The Big DumpTruck

Throwing Little Thought Pebbles at Your Windshield Since 1996

I Don’t Think So!

Just read a great piece over on Riba Rambles . And by great piece I mean something that made my face red and forced my eyes to go bloodshot and pop out of my head. Because this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if we’re not living in some scary Orwellian universe. Which, of course, you already know we are if you read the news. “The US Government” has become one of the scariest entities on the planet, people. Keep your eyes open before they crush you under their fists and steal your lunch money.

Okay, so Riba alerts us all to a new initiative to label all pre-menopausal woman as “pre-pregnant,” meaning that at any moment they could become pregnant and thus they will exert some sort of control over our bodies to keep the old female reproductive organs ready for planting.

She tells how her doctor won’t put her on any medication that may have bad effects on a fetus, even though she has no plans to get pregnant. Here’s the scary summary: “My neurologist does not trust me to not get pregnant. My neurologist puts a potential fetus’s potential health over my health.”

Ladies, you know if men got pregnant this wouldn’t even be a consideration. Do you really want the government to step in and tell you you can’t get certain medical treatments because you are pre-pregnant? HELL NO!

She’s got more excellent points on how stupid this all is, that they are focusing on the WRONG things, all in an attempt to get themselves out of the cellar on that list of countries with poor newborn survival rates. Maybe if they worked to get everyone some level of health care it would solve the problem. I’ll just let you go read it and get angry on your own.

Share

5 ResponsesLeave one →

  1. Robin

     /  May 17, 2006

    Well…not that I believe women should NOT have these choices, but I sort of understand where the doctors are coming from. In the words of my first OB-GYN when I was pregnant with my son (I had read too many granola natural birthing books and told him that I didn’t want to have an internal fetal monitor placed ever, for any reason, and no IV or anesthesia, either–which he rightfully disagreed with and told me was not going to be the case if push came to shove) “I’m sure everyone would like to be my friend, but they’d like to be millionaires more.” So, in other words, SURE she could SAY she didn’t want to have more kids…she might EVEN sign something saying she didn’t want to have more kids. But, when it comes right down to it, issues of reproduction are considered sacrosanct. With so many tubal ligations and vasectomies being reversed these days, and women having children older and older, there is definitely nothing to say that any person WONT change their mind later on. Removing the reproductive option permanently is a decision I don’t think I’d want to make if I were any doctor, and being sued, even for something that would be considered frivolous (which this really isn’t), costs money and time. Even if you WIN, there are those who will claim that you were wrong and tell anyone who will listen, thus costing business. (not to say that this woman would do that, but you know what I mean) It’s a tough row to hoe.
    But, of course, what interested me about this the most…drugs that cause uncontrollable weight loss???? Why can’t aspirin cause that? or Lindt truffles?

  2. Jody

     /  May 17, 2006

    Right, but do you see what they’re saying? They’re saying that every woman between what, 11 and 50, shall be treated *differently* because she has the physical ability to get pregnant. What if she isn’t having sex, or if she’s practicing birth control? Too bad. You’re pre-pregnant. There are plenty of women out there NOT getting pregnant. They should be denied certain treatments because they produce eggs?

    It doesn’t have anything to do with a doctor deciding to sterilize someone. It has to do with labelling millions of people “pre-pregnant” and denying them certain medical treatment due to the label.

  3. Jody

     /  May 17, 2006

    p.s. Look at it this way…you know how they won’t give you a mammo if you *might* be pregnant? Making this a law would mean nobody labelled “pre-pregnant” would be able to get one.

    How long before certain chemo treatments are banned on pre-pregnant women?

    Pre-pregnant. Good Lord.

  4. Kiddicus Maximus

     /  May 17, 2006

    BWAHAAHHHAahhaa… heee. heea. hoo. man. this will go about as far as labeling all men “pre-impregnators” and not letting us take anything that may decrease/affect our sperm count. I understand the concern, but i think Riba is taking something that was suggested by one small wacko faction of this government and running with it.

    Fear not, ladies. You will not all be labeled pre-pregnant, so long as i am not labeled a pre-impregnator.

    My thought on the idea of the situation is “what about birth control?” My girl and I have been together for 5 years with no babies and plenty of practice, thanks to that wonderful tiny little pill.

    As I said before, this is going nowhere. Women aged 12-50ish still comprise ~ 30% of the population, and i’m pretty sure you’d get some support from your loving husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends over 50.

  5. Robin

     /  May 17, 2006

    As far as I know, life saving treatments are NOT denied for any person, reproductive age or not or even PREGNANT or not. In fact, necessary radiological procedures are still carried out, even WHILE pregnant, but with extra precautions. In this case, the woman’s seizures were controlled on the medications she was on, but she wasn’t able to gain weight. Obviously, if the woman were in any danger of electrolyte imbalance due to malnutrition, they would change the meds, and they DID change her meds anyway, but as you read, the others caused the same effects. This woman’s neurologist sounds as though he/she is being overly cautious and probably OVER reading the whole “pre pregnancy care” initiative. The pre-conception idea is not new, this has been practiced for quite awhile by conscientious doctors, but I guess with the infant mortality statistics, they feel as though something needs to be standardized and set in front of a very knowledgeable (as WELL as litigious) public, so that people can be reassured that these statistics aren’t going to be ignored. Imagine the outcry there would be if NO changes were announced? What? The medical community doesn’t CARE about babies? It’s hard to win, in this game! BTW, I am not sure if it is Keppra that she is interested in taking, ultimately (she mentioned they started her but took her off of it), but if it is, it ALSO causes anorexia.