Re: "There is a Bomb in Gilead...and Hitler's giving medals...."

Um, yeah...ya know what else I realized about this shite? It means
that Roe vs. Wade is going to be overturned within the next two
years, or as soon as a poster-child case can be found. All this
release of "federal guidelines" is intended to pave the way so that
there can be no strong-enough objection to prevent rolling back
abortion rights completely (well, unless you can afford anything and
everything--as usual).

There will be no exceptions allowed for a mother's health ("See,
we're taking care of that--we simply assume that everyone's
pregnant, so no one has an excuse"), for financial hardship ("Well,
didn't you plan.../:)...?") or for rape/incest ("She's healthy
enough, she can certainly carry the baby to term and then get it
out of her life and forget about it"). Hell, why should it matter
anyhow? "Your Honour, she was pre-pregnant anyways when I followed
her home..." Baby-first thinking, all the way down the line.

Seriously, people--any comprehensive social program meant to produce
healthier live babies has to take into account both sides and
emphasize better health overall, whether for healthy breeding or --
*gasp*-- for one's own health as an individual. As a well-informed
teenager, and as an adult legally capable of making one's own
personal decisions without undue interference. Any set of public-
health policies that pointedly ignores that in favour of such a lump
reproductive classification can hardly be described as a step forward
for 'women's health', no matter what officials and healthcare
providers say. It's merely a cushion of benign concern to cover
their asses as they prepare to march the U.S. backwards in time.

[Linkto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hyperlucidity/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR20060/51500875.html
http://aureantesrealm.blogspot.com/2006/05/there-is-bomb-in-gilead-and-hitlers.html (aka previous blogpost)]

There is a Bomb in Gilead--and Hitler's giving medals...

Apparently this news didn't have a chance to register on my headline-radar from the other weekend, seeing as I was out of state visiting my fiancee....yeah, and she's pissed about it too. Shocked, appalled and both of us growling mad. Just for the record, we don't plan on having any children, though it seems that the conscious and deliberate intent of adults means approximately nada these days....

What I'm referring to, of course is this:

Forever Pregnant
Guidelines: Treat Nearly All Women as Pre-Pregnant

By January W. Payne
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Page HE01

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.
Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

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.

[..Statistics on infant mortality and low prenatal health conditions...yeah, that's a big problem for a supposedly-developed country, not denying that...]

Preconception care should be delivered by any doctor a patient sees -- from her primary care physician to her gynecologist. It involves developing a "reproductive health plan" that details if and when children are planned, said Janis Biermann, a report co-author and vice president for education and health promotion at the March of Dimes.

[....Okay, here comes the really really pressuring part, though---]

Experts acknowledge that women with no plans to get pregnant in the near future may resist preconception care.

"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.


Ahhhh, right....."standard women's health care." Would you pray tell me then, how does one get out of standard women's health care and all its prying questions and assumptions? Is it not enough to state your intentions to abstain from breeding?--must one have a complete sterilization to be considered exempt from the new healthy-baby agenda? And what about lesbians?--now that we have a 'gayby boom', will they be taken seriously if they say their form of birth-control is "not sleeping with men"? Are clearly masculine women and even pre-op (or non-op, non-hormones) transgendered men going to be embarrassed by their doctors treating them like every other biological woman, just 'cause they're theoretically able to conceive?

And what about the other side of the equation--biological men of an age to be sowing their wild oats and spreading sperm?--you don't see them mentioned in this little pack of guidelines, even though they provide half the genetic material and generally a good deal of the initiative behind every pregnancy, planned or (inevitably) unplanned. Shouldn't every teenager post-puberty and up be treated as a potential father/sperm-donor whose health should be kept in optimal stud condition, and his lifestyle habits and disease risks evaluated in respect to his breeding potential?--or would that be some kind of a personal intrusion? Even if that sort of treatment and questioning made for greater awareness and self-control and "planning" on their part as to the whole baby-making thang?

