UN fact sheet on Violence Against Women
http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/sayno/docs/SayNOunite_FactSheet_VAWworldwide.pdf
The network of men involved in working to end the violence. I doubt if they will be afaid af being labeled culturally or religiously insensitive.
http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/network.shtml
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Mammogram Poke-Her: Gambling With Women's Lives?
Dr. Love is the founder of The Army of Women (armyofwomen.org).
I have been a part of her Army since its inception and it is well-worth considering. The women in the Army are able to volunteer for research studies and even have a say in what research should be done.
It gets my:
WOMEN HELPING WOMEN Seal of Approval
From: The LA Times
By Susan Love
November 23, 2009
Although we all would like to think that public health pronouncements are the unmitigated truth about any issue, rarely is that the case. We can only give our best guess, based on the current available data and our current understanding of the disease. Luckily, research continues, hypotheses are reformulated and new recommendations are made.
The path to the truth in science and medicine is nonlinear. Sometimes clinical practice gets ahead of the data and has to be pulled back. This is what happened with post-menopausal hormone therapy when the large Women's Health Initiative trial demonstrated that the then-common practice of giving women hormones at menopause was causing more harm than good. How big was the harm? We know that after the report came out, many women abruptly stopped taking their hormones, and that year, the incidence of breast cancer went down 15%.
We saw a similar shift in women's health when highly touted and extensively used high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue as treatment for aggressive breast cancer was found to not only be no better than the regular-dose chemotherapy we had been using, but to have significantly higher side effects.
I present these examples in an attempt to put the controversy regarding the new mammography guidelines into perspective. The shift in guidelines is not a conspiracy of the insurance companies or the government. It is pure coincidence that they came out while we are in the throes of the healthcare reform debate.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was formed to periodically review the available data and come up with the best recommendation. A lot has changed since its last recommendations in 2002.
One key shift has been in our understanding of the biology of breast cancer. We used to think there was just one kind of cancer that grew at a steady pace; that when it reached a certain size, it spread to the rest of the body. As a result, it seemed to make sense that we could save lives if a screening test could identify the cancer while it was still "early," before it had spread. That's how we developed the notion of early detection. And it works, sometimes.
In the best of hands, mammographic screening in women over 50 will reduce a woman's risk of dying from breast cancer by 30%. That is a lot, but it is not 100%. Why? It turns out that breast cancers are not all the same. There are at least five kinds, with different growth rates and levels of aggression. Some are so aggressive that they will have spread before they are visible on a mammogram or form a lump. Some are very slow growing or may not even have the ability to spread, so there is no benefit from finding them early. This is because of the biology of the disease, not the limitations of screening.
One of the reasons that mammography is a less effective tool in young women is that they have a higher rate of these aggressive tumors. Younger women also have breast tissue that is more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of low-dose radiation. Calculations by a research team in Britain published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2005 suggest that it is possible for women to develop cancer because of the cumulative radiation from yearly mammograms starting at 40 or younger. Finally, mammograms are generally less accurate in younger women who have dense breast tissue, which can mask a cancer. Thus the balance of risk versus benefit is not as clear.
Since the 2002 task force guidelines were released, there has been new data from Britain, which was the first study to look at whether there was any benefit to having women start mammography at age 40. The researchers have followed women in this study for more than 10 years, which means they are now over age 50. To date, they have not shown a statistically significant decrease in mortality. This means if there is a benefit, it must be very small.
The new guidelines are based on this information. They do not say that no women under 50 should get mammograms, but that we should not routinely screen women under 50. Less noted by the media, the guidelines also recommend that we not routinely screen women over 75, where the benefits are dependent on the woman's life expectancy. In both cases, a woman will need to review her situation with her physician.
This has left many young women confused and asking how will we find our cancers if we don't have mammograms. The alternative to mammographic detection of cancer is not death. The alternative is that a woman will find a cancer herself or her physician will find it. The normal "poking around" that women do has been found to be just as good at finding breast cancer as a monthly self-exam.
That's why the task force recommended that doctors encourage women to be familiar with the look and feel of their breasts but to stop teaching formal breast self-exam.
Many of the young women we have heard from in the media this last week had mammograms that in fact missed their cancers, and yet they were adequately treated and often cured. All women should become familiar with their breasts and report any change they see or feel to their doctor.
