A Good Smiting

I'll admit it. I experience schadenfreude from time to time. Now is one of those times.

Extremely vocal (and generally incredibly illogical) anti-homebirth advocate Dr. Amy Tuteur has found a new pulpit from which to preach her ad hominem attacks and general mouth-foaming about those poor, uneducated, foolhardy, and misguided women who eschew all that modern medicine has to offer and choose to have unmedicated or even *gasp* homebirths. The woman who generally employs a post-and-run approach to birth issues in a variety of online forms (or a delete-all-those-who-point-out-the-lack-of-science/evidence-behind-my-thinking on her own blog) has found a new home at Science Based Medicine.

*snerk, snort*

While Dr. Amy started off with a post that had the regulars at SBM nodding their head in agreement, it has only taken three posts for the the zealotry and lack-of-research that is Dr. Amy to have presented itself. In her post today, Dr. Amy begins by trying to convince the SBM readership that "natural childbirth was invented by a man to convince middle and upper class women that childbirth pain is in their minds, thereby encouraging them to have more children."

Um, yeah. Because for thousands upon thousands of years prior to the 20th century, women were having epidurals and c-sections. This whole unmedicated vaginal birth thing is *such* a newfangled thing.

Dr. Amy goes on to make a number of historical mistakes in her post and tries to paint the entire natural birth movement as possessing the same mindset of a particular male doctor from the early-to-mid 20th century. Ordinarily, this type of illogical writing would have me quite upset and quite possibly spending hours researching, commenting, and debating.

But Dr. Amy made a huge mistake. She posted her unresearched tripe on a board full of well-researched, scientifically minded readers. And while I do not agree with a good bit of the posts (or commenters) on the site, I do have to say this: there are all well-educated and can spot a logical fallacy (for the most part) from miles away.

And they are giving Dr. Amy a bit of a schooling.

Excuse me while I make a bowl of popcorn and sit back to enjoy the schadenfreude.

On Health Care

It's taken me several days to formulate my feelings about the health care bill that the House passed. Actually, it's taken me several days to find the words to express my anger and disgust about the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was added on at the last minute to the health care bill. And I still don't know whether my words will do my feelings any justice.

I'm angry. I'm angry at the Democrats - who I have supported with both money and efforts - for throwing women's reproductive rights under the proverbial bus in order to pass a flawed health care bill with a pitifully weak public option. I'm angry that in a country that supposedly has separation of church and state, Catholic bishops had so much power over the bill via the Stupak-Pitts amendment. I'm angry that the Democratic leadership is so weak that they allowed this "compromise" to occur in the first place.

I'm just angry.

In case you can't tell, I'm pro-choice. I've said it in a blog post before and I'll say it again: no one likes abortion. No one thinks it's great. But in the reality of our world, it is a necessary procedure. While the Stupak-Pitts amendment does not overturn Roe v Wade, it imposes such an effective economic barrier to access that for many low and middle income women, Roe v Wade might as well have been overturned. Abortions will still be available for those women who can afford it out of pocket, but for those women who can't afford the $300-$900 for a first trimester abortion, sorry...basically, we're telling these women: you can't afford an abortion, so you now have to pay for even more expensive maternity care and, more than likely, the raising of a child. You didn't conceive this child on your own, but if the father opts to not be responsible and pay child support, our courts aren't going to do much to help. We're not going to help you with maternity leave - chances are you will have to be back at work within 6 weeks. And on behalf of those who believe that the woman should be shown no sympathy or empathy because she made the decision to have sex in the first place, we're saying you're so irresponsible in the first place that we're going to force you to be responsible for raising another human.

Having known quite a few women who have had abortions for different reasons, it makes me angry that a bunch of people in Washington felt as though paying for a medical procedure that is utilized by 1/3 of all American woman was verboten, but the same people think it is ok to pay for Viagra. I'm angry that my rights and my access to healthcare are being determined by the leaders of a religion that I do not belong to.

I'm angry that the leaders I honestly believed in are showing themselves to be no more than mere politicians.

That's most coherant I can be about the subject at this point.

All Hallows Skanks?

I love Halloween. Really - it's probably my favorite holiday. My husband and I love decorating the front lawn with a combination of homemade and store-bought horrors, fill the evening with low-lying fog, and create an eerie atmosphere that does a good job of scary the neighborhood children.

I was the one who was frightened, however, when I opened up the latest Party City circular. Not by how scary the costumes were, but by how skanky they were.

