Why is PTSD a defacto disability? Isn't it just PTSD? There are lots of people with emotional problems are not disabled.

This is true. Not everyone with PTSD is permanently or even temporarily disabled. However, there’s a concern that there are people with a PTSD disability who are not receiving disability benefits due to the difficulties in filing and processing a claim. According to the VA website:

A formal request ("claim") must be filed by the veteran using forms provided by the VA's Veterans Benefits Administration. After the forms are completely submitted, the veteran must complete interviews concerning her or his "social history" (a review of family, work, and educational experiences before, during, and after military service) and "psychiatric status" (a review of past and current psychological symptoms, and of traumatic experiences during military service). The forms and information about the application process can be obtained from Benefits Officers at any VA Medical Center, Outpatient Clinic, or Regional Office.

_

The process of applying for a VA disability for PTSD can take several months, and can be both complicated and quite stressful. The Veteran's Service Organizations (VSOs) provide "Service Officers" at no cost to help veterans and family members pursue VA disability claims. Service Officers are familiar with every step in the application and interview process, and can provide both technical guidance and moral support. In addition, some Service Officers particularly specialize in assisting veterans with PTSD disability claims. http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_faqs_on_ptsd.html

The review process seems to involve getting definitive “proof” that the PTSD is the military’s fault. Which seems rather sleazy. Even if you had some “baggage” going into the service, it seems to be that the horrors of war are what pushed you over the edge.

I think Romney will ultimately participate. His "snowman" comment was him just being too smug and clever for his own good.

Why is he thumbing his nose at a YouTube debate? Has he not seen his own website? http://www.mittromney.com/

It has a certain "IHEARTBackstreetBoys.com" quality to it. There are links to the "Five Brothers" blogs--the blogs for the Romney boys. There's a link to each of the Romneys' MySpace pages, links to Romney's Facebook and flickr pages.

And, oh yeah, a link to YouTube.

From Wiki: Tubal reversal, if done by a specialist microsurgeon, has a high success rate and few complications. Successful repair of the fallopian tubes is now possible in 98% of women who have had a tubal ligation, regardless of the type of sterilization procedure.

[I don’t often accept Wikipedia as a citation for scientific matters, but the Wiki article links to an actual article for the Chapel Hill Tubal Reversal Center.]

Other articles put tubal reversal success rates between 70 and 98%. If reversing tubal ligation is effective in 70 plus percent of women, I don’t even see a paternalistic* argument for denying a 30 year-old woman tubal ligation.

_

*FYI: “Paternalism” doesn’t just mean “control by men.” From Merriam-Webster: paternalism: a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other

I don’t think many doctors take issue with sterilization for women who have already had children. For example, I don’t think anyone tried to dissuade my sister-in-law (under 30) from tubal ligation after her third kid.

Which, when you think about it, is kinda weird. It’s okay to decide you don’t want one more kid when you already have three, but not when you currently have zero. Ergo, you should regret the non-existence of Baby One but not the non-existence of Baby Four. Wouldn’t all babies be equally valuable? Or is there a diminishing return on their value as they become less “scarce?”

Aside: thank you theunblonde for your awesome post.

I recall many women my own age loudly declaring in their early 20s that there was no way they would ever have kids. Now we are in our 40s, and almost all of them have kids, which they adore.

Please don’t use this as an excuse to deny twenty-somethings the option of sterilization. There’s a huge difference between saying “I never want to have kids!” and actually trying to do something about. As a whole, people who try to do something about it are necessarily more serious than people who just talk about it.

Also, in the world of “things that make no sense,” it seems the age at which a woman is mature enough to choose sterilization is the age at which she is no longer fertile.

Anonymous, thank you so much for sharing you story. Life is a lot more nuanced than we often accept.

Your posting is also an illustration of the benefits of "Anonymous" posting. They can allow the telling of deeply personal stories under circumstances where any chance of exposure could be damaging.

If they should only make their decision based on medical reasons then the question becomes which is more medically harmful: accidently getting pregnant or being sterilized for life?

If this is the question, the answer is clear: accidentally getting pregnant is potentially more medically harmful. In either of the two scenarios, there is the potential for medical harm in the form of severe depression.* But only one of these scenarios could kill you—women do still die in childbirth (with it fortunately being a relative rarity in the modern Western world). But no one dies simply because they’re not pregnant.

--

*Although, frankly, anything in life carries with it the risk of severe depression.

Aside to JoshuasGrandma: interesting point about asking your doc why they went into gynecology when looking for a doc willing to perform sterilizations.