to see a doctor -- the ones whose pregnancies are compromised by poor or nonexistent prenatal care -- aren't likely to be able to get their "pre-pregnancy care" either, since obstacles to this "include getting insurance companies to pay for visits."

No, mostly this sounds like an Orwellian language trick played by the healthcare authorities, letting you know why your health as a woman really matters.

And Stunt Woman in the comments section of this Eschaton post on the same topic concisely states the unfairness of these recommendations by rephrazing them to apply to men:

New federal guidelines ask all males capable of ejaculation to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as active studs, regardless of whether they plan to impregnate a female or donate sperm in the near future.

Among other things, this means all men after their first ejaculation should refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight, keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control, avoid known mutagens such as caffeine, and keep their scrotum from extremes of temperature.

Ejaculating men are also urged to avoid participating in sports with fast moving projectiles or other objects which might injure their testicles and cause their sperm to mutate.

When it's put this way the horror of the proposal becomes considerably clearer. Men are never asked to consider themselves as the potential purveyors of healthy goldfish for women's aquaria. Even though medical evidence shows that sperm quality can be affected by workplace exposure to toxins and by smoking and drinking.

Not all commenters on the government recommendations view them with my reactions. Some men think the ideas are good ones, possibly because they are not asked to modify forty years of their own lives for the sake of two or three pregnancies during those four decades. I also got the impression that most of those who viewed the proposal favorably assumed that "preconception care" applies to only those few months when a couple tries to get pregnant. That's not what the government recommendations state. All women are assumed to be either pre-pregnant or pregnant from menarche to menopause. Aquaria, in other words.
#########################
Please read next message for part II

[ICLori]

Part II:

######################################
I find these recommendations frightening. They really taste like the Handmaid's Tale to me, they taste like scorn to women as human beings, they taste like contempt towards women's ability to plan their own lives. Women have been made into tools for the purpose of giving birth to babies, and now women are to live their lives as tools. That the goal of the recommendations is a laudable one doesn't change any of this. Human beings are not to be regarded as mere tools, not even for the purpose of saving other human beings.

And consider the tradeoffs that the government has decided to find worthwhile: To have all fertile women on their toes all the time, for the sake of future and currently nonexisting fetuses, but to say nothing about the things that fertile men should do. To seriously recommend that a woman keeps herself superfit for pregnancy from the age of fifteen to the age of fifty-five. To recommend that she stays away from lead paint and cat feces and jobs that can be hazardous for developing fetuses, and not just when she is planning to become pregnant and during pregnancy, but every single month of those forty years! What this means, for example, is that no fertile women should have cats as pets, and soon it might mean that no fertile women can work in certain industries. And every woman should buy folic acid supplements for forty years (add up how much that costs), because it has been shown that it's impossible to get the necessary amount of folic acid for the prevention of birth defects from a good diet alone. Then add the mercury in fish and it might well be a bad idea for any fertile woman to eat fish. Forget about drinking, even if a glass of red wine might be good for your heart. Alcohol is not advised for pregnant women and now all women are potentially pregnant.

The assumption these recommendations make is that no woman can control her own fertility, even if she takes oral contraceptives, even if she is unpartnered, even if she is a nun in a convent. And why does the government assume this? Because roughly one half of all pregnancies are unplanned. This does NOT mean that every woman has a fifty percent chance of unplanned pregnancies, but it's easier for the government to ignore that. Once women are viewed as aquaria a lot of steps become easy.

Is it really necessary to regard us as fish tanks? Suppose that we make a very radical assumption: that physicians should care for women for the sake of their own health. What might happen if we took this unprecedented step? Can I make a guess? The women would also be healthy for any future pregnancies! But I keep forgetting that it makes no sense to talk about the health of aquaria, only of the fish in them, and the only cause of ill health in those goldfish is naturally the aquarium.

How many million fertile women are there in this country? Estimate the cost of providing all the necessary behavior modifications so that each of them becomes a pristine aquarium. That would be a very large amount of money. What if we spent the same amount of money in a different way: By buying health insurance coverage for poor women who currently have none and by starting antenatal clinics in poor areas.

Which do you think would save more infant lives? I'd be willing to bet the latter does, because the U.S. infant mortality rate is high largely because of the high mortality rate in poor and largely black areas. Why not focus the resources first to the neediest areas, by making sure that the women who are planning to get pregnant or who are currently pregnant have access to good care? Why are we doing the exact reverse, by redefining pregnancy as something all women are almost falling into? Consider that the average woman has somewhere around two children during those forty years, and it is fairly clear that for the vast majority of those forty years she is not pre-pregnant and it's really quite inane to treat her that way: like an aquarium.

[Betsie]

Wow!

I was thinking about George Orwell before the end of the first paragraph! In 1970 the Big Brother concept seemed way too "out there"!!!! Not sure when it was actually written....:hmm:

This is creepy Lori, I may end up in ICU next to you! Little did I know that as my daughters hit the ripe old age of 12/13 my job was to PREPARE them to be baby makers, when in fact I was preparing them for exactly the opposite!!

Thanks for posting...I think???:dizzy:

[ICLori]

Thank you, Betsie. I am very afraid of the implications of this policy by the CDC.

Will this mean that it will be illegal soon for all women to smoke or drink or take OTC medicines (those are all banned during pregnancy) from the ages of 12 until 55?

Does it mean no woman of childbearing age will be able to receive an X-ray, since she must be treated at all times as if she were already pregnant?

Does it mean all medicines banned during pregnancy will also be banned for all women from the ages of 12-55 - including birth control, lifesaving medicines, cancer treatments, etc?

I'm very scared by what I feel is an insult and really an assault against all women of childbearing age, and I just wonder how long it will be before we will see legislation backing up this preposterous CDC stance.

Blessings,
Lori

[ICLori]

17 May 2006
Your Uterus Your Self
Filed under: Gender Issues, Health — Terry @ 10:53 am
UPDATE: you can read the complete CDC report here.

Your federal government thinks you should view yourself as a storage device for your uterus and now wants your doctor to see you that way, too. Want to have a glass of wine with dinner or work in asbestos removal? If you’re a woman, forget it. You gave up those rights when you chose to go through puberty.

From the Washington Post:

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves — and to be treated by the health care system — as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

While most of these recommendations are well known to women who are pregnant or seeking to get pregnant, experts say it’s important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed.

The recommendations aim to “increase public awareness of the importance of preconception health” and emphasize the “importance of managing risk factors prior to pregnancy,” said Samuel Posner, co-author of the guidelines and associate director for science in the division of reproductive health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which issued the report.

That’s right. You shouldn’t watch your health because it’s best for you, but because it’s important for something that’s more important than you: your potential fetus.

The article goes on:

Research shows that “during the first few weeks (before 52 days’ gestation) of pregnancy” — during which a woman may not yet realize she’s pregnant — “exposure to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; lack of essential vitamins (e.g., folic acid); and workplace hazards can adversely affect fetal development and result in pregnancy complications and poor outcomes for both the mother and the infant,” the report states.

That’s right. Women shouldn’t ever drink–it’s not good for baby–even if she never intends to become pregnant. Alcohol is the privilege of men. Likewise, women shouldn’t be exposed to workplace hazards, either. Guess that means that women should be excluded from certain jobs because a fetus might not like it.

“We know that women — unless you’re actively planning [a pregnancy], . . . she doesn’t want to talk about it,” Biermann said. So clinicians must find a “way to do this and not scare women,” by promoting preconception care as part of standard women’s health care, she said.

Yup. She’s too stupid and too stubborn to think of her potential “baby on board.” Better write guidelines that remind her of her place in the food chain. As a vessel.