The public anger at these recommendations is understandable. But it should not be directed at an honest effort to evaluate the benefit of mammography, but at the fact that we still don't know the cause of breast cancer or how to prevent it. Early detection is not our best prevention -- it's not even prevention. It just finds cancers that are already there.
The guidelines are not ignoring the fact that young women get breast cancer; they are confirming that regular mammographic screening has risks and benefits and should be an individual decision. Our recent success with a vaccine for cancer of the cervix demonstrates that the goal of identifying the cause and prevention of a common cancer is not beyond reach. Let's redirect our energy from protesting these guideline changes to finding the answers so that no woman ever has to hear the words, "You have breast cancer."
Susan Love is the founder and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, dedicated to eradicating breast cancer
I have been a part of her Army since its inception and it is well-worth considering. The women in the Army are able to volunteer for research studies and even have a say in what research should be done.
It gets my:
WOMEN HELPING WOMEN Seal of Approval
From: The LA Times
By Susan Love
November 23, 2009
Although we all would like to think that public health pronouncements are the unmitigated truth about any issue, rarely is that the case. We can only give our best guess, based on the current available data and our current understanding of the disease. Luckily, research continues, hypotheses are reformulated and new recommendations are made.
The path to the truth in science and medicine is nonlinear. Sometimes clinical practice gets ahead of the data and has to be pulled back. This is what happened with post-menopausal hormone therapy when the large Women's Health Initiative trial demonstrated that the then-common practice of giving women hormones at menopause was causing more harm than good. How big was the harm? We know that after the report came out, many women abruptly stopped taking their hormones, and that year, the incidence of breast cancer went down 15%.
We saw a similar shift in women's health when highly touted and extensively used high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue as treatment for aggressive breast cancer was found to not only be no better than the regular-dose chemotherapy we had been using, but to have significantly higher side effects.
I present these examples in an attempt to put the controversy regarding the new mammography guidelines into perspective. The shift in guidelines is not a conspiracy of the insurance companies or the government. It is pure coincidence that they came out while we are in the throes of the healthcare reform debate.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was formed to periodically review the available data and come up with the best recommendation. A lot has changed since its last recommendations in 2002.
One key shift has been in our understanding of the biology of breast cancer. We used to think there was just one kind of cancer that grew at a steady pace; that when it reached a certain size, it spread to the rest of the body. As a result, it seemed to make sense that we could save lives if a screening test could identify the cancer while it was still "early," before it had spread. That's how we developed the notion of early detection. And it works, sometimes.
In the best of hands, mammographic screening in women over 50 will reduce a woman's risk of dying from breast cancer by 30%. That is a lot, but it is not 100%. Why? It turns out that breast cancers are not all the same. There are at least five kinds, with different growth rates and levels of aggression. Some are so aggressive that they will have spread before they are visible on a mammogram or form a lump. Some are very slow growing or may not even have the ability to spread, so there is no benefit from finding them early. This is because of the biology of the disease, not the limitations of screening.
One of the reasons that mammography is a less effective tool in young women is that they have a higher rate of these aggressive tumors. Younger women also have breast tissue that is more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of low-dose radiation. Calculations by a research team in Britain published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2005 suggest that it is possible for women to develop cancer because of the cumulative radiation from yearly mammograms starting at 40 or younger. Finally, mammograms are generally less accurate in younger women who have dense breast tissue, which can mask a cancer. Thus the balance of risk versus benefit is not as clear.
Since the 2002 task force guidelines were released, there has been new data from Britain, which was the first study to look at whether there was any benefit to having women start mammography at age 40. The researchers have followed women in this study for more than 10 years, which means they are now over age 50. To date, they have not shown a statistically significant decrease in mortality. This means if there is a benefit, it must be very small.
The new guidelines are based on this information. They do not say that no women under 50 should get mammograms, but that we should not routinely screen women under 50. Less noted by the media, the guidelines also recommend that we not routinely screen women over 75, where the benefits are dependent on the woman's life expectancy. In both cases, a woman will need to review her situation with her physician.
