Letters to the Editor
-
No YOU relax
"Relax" misses the point completely. It's not that the government is interested in making sure women get their daily folic acid requirement... it's that the government is only interested in women's health insofar as it affects their reproductive capacity.
Got that?
So women's health is only important as long as they can breed.
We're breeders. Great. OK, if that's the case, then I expect the government to pay for my vitamins. And my health club membership so I can "maintain a healthy weight."
And oh yeah, if I'm gonna conceive, I'm gonna to need to manage stress. So that means I want a 90-minute massage once a week. And yoga classes would help too.
Also, a housekeeper, so I don't have to do all that nasty, stressful, housework that interferes with my ovulation. Also, the two brats I already have screaming at my ankles really interfere with my desire to reproduce. So the government should do something about them, too. Maybe put them in private school for me, so I have more "me" time to focus on my health, well-being and fertility.
So, whaddya say, Duhbya? Is that on the gummint's Handmaid's plan?
I didn't think so.
-
Why does this enrage you?
The Washington Post article has this paragraph:
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.
R. Traister writes:
What's this all about? According to the Post, "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." So even when we're not pregnant, or have no intention of becoming pregnant, or have already been pregnant and are done having babies, we should make our theoretically possible but wholly imaginary fetuses our priorities.
These new guidelines are meant to address the fact that the rate of infant mortality in the U.S. is three times higher than that in Japan and 2.5 times higher than that in Norway, Finland and Iceland. In fact, it's higher than that of most other industrialized nations, . . .
. . . 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.
Okay, we may not *solve* the problem, but following these recommendations will certainly go a long way toward ameliorating it. Why should that ruffle your feathers?
What's going on here? Ms. Traister is enraged that women are being asked to stay healthy in part because half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned.
She points out some very serious major failings in the U.S. healthcare system. Anyone with half a brain will agree that these wrongs must be righted.
BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE.
But the atuhor is enraged that women are asked to stay healthy just in case they might become pregnant -- for the sake of the baby? (Secret information: These suggestions will also keep the woman healthy for her own sake, too.)
Let me restate that I fully support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. But I fully do not support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term while engaging in behavior (excessive smoking? drinking? drug use? undernourishing herself? whatever) that is *likely* to damage the human being she will be giving birth to.
(I'm no medical professional, so I don't claim to know exactly what behaviors truly fall into this category.
For while it's her body as long as the fetus is inside it, it's another human being at some point, and no one has the right to expose another human to serious physical jeopardy -- or another future human being.
----------------------------------------
I find Ms. Traister's suggestion about what *else* the U.S. should be doing to fix our broken healthcare system to be 100% sound. Her rage at suggestions for how women can stay healthy just in case they should become pregnant (and by the way, for their own sakes!) to be unbelievably selfish and short-sighted.
-
You're just wrong!
it's that the government is only interested in women's health insofar as it affects their reproductive capacity.
You're either blinded by ideology or too lazy to go to the CDC website - here's a brief offering:
from the cdc website:
Birth Defects
Disabilities
Diseases & Conditions
Emergency Preparedness & Response
Environmental Health
Genetics and Genomics
Health Promotion
Injury and Violence
Travelers' Health
Vaccines & Immunizations
Workplace Safety & Health
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Autism
Cerebral Palsy
Child Development
Developmental Disabilities
Disability and Health
Disability and Rehabilitation
Hearing Loss
Kernicterus
Mental Retardation
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Vision Impairment
-
My concern becomes economic
I'm a laboratory chemist. The Post article mentions "workplace hazards"; What next, the CDC is going to recommend I be out of a job? Workplace hazards are an important concern for anyone; however, the important concept is a company's responsibility to keep a workplace safe. If instead the CDC recommendations are used as an excuse to bar women who even remotely might become pregnant from taking certain lucrative jobs, it wouldn't be the first time.
-
It's happening
For years, we've been saying that the abortion fight isn't about the fetus, it's about a woman's ability to choose what to do with her own body, and we shouldn't let the government suddenly take over control of a woman's body once she conceives. For years, the left has been saying that pro-lifers are more interested in controlling women's sexuality than advocating for women's or (unborn) children's health (just look at the infant mortality rate, lack of healthcare for the newly born, etc). For years, we've been saying that one day, they'll cross the line from "after conception" into trying to control women "before conception," because if your goal is to restrict women's behavior and enforce conservative mores, conception is as arbitrary a line as any other. (sidebar: conception isn't even a medical term, fertilization is, and medically, pregnancy starts at implantation, not fertilization).
And now, it's happening. First, they're just advisory guidelines, implicitly treating all women as pre-pregnant or potentially pregnant, advising them, conveniently, to not indulge in any of the vices. Now, as i nurse my horrible hangover from the post-exam bender i went on yesterday, this just seems particularly egregious. I like alcohol, i deserve to go out and get wasted like the next guy or girl. I'm not gonna get pregnant, and if i do, i won't have it, because i don't like and don't want children. I am more than pre-pregnant. Treating all women is pre-pregnant is assuming that pregnancy is not a choice -- and if you do get pregnant, you're gonna carry it to term.
What ABOUT women who are not having sex, have the pill or IUD, or cannot conceive, are they excempt from this advice? Maybe next, for certain activities, women will have to prove they are not pregnant to do them (like drink alcohol). The best way to do that would be to prohibit women from purchasing it. Make smoking illegal for women, since they could be endangering their fetuses. What else? cats, any dangerous physical activity (like rock climbing, ice skating, etc.) Maybe then we make illegalize one of the most dangerous activities of them all -- walking alone at night. Now, i know, that's a little extreme.
But stuff like these guidelines just illuminate the real motivations behind the abortion fight and conservatives in general. And it's not healthy born and unborn babies.