Some medical facilities have already found a way to weave preconception care in with regular visits. At Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, N.Y., a form that’s filled out when checking a patient’s height, weight and blood pressure prompts nurses to ask women, “Do you smoke, and do you plan to become pregnant in the next year? And if not, what birth control are you using?”

“It’s a simple way of getting primary care providers to think about preconception care,” said Peter Bernstein, a maternal fetal medicine specialist who sat on the advisory committee that helped produce the report. “It’s simple and [it] costs nothing.”

My question is this: if all women between puberty and menopause are to be treated as pre-pregnant, does that mean doctors should withhold needed medical care because a woman is potentially fertile? No antibiotics, no antidepressants, no x-rays, no vaccinations, no general anesthesia for surgery, no surgery at all? After all, she might be pregnant and not know it. Where do we draw the line?

My oldest daughter fought acne for all of her teenaged years, yet her dermatologist refused to prescribe Accutane, the most effective drug on the market. Why? Because she was female and it might cause birth defects in a fetus. Yet my 16-year-old son was offered it on his first visit, even though his acne was not nearly as severe. Guess he’s lucky not to be pre-pregnant.

Who decides what birth control method is acceptable enough to allow women to be considered adults? Is a diaphragm or condoms enough, or will only hormonal contraception do? Even the Pill has a failure rate, so maybe only a tubal ligation is safe. I’m menopausal; does that mean I’m more worthy of full care than my 19 and 23-year-old daughters? Oh,wait. Both my grandmothers had “change of life” babies. Maybe even menopause isn’t good enough to make me not “pre-pregnant.” Who sets the standard?

Yes, doctors should practice preventative medicine and advocate effective birth control. But that should be in place because it’s good for women, not because of what MIGHT happen in their uteri.

I am more than my fertility potential and deserve to be treated as such.

[Mrs. Burschman]

This is pretty creepy, although you really can't argue that some of the health recommendations (not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, controlling diabetes) are good to follow regardless.

This does make me think of misoprostol. I've wondered if I would be allowed to try it, since I'm of prime baby-making age (30). I wonder if the fact that I don't want kids would play any role. Doubtful.

Amy (Mrs. B) :bunny:

[ICLori]

I know several doctors refused to let me try cytotec because I was of child-bearing age. Perhaps they were afraid I'd get pregnant and sue them?

Anyway, in my life I've been turned down for tubal ligation (you don't have any kids honey and you'll change your mind, all women want children), accutane (I refuse to prescribe that to any females), doxycycline (at 43, you are entering your prime childbearing years and this can cause birth defects) and cytotec.

I have been treated by the medical profession like a walking uterus more times than I care for.

The worst was when one urogyn asked me (I was there about my IC, and made that clear at the start of the visit) "Why don't you have any children?" "Because I don't want any." "What about your HUSBAND? Does HE want children?" (Meaning, my choice does not matter - only my husband's choice matters...)

I'm sorry if this topic is a downer, I just feel we need to really be aware of this issue as women and understand that it may adversely impact the health care we receive, whether for IC or other illnesses.

Blessings,
Lori

[Sarojini]

Good Lord!!!!!!!!!!!! I am steamin' mad about this!!! :cussing:

Of course, I knew that there were some out there that thought this way, like my ex-gynecologist who said my IC would go away if I'd just get pregnant already -- after all, at the time I was 31 and he "didn't understand why I hadn't had any children yet." You can see why he's my EX-gyno.

I really, really worry about the way this country is headed in terms of womens' health. It is an issue that has concerned me for a long time...

[ICLori]

All day long I've been going back and forth in my head, "am I overreacting? Or is this really scary?" And I've been thinking, maybe I shouldn't have posted this here, people don't need any more bad news. And then I think, "but what if people can't get the medicines or procedures they need, because of this, what if the doctor tells them to just suffer with IC because they have to keep their bodies pure for babies, so they can't have Elavil or Elmiron or pain pills or DMSO or anything?"

Do you guys think doctors will start denying us these medicines because of this new CDC thing? Or do you think they will be pretty much the same as always, with some doctors denying women medicines because of childbearing fears, and some doctors letting women have medicines in spite of the fear that they might become pregnant?

I've had doctors refuse my valid requests for medicine before, because of this issue, and I just wonder if it's going to get worse now, and if so, how much worse? I guess we just have to wait and see but I'm honestly really worried.

Jen, what an awful gyn - thank goodness you made him an ex! I've also been concerned over what's been happening in recent years, with pharmacists refusing to allow women to purchase their birth control pills, and the government banning the HPV vaccine that could save the lives of so many women. They have also said they will ban any HIV vaccine that may be developed. The fear is that by reducing the consequences of sex, it might encourage people to have sex, and the aim of the government right now is to ensure that sex is used only for procreation and not recreation.

This is somewhat unrelated, but did anyone see the FOX news special where they were urging white women to have more babies, because we are "losing the race" demographically speaking? The fear is that our country may not be white enough in the future. I wonder how long it will be before all white women are required to give birth to X number of children or face prison?

Hmmm...can you tell I'm scared to death at the direction I see our nation going?

All day long I've been having to remind myself to breathe. Last night after reading this stuff I woke up with my jaw hurting from clenching my teeth so hard - I had been dreaming about all of this and the nightmare world I think we are heading into.

Blessings,
Lori

[Betsie]

Hey Lori,

Given the content of that paper, I don't think it is over reacting. I think it is a scary thing in 2006 to even think that women's health in any aspect could take a step backwards. There are so many areas we need to be vigilant in looking out for ourselves and even if this doesn't come to fruition, it bears repeating...just as a reminder for us to stay tuned.

I have thought about this too. Honestly? I don't see this happening. I do see guidelines being implemented in Public health for overall issues, still an assault in a way to women. It reminds me of the food pyramid, or the presidential fitness program, etc. What I don't see is the cessation of Rx treatment, diagnostic tests and surgeries and procedures, etc.

Let's face it, even when we are denied certain aspects of medicine we feel we need...this is still corporate America and a whole bunch of money is made off of health issues. Hospitals are already in serious account deficits and HMO's run the rest of us. I just don't see the child bearing woman of this country being cut off from paying into the system for that many years.

The malpractice issues seem like they would be out of control. Imagine a woman being denied heart meds!!! I had to go on these when pregnant due to a natal issue.

What I DO see that might happen is certain Drs/NP's possibly attaching themselves to the principles of the CDC guidelines. Not much different than religious beliefs, political views, etc. I can really see these guidelines being made public and taking up lots of space in media and journals. So, naturally someone is going to be affected.

I have wonderful health care, and when things aren't great, they are corrected pretty quickly. The Drs that I use I have known for sometime and I am pretty sure, this wouldn't fall into their framework.

It bears watching and I may be way off base, but I just can't see this really becoming "practice". I hope you sleep better tonight.

[ICLori]

Thanks, Betsie. I hope so much that doctors will have the good sense to not treat women as if they were already pregnant all the time.

I mean, it's fine to have pregnancy tests before giving meds out or doing surgeries. I have no problem with that. But it riles me up when women are refused medicines they really need for their health, just because they might become pregnant. That boils down to valuing a theoretical, non-existant fetus more than the woman who is already here and alive, and I can't abide by that.

Blessings,
Lori

[Mrs. Burschman]

I asked my husband what he thought at dinner. He thought we definitely have a right to be mad, and it just proves that the United States seems to value people with kids more than those who don't have any.

He also said women could get anything they want if they just band together and start refusing men sex. He said he'd give the male population one week, then we'd be in charge.

Amy (Mrs. B) :bunny:

[TabbiH]

I've heard of doctors that will prescribe accutane ONLY if the patient agrees to take birth control pills while on it. Seems to address the problem quite nicely.