This has left many young women confused and asking how will we find our cancers if we don't have mammograms. The alternative to mammographic detection of cancer is not death. The alternative is that a woman will find a cancer herself or her physician will find it. The normal "poking around" that women do has been found to be just as good at finding breast cancer as a monthly self-exam.
That's why the task force recommended that doctors encourage women to be familiar with the look and feel of their breasts but to stop teaching formal breast self-exam.
Many of the young women we have heard from in the media this last week had mammograms that in fact missed their cancers, and yet they were adequately treated and often cured. All women should become familiar with their breasts and report any change they see or feel to their doctor.
The public anger at these recommendations is understandable. But it should not be directed at an honest effort to evaluate the benefit of mammography, but at the fact that we still don't know the cause of breast cancer or how to prevent it. Early detection is not our best prevention -- it's not even prevention. It just finds cancers that are already there.
The guidelines are not ignoring the fact that young women get breast cancer; they are confirming that regular mammographic screening has risks and benefits and should be an individual decision. Our recent success with a vaccine for cancer of the cervix demonstrates that the goal of identifying the cause and prevention of a common cancer is not beyond reach. Let's redirect our energy from protesting these guideline changes to finding the answers so that no woman ever has to hear the words, "You have breast cancer."
Susan Love is the founder and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, dedicated to eradicating breast cancer
Say You're Sorry and It's OK
From: theage.com.au
PM hails attitude shift on violence
DAN HARRISON
November 26, 2009
ALMOST all Australians now acknowledge that domestic violence is a crime, but a quarter of the nation believe women make false claims about being raped, and one in five think violence is OK if the perpetrator later regrets their actions.
The findings come from a survey of more than 10,000 Australians commissioned by the Federal Government and released yesterday by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to mark White Ribbon Day.
The proportion of respondents that acknowledged domestic violence was a crime was 98 per cent, up 5 percentage points from when such a survey was last taken, in 1995. The proportion of people who believe that victims of sexual assault ''ask for it'' dropped from one in seven in 1995 to one in 20 today.
Mr Rudd said he was pleased to see ''a significant shift in the attitudes and beliefs Australians hold'' about domestic violence.
But he added: ''Disappointingly, the survey shows that some Australians still hold attitudes which excuse or trivialise violence against women.''
One quarter of respondents disagreed with the statement that women rarely make false claims of being raped, while one in five believed that violence could be excused if the perpetrator later genuinely regretted what they had done.
The proportion of people who think that women are as likely as men to commit domestic violence has more than doubled. But Mr Rudd said the statistics did not bear this out.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, almost a third of women who experienced physical assault were attacked by a current or former male partner. Only 4 per cent of men who had been physically assaulted in the same period were attacked by a current or former female partner. Almost two-thirds were attacked by male strangers.
Mr Rudd said the survey findings would inform a $17 million social marketing campaign to reduce violence that would be launched early next year.
Over their lifetimes, one in five Australian women will be sexually assaulted, and one in three will be physically assaulted. One in four Australian children will witness violence against their mother or stepmother. Less than a third of victims will report the crime.
Mr Rudd, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and other MPs yesterday swore an oath to never commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women.
PM hails attitude shift on violence
DAN HARRISON
November 26, 2009
ALMOST all Australians now acknowledge that domestic violence is a crime, but a quarter of the nation believe women make false claims about being raped, and one in five think violence is OK if the perpetrator later regrets their actions.
The findings come from a survey of more than 10,000 Australians commissioned by the Federal Government and released yesterday by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to mark White Ribbon Day.
The proportion of respondents that acknowledged domestic violence was a crime was 98 per cent, up 5 percentage points from when such a survey was last taken, in 1995. The proportion of people who believe that victims of sexual assault ''ask for it'' dropped from one in seven in 1995 to one in 20 today.
Mr Rudd said he was pleased to see ''a significant shift in the attitudes and beliefs Australians hold'' about domestic violence.
But he added: ''Disappointingly, the survey shows that some Australians still hold attitudes which excuse or trivialise violence against women.''
One quarter of respondents disagreed with the statement that women rarely make false claims of being raped, while one in five believed that violence could be excused if the perpetrator later genuinely regretted what they had done.
