I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, considering I lived in Texas for 8 years...
State representative Betty Brown is causing a wee bit of an uproar after suggesting that Asian Americans should adopt American names in order to make things easier for poll workers at precincts. Apparently, the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is it indicated that ease of pronunciation is a prerequisite for voting rights eluded Ms. Brown.
A gem from Rep. Brown:
"Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?"
The ignorance is almost frightening.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Sexting: A crime or kids being kids?
There has been a lot of discussion about sexting, the act of sending nude pictures over cell phones, in the news lately. A prosecutor in Pennsylvannia threatened to charge 3 teenage girls with sexual abuse of a minor for taking pictures of themselves wearing bras and sending the pictures to friends from their camera phones. That's right: the prosecutor was basically stating that the girls had sexually abused themselves. He justified his actions by stating that their pictures were child pornography. If convicted, the girls could serve time in prison and be forced to register as sex offenders.
Huh?
Look, I don't think anyone would argue that sexting is a really, really stupid thing to do. Really stupid. Monumentally stupid. But is it really a crime to simply be guilty of being a stupid teenager? Last time I checked, it was not illegal for a person to take pictures of him or herself, naked or not.
Now, what you might ask, would I consider a crime? Receiving said pictures and then sending them on to other people without permission, like what Phillip Alpert did. In a temper, Alpert, who was 18 at the time, forwarded nude pics of his 16-year-old girlfriend, which she had sent to him, on to family and friends. However, I don't think that such an action should be a felony, which was what Alpert was convicted of, and I certainly don't believe that it is an act that requires registering as a sex offender. I think that it should be a misdemeanor, perhaps along the lines of harassment. This might discourage teens and adults from not only forwarding such pictures on, but just might discourage some of them from taking such pictures. Because heaven knows, you can tell a teenager not to do something until you are blue in the face, but in the end, it's their decision and they have to deal with the consequences. Let's just make sure the consequences fit the crime...or lack thereof.
Huh?
Look, I don't think anyone would argue that sexting is a really, really stupid thing to do. Really stupid. Monumentally stupid. But is it really a crime to simply be guilty of being a stupid teenager? Last time I checked, it was not illegal for a person to take pictures of him or herself, naked or not.
Now, what you might ask, would I consider a crime? Receiving said pictures and then sending them on to other people without permission, like what Phillip Alpert did. In a temper, Alpert, who was 18 at the time, forwarded nude pics of his 16-year-old girlfriend, which she had sent to him, on to family and friends. However, I don't think that such an action should be a felony, which was what Alpert was convicted of, and I certainly don't believe that it is an act that requires registering as a sex offender. I think that it should be a misdemeanor, perhaps along the lines of harassment. This might discourage teens and adults from not only forwarding such pictures on, but just might discourage some of them from taking such pictures. Because heaven knows, you can tell a teenager not to do something until you are blue in the face, but in the end, it's their decision and they have to deal with the consequences. Let's just make sure the consequences fit the crime...or lack thereof.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A Question of Rights
I am currently 26 weeks pregnant with my second child, a little boy, whom my husband and I plan to usher into the world at home, rather than in a hospital. The decision to homebirth is, to say the least, a controversial one in the medical community. There are certainly those doctors who would argue that I am endangering my fetus by choosing to birth with a midwife in attendance, outside of the hospital setting. But as a competent adult and citizen of the United States, that should be a decision that I have the right to make and carry out. It is my body, after all.
Unfortunately, the ability of pregnant women to make such medical and bodily decisions for themselves is coming under attack, and in the most insidious ways.
On April 4, the North Dakota State Senate voted to defeat legislation that would have defined as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens," whether inside or outside the womb; in addition, the legislation would have conferred equal protection under the law to these organisms, from the moment of fertilization.
The scary part is that the North Dakota House had already passed this bill.