In a way, this is funny. Just think..."Sorry, honey. You have to clean the litterbox for the rest of eternity. It might be bad for a potential baby's health. Sorry, honey. You have to clean the bathroom. I can't be exposed to those chemicals." I'm also exempt from work and taking care of any children we already have, because that might put undue stress on my body and mental state. :)

And at the same time scary. Running a pregnancy test is standard for women of childbearing age. I had an ER doc once do one. My parents took me to the ER, and my husband had been out of the country for about four months. Good thing it was negative!

[ICLori]

Actually, it's required now that any doctor who prescribes Accutane, has the patient sign a form that indicates she is using two reliable forms of birth control, and the patient has to also take monthly pregnancy tests.

BTW, these are the kind of men that are now in charge of women's health in our country - be afraid, be very afraid:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Dr. David Hager: God Told Him to Sodomize Wife

by US NEWSWIRE

"Hager opened his Bible to the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel and looked out into the audience. "I want to share with you some information about how...God has called me to stand in the gap," he declared. "Not only for others, but regarding ethical and moral issues in our country.

"But life with David Hager had grown unbearable. As his public profile increased, so did the tension in their home, which she says periodically triggered episodes of abuse. "I would be asleep," she recalls, "and since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off.... I would [confront] David later, and he would say, 'You asked me to do that,' and I would say, 'No, I never asked for it.'"

In a special investigation published by The Nation, reporter Ayelish McGarvey profiles FDA adviser Dr. W. David Hager, who played an instrumental role in blocking the availability of the "Plan B" morning-after pill for moral reasons, and who is accused by his former wife of sexual abuse.


Hager is a prominent, socially conservative Ob-Gyn and a Bush Administration appointee to the FDA's Advisory Committee on Reproductive Health Drugs. The article reveals that Hager wielded crucial influence behind the scenes of the FDA's highly controversial 2004 decision to prohibit the sale of Plan B over the counter. According to Hager, he authored a "minority opinion" that was read by the FDA commissioner and used in the ruling against Plan B. The Washington Post published two articles about this previously undisclosed maneuver by Hager that was first reported in The Nation. Additionally, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray called on Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Levitt to investigate Hager's actions.

Despite his public moralizing on sexual matters, Hager, according to his former wife, Linda Carruth Davis, repeatedly sodomized her without her consent throughout the last seven years of their 32-year marriage, the article reports.

The Nation editors note, "These serious allegations are relevant to the public role of the subject of the profile, who was appointed by President Bush to be a custodian of women's health."

Currently, prominent members of the U.S. Senate, including Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray, have held up Lester M. Crawford's nomination as FDA director over the agency's handling of the Plan B decision.

Dr. Hager is up for reappointment to the FDA committee on June 30.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is the same guy who, as a physician, prescribed prayer for menstrual cramps and refused to give birth control to unmarried women.

[Sarojini]

I too have been avidly following these issues with womens' health, as is my husband. BOTH of us agree that you are not overreacting, Lori. We both find this scary -- both of us were extremely frustrated and angry when, as you point out, Plan B was not allowed to become an OTC medication. We both disagree with the FDA -- we do not believe this would encourage teens to have sex, or to have unprotected sex; we DO believe it would help prevent unplanned pregnancy and reduce the abortion rate and other things. Now, this is just OUR opinion and others are definitely allowed theirs -- but to us, this is a terrible tragedy and we do not like this.

We also do not like the fact that the CDC and NIH websites have, in the past, been forced to put false info on their websites regarding womens' health. For example they were required to print that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer later in life, even though several large, well-controlled studies have been done that show absolutely NO correlation. There have been other similar instances as well.

In addition, in certain areas of the country, doctors are now required to distribute government pamphlets to women stating some of this false information, which I think is abhorrent. I have read articles in which doctors disagree with the pamphlet yet are required to give it -- luckily the doctors in the articles give the pamphlet and then explain that they disagree with it, but are required by their employers to hand it out.

As a scientist, I have reviewed the studies, as have many of my colleages, and there is actually a movement within the scientist community to try and prevent this kind of propaganda. Again, I am not advocating one way or the other for abortion, and people can believe what they wish regarding it -- I simply disagree with the distribution of false information to women.

In other areas, yes, I am also irritated that the possibility of pregnancy is dictating what medications women are allowed to take in some instances. Luckily, I do have good health care and have not been DENIED medication because I am of childbearing age, BUT at my pain clinic, I DID have to sign a pain contract -- and one of the things I had to agree to was to use birth control at all times while being treated. I understand WHY it is important not to become pregnant while on narcotics; however, I felt as if I was being treated like an idiot... like, if I wanted to get pregnant, I'd discuss it with the doctor first to see how to get off the medication rather than just getting pregnant!!

I guess perhaps there are women who would not, but still, it is evidence that my baby-making capacity would affect treatment.

Luckily, I have a husband who is very supportive of womens' rights, so we can be angry together.

[Betsie]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5506.pdf

I haven't personally read this...I just went to the CDC and checked on various links to see what was up. I found this and it "seems to be" the likely referendum or recommendation that speaks to this topic. I am enclosing it here so it can be read by anyone if interested. I wonder if it will make the actual intent more clear.

Not certain it is the same though...


I just read Sarojinis post and maybe Jen has already read this. Or can easily point out if I have confused the guidelines. I don't want to attach this to the thread if it isn't accurate. Especially since I haven't read it myself.

[maryla]

Lori,

This is sooooooo scarry! It reeeeeeeeeks of politics. DON'T GET ME STARTED! I tend to see it as another way for our government to worm it's way in for more control and oppression.

Has anyone been paying attention to the latest tax bill? It will not benefit the "so called" middle class at all. From what I hear it will further the gap between the haves and the havenots. :headbang:

I don't confess to be an expert on this subject. However, I have worked within the system enough to see that our government is becoming more and more darwinistic and it is scarry not only for us, but, for the future of our loved ones!

Lori, I am glad that you were paying attention to this issue and you brought it here for us to see and have an opinion. I for one didn't see it. I think ,as women we need to pay attention to these matters. Afterall, the issue was about us and how it all may have an important impact on our lives!

Okay, I am down from my soap box now! Wishing everyone a GREAT weekend:smile tee !

God Bless to All!

[U]

WE MUST BE THE CHANGE THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD! GHANDI

[ICLori]

I'm so glad that you guys see the same thing I'm seeing. Every day I turn on the news and it's always something like Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, the man responsible for setting policy for women's health is a wife-sodomizer...and I have been very aware too of the lies that doctors are forced to tell women and the lies that the NIH and CDC are forced to carry on their websites.

It reminds me of how scientists were once burned at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

The thing is, I see things happening around me that remind me of The Handmaid's Tale but I feel utterly powerless to stop it. I keep wondering just how bad things will get. I think things will get much, much worse before they get better.

One prediction I feel I can make is that it will soon be mandated by law that caucasian women have X number of children, with dire penalties if they do not. I also think that the laws against domestic abuse and rape will be done away with - it will be seen as a God-given right to beat women, kill them, rape children, etc. I think soon there will be a law that says everyone must attend the national church (whether that is the church you actually believe in or not) and tithe to those churches. I believe every other religion will be outlawed. There's a word that really tickled me that I've seen on the internet to describe people who would force these kind of policies into law...christofascists.

I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing what has been happening, and speculating about how much worse things will get before the sane majority of the country stands up and says "enough."

Blessings,
Lori

[maryla]

Lori,

Funny you should mention domestic violence laws being abolished. :hmm: Six months after Bush became President, My program I ran, an intervention program for batterers of DV and violence, was cancelled due to Bush's cut of my grant!:headbang: PAY ATTENTION LADY'S!