The proportion of people who think that women are as likely as men to commit domestic violence has more than doubled. But Mr Rudd said the statistics did not bear this out.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, almost a third of women who experienced physical assault were attacked by a current or former male partner. Only 4 per cent of men who had been physically assaulted in the same period were attacked by a current or former female partner. Almost two-thirds were attacked by male strangers.
Mr Rudd said the survey findings would inform a $17 million social marketing campaign to reduce violence that would be launched early next year.
Over their lifetimes, one in five Australian women will be sexually assaulted, and one in three will be physically assaulted. One in four Australian children will witness violence against their mother or stepmother. Less than a third of victims will report the crime.
Mr Rudd, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and other MPs yesterday swore an oath to never commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women.
Come to an Abortion Fundraiser Near You
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/health/policy/24abortion.html
Why donate to politicians when you can Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
http://ms-behaved.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-women-might-reach-cease-fire-over.html
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1294091006424690772&postID=1239499098781697193
Why donate to politicians when you can Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
http://ms-behaved.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-women-might-reach-cease-fire-over.html
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1294091006424690772&postID=1239499098781697193
Something to Cheer About
From the BBC
UN unveils Network of Men to fight abuse of women
Ban Ki-moon said men's attitudes to women needed to change
UN chief Ban Ki-moon has unveiled a Network of Men Leaders to act as male role models in a campaign opposing violence against women.
He urged all men to join the campaign, saying about 70% of women experience some form of physical or sexual violence from men.
The 14 men currently in the network include Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Wednesday is the International Day of Elimination of Violence Against Women.
This is the 10th anniversary of the founding of the day.
'Global chorus'
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, Brazilian writer Paulo Coelho and Norwegian Justice Minister Knut Storberget are also among those chosen for the new list.
They had all demonstrated a commitment to oppose violence against women, said Mr Ban, adding that the group was expected to grow.
"These men will add their voices to the growing global chorus for action," he said.
Speaking at the UN headquarters in New York, the secretary-general called on men and boys around the world to join the campaign.
Women are most at risk from violent partners or a man they know
"Break the silence," he said. "When you witness violence against women and girls, do not sit back. Act. Advocate. Unite to change the practices and attitudes that incite, perpetrate and condone this violence."
He said it was unacceptable that so many women experienced some form of physical or sexual violence from men - mostly from their husbands, intimate partners, or someone they knew.
He said men must teach each other that real men do not violate or oppress women - and that a woman's place is not just in the home or in the fields but in schools, offices and boardrooms.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel Peace Laureate, said: "You are a weak man if you use your physical superiority to assault and brutalise women.
"I will continue fighting until the end of my days for the right of women and girls to live a life free from violence and abuse."
UN unveils Network of Men to fight abuse of women
Ban Ki-moon said men's attitudes to women needed to change
UN chief Ban Ki-moon has unveiled a Network of Men Leaders to act as male role models in a campaign opposing violence against women.
He urged all men to join the campaign, saying about 70% of women experience some form of physical or sexual violence from men.
The 14 men currently in the network include Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Wednesday is the International Day of Elimination of Violence Against Women.
This is the 10th anniversary of the founding of the day.
'Global chorus'
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, Brazilian writer Paulo Coelho and Norwegian Justice Minister Knut Storberget are also among those chosen for the new list.
They had all demonstrated a commitment to oppose violence against women, said Mr Ban, adding that the group was expected to grow.
"These men will add their voices to the growing global chorus for action," he said.
Speaking at the UN headquarters in New York, the secretary-general called on men and boys around the world to join the campaign.
Women are most at risk from violent partners or a man they know
"Break the silence," he said. "When you witness violence against women and girls, do not sit back. Act. Advocate. Unite to change the practices and attitudes that incite, perpetrate and condone this violence."
He said it was unacceptable that so many women experienced some form of physical or sexual violence from men - mostly from their husbands, intimate partners, or someone they knew.
He said men must teach each other that real men do not violate or oppress women - and that a woman's place is not just in the home or in the fields but in schools, offices and boardrooms.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel Peace Laureate, said: "You are a weak man if you use your physical superiority to assault and brutalise women.
"I will continue fighting until the end of my days for the right of women and girls to live a life free from violence and abuse."
