Uncommon Misconception

Sheesh

Ah, well.  I forgot - a sense of humor and any lightheartedness flies out the window when it comes to politics. 

I thought I'd point out a few things, though, in the selfish interest of self-defense:

1.  I didn't make a single negative comment about her children's names.  Yes, it's implied that I find them different, and, when those two (of the five) are listed together, unfortunate.  Not having the time to do a single scrap of investigating (see previous - and ignored - post about unfortunate computer situation), it left me wondering if she had a Duggar all-same-first-initial thing.  Which is one of those idiosyncrasies that annoys me.  But she doesn't.  And I do quite like two of her other names.  That being said, I've been known to rib relatives and friends about their name choices. (And strangers - I made big, big fun of Gweneth Paltrow and Celebrity Baby Blog is a frequent source of amusing scoffs.)  And they return the favor.  I'm sure many of you find my family's preference for traditional names equally distasteful.

2.  Yes, Hannah is a common name.  It was my one big hang-up about choosing it.  But once Todd heard it suggested, he latched on with a ferocity that could not be dissuaded.  I offered up alternative after alternative, but to no avail.  He argued that we didn't actually know anyone else - friend, family, or relative - who shared the name.  And then one day in an e-mail in which we were discussing names, he said he wanted Hannah so when he came home from work he could say, "Where's my Hanny-Fanny?!"  At which point my heart exploded and I ceased offering up alternatives.

Of course, her first day at Gymboree, amongst a sea of other Hannahs confirmed my fear, but I've come to terms with that.  So much so, that I'll be the first to laugh along and agree at our lack of originality. (Go ahead - write a post about it.  You'll see!)

I'm sure Palin has equally moving, or at least interesting, explanations for all five of her children's names.  And I'm sure she, like me, wouldn't be surprised if some don't share her taste.

 

3. I didn't make a single political statement. Not a one.

4.  Do my politics line up with Palin's?  No.  Nor do mine line up with any other candidate out there at all period.  Not a one.  Many of you either weren't here way back when I first began talking about politics, or have completely forgotten that I've spent the vast majority of my life as a Republican.

But I've been pretty clear about the fact that the Republican platform and agenda began to diverge from my own beliefs in ways that became increasingly difficult to ignore.  Clearly, the issue of choice is one of those that hits close to home for me.  But so do others.  Which is not to say my politics line up with the Democratic platform, either.  I have some pretty big divergences there, too.

5. Yes, it was petty.  Many sarcastic jokes are.   

So if some of you want to read my one-line comment about two of Palin's children's names as some sort of manifesto, well, I can't stop  you.  But I can tell you that your ire is likely a waste of good time a passion... sort of like this post.

Lemme Get This Straight

Two of her sons are named Trip and Track?

I Came, I Saw, I Caucused

Well, I tried, at least.

Last night was both amazing and troubling for me as a first-time primary voter.  I voted in the primary last week as an early voter.  Then yesterday, at 7:00, I showed up at my precinct to caucus.  We were told that the caucuses would begin promptly at 7:15, or when the last voter had cast their ballot in the primary, whichever was later.

The parking lot at the elementary school that serves as our polling place was slammed.  I took Hannah with me because I thought she might like it.  I left my non-voting slacker of a husband home with Caroline and promised to try and return in time to put her down for the night.

We waited outside for a while and at 7:15 some sort of official came out and told us that there were still people voting and we'd have to remain outside until they were done.

Fine.  No biggie.  But half an hour later, Hannah had lost her patience (the free stickers and buttons only held her off for so long), and declared that she needed to go potty.

We made our way inside and I asked where the restroom was.  We were directed down a long hall, and when we turned the corner, I realized we wouldn't be staying long enough to caucus.  This hallway ran the length of the school - at least a quarter of a mile - and it was filled with a row about four people wide that went the length of the hall and out the door at the other end.

When I voted early, I waited for approximately 15 minutes to get through a line of ten people.  There was no way they would be able to convene the caucus within the next few hours, and there was no way I could stay, given the weather and my two kids.