While on the surface, this may look like yet another battle in the abortion debate, the fact of the matter is that bills like this not only undermine the ability of a woman to make decisions about abortion, they undermine the rights of women to make medical decisions, period. By defining life as starting at conception and conferring equal rights on fertilized eggs, suddenly, every miscarriage can be considered a possible homicide, every woman who drinks alcohol or uses drugs when there is a possibility that she might be pregnant is guilty of child abuse, and every pregnant woman who does not agree with the advice of her doctor could be forced, against her will, to undergo medical intervention because of the "rights" of the unborn.
Think I'm overreacting? In 1986, Ayesha Madyun was court-ordered to have a c-section after her water broke two days earlier and she had not given birth; doctors argued there was a 50-75% chance that the fetus was in danger of infection if Ms. Madyun refused intervention. The baby was born healthy with no sign of infection. In 1987, Angela Carder, a woman who was extremely sick with cancer, was forced by a hospital and a judge's order to undergo a cesarean section to deliver her daughter at 26 weeks of gestation. The neonate lived two hours; Mrs. Carder died two days later, and the c-section was listed as one of the causes of her death. In 1996, Laura Pemberton, a woman who was denied the VBAC she wanted, was arrested by a sheriff while in labor and forcible brought to a hospital to have a c-section; Ms. Pemberton later went on to have 4 more children vaginally, without incident, though she labored in hiding. In 2003, Amber Marlowe, a woman in Pennsylvannia, was told by doctors that she had to have a c-section because the fetus was estimated to be 13lbs, which, in their opinion, was too large to birth vaginally. While the doctors and hospital were successfully getting a court order to force the c-section, Mrs. Marlowe and her husband went to a different hospital, where she successfully delivered the 11lb, 9oz girl vaginally without medication.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
No court can compel a person to have medical intervention, such as a transplant or blood donation, for the benefit of another already living person. Yet, these cases show that when it comes to pregnant women, their rights to make medical decisions for themselves are not absolute. If attempts to define personhood at conception succeed, how many women will be forced to undergo interventions and treatments that they do not want? How many women will avoid getting adequate prenatal and personal medical care in order to avoid the chance of being forced into unwanted treatment? Where will it end?
Unfortunately, the ability of pregnant women to make such medical and bodily decisions for themselves is coming under attack, and in the most insidious ways.
On April 4, the North Dakota State Senate voted to defeat legislation that would have defined as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens," whether inside or outside the womb; in addition, the legislation would have conferred equal protection under the law to these organisms, from the moment of fertilization.
The scary part is that the North Dakota House had already passed this bill.
While on the surface, this may look like yet another battle in the abortion debate, the fact of the matter is that bills like this not only undermine the ability of a woman to make decisions about abortion, they undermine the rights of women to make medical decisions, period. By defining life as starting at conception and conferring equal rights on fertilized eggs, suddenly, every miscarriage can be considered a possible homicide, every woman who drinks alcohol or uses drugs when there is a possibility that she might be pregnant is guilty of child abuse, and every pregnant woman who does not agree with the advice of her doctor could be forced, against her will, to undergo medical intervention because of the "rights" of the unborn.