Look, people -- I'm not against having healthier babies (it's a lot better for making healthy adults, afterall), and ironically enough I'd been recently posting to one of my groups (post reproduced earlier here) on the need for better prenatal heath -- but for both parents-to-be in every case. Meaning that everyone ought to take care of themselves the best way possible for their intentions, whether to breed or not to breed. That's the way it ought to be, and that's the way for people to be responsible adults and handle their own affairs. I don't think that the government has any right leveling a mass assumption of 'pre-pregnancy" on teenage girls and women, and I think that it's a step backwards towards paternalism over women's bodies and restriction of their lives on behalf on their reproductive potential...which we've had workplace issues over before.

Apart from the cultural implications, it is very clear to me that this polite new semi-mandate has one main goal in mind coming now from this administration...and that is neither to reduce unplanned pregnancies (how can it, if it only targets women?) nor infant mortality (joint genetics, quality of care and access to it are also high factors), but purely and simply to reduce abortions....directly, the ones done for reasons of threatening maternal health, but with more insidious effects on the whole area of sex and reproduction. To encourage every woman to think of herself as already pregnant in taking care of herself --contrary to the idea of encouraging planning-- sends the message that it's ultimately out of her control so she might as well prepare for it, that every pregnancy planned or not must be carried to term so long as she's healthy anyhow, and (this to men, eventually) that a woman taking good care of herself healthwise must automatically be a woman who is open to bearing children. Which really is a step backwards in terms of seeing the individual rather than just a vessel of fertility or not.....but hey, didn't Martin Luther say something about breeding being women's sole sanctifying purpose in life? Faith-based organizations will take note of this, believe me...

Oh.....plus it sends the usual double-standard message that it's okay for men to be overweight, unfit, undisciplined (and unattractive) schlubs with irresponsible diets and all the smoking and drinking they want, so long as they're healthy enough to have sex (and take a pill to get it up if they have to). Performance is everything, substance is nothing....and why should men have to worry about their future babies?

Meanwhile, I think that in a few years we'll be seeing exemplary mothers (for birthing, not for raising) presented with medals by the Fuehrer--sorry, President--for their services to the nation. Afterall, you need a lot of healthy young to raise for cannon-fodder in perpetual warfare and a military/police state, not to mention satisfying the growth needs of that great brazen idol known as The Economy.......

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.

And the point of punishing the media is what now?

Regarding the article cited below:
Congress Agrees to Raise Broadcast-Indecency Fines
Conference to Decide Maximum Penalty
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 20, 2006


Okay, okay....to some this is a bigger issue than others, of course, especially if you've got young children of your own. No one's going to disagree that parents have a right to protect (or a duty to dissuade?) their children from broadcast material that's too ribald or sexual or violent for them -- but isn't that what all those religious and family-oriented channels are for, not to mention the hi-tech invention of the V-chip and the low-tech invention of being able to talk to your family in the first place about what gets watched? Doesn't having other people watching out for what your kids watch means they want to control what they see, regardless of your own choices or parental inertia or philosophy?

Not to mention keeping an eye on what other adults are allowed to see or hear....

I think the main question is what the definition of "indecency" is, and who is going to take it on themselves to establish a standard. With the penalties going this high, it's likely to eventually quash a lot more in the way of publically-broadcast material than just what most of us would agree is patently obscene or offensive....I mean, what about that controversial episode of "Postcards From Buster" that was pulled last year or so? It didn't have anything 'indecent' or 'adult' going on, but there was ire enough that a lesbian couple was shown as being 'normal' and human.

And admittedly, this is not referring to cable -- cable TV and satellite radio have argued the case well that not everyone has automatic access to them anyhow. As long as you have to subscribe to it and have the well-enough publicized option of blocking channels and ratings.....well, right, of course. Can't put a damper on paying customers....