Thanks again Lori for a much needed discussion where women are concerned!

God Bless to all!:kiss: :grouphug:

[maryla]

Oh, I'm not familiar with Handmaid's Tale? Is It a book?

:grouphug: :kiss:

[ICLori]

It's a great book and I would highly recommend it for anyone who would like to see what can happen when the government becomes theocratic rather than democratic. Actually, you can just look at what the Taliban did to women, if you want to know what our lives will be like if the current trend towards theocracy continues unopposed.

Here's a link:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:MWlNr-iqJPEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale+The+Handmaid%27s+Tale&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

Blessings, Lori

[July]

I would hope that this program would increase the numbers of healthy women in America who make good health care choices for themselves. If then they should become pregnant, I see a great advantage of going into the pregnancy healthy and knowledegeable. If they never become pregnant, they will still maintain a healthy lifestyle and hopefully have a reduced occurrence of illnesses/injuries.

[ICLori]

I'm all for healthy women - and healthy men - and healthy babies.

What this latest CDC pronouncement can lead to, however, are such things as:

Making it illegal for all women of childbearing age to smoke - whether they plan to have children or not.

Making it illegal for all women of childbearing age to drink - whether they plan to have children or not.

Making it illegal for all women of childbearing age to use OTC pain relievers, antihistamines, and other meds that might hurt a potential, non-existant fetus. Not just while they are pregnant, but in the pre-pregnancy stage as well - from ages 12 to 55.

Making it illegal for women to obtain diagnostic X-rays or any other procedures from the ages of 12-55.

What this is calling for is for health officials to treat all women of childbearing age as if they are pregnant, all the time.

Is that really what we want, as women?

What about those of us who knew from a very early age that we never ever ever ever ever ever ever wanted to have a baby? If I were to fall pregnant, despite being on the pill, it wouldn't matter if I smoked or drank, because I would have an abortion. I am looking forward to menopause, I dream of the day when I will be free of this fear of pregnancy.

I also feel that life is mostly about suffering. The joy is never as good as you had hoped, but the pain and misery and suffering is always far worse than what you had feared. I remember my father telling me that in some Asian cultures (don't know if this is true or not) they cry at a birth and laugh in joy at a funeral, because they believe that life is primarily suffering. I have to agree with that viewpoint. When I look back at all the things I have suffered in my life - so much physical illness, so much emotional pain, being raped from the age of 5 until 10by someone who was supposed to love and protect me, being beaten and whipped with a belt, being slapped and thrown into walls as a child, being forcibly sodomized as a young adult by a man I thought I loved, and the sadness of losing loved ones to death - there is just too much sadness and pain in life and I can't imagine ever hating someone enough to inflict life upon them, let alone a being whose face I have never seen. I don't ever want to bring a being into this life because I am too aware of what this life is all about. Almost every day I wish I had never been born. I am not suicidal, but I wish that I had been spared the suffering.


This latest thing from the CDC has nothing to do with healthy women/healthy babies. If they cared about that, they'd make health care available to all.

What this is, I feel, is a thinly veiled attempt to control and bludgeon women into submission.

Actually, I'm thinking I should take up smoking...this CDC b.s. is just making me feel a TAD bit rebellious.

The CDC can kiss my pre-pregnant rear end.

Blessings,
Lori

[maryla]

I am going to get the book, Seems quite interesting!

thanks, Lori:kiss: :grouphug:

[July]

It is hard for me to read your words for many reasons. However, I do sincerely hope that you are able to get answers to questions/concerns you may have regarding these new recommendations/guidelines.

[ICLori]

I've already decided that I am going to bring up tubal ligation with my doctor at the next appointment. Although I'm only a couple months shy of my 45th birthday, and therefore probably safe from pregnancy at this point, I want to make sure that I am never denied needed medications and treatment. I still have six more years until I reach the average age of menopause, and as I said before, I am very afraid of what I see happening to our country in regards to womens rights.

I asked several doctors when I was in my 20's for a tubal ligation, but they all figuratively speaking patted me patronizingly on the head and told me "all women lurve baybeez, you'll change your mind soon." Actually far less than five percent of childfree women ever change their minds after tubal ligation, but I can understand (sort of) doctors wanting to be cautious. Anyway, I think at my age now, perhaps doctors will see that I am old enough to know my own mind, and will grant me the procedure I asked for over 20 years ago.

I was born to be a cat mommy, not a human mommy, and that's all there is to it. And it makes me mad that the CDC is now trying to shove this "mommyhood" thing down my throat.

Blessings, Lori

P.S. I know I am speculating about what effects this CDC thing will have on doctors, but since I've already been denied medicine I needed because of having a functioning womb, I don't think my fears are entirely unjustified.

[vm]

Just an honestly friendly word of caution about discussing particular political parties and particular "brands" of churches. That has spiralled into big debates here before so be careful, OK? :) There are posters here who like the current administration or belong to those churches. (And, no, I'm not one of them - just asking people to be careful .....)

[ICLori]

Okay, thanks! I went back and edited the post where I referred to a politician by name and churches by name.

Blessings,
Lori

[vm]

Cool. I'm not one who minds debates - I go to some other message boards where there are big old knock down drag outs. I just know that in the past at the ICN threads have been closed when people got upset during debates over politics. It wasn't that way here on this thread at all - just trying to head it off in case it did happen. :)

[~*~Christine~*~]

Maybe I missed something but I don't find anything wrong with the report. It's just stating that it would be a good idea for women to take folic acid, and such, if they become pregnant one day.
I didn't see anything that suggested that they wouldn't allow women to smoke, drink or/and not take folic acid, it just suggested that it would be a good idea since it will help reduce the numbers of birth defects and miscarriages.
I personally think it's a good idea that young women, like myself, who plan on having children one day know about this information so we can prevent harm to our future children. Of course not everyone wants to have children, that's your choice, therefore you can disregard the info provided since it is no use to you.

In terms of the other topics brought up here, such as the US administration, abortion and religion, it definitely crossed the line, IMO, for this board. There are tons and tons of political debate boards/forums/blogs on the web to discuss these topics; this site should stay neutral on such topics as not to cause anymore divisions/fights here.

[ICLori]

The report specifically says that physicans should not prescribe teratogenic drugs to women of child-bearing age - whether or not they plan to become pregnant. That means that, for instance, my physician could refuse to prescribe me Cyclosporine-A because of this. One woman wrote that she was refused cipro by her physician for a UTI, and given another, less effective medicine, because "cipro can cause birth defects." It didn't matter that she offered to take a pregnancy test and told her doctor she was on the pill - her health did not matter nearly as much as the health of an imaginary, non-existant fetus.


I've already had drugs that I needed denied to me because I was of childbearing age and because I could not get a doctor to tie my tubes for me. I found that frustrating beyond belief. I am worried the situation will get even worse.

Since this has come out, other women have been writing on sites about their experiences with doctors denying them medications because they have a womb.

I do realize abortion is not approved of by some people; however, if I were to become pregnant by accident, I would certainly have one, and I would hope that I could talk about that on the boards just as I would talk about any other legal surgical procedure, such as a surgery for endometriosis.

Blessings,
Lori

[~*~Christine~*~]

ah, okay. I was not aware that we were denying women medications. I do not agree with that, at all.

In Canada, they allow prescriptions for drugs such as Accutane but you must go for monthly blood tests, to check organ function and cholesterol, and give a urine sample to check for pregnancy before a refill is given. I have no problem with this system; doctors are just trying to cover their butts from law suits and I can empathize with that

[VickiB]

This is an interesting topic!