Think I'm overreacting? In 1986, Ayesha Madyun was court-ordered to have a c-section after her water broke two days earlier and she had not given birth; doctors argued there was a 50-75% chance that the fetus was in danger of infection if Ms. Madyun refused intervention. The baby was born healthy with no sign of infection. In 1987, Angela Carder, a woman who was extremely sick with cancer, was forced by a hospital and a judge's order to undergo a cesarean section to deliver her daughter at 26 weeks of gestation. The neonate lived two hours; Mrs. Carder died two days later, and the c-section was listed as one of the causes of her death. In 1996, Laura Pemberton, a woman who was denied the VBAC she wanted, was arrested by a sheriff while in labor and forcible brought to a hospital to have a c-section; Ms. Pemberton later went on to have 4 more children vaginally, without incident, though she labored in hiding. In 2003, Amber Marlowe, a woman in Pennsylvannia, was told by doctors that she had to have a c-section because the fetus was estimated to be 13lbs, which, in their opinion, was too large to birth vaginally. While the doctors and hospital were successfully getting a court order to force the c-section, Mrs. Marlowe and her husband went to a different hospital, where she successfully delivered the 11lb, 9oz girl vaginally without medication.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
No court can compel a person to have medical intervention, such as a transplant or blood donation, for the benefit of another already living person. Yet, these cases show that when it comes to pregnant women, their rights to make medical decisions for themselves are not absolute. If attempts to define personhood at conception succeed, how many women will be forced to undergo interventions and treatments that they do not want? How many women will avoid getting adequate prenatal and personal medical care in order to avoid the chance of being forced into unwanted treatment? Where will it end?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Case Against "The Case Against Breastfeeding"
Yet another volley in the mommy wars…this time, the formula feeders strike back. *sigh* An opinion piece, “The Case Against Breastfeeding,” published in The Atlantic written by Hanna Roisin is the latest salvo. What is presented at the outset as a take down of the scientific studies that support the benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding instead comes across as an angry diatribe from a woman who is trying to balance three kids, a marriage, and a career, and views the pressure to breastfeed as the one of the keys to her unhappiness. It seems to more about one woman’s insecurity in the choices she is making or would like to make and emotions she feels about those choices. Ms. Roisin, as it becomes clear, is not one of the mothers who enjoyed the breastfeeding experience. But rather than a) accepting that all of mothering is not enjoyable or b) choosing to formula feed instead, Ms. Roisin instead writes a factually and scientifically questionable article that seems intent on trying to reassure herself that if she were to switch to formula feeding, it would be ok.
Let me be upfront: I breastfed my older son until 22 months of age and I certainly plan to breastfeed my second son, who is due this summer. For me, breastfeeding wasn’t easy – my son was severely tongue-tied, which meant round-the-clock nursing until he was diagnosed and his tongue clipped at the age of 6 weeks. At that point, I did have to supplement him with formula for several weeks while I worked on rebuilding my milk supply – a process that meant nursing, followed by bottle-feeding, followed by pumping at every single feeding. It was exhausting and I could really understand why another mom in different circumstances would choose not to do it; I certainly would not have held it against another mother who chose to formula feed instead. We suffered through bouts of thrush, blocked ducts, and engorgement. When I went back to work, I lugged my detested pump with me and dutifully spent my breaks pumping. No, it was not all sunshine and roses. But I did it because on my personal hierarchy of parenting priorities, breastfeeding was high on the list. I put a lot of effort into making the breastfeeding relationship work, so please excuse me if I get just the tiniest bit irritated when Ms. Roisin comes along and likens breastfeeding to “the vacuum that was keeping me and my 21st-century sisters down.”
Ms. Roisin, breastfeeding did not keep me down. On the contrary, being able to work through the challenges of breastfeeding and being successful with it, sticking with it in spite of the looks I would get in public, and making it close to my goal of breastfeeding for 2 years was empowering for me. I’m not a perfect parent – I don’t do organic, I don’t cloth diaper, the tv is not forbidden in our house, and there are quite a few evenings when dinner is an overprocessed frozen pizza. I admit it freely: I actively make less than the ideal or best choice on more than the rare occasion – but I also own those choices and I don’t need to denigrate the choices of others in order to feel like a good parent. I’m not going to rail against the pro-fresh food lobby or try to poke holes in research that supports the premise that eating fresh and whole foods is healthier than eating frozen pizza. What would be the point? I might feel better about choosing the pizza, but it wouldn’t change the fact that the fresh and whole foods are healthier than the frozen pizza. I pick my battles based on what my values and priorities are. It’s part of being an adult and part of being a good parent. And I certainly don’t need the validation of someone like Ms. Roisin to feel good about that. Why she needs the validation of myself and the other "breast-feeding fascists" is beyond me.
