Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500875_pf.html

I am *not* pre-pregnant. I am human. If I'm going to worry about
alcohol consumption, proper weight, and vitamins, it will be because
of *my* health, not some hypothetical baby. It's insulting. It's
demeaning. As a blog I found somewhere said, reading this makes me
want to down 20 shots of tequila and throw myself down the stairs.

I am not a baby factory. I am on birth control for a reason. Even if
I weren't, I would still find this kind of patronizing, "We know what
you want better than you do and don't trust you to figure out the
right end of a condom" bull**** infuriating.

Here's a quote from the WP article:

"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.

Now, that is scary. They're advocating that physicians not make the
distinction between treatments that are good for a woman and ones that
might be good for a hypothetical fetus.

*kicks Bush administration in the nads, hard*

This one really scares me, although apparently it's ongoing and only
tangentially related to the article ... a woman claims she can't get
access to the majority of epilepsy medications because she's female
and therefore potentially could get pregnant, even though she is
asking desperately to try different meds:


Someone mentioned "The Handmaid's Tale" on another thread. This somehow
made me think of that novel again. ;o/

--
Marina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki.
Stories and pics at http://koti.welho.com/mkurten/
Pics at http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/frankiennikki/
and http://community.webshots.com/user/frankiennikki