IMO, I see this, like in so many other areas of our lives as well, as a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation for the medical community. It seems we want to hold them responsible for what ever might go wrong, yet want them to stay out of our lives. In truth, we can't have it both ways.

Personally, I prefer to live with the consequences of my own decisions and would like to see a lot less intervention 'for my own good'. This doesn't seem to be the thinking of the majority of people in the world today.

Vicki

[ICLori]

I can understand docs wanting to avoid lawsuits, too...too many lawsuits these days. Plus, wanting a negative pregnancy test before giving potentially harmful drugs or getting X-rays etc. makes sense and doesn't harm the woman at all.

But this is the post that really upset me - this woman's life is literally threatened because she can't get the right epilepsy drugs that she needs, because she is of child-bearing age. In my case, all I had to do was go to a different doctor to get the meds I needed - it wasn't that big of a deal. And none of my conditions were life-threatening. But just imagine yourself in this woman's shoes:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

What I’m concerned about is that the guidelines will provide more cover for doctors who already do things like withhold effective treatments from their non-pregnant patients on the grounds that the treatments are harmful to a hypothetical fetus, even when the alternative, fetus-safe treatment does not adequately control the condition or has more severe side effects for the patient than the fetus-harming treatment. To wit:

But the words “federal guidelines” and “pre-pregnant” are not just sending up red flags, they’re sending out a fireworks show and a marching band.

I have been unable to obtain adequate medical care for my epilepsy because I am what they’d call pre-pregnant. As my neurologist puts it, I am a woman of child-bearing age. As such, they flat-out refuse to try me on any medicines other than the ones proven least likely to affect a fetus (read: the ones that are paying off my neurologist). Despite the fact that I have declared my belly a no-fetus zone.

My neurologist does not trust me to not get pregnant. My neurologist puts a potential fetus’s potential health over my health.

And now the government wants to officially sanction that.

Oh H### no.

I should not have to get my #@$%^@ tubes tied in order to not have seizures and/or get medication that at least doesn’t have me dropping weight. (90.5 on the Craftsman’s bathroom scale; even taking into account that it’s a different scale from my doctor’s, it’s a significant enough difference that I have to look at it. I’m 89 on my scale right now. Which slips, but - still.) To get off a medication that’s caused what’s essentially a whole-body crash.

Pre-pregnant? Hell no. I am post-pregnant by 11 years. Pregnancy and me do not belong in the same sentence.

Screw that noise.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This woman is very close to death because her doctor values a potential life more than the life that is right there, existing right in front of him.

THAT'S what I'm afraid we will be seeing much, much more of.

Blessings,
Lori

P.S. Here's an update on her case:

EDIT: When I first posted this, I was writing just for myself and my friendslist, so I didn’t put in a whole lot of background. Now this post has been linked all over LJ and in DailyKos. So. Background for people who have not been reading me since the dawn of time, quick-and-dirty version: I was diagnosed with epilepsy in October 2003. My first neurologist put me on Lamictal, which caused some pretty untenable side effects, including the first 2/3 of what became a catastrophic weight loss - 50 pounds in total, to a low of 85 pounds.

She tried me on Keppra, which was worse - then gave up for the sake of the potential fetus. I switched neurologists and medications, trying Topomax and Trileptal, the latter of which (plus Zonegran) I’m still on. The weight loss continued. Uncontrollably.

There are medications that have, as their side effects, weight gain. I have begged for these medications, but been refused. Direct quote from my neurologist: “You’re a newlywed. You’ll want a baby.” I’m a newlywed with an 11-year-old daughter and a body that’s falling apart. Trust me. I do not want a baby. But my stated desires are irrelevant - I cannot get prescribed a medication that will keep me from losing weight and may control my seizures better than the one I’m on now, due entirely to increased risk of birth defects.

[July]

Maybe I missed something but I don't find anything wrong with the report. It's just stating that it would be a good idea for women to take folic acid, and such, if they become pregnant one day.
I didn't see anything that suggested that they wouldn't allow women to smoke, drink or/and not take folic acid, it just suggested that it would be a good idea since it will help reduce the numbers of birth defects and miscarriages.
I personally think it's a good idea that young women, like myself, who plan on having children one day know about this information so we can prevent harm to our future children. Of course not everyone wants to have children, that's your choice, therefore you can disregard the info provided since it is no use to you.

In terms of the other topics brought up here, such as the US administration, abortion and religion, it definitely crossed the line, IMO, for this board. There are tons and tons of political debate boards/forums/blogs on the web to discuss these topics; this site should stay neutral on such topics as not to cause anymore divisions/fights here.

I agree. These are only recommendations/guidelines (not laws), and it sounds like physicians are free to make their own professional calls. I think a lot of drastic and extreme speculations have been made in these posts. I do not agree with being denied medications,but at least we are free to seek out the services of other physicians with different approaches to treatment should we be in disagreement or dissatisfied. People do that every day for all sorts of healthcare concerns. I do not think that all physcians see women only as "incubators". I believe many, many physicians are seeking to do what they see as being in the best interest for their female patient. We may not agree, but again we are free to seek a second or third opinion. I do not think that drs. decisions to deny a certain medication or treatment is so specific that it only applies to female "incubators". I would bet that depending on the physcian you would find that with just about any medical issue out there for both men and women.

I also agree that many of the topics brought up on this board have crossed the line. I am certainly ok with women choosing not to have children for personal reasons, but I feel what has been shared on these boards is to the point of being upsetting and offensive. Perhaps it would have been better just to say that you adamently did not want children due to personal reasons, and then just shared your experiences with physicians and your concerns for the future of women's healthcare. The extensive details of why you do not want children and how you feel about children and motherhood were not necessary. You could make your point effectively without them.

The vocabulary used in the posts and the topics raised are so heated that they do not seem to fit the "Daily Chatter" thread. After all, is this really what comes to mind when you read or hear the words daily chatter? I agree that they may be better placed in a debate forum/blog. Just the title "I'm having a stroke, I think" suggests a heated topic.

[ICLori]

Oh, well, I'll remember that for next time. I"ll go back and edit out the posts. I just wanted all of you to understand why I so adamantly don't want children. It also goes back to the fact that from the ages of 5 to 10, my body was not my own. I've always felt very strongly since then that this is MY body.

I'm glad you think it's okay for other women to choose not to have children. Not that I really have to have anyone's approval not to bear children - after all, this IS MY body. I honestly wouldn't even care if you disapproved strongly of my choice (and I sense from your posts that you do, and that's fine - shoot, we probably don't share musical tastes either.) Wouldn't that be scary if there were a law saying all women must have children? I wonder if there are a lot of people who would pass such a law? I've never actually asked at parties, "Are you in favor of outlawing women being childfree?" But I'll bet there are some people, both men and women, who would love to be able to pass a law stating that all women have to be pregnant, all the time, from the ages of 12 until 55. Or maybe even later than that - they have the ability now to make 60-odd year old women mothers.

I'm also very glad for the legal medical services that are still available to women in the U.S., including tubal ligation and birth control.


Blessings,
Lori

P.S. I have actually run into a few women who strongly disapproved of my choice not to have children. These were, coincidentally, always women who were of a fundamentalist religion, and who had five, six, seven children of their own all spaced closely together. One actually had the nerve to tell me it was my duty to God to bear children! It took all the control I had not to tell her what I thought about that. You know, sometimes I really think they just hated me because I got to sleep in in the morning, spend my money on myself and my husband, watch whatever I wanted to on TV without it having to be "G" rated, and because I never had to know the joys of changing poopy diapers and being up all night with a sick screaming baby.

[icnmgrjill]

ICLori...