I was so pleased with the turnout - more than I've seen, frankly, for even a presidential general election.  But I wish there were provisions for dealing with such a high turnout successfully.  Watching the polls come in, I really wish I'd gone back up after putting the girls back down, but I didn't. 

So there you have it.  Score one for democracy.  Sort of.

Sooner

Back in college, my boyfriend and I had an ongoing debate about who was more likely to become president first: a black man or a white woman.  It was a rather cynical debate in which he, as a black man, argued that white America would sooner welcome a woman into the oval office than anyone black.  I, as a woman (okay, girl), conversely argued that the male-based power structure would rather have a man of any color than a woman for president.

It was a friendly wager, and one we both pessimistically felt would never be answered in our lifetime.  (I know - whatever happened to youthful optimism?)  I am still amazed that there's a chance (albeit, not a sure thing) that we may find out before this year is out.  I haven't spoken with my old boyfriend in a few years, but I bet he's equally amazed.

I wish I could remember what he'd owe me if Obama wins...

So That's What It Feels Like to Matter

I've been caught off guard over the past two weeks with the amount of political attention suddenly focused on my state.  For all of my voting life, Texas has been a write-off state - an assumption - and as such, completely ignored by national-level politics.  Particularly democratic politics.

But now, we've got some pull.  Some leverage.  Some say-so in the form of the democratic primaries.  And I have to say, it feels good.  I had forgotten what it feels like to know your vote may actually count for something.

I'm not even a declared democrat.  I'm squarely in the independent camp, with strong tendencies that recklessly cross those red and blue lines in multiple places.  But here in Texas, any registered voter can vote in a primary.  But they can only choose one.  In other words, if you vote in the democratic primary, you can't in the republican (or independent, if there were such a thing).  And when the general election rolls around, you're free to vote for whomever you choose, regardless of party.  Since the democratic primary is really the only one with a looming question mark, it's a pretty easy choice.

So Todd and I both watched the debate last night (if you know Todd - the most a-political creature in the world - this was amazing in and of itself) and reveled in the feeling of mattering.  It made me feel giddy - almost like a naive teenager who hasn't yet learned that the world does not, in fact, rotate around her.  And I couldn't be happier to know that come November, I'll be making a choice between candidates I feel are capable, honest, and truly value voters.

Not to mention the joy I feel at the prospect of having a president who can actual string words together while speaking publicly!  What a change of pace!

You Can't Polish a Turd (Updated)

One day I'll have to do a post all about the sayings and colloquialisms I routinely use.  I really do talk that way.  Shocking, I know.

Anyway, this is the turd of which I speak.  And yea verily, there is no polish strong enough to make it shine.  However, there is some good news I can set next to it.

First, If you haven't already signed it, go add your name to the Planned Parenthood petition.

Second, here's a good story to add to your knowledge base.

And thirdly, I spoke (okay, e-mailed) with my genetic counselor, who has the most direct contact with women like myself and Cecily of anyone I know.  I asked her specifically about the wording of the law, and how it comes into play with the heart prick procedure used to stop a fetal heartbeat in utero.

§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited - (b) As used in this section -- (1) the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which -- (A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that theperson knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;

It was her take, and mine as well, that the procedures described above aren't really taking place simply because the baby's heart is nearly always stopped with an injection through the belly (just like during and amnio) prior to the procedure.  Therefore, this law, as written, doesn't apply to a baby without a heartbeat.  The heart prick procedure isn't mandatory by law, but it is the standard practice.  This is good news because it means women who need these procedures won't have to fore go them.  And it confirms my original view - that the doctors who provide care for seriously ill women and babies in utero (who are in the business of bringing life into this world, not taking it out) are not evil abortion mongers, but rather, compassionate human beings who want the best of a truly awful situation.

Please tell anyone you know with a uterus that these procedures (the D&E and D&X, to my understanding) are still available if used in conjunction with the heart prick procedure.  Their doctors need not choose riskier options out of fear of prosecution.  You never know who might need to know this or when.  And usually, these situations arise in the midst of tragedy and emergency, so forewarned is forearmed.