Let me be upfront: I breastfed my older son until 22 months of age and I certainly plan to breastfeed my second son, who is due this summer. For me, breastfeeding wasn’t easy – my son was severely tongue-tied, which meant round-the-clock nursing until he was diagnosed and his tongue clipped at the age of 6 weeks. At that point, I did have to supplement him with formula for several weeks while I worked on rebuilding my milk supply – a process that meant nursing, followed by bottle-feeding, followed by pumping at every single feeding. It was exhausting and I could really understand why another mom in different circumstances would choose not to do it; I certainly would not have held it against another mother who chose to formula feed instead. We suffered through bouts of thrush, blocked ducts, and engorgement. When I went back to work, I lugged my detested pump with me and dutifully spent my breaks pumping. No, it was not all sunshine and roses. But I did it because on my personal hierarchy of parenting priorities, breastfeeding was high on the list. I put a lot of effort into making the breastfeeding relationship work, so please excuse me if I get just the tiniest bit irritated when Ms. Roisin comes along and likens breastfeeding to “the vacuum that was keeping me and my 21st-century sisters down.”
Ms. Roisin, breastfeeding did not keep me down. On the contrary, being able to work through the challenges of breastfeeding and being successful with it, sticking with it in spite of the looks I would get in public, and making it close to my goal of breastfeeding for 2 years was empowering for me. I’m not a perfect parent – I don’t do organic, I don’t cloth diaper, the tv is not forbidden in our house, and there are quite a few evenings when dinner is an overprocessed frozen pizza. I admit it freely: I actively make less than the ideal or best choice on more than the rare occasion – but I also own those choices and I don’t need to denigrate the choices of others in order to feel like a good parent. I’m not going to rail against the pro-fresh food lobby or try to poke holes in research that supports the premise that eating fresh and whole foods is healthier than eating frozen pizza. What would be the point? I might feel better about choosing the pizza, but it wouldn’t change the fact that the fresh and whole foods are healthier than the frozen pizza. I pick my battles based on what my values and priorities are. It’s part of being an adult and part of being a good parent. And I certainly don’t need the validation of someone like Ms. Roisin to feel good about that. Why she needs the validation of myself and the other "breast-feeding fascists" is beyond me.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Hiding Under the Couch
"Hiding Under the Couch" otherwise known as my reaction to Bobby Jindal's rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union speech.
First, I must say, in all superficiality, damn, Jindal was wearing a lot of makeup!! The man's skin looked pretty flawless, which, well, really isn't the case.
Second, make him stop! The voice, the voice! That accent! Where in the hell did he get that accent from? That accent is not Baton Rouge! That accent is like a really bad voiceover from a 1950s educational film. And it grates! As if there aren't enough horrible stereotypes about Louisiana to begin with, now we have to add that voice to it?
Third, you know, to be honest, I can appreciate Jindal relaying that anecdote about his immigrant father talking about the plenty that America holds and the inspiration it brings. Maybe I can appreciate it because I remember repeating the same type of anecdote during speech competition in HIGH SCHOOL. Egads! As we Indians don't have to deal with enough as it is - now we have to live this one down!
Fourth, maybe I missed something, but how was the Bush administration's response to Katrina a positive show of Republican leadership?
Fifth, make it stop! Make it stop! I feel like I am being lectured by Farmer Folksy McFolks-a-alot. For the love of all that's holy, make it stop!
I'm going back to hide under the couch now...
First, I must say, in all superficiality, damn, Jindal was wearing a lot of makeup!! The man's skin looked pretty flawless, which, well, really isn't the case.
Second, make him stop! The voice, the voice! That accent! Where in the hell did he get that accent from? That accent is not Baton Rouge! That accent is like a really bad voiceover from a 1950s educational film. And it grates! As if there aren't enough horrible stereotypes about Louisiana to begin with, now we have to add that voice to it?
Third, you know, to be honest, I can appreciate Jindal relaying that anecdote about his immigrant father talking about the plenty that America holds and the inspiration it brings. Maybe I can appreciate it because I remember repeating the same type of anecdote during speech competition in HIGH SCHOOL. Egads! As we Indians don't have to deal with enough as it is - now we have to live this one down!