I want to thank you for bringing this up. When I disabled the Just Venting thread, I placed this post here because it is an important issue for people to discuss, debate and know about. The degradation of women in modern society continues to be a huge concern to me personally. I'd really love to know the origins ... the exact origins... of this. It really makes me wonder.

Jill

[ICLori]

Thank you so much, Jill. I know that it's an upsetting topic to many, and many do agree with the idea that a potential fetus is so valuable that it's potential needs should outweigh the medical needs of the mother. I honestly can see both sides of the argument - no one wants babies to be born with birth defects. But it just doesn't make any sense to me to deny medication to a woman who needs it for her health, when she is willing to use reliable birth control and, if need be, submit to regular pregnancy tests. The case of the woman who is dying because she can't get the epilepsy meds she needs breaks my heart.

It's easy to say, "just go to another doctor." But if this becomes the standard of care, there won't BE any other doctors to go to. And when the CDC makes recommendations, it is expected that they will be adopted and will become the standard of care.

The issue boils down to, is a (very unlikely) potential fetus (when a woman is using reliable birth control to prevent pregnancy) more important than the woman who is already living?

It horrifies me to think that the answer may soon be considered "yes."

[ICLori]

P.S., Jill and any others who are, like me, keeping an eye on the zeitgeist of the nation and pondering where things might lead, did you catch the following FOX news announcement that was made recently? The reason it caught my eye is because my husband was sent a similar opinion piece, forwarded through a 1 star general from a 3 star general. I was to be honest quite shocked that such opinions were being discussed at the highest levels of the military.

Anyway, here is the article. My opinion (I realize not everyone shares this) is that it's rascist, and I am also worried because the last time a nation started urging women to have more babies for the fatherland, it was kind of a bad situation.

############################################
Gibson: "Make more babies" because in "[t]wenty-five years ... the majority of the population is Hispanic"
Summary: On The Big Story, John Gibson urged viewers to "[d]o your duty. Make more babies," because he had found out, from a recently released report, that nearly half of all children under the age of five in the United States are minorities. Gibson added: "You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic." Gibson later repeated: "To put it bluntly, we need more babies."

On the May 11 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson advised viewers during the "My Word" segment of his program to "[d]o your duty. Make more babies." He then cited a May 10 article, which reported that nearly half of all children under the age of five in the United States are minorities.

[July]

I honestly wouldn't even care if you disapproved strongly of my choice (and I sense from your posts that you do, and that's fine - shoot, we probably don't share musical tastes either.)

I'm also very glad for the legal medical services that are still available to women in the U.S., including tubal ligation and birth control.


Blessings,
Lori

P.S. I have actually run into a few women who strongly disapproved of my choice not to have children.

I really do not disapprove of your choice. I am with you...every woman needs to decide on her own if she wants to ever have a baby or not. Making that decision one way or another shows a lot of responsibility/maturity and is very important, and seems to be a better option than being reckless.

I do think you that you have brought up an important matter concerning women's healthcare worthy of discussion.

I feel that your concerns could have been voiced and still have made a very effective and strong point about women's healthcare/rights without bringing up some personal topics/views that came off as extreme and a bit graphic. I am glad you edited some personal bias things out. Some of the things discussed took the focus off of the important matter of women's healthcare and its future, such as your personal views of motherhood and children. Some of the word choices were upsetting. IMO,it would have been sufficient just to say you were adament about not having children or being expected to be a mother for personal reasons (most people respect that decision, including me), and then focused on women's healthcare/rights. I know that it can be difficult to leave out personal views/biases when you feel so strongly about a topic, but in the long run I think more people will pay more attention.

The women you have run into who strongly disapproved of your choice were also likely very extreme, but on the other side of the coin. It would have been great if they could have cordially agreed to disagree with you. If I met you, I would not give you any grief about your decision. That decision is totally up to you.

I wish you the best always and blessings, too!:)

[icnmgrjill]

Folks... let's all remember that there are women here who are desperate for children and others who love being mothers... and still others who do not want to be a mother. I, for one, had always dreamed of having many children. I still grieve that I have no children nor will have grandchildren. It's a very lonely place to be. So, please remember that this is not a debate about motherhood... nor does anyone intend for it to be.

It is, however, a discussion of how some medications are being rejected by SOME doctors... for women of child bearing age. That type of influence into our daily lives is definitely worth discussion.

Jill

[July]

Thank you, Jill, for your post. It helped clarify things for me. It is a very scary thought that some drs. are withholding medications for women of child bearing age.

[ICLori]

I'm so sorry, Jill, and I'm sorry for your loss. I know it must be heartbreaking in a way that I could never comprehend.

I'm just looking at a bunch of signs all around me, and I'm scared, that's all. I'm scared for myself and all women.

That's part of the reason I want to go have a tubal ligation, before they become illegal. I don't think I have much time.

Blessings,
Lori

[VickiB]

First, I want to say I think it's wonderful that we can discuss this. It is of no concern to me if one chooses to have children, cats, donkeys, or even marry for that matter! I hope what I have to say is not taken as anything other than my own thoughts on this subject. It is not meant to tell others what they should believe, or how they should live thier lives!

I don't see tubal ligations becoming illegal anytime soon. I can't see caucasian women being required to have X number of children, laws against domestic abuse & rape done away with, nor everyone being required to attend a national church. Granted, all these issues do have their supporters out there, -I met the one that proclaimed my heavenly reward was precluded by my wearing of earrings! (Ahhh, if only my getting into heaven (my heaven, mind you) were that easy!,...Seriously, I'd have my jewelery off in a minute!) I have to believe that these kind of extremists are few and far between.

I still think it comes down to money and power. I guess I don't believe that women are being denied medical treatment because it goes against someone's religious/ethical/moral beliefs. A few, yes. They're always out there. But, I certainly can see where those in the medical field would not want to expose their butts to lawsuits. I seriously doubt that a woman signing any document to the fact that she would not get pregnant while taking a certain medication would preclude a doctors liability should that situation occur. It is a crazy, litigious world we've created, and I think we've only begun to reap the rewards from it! Years ago, my son was turned away from a doctor's office in my town. He was 6, with double pnemonia that came on extremely fast. When turned away, we had to drive with one very sick little boy 40+ miles to the next town to find medical care from a pediatrician. Later I learned our GP had just been sued for treating a child and had lost everything. I have no doubt his refusal to treat my son was not because he couldn't have, or even because he didn't want to, but rather that from a legal standpoint -he didn't dare treat him. And I also believe, this legal nightmare our society has embraced, nearly cost me my son!

I do think that women make up a strong voting block. And because of that, the rights we've worked so hard for will not easily be taken. Perhaps my head is in the sand? It seems like political suicide to me.

Vicki

[ICLori]

Hi, Vicki, I'm so sorry for the scare you had with your son. I think you have a very gracious and understanding heart to forgive the physician for not treating your son. I'm glad everything turned out okay with your son, I hope he will be in good health from now on and no more scares.

You make such an excellent point about the litigation-crazy society we live in. I have even heard that some states are worried that there won't even be any ob-gyns in the state anymore because of this issue, rising malpractice rates and so on. I'm not sure what the answer is to this, but I do feel it's gotten out of control and has harmed our society in general.

I hope that you are right about a large voting block being more moderate in nature.

I don't blame everyone for thinking I'm crazy (if you all do, I mean.) It's just that I've been seeing some things happening in recent years that I truly never would have dreamed could happen (including this CDC recommendation) and I feel so much fear. I feel as if...if these things that I once thought were outrageously impossible could occur, what else might occur? I feel as if the world that I thought I knew, has been taken away from me and replaced with a world that I don't understand, don't agree with, and I don't have a clue what is going to happen next. I can't find my footing anymore. And it's not even so much that I'm afraid for myself - I'll be 45 in July and I'm past the age probably of having to worry about many things - but I am so afraid for those younger than me.