Seriously. It seems like all of the female costumes were low-cut, mini-skirted, or sheer. Even the teen costumes left little to the imagination. There is something to be said for being confident in your sexuality and your body, but that doesn't mean you should parade it out there like a cow at the State Fair! I know Halloween is about fantasy and playing a character, but aren't you supposed to leave the sexual role-playing for the bedroom - you know, where the costumes that look like underwear should stay as well?

Cripes! They found me!

By "they" I mean the formula companies. Since I did not have a baby registry with this pregnancy and did not birth at a hospital, I thought for sure that the formula companies would not know about my potential source of income for them, er, my bouncing baby boy. But wouldn't you know what showed up in the mail two days ago?

A formula sample kit from Enfamil.

And then today, a glossy "magazine" from Enfamil titled "Nourishing Dreams."

On the inside cover is an ad (well, the whole thing is an ad, but permit me to indulge the sham that the glossy is somehow a legitimate publication) touting Enfamil Premium as a way "you can do more to give him a solid foundation." Hey, Enfamil? You know what I am doing to give my son a solid foundation? I'm breastfeeding him.

On the first page, there is a short paragraph about the challenges of motherhood: "There are round-the-clock feedings, dozens of diaper changes, and a scarcity of sleep...we thought you could still use a little help." Dude, Enfamil is going to clean the house and make dinner for me?!?! No? They're just going to push formula? Oh, drat.

Several pages later is an "article" titled "Your Fuss-Free Guide to Supplementing." Some excerpts: "Why do so many moms supplement?" Ooh, ooh, I know!! I know!! Is it because formula companies have done a bang up job making breastfeeding seem unnecessary and supporting outdated ideas about breastfeeding? Not to mention, the fact that formula companies in the United States shower expecting and new moms with free formula and coupons during the first few critical weeks of breastfeeding in an effort to thwart breastfeeding success? "Supplementing gives you certain freedoms." Oh, drats, I guess I was wrong. "You can hand off feeding to Dad or Grandma, or go back to work without the hassle of pumping." Yeah, but then comes the hassle of trying to keep your milk supply up when baby is filling up on formula and doesn't want to nurse as much because the formula digests far more slowly than breastmilk. Of course, when your supply begins to drop because baby isn't nursing as often, rest assured, you can always buy him some more formula.

Next up: "A 60-Second Introduction to Formula." One benefit of formula feeding: "This way, Dad can get in on the act, too!" Because, you know, Dad couldn't get in on the act by changing diapers or playing with the baby at other times. One of the pieces of advice given here is "if adding a bottle here and there makes you a calmer, happier mom, that will benefit your baby too." You know what else generally makes for a calmer, happier mom? Valium. Maybe all new mothers should be prescribed Valium, as, hey, if it makes mom calmer and happier, it might benefit baby too!

Yeah.

So, how exactly did I get on the list to receive this wonderful publication and the generous samples of formula? Best I can figure, my information was sold to Enfamil when I went shopping at Motherhood Maternity for --- (wait for it) --- nursing bras.

There has to be some irony in that.

Brainwash, rinse, repeat?

I've tried not to write anything about the whole Obama-speech-to-American-schoolchildren thing. Really, I've tried to hold my tongue. Maybe it's the sleep deprivation, maybe it's my sheer amazement at the things I'm hearing and reading from parents who think Obama is out to brainwash their children, or probably a combination of the two, but I just can't keep quiet any longer.

Get real, people.

First of all, the man is a freaking politician, not a hypnotist. What exactly do you think he is going to do or say in 15-minute speech that will cause an entire generation of children to rise up and create a new socialist world order? I mean, honestly? I've seen video of mothers breaking down in tears over the thought of their precious offspring being forever warped by watching a 15-minute speech about education and the need to stay in school. I don't get it. I mean, if their kids are anything like them, they'll probably be sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you" anyways, right?

Second, to those who don't want their kids seeing the speech without their parents being present: what kind of children are you raising? You do realize that in order to be a successful adult, you're supposed to have the ability to think for yourself, and this ability is not magically conferred upon you the second you turn 18 - you have to practice and hone this skill way ahead of time. Parents who feel the need to vet everything and anything their children come in contact with seem to be setting their kids up to live inside a plastic bubble, because heaven forbid the kids should hear or see something that differs from what mommy and daddy believe or think. What will happen to these kids when they go out into the big old world and have to deal with people who have different thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and backgrounds from their own? Is mom or dad going to be there day in and day out to protect them from ideas that might challenge their own? Are these parents screening each and every schoolmate and friend to make sure everyone believes the same things, has the same political leanings, and worships at the same locale? Because if you think a 15-minute speech by the President can cause little Susie to turn to the dark side, whoa, what about a 30-minute lunch with friends who aren't the same religion?