Fourth, maybe I missed something, but how was the Bush administration's response to Katrina a positive show of Republican leadership?
Fifth, make it stop! Make it stop! I feel like I am being lectured by Farmer Folksy McFolks-a-alot. For the love of all that's holy, make it stop!
I'm going back to hide under the couch now...
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Long Arm of the Law
There are some days when nothing lawmakers do (or try to do) surprises you. Then there are days like this. In Virginia, state senator Mark Obenshain has introduced Senate Bill 926, a bill that is not only an insult to each and every female in the Commonwealth, but also, if passed, an insane intrusion into the right of privacy that every individual has. In a nutshell, the bill seeks to mandate that within 24 hours of a miscarriage, law enforcement officials must be informed of the incident, if medical professionals were not present at the miscarriage. In addition, the remains must be saved until law enforcement professionals give their permission for the disposal.
What?!?
First of all, 20 to 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. And I would venture a guess that a large number of those miscarriages do not conveniently occur with medical professionals in attendance. That would be a large number of incidents that would need to be reported to and investigated by law enforcement. Given the budget shortfalls occurring across the nation in light of the recession, is that really an effective use of investigative resources?
Second, the majority of miscarriages occur before the end of the 1st trimester. Any remains of the fetus can be hard to discern at that point. Are women really supposed to hang on to every bloody toliet paper strip and maxi pad? Are they not allowed to flush the toliet? No showers during the loss, because blood and tissue could go down the drain? I mean, honestly? I hate to say it, but only a man -who could never have personally experienced a miscarriage - could write such an inane bill.
Third, many miscarriages are the loss of a very much wanted and hoped for baby. For the mothers (and yes, the fathers as well) who experience them, there is very real grief over something that is still poorly understood by medical science. There are few answers for the woman who is - or has - suffered a miscarriage, and as a result, women will often times blame themselves for real or imagined mistakes that they made during the pregnancy. To have to deal with law enforcement personnel at that time, rather than spending that time and energy dealing with the emotional and physical aftermath of the pregnancy loss, is an unconscionable mandate.
The bill is an affront to the rights of every woman - not just those of childbearing age. Should this bill become law, it would set a dangerous precedent as to when and how government can intervene in the private medical matters of women. I mean, what's next? A government inquest every time a woman gets her period?
Give me a break.
What?!?
First of all, 20 to 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. And I would venture a guess that a large number of those miscarriages do not conveniently occur with medical professionals in attendance. That would be a large number of incidents that would need to be reported to and investigated by law enforcement. Given the budget shortfalls occurring across the nation in light of the recession, is that really an effective use of investigative resources?
Second, the majority of miscarriages occur before the end of the 1st trimester. Any remains of the fetus can be hard to discern at that point. Are women really supposed to hang on to every bloody toliet paper strip and maxi pad? Are they not allowed to flush the toliet? No showers during the loss, because blood and tissue could go down the drain? I mean, honestly? I hate to say it, but only a man -who could never have personally experienced a miscarriage - could write such an inane bill.
Third, many miscarriages are the loss of a very much wanted and hoped for baby. For the mothers (and yes, the fathers as well) who experience them, there is very real grief over something that is still poorly understood by medical science. There are few answers for the woman who is - or has - suffered a miscarriage, and as a result, women will often times blame themselves for real or imagined mistakes that they made during the pregnancy. To have to deal with law enforcement personnel at that time, rather than spending that time and energy dealing with the emotional and physical aftermath of the pregnancy loss, is an unconscionable mandate.
The bill is an affront to the rights of every woman - not just those of childbearing age. Should this bill become law, it would set a dangerous precedent as to when and how government can intervene in the private medical matters of women. I mean, what's next? A government inquest every time a woman gets her period?
Give me a break.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Someone needs to go back to Journalism 101...