I also have been accosted by women (one time by a server in a restaurant - thinking back on it, I really should have reported her, I think) who told me that it was in the Bible that women should never wear pants, cut their hair, style their hair, or wear makeup or jewelry. I think perhaps the woman who accosted you, might have belonged to the same groups that the women I've run into, belong to. I'm a big believer in religious freedom, but I draw the line when people try to intrude into my life and try to bully me into accepting their beliefs and abiding by them. And this is part of what I am very afraid of. There are some people in the world, in the U.S., who would very much like to dictate to all of us, how we should live. And some of us may not agree with everything that they would dictate. And they seem to be much more prevalent and powerful than I ever would have believed - perhaps so powerful that their voice will drown out the voices of others more moderate.

I have always been a worrywart. I hope so much I'm just being a worrywart now. I'm so glad that I could express this to someone, though. It's been hard keeping these fears bottled up. I've been stewing about things for several years now, getting more and more alarmed. It helps so much just to be able to say, "I'm really scared, and I don't know what the future will hold."

Blessings,
the crazy lady

[VickiB]

I can forgive the doctor because my son's still here. Had it went the other way I'd probably feel differently! The fact that we came so close to losing him for no good reason is always close to my mind when the subject of illogical medical practices come up! In so many cases it seems like doing what is right falls by the wayside to doing what is safe. -Or doing nothing at all! It is totally illogical to me, yet on the other hand, I can't say if I were in their shoes I wouldn't do the same!

Truly, Lori, I don't think you're crazy! I moved to Idaho in part to try to get away from much of the craziness I saw in the world. (My MIL thinks the fact that we moved to Idaho proves we're crazy!) Anyway, the world has since found us here, and that which we'd hoped we'd moved away from is quickly taking root around us!

I had to laugh about the pants part. I've had that one too! Lots of fundamentalists in my neck of the woods, -in numbers like no where else I've ever lived! I have no problem with anyone following their own beliefs. Some of my closest friends follow paths that make no sense to me. But while willing to share what they believe to be true, they wouldn't dream of expecting others to embrace the same. As it should be! My thoughts are that the vast majority of people feel that same way?

I do think that reason will prevail in the end. I do think that we as women gain more political weight with each year that passes. Realistically, it wasn't that long ago that we could not vote! Received peanuts for wages if we could work at all! It is important that we women remember where we came from, where we need to go, and never be afraid to let our voices be heard! Nor do I think, should we ever ignore a bit of back-sliding or threats to our health issues. What you bring up in this thread is just that. It is good, and we always need to be aware of, and speak out against it! I believe we will, and that's why I also believe it can never come to be!

Vicki

[ICLori]

Thank you, Vicki, you are the voice of reason and your post calmed me considerably.

You know, oddly enough, that was one thing that went through my head before, about how we've come so far in a relatively short period of time...and what went through my head was, if it wasn't that long ago that we got the vote, maybe it's not that hard to take it away from us again, LOL. You know, maybe all these women's rights things were just a brief aberration, and we are going back to the thousands (millions?) of years where women and children were nothing but the property of a man.

But, maybe not. Maybe we aren't sliding all the way back, maybe this is just kind of a sidestep...and probably you are right, our voting power probably makes it impossible to go too far backwards. For instance, I can't imagine most women would vote to abolish the right of women to vote. Or vote to make it illegal for women to work outside the home. For something like that to happen, it would have to be something like a Taliban-like dictatorship taking over, and if that ever happened, I think most of the men in our country would also be up in arms, not just the women.

Yes, you are right, I'm sure. As long as we keep close watch, there isn't so much danger, I hope.

Blessings,
Lori

P.S. Idaho is a good place to be, the beauty of the area must help to inspire you to make those incredible, awesome paintings that you do! I'm from Montana (well, I've lived all over, but call Montana my home) - Kalispell and Missoula, don't know if you know where they are...well, you probably do, those aren't too far away from Idaho...

[July]

Plus I do not think many politicians would dare compromise women's rights so drastically if they even wanted a slightest chance of winning the election and being in office, especially taking away voting privileges. I think the vast majority of Americans would not stand for it.

[Mrs. Burschman]

I'm making the most of the situation. I bought some ant poison stuff that goes around the house to keep them away. I told my husband he has to do that job because I'm pre-pregnant.

I was being very sarcastic, of course. But I am going to make him do it, just because I don't want to.

Amy (Mrs. B) :bunny:

[VickiB]

Way to go Amy! You know what you'd mentioned last Friday about how women could be in charge with-in a week? While it's a funny thought, it's probably true! I have a feeling women have more power than is realized! And in truth, with the exception of a few neanderthals still out there, I bet most men welcome the positive changes women have seen over the years and have no wish to go backwards either.

While driving to town this morning I was thinking about the female life and how it has changed here in the USA. Comparing my Grandmother's role, my Mother's life, the opportunities I have had, and what I see in my daughter (she's 25). I see things only getting better. The way my son's generation views the female role is drastically different than what I remember of guys back when I was that age. That is refreshing!

Lori, I make plenty of trips to Missoula and am probably less than 100 miles NW of Kalispell as the bird flies. Of course, you can't get there from here. -Mountains have a way of making for long trips!

Vicki

[poetgirl]

Lori,

I know this is a heated, emotional and difficult thread and I thank you for bringing it up (as well as your feelings about it) even though I know some others might find it offensive or too personal.

The guidelines on the surface are very sensible. But they do point to a double-standard and can lead to some disturbing legislation (which, given the makeup of our government, is still run primarily by men) that we may have little control over.

I respect all women's decisions about whether or not they choose to have children. I know your position can be painful to hear from someone who desperately wants a child and can't have one of their own, or from someone who fiercely loves the one(s) she has. But you have never said they weren't entitled to their feelings or need to be a mother, while others have systematically told you something was wrong with you for not wanting to be a mother, or told you you couldn't have medication because you might become one. That's a double-standard and not fair.

Your story and voice also needs to be heard, because you were treated horribly and subjugated in terrible ways by someone who was in a position of authority over you. This stuff happens every day and no one likes to talk about it. Your reaction is not unwarranted. At some point early on in your life, someone took the choice about whether or not your body belonged to you away from you, and you fear the same thing happening again to you or someone else in the form of a "medical authority." This is where activism starts and I thank God for your voice and courage to be heard. I can't imagine you like to talk about these things that happened to you, but doing so gives someone else the courage to stop being a victim too.

I won't debate about whether or not this topic is appropriate or not for these boards. What you are doing Lori, is reminding us that our bodies belong to us and cannot be legislated away as if we are nothing but property or containers. I take care of my body, not to please anyone else, but because I have to live in it and I want it to function and feel as good as it possibly can.

I dunno...my mom smoke and drank when she was pregnant with me (which was the case for many of us born before the mid-80s) and I generally think I turned out pretty well! I'm not advocating any of those things, of course, but the point I'm making is that most of this overzealousness about the health of the birth mother is relatively new.

Now...the other news item about having [white] kids to make up for the growing Hispanic population is truly offensive and horrifying. Even if I wasn't half Puerto-Rican, I would find that offensive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to hurt other people. And we Latinos have just as much to offer this country as anyone else -- and in many cases, already have. Children are just potential until they are actualized through love, nurturing and education. It doesn't matter what color or race they are.