But you know what really gets me? The same parents who are upset right now about Obama "indoctrinating" their children tend to be the same parents who want prayer in public school and Creationism in the science books. These are the same parents who don't understand why people of other faiths - or those who have no faith - might take issue with that. If a 15-minute speech can lead to the downfall of everything Mom and Dad have tried to teach their children, what effect do you think having to listen to day after day, year after year, of Christian prayer might have on non-Christian children? Why is it ok to attempt to "indoctrinate" these other children? Or is indoctrination only ok when it's your beliefs that are being pushed?

Breastfeeding - A Good Way to Get Fired?

It has been a win some/lose some week for breastfeeding moms who work.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ruled (CFEHC) that a woman cannot be fired for breastfeeding during break time. Marina Chavez, a cashier at Acosta Tacos in Los Angeles, was fired from her job when her manager discovered she had been using her breaks to breastfeed her premature baby. When manager Jaime Acosta discovered that Chavez's boyfriend had been bringing the 4-week-old baby to the restaurant so Chavez could nurse the child in the car, Acosta told her she could not come back to work until she stopped nursing her baby. When she stated that she could not wait that long to return to work because the family needed the money, Acosta fired her. The CFEHC ruled that breastfeeding on one's own time (as the break is considered to be) is protected under California law. Acosta Tacos was ordered to pay Chavez $41k and pay a fine to the state of $5k.

At least one state got it right. Unfortunately, it would seem that another state got it wrong.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Totes/Isotoner Corporation was lawful in firing LaNisa Allen from her job for taking unauthorized breaks in order to pump milk. According to Ms. Allen, she was told she could pump during her lunch break, more than 5 hours after last nursing her then 4-month old son. When she waited the 5 hours, she found that her breasts would hurt and she would leak milk. After noticing that other workers took unauthorized breaks to use the restroom and have a cigarette, she began taking a break at 10am in order to pump. When her supervisors discovered this, they fired her for taking unauthorized breaks. Ms. Allen filed suit, claiming she had been discriminated against. The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed.

Really, how is this anything but discrimination? Many lactating woman cannot just "hold it" for 5+ hours without suffering from pain and engorgement, at the very least. Not allowing an engorged woman to empty her breasts can lead to blocked ducts and mastitis, a serious breast infection. Would the Ohio court have ruled it was ok for the Totes/Isotoner corporation to fire someone with diabetes if they took "unauthorized breaks" to check their blood sugar and take insulin? Or how about if they fired someone with bladder issues who had to use the restroom more often than once every 5 hours? As it is, according to Ms. Allen, co-workers took unauthorized breaks to smoke and use the bathroom - why was she singled out and what was lawful about that?

To make things even worse, Totes/Isotoner touts their Comfort for a Cure Campaign to raise money for the breast cancer research. Yep, the very same body part that produces breastmilk. By the way, did you know that breastfeeding has been found to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer? So it would seem that Totes/Isotoner only cares about finding a cure, but not supporting the prevention of breast cancer.

Yeah. You can send those emails to customeraffairs@totes.com.

Protecting the United States

Having been subjected to the abject cheesiness and mind-blowing silliness of Indian mainstream cinema while growing up, there is a part of me that understands why Homeland Security might see Bollywood as a threat. But, come on, did they really have to detain Bollywood icon and superstar Shah Rukh Khan at Newark airport for "secondary questioning" for two hours? I mean, was he threatening to start a non-sequitur, perfectly choreographed and lip-synced dance sequence or something?

According to Khan, his only possible crime was having the last name "Khan." I guess having the name Khan might be construed as sign of a possible threat, you know, if you were Captain Kirk or something. But guys, this is Shah Rukh Khan! All Homeland Security had to do was google the man's name to know who he is and what he looks like. Hell, they could have just gone out and asked some of the cab drivers waiting outside the airport to ID the man!

I'm not saying that an actor - any actor - is above the law or rules and regulations. However, it is a little scary when the Department of Homeland Security's information gathering is so poor that they can't correctly identify the biggest actor in India - especially in less than two hours.

Epic fail guys.