But really, what's with the paternalism anyhow? What's with the constant protecting people against what they're likely as not to have seen already, or not be long in encountering? Since when has "realistic human behaviour" been something to be treated like a dirty little secret, when it's a dirty big reality of real life anyhow? Designated children's programming per se is already wholesome and mostly G-rated in content, and kids who have a list of established favourite shows are unlikely to veer off it (I know this from experience--other shows are just boring filler around the things you really want to watch). I'm not in favour of trashfests and tabloid-shows, mind you (most of which currently get by with bleeping out profanity and just being ambiently sleazyin their subjects), but I am worried that these heightened penalties will push more protective self-censorship of things that are only "indecent" if you're a member of the Religious Right with a moral axe to grind. So where's the official line going to be drawn when it comes to letting children (and people without cable/satellite?) be exposed to ideas and social realities that the official powers-that-be don't approve of airing on the (temporarily) open airwaves, and who's qualified to decide what things are best prohibited for the public good?

Ya callin' me an anti-humanist or somethin'?

Initial Subject: Re: "Animal rights camp to export terror" (Telegraph, UK)
Stimulus: "I'm all for treating animals well and getting rid of unnecessary torturous experiments, like cosmetics, but the truth is.. we do need animal testing for many medical problems. If you have diabetes, you can thank the chimps who were experimented on to come up with glucose balancing medicine. Ditto for thyroid medication and other medicines many of us take daily and don't think twice about. Yes, maybe we should just die and decrease the surplus population. I already hear your argument, Aurey ;-)"
Disclaimer: I never said I was in favour of PETA and similarly-aggressive groups, nor of forcing an end to all animal testing.


Heh....well, my argument is in favour of medical research, but not in
pushing the envelope of life too hard and too greedily....
I'm more in favour of having people lead healthier and more
able/fulfilling lives rather than necessarily longer ones, and I
think that more attention needs to be paid to prenatal (and pre-
procreation at all) health of both parents and child, rather than
having every extreme premature case "rescued" and put on an incubator
no matter how remotely viable. Besides, I'm also all for reducing
the chasm in quality of health care between rich and poor, and I
think that financing/resources are often far better alotted to making
sure that medical advancements and due professional attention are
made available to as many people as possible in all regions, rather
than pushing on constantly ahead on cutting-edge advancements that
will only widen the divide between those who can afford the best in
care (both necessary and elective/cosmetic) and those who can't.
And yeah, I think that PETA is scary. Personally, I don't see why so
many celebrities support/do ads for them, unless there's some sort of
a Scientology-type different angle that they're being fed. I'm
against J-Lo using fur in her fashions (as demand increases
hunting/farming, not to mention that I can't stand J-Lo anyhow),
but I don't deny its virtues as a practical covering if the
climate/weather demands, and I'm not against leather, especially not
so long as there's a meat industry in the first place that results in
hides being harvested.
[And don't try to push veganism on me as an ultimate ideal, 'cause
I'm well aware from my own and my siblings' allergies/sensitivities
that no, soy is not the answer to everything. Different people
have different needs and issues--deal with it. Personally, I was
born an omnivore.]
I think that there should be more effort in fashion/design to make
faux animal materials look convincing and wear better so that there
is less visual prestige to having 'the real thing'.

Oh, and I hate seeing roadkill on the highways where animals can't
cross any other way, and I think that game hunting these days is
hardly a credible sport, especially as culling "trophy" animals is
against the natural practice of predators. All of which falls under
the general heading of selfishness, hurry and unfair advantage. But
I know that medical research animals are generally treated well and
valued for their (albeit involuntary) contributions...well, make that
more of an "I knew that..."--because scientific research may well
have gotten more callous since its pioneering days, what with
corporate expansion and incentives. But I hardly see them getting
more humane on the whole with having to be on the defensive against
targeted ideological attacks. There needs to be a middle ground, and
neither the radicals (who want a war and are preparing for it) nor
the pharmaceutical companies (who want their profits unhampered by
public controversy) are making use of it.

Aurey

P.S.--My family's total past and current ecological affiliations
include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Foundation,
the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon
Society, the Coalition of Concerned Scientists -- and Brookfield
Zoo. Just to be comprehensive about it.