Someone at 20/20, that is. On January 2, 2009, 20/20 ran an episode themed "Extreme Parenting." As part of this package of segments, they ran one about homebirth. Sort of. Captioned as a story about homebirth, the segment interchangeably describes homebirthing with a trained nurse-midwife in attendance with homebirthing without medical personnel in attendance, a practice often called unassisted birth. By conflating the two, 20/20 not only does a disservice to the general viewing audience and those who choose to homebirth, it also calls into question the intelligence of its story editors and journalists.
The segment opens somewhat dramatically with a shot of a log cabin surrounded by mountains. Journalist Elizabeth Vargas voices over this image, inviting the audience to think about what it must have been like to give birth on the American frontier 200 years ago. "There's not a hospital or a pain-relieving drug or an ob/gyn in sight." Heavens to Betsy!! What shall we do? In order to showcase what Betsy might have done, the segment then shows snippets of classic Western movies (or perhaps they confused these fictional movies with actual historical documents - one can only guess). Vargas states that in spite of the "primitive" and "dangerous" methods, by today's standards, women seemed to do okay. However, she states, there is a small segment of modern American mothers-to-be who are "choosing to give birth without medical assistance." As Vargas says this, we see images of women holding newborns right after giving birth - images that are likely familiar to anyone who has seen the documentary "The Business of Being Born." You know, that documentary that followed medically-trained midwives as they helped women give birth, not just some layperson off the street who don't know nothing about birthing no babies. Next, we are introduced to Laura Shanley, a Colorado woman who is one of the most outspoken proponents of unassisted birth. We move directly from a quote by Shanley to a snippet from The Business of Being Born showing Ricki Lake's homebirth with her 2nd child. A homebirth that was attended by a midwife. Confused yet? This back and forth between unassisted birth and midwife-attended homebirth continues throughout the poorly-written segment. To blur the line even more, the last part of the segment is Shanley talking about unassisted birth. Wow. Way to not muddy the waters, ABC.
I really wonder if after viewing the final version of the segment, Ricki Lake got pissed off and decided to do an expose of the geniuses at 20/20, because if I was her, I would be right pissed off. Really, the only thing lacking from the terrible segment was an interview with the notorious homebirth opponent, Amy Tuteur. Eh, maybe someone at 20/20 was thinking that day...
The segment opens somewhat dramatically with a shot of a log cabin surrounded by mountains. Journalist Elizabeth Vargas voices over this image, inviting the audience to think about what it must have been like to give birth on the American frontier 200 years ago. "There's not a hospital or a pain-relieving drug or an ob/gyn in sight." Heavens to Betsy!! What shall we do? In order to showcase what Betsy might have done, the segment then shows snippets of classic Western movies (or perhaps they confused these fictional movies with actual historical documents - one can only guess). Vargas states that in spite of the "primitive" and "dangerous" methods, by today's standards, women seemed to do okay. However, she states, there is a small segment of modern American mothers-to-be who are "choosing to give birth without medical assistance." As Vargas says this, we see images of women holding newborns right after giving birth - images that are likely familiar to anyone who has seen the documentary "The Business of Being Born." You know, that documentary that followed medically-trained midwives as they helped women give birth, not just some layperson off the street who don't know nothing about birthing no babies. Next, we are introduced to Laura Shanley, a Colorado woman who is one of the most outspoken proponents of unassisted birth. We move directly from a quote by Shanley to a snippet from The Business of Being Born showing Ricki Lake's homebirth with her 2nd child. A homebirth that was attended by a midwife. Confused yet? This back and forth between unassisted birth and midwife-attended homebirth continues throughout the poorly-written segment. To blur the line even more, the last part of the segment is Shanley talking about unassisted birth. Wow. Way to not muddy the waters, ABC.
I really wonder if after viewing the final version of the segment, Ricki Lake got pissed off and decided to do an expose of the geniuses at 20/20, because if I was her, I would be right pissed off. Really, the only thing lacking from the terrible segment was an interview with the notorious homebirth opponent, Amy Tuteur. Eh, maybe someone at 20/20 was thinking that day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