Obama's Legacy
Not exactly the MSM but somebody is paying attention:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6622103/Barack-Obama-the-politics-of-hypocrisy-and-cynicism.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6622103/Barack-Obama-the-politics-of-hypocrisy-and-cynicism.html
Thursday, November 26, 2009
We Could of Had a Hillary
http://www.vogue.com/feature/2009_December_Jonathan_Van_Meter_Profile_of_Hillary_Clinton/
The Post-Feminist Role for Women?
Yesterday, I posted an article by Robin in Berkeley. In the comment section a reader suggested that Robin read an article (link below) so that Robin could continue her evolution from a Democrat to a proper Republican woman. The writer suggested that this article was a true reflection of the role women should play in society.
This article is very long but I must say it is stimulating. In fact, it made my blood boil. If you have any doubt that misogyny is alive and well, please read. I would like to know from any who consider themselves Republican or Conservative or even traditional how accurate this is.
Interestingly, as we at Freeusnow are working toward ratifying the ERA, this man suggests that a woman who wants to get married should sign a contract that gives her right to vote to her husband....
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf
This article is very long but I must say it is stimulating. In fact, it made my blood boil. If you have any doubt that misogyny is alive and well, please read. I would like to know from any who consider themselves Republican or Conservative or even traditional how accurate this is.
Interestingly, as we at Freeusnow are working toward ratifying the ERA, this man suggests that a woman who wants to get married should sign a contract that gives her right to vote to her husband....
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thank you Robin in Berkeley
For all the PUMAs:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
For those pro-choice women that might be interested in helping women who can’t afford an abortion, I found this sight
http://www.nnaf.org/
There are also many groups devoted to helping women who might find a pregnancy challanging but do not choose abortion.
Most foster care and social service agencies that work with families might be helping someone who feels that her child might do better with a different caregiver.
A partial list of agencies that might encourage someone to not choose abortion. In my experience some offer limited post-pregnancy support:
Crisis Pregnancy Center, Pregnancy Aid, Birth Right, Open Door, CareNet, Life Choices, or Pregnancy Counseling Center, these groups want to be the first contact a woman makes when she thinks she might be pregnant, so they can talk her out of considering abortion
http://www.nnaf.org/
There are also many groups devoted to helping women who might find a pregnancy challanging but do not choose abortion.
Most foster care and social service agencies that work with families might be helping someone who feels that her child might do better with a different caregiver.
A partial list of agencies that might encourage someone to not choose abortion. In my experience some offer limited post-pregnancy support:
Crisis Pregnancy Center, Pregnancy Aid, Birth Right, Open Door, CareNet, Life Choices, or Pregnancy Counseling Center, these groups want to be the first contact a woman makes when she thinks she might be pregnant, so they can talk her out of considering abortion
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen meet our preventative task force
A ten member panel with 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.. count them NINE men deciding we don't need so many mammograms...and the one woman came from you guessed it ladies..Chicago
from their website
The Task Force is an independent advisory panel that conducts impartial assessments of scientific evidence. Thus, although sponsored by the Government, its members are non-Federal and do not represent specific organization or Government agency views.
The recommendations and reports of the Task Force are not official statements or guidelines of the Public Health Service or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Further information about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force can be obtained from David Atkins, M.D., M.P.H., or Carolyn G. DiGuiseppi, M.D., M.P.H., Wilco Building, Suite 310, 6000 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852 phone: 301/594-4015; fax: 301/594-4027.
Membership of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Alfred O. Berg, M.D., M.P.H.
Department of Family Medicine University of Washington Seattle, WA
David A. Grimes, M.D.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of California at San Francisco/San Francisco General Hospital San Francisco, CA
Robert B. Wallace, M.D., M.Sc.
Department of Preventive Medicine University of Iowa Iowa City, IA
Donald M. Berwick, M.D., M.P.P.
(Task Force Vice-Chairman) Department of Pediatrics Harvard Medical School Boston, MA
Robert S. Lawrence, M.D.
School of Hygeine and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD A.
Eugene Washington, M.D., M.Sc.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of California at San Francisco/Mount Zion Medical Center San Francisco, CA
Paul S. Frame, M.D.
Tri-County Family Medicine Cohocton, NY Harold C. Sox, Jr., M.D.
(Task Force Chairman) Department of Medicine Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Hanover, NH
Modena E. H. Wilson, M.D., M.P.H.