Hugs to you Lori. Thanks for making my day. :)

[poetgirl]

Amy (Mrs. B) --

I love your approach! I think you have just revolutionized housework! :idea:

[ICLori]

Oh, Poetgirl, thank you so much for understanding where my fear comes from, and understanding everything. I agree with you that that piece on FOX news was rascist and horrifying. That's one of the many things that has put me on high alert lately. I felt as if a news piece like that, on a national news station that many many people watch, could only happen in a place like Nazi Germany. But, no, it happened here, right here in the U.S.A.! How could that be? That is part of what makes me so afraid. As far as I know, you and I are the only ones here who found that FOX newscast extremely insulting and wrong. That's another thing that makes me afraid - how can people learn about something like that and not care?

I think that we women DO have power, we are a big voting block, but I think what could happen might be...let's say a candidate runs on a platform to reduce gasoline prices, reduce taxes, fight terrorism, and also to make it so women no longer can vote, and no longer can work outside the home. I can actually see where many people would vote for this politician, saying that the bigger issues of terrorism and rising fuel prices outweigh women's rights. I could see something like that happening, I really could. Especially as peak oil hits and the dollar crashes (the experts expect the dollar to lose 1/3 to 1/2 of its value soon), economic factors may become more important than anything else and we may vote another Hitler into power just so we can eat.

Blessings,
Lori
P.S. Vicki, that's so neat! Missoula is about my favorite place in the whole world, I would live there again if only I could. I liked Kalispell too, except that it could get kind of boring sometimes (small town) and for some reason it's very cloudy all winter long - I like a little sun in my winters!

[poetgirl]

You have every right to be concerned (and I am too) because the climate of fear is such that we will see our rights slowly get siphoned away in the name of "security" and "social well-being." The two biggest issues during the last presidential campaign were about abortion and gay marriage, which are personal choices that should not be legislated by the government as far as I'm concerned. These are also not issues that directly affect every American's security or well-being, but politicians know it's a hot button and will push it to take the pressure off the real issues that will affect all of us.

Every day, bills quietly pass in the House and Senate and most of us have no clue what they are or how they might affect us. I can easily see some "Women's Health Initiative" bill passing through the House and Senate that contains all of the same rhetoric of the articles you've been sharing with us, and people signing off on them! And fear about the current immigration situation could lead to a backlash against Hispanics and other ethnic groups where (aside from discrimination and acts of violence) we could very well end up with some scenario out of the Handmaid's Tale (an amazing book - I read it years ago) like you've mentioned where Caucasian women are encouraged, if not forced, to have numerous children to "purify" and "contribute to the continuation" of the Caucasian race. We always think "these things can't happen in America" but we're not as far off from it as we'd like to think, at least some small version of it.

[ICLori]

You know, Poetgirl, I belong to an e-mail group called "running on empty" that talks about peak oil and the probability of an economic collapse in our lifetimes. There is much debate on that group about how the U.S. will handle dwindling resources. One common thought (and I agree with it) is that minority groups (and possibly women as well) could be targeted as scapegoats. There is much in history to suggest that this would occur. I hope that it wouldn't happen, but I fear that it might. The direction our country has been going in, leads me to believe it could get very ugly indeed.
I am hoping for the best, but fearing for the worst.

Blessings,
Lori
P.S. I'm so happy that there are some others who are alarmed, as I am, about various things. I know that this board is only about IC, but sometimes I feel as if I'm talking about IC while nuclear bombs fall all around me, and it's awfully tempting to want to talk about the nuclear bombs.

[VickiB]

I wanted to pop in and say that I find that FOX segment wrong, and just plain ugly! Guess I gave it no comment because I just smooth wrote that one off as some crackpot FOX dug up for effect. I have to believe "the majority" in this country would find that idea offensive too, though I doubt you'll ever see that majority view on the news. Extremists, scare mongers, and virtually anything evil is what sells. We saw that with the white supremecists we had up this way a while back. They were nuts, and actually few in number. But to this day, when I'm away from here it amazes me how many people believe Idahoans are surely all racists! Ironic,...as it's that very stereotypical labeling that they say they find so distasteful.

You're right, politicians do tend to sneak things through. But there are many organizations watching and more than willing to make their voices heard on women's issues. I still think attaching their names in any way to something like what's been mentioned here would be publicized and amount to political suicide.

I do agree we're seeing our rights siphoned away in the name of security and social well-being, and expect that to only get worse. It seems equal opportunity siphoning as far as gender is concerned to me (some aimed more at women, some aimed at men, and a whole lot aimed at both!).

Vicki

[ICLori]

The guy who did this on FOX news was one of their regular newscasters...not just a crackpot they dug up to make fun of. It was part of their "sanctioned" the Big Story newscast. It would be like Walter Cronkite delivering the message....

Let me provide a link so you can see what we are talking about....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006

It really is (to me) very shocking. And it's not just John Gibson who thinks this way, either. I can tell you from personal knowledge that the very top leaders of the military are talking about this issue, too, and they are inclined to agree with John Gibson. That's what scares me even more, because the top leadership of the military is really kind of a part of the top leadership of our government.

Blessings,
Lori

[VickiB]

Our TV stations are limited and I don't get FOX so am unfamiliar with the newscasters. I figured it was someone with a crazy idea they found to interview. I did read the article above and surely this was in jest? (I heard Andy Rooney's voice in my mind while reading it)

I mean, cripes, I know plenty of flag waving, America right or wrong, Love it or live it types, but can't think of a single one of them who would even begin to seriously consider this idea!

Vicki

[ICLori]

Nope, it wasn't in jest - it really wasn't. Nor are the Lieutenant Generals joking who are passing around articles like this to Officers junior to them to read. And it's not being pushed as "look how awful this is." It's being pushed as "we are going to lose the war on terrorism if we don't find ways of making white women have more babies now." If Generals are focusing on this, it's not too hard to imagine that some political leadership is focusing on this as well.

Fox news station is one of the few TV stations allowed to be shown at military hospitals, for instance. Fox news is probably THE most popular news station for all of the U.S. military. In fact for most Army officers, it is the only news station they will watch, because it has very conservative views and no liberalism allowed.

So, at least in my view, this isn't some fringe TV station at all - in my eyes, the next person to make this speech will be the President. Anyway, that's why I'm alarmed.

Blessings,
Lori

P.S. Maybe it's just a couple of white supremicist jerks in the military, and a neo-Nazi at Fox - the thing is, it's so easy to say, the CDC thing isn't a big deal, the Nazi thing on Fox isn't a big deal, Abu Ghraib isn't a big deal - and maybe all of these things really aren't big deals, but when you take these things and hundreds of other things into account, I feel as if a pattern is forming...does that make any sense?

P.P.S. And I don't mean this as a slam to the current powers that be, military, political or otherwise. That's not so much what scares me - if we disagree with a politician, we can vote him or her out. But what I see happening is a change in the national mood - a change in the people, in our whole nation. A change that is so big and sweeping that it could be the kind of change that could be a very sad thing down the road.

[poetgirl]

Beyond the racism and xeonophobic tone of that news report (which is apalling enough) there is once again the assumption that women (and to some degree, men) are here on earth to do nothing more than become baby breeders. Not everyone is interested in becoming or cut out to be a parent. And there are so many abandoned and orphaned babies growing up without parents who could use a loving family that doesn't care what color they are or what country they come from.

Ironically, the "war on terrorism" is primarily being fought by minorities who go into the military because other options are not always open to them. The military provides job training skills, housing and an opportunity to eventually attend college under the G.I. bill. America is made up of people of all races, colors and ethnicities. We are not a "white" nation.

I hope to be a mother someday but if it doesn't happen, I'm pretty sure I will have found some other ways to contribute positively to American culture by the time I die. Being a mother is one way to do it, but not the only way -- and that should be MY decision, not the government's.