Department of Pediatrics Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD
Dennis G. Fryback, Ph.D.
Department of Preventive Medicine University of Wisconsin - Madison Madison, WI
Electronic Medical Records to save money? I think not.
from their website
The Task Force is an independent advisory panel that conducts impartial assessments of scientific evidence. Thus, although sponsored by the Government, its members are non-Federal and do not represent specific organization or Government agency views.
The recommendations and reports of the Task Force are not official statements or guidelines of the Public Health Service or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Further information about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force can be obtained from David Atkins, M.D., M.P.H., or Carolyn G. DiGuiseppi, M.D., M.P.H., Wilco Building, Suite 310, 6000 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852 phone: 301/594-4015; fax: 301/594-4027.
Membership of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Alfred O. Berg, M.D., M.P.H.
Department of Family Medicine University of Washington Seattle, WA
David A. Grimes, M.D.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of California at San Francisco/San Francisco General Hospital San Francisco, CA
Robert B. Wallace, M.D., M.Sc.
Department of Preventive Medicine University of Iowa Iowa City, IA
Donald M. Berwick, M.D., M.P.P.
(Task Force Vice-Chairman) Department of Pediatrics Harvard Medical School Boston, MA
Robert S. Lawrence, M.D.
School of Hygeine and Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD A.
Eugene Washington, M.D., M.Sc.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of California at San Francisco/Mount Zion Medical Center San Francisco, CA
Paul S. Frame, M.D.
Tri-County Family Medicine Cohocton, NY Harold C. Sox, Jr., M.D.
(Task Force Chairman) Department of Medicine Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Hanover, NH
Modena E. H. Wilson, M.D., M.P.H.
Department of Pediatrics Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD
Dennis G. Fryback, Ph.D.
Department of Preventive Medicine University of Wisconsin - Madison Madison, WI
Electronic Medical Records to save money? I think not.
Monday, November 16, 2009
How Women Might Cease Fire Over Abortion and Get on With Our Lives
Immediately after the House passed a health care bill last week my e-mail box started filling up with solicitations for funds from both sides of the abortion argument. I then foolishly, spent way too much time in yet another attempt to reasonably discuss the issue. I really believe there is no compromise. The usual compromise position of "live and let live" or even "agree to disagree" is apparently unacceptable in this case. Nevertheless that is my position. I guess I listened to the old song Walk a Mile in My Shoes, one time too many. Mind my own businessish. Both sides have felt betrayed by politicians and many women are invested in 'winning' this debate even if truth is a casualty.
As I proposed and stated on air last week, I believe that expecting people who define themselves as pro-life/anti-choice etc. to pay for abortions is probably the straw that breaks the camel's back. I would suggest that those people who are pro-choice work on a way that helps women to have safe and affordable reproductive choices by donating money directly to the providers of such services rather than hoping their elected official will use the money they might contribute for such causes in the way they expect.
I would also hope that those women who would rather not see pregnancies terminated would donate money directly to groups that provide support for mothers facing challenges or promoting adoption and foster care. It does seem that all would benefit, women and children and those who feel passionately about either side of the issue. As it stands, the only ones who seem to be benefiting are the many special interest groups that surround this issue and the political parties that need to keep women divided.
Think about how empowering this could be for women. Since politicians seem to feel free to ignore our wishes, why not put our money where our mouths are?
Ms.Behaved
As I proposed and stated on air last week, I believe that expecting people who define themselves as pro-life/anti-choice etc. to pay for abortions is probably the straw that breaks the camel's back. I would suggest that those people who are pro-choice work on a way that helps women to have safe and affordable reproductive choices by donating money directly to the providers of such services rather than hoping their elected official will use the money they might contribute for such causes in the way they expect.
I would also hope that those women who would rather not see pregnancies terminated would donate money directly to groups that provide support for mothers facing challenges or promoting adoption and foster care. It does seem that all would benefit, women and children and those who feel passionately about either side of the issue. As it stands, the only ones who seem to be benefiting are the many special interest groups that surround this issue and the political parties that need to keep women divided.
Think about how empowering this could be for women. Since politicians seem to feel free to ignore our wishes, why not put our money where our mouths are?
Ms.Behaved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