That's all the stirring of the anthill I care to do today.

_____________________________________

Update:  Following the question about access to the heart-prick procedure, I asked the genetic counselor for more information.  And it seems that access is a real concern.  Not any 'ol OB can or will do the procedure.  And even if they can/will, hospital policies vary greatly.  If you'll recall from our situation, we had to leave the city because the only hospital here that would perform a termination (which the heart-prick procedure obviously qualifies as) required approval from an ethics committee.

It sounds like a non-emergent sitation would lend itself to the procedure much better than an emergency.  It also highlights the fact that you should GET TO KNOW YOUR HOSPITAL and GET TO KNOW YOUR DOCTOR.  Ask them about their own beliefs, approaches, and what they will or won't do.  What they are allowed to do at their particular hospital, and how they would handle a wost-case sitation with you.  Don't wait for it to happen before finding out the particulars of your situation.

Also, thank you so much to the women who've talked about their heart-prick procedures.  It is good to know that you're out there, and I am so, so very sorry you had to go through that.  You are brave mothers, each of you.

Still Can't

Sorry, guys.  I just can't do it.  I want with all my soul to write something eloquent about the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a law banning medical procedures to save mothers' lives.  But I can't wrap my brain around it.  And I can't understand how people of such power can be so immune to compassion.  What is this "culture of life" that completely disregards the lives and welfare of mothers when they are at their most vulnerable?

Instead, I'll direct you to others who've already said it more eloquently:

Cecily, here, and here.  And really, who would know better.

And dissenting Judge Ginsburg, here.

Whistling Tra-la-la-la-la

While I have thoughts about this, and certainly reflect on the grief to be found here; today I choose not to dwell on them.  The weather here is beautiful, my daughter is in a good mood, and I want very desperately to enjoy this day.  So I will.

To that end:

I LOVE my new hairdo!  I went ahead and got a perm on Tuesday.  Tuesday and yesterday were spent in a purgatory of no washing and no product that left me with a less-than-desirable frizzy do (think Nicole Kidman, the early years).  But today I got to was it and put in some stuff, and it is simply fabulous. Fabulous, I say!

I got out of the shower, put in some goop, added a few teeny claw clips to keep the front section out of my eyes, and then had a tea party with my toddler.  It's nearly dry now, and it looks great!  Now I can pass as Hannah's actual familial relation.  I'm going back in next week to get a hair cut.  There are some ends that need to come off, and the shape needs to be adjusted for the curls.  But overall, I can already tell I'm thrilled with the result.

I'll post before and after pics once I get the hair cut.

And maybe I'll manage to pull together something thoughtful on the other items once I've digested.

Good Stuff, Good Stuff

That last post and comments embody what I love most about the blogosphere: interested debate and an opportunity to learn from others who raise their points in a respectful way.

Well, okay, maybe not the "are you crazy?!" stuff, but all in all, I do nothing but smile and get a bit high off the lovely debate of it all when we have a conversation like that.

So, in an effort to further explain my viewpoint, and perhaps defend my sanity in the process, I offer the following:

1) I am more than a bit scared of the influence of giant companies (pharmaceutical and otherwise) on our government.  But another side of me can't help but giggle at the notion that for once, such a horrible system of influence may have actually helped rather than hindered.

2) I am coming at this issue with my own personal history.  How can I not?  I contracted HPV in high school from my very serious boyfriend.  I was not promiscuous.  I was, however, a teenager, who was not immune to making poorly-informed, immature decisions.  I came of age during the height of the AIDS/HIV scare.  I watched film strips of horrible chancres, lesions, oozing private parts and listened to a litany of horrifying facts about how sex would ultimately lead to my demise, if I didn't have to good sense to abstain or at least use a condom.  In the end, I believe this was a huge disservice.  I had no idea that condoms could not and do not protect you from HPV.  Nor did I know that the very innocuous, invisible little lump I felt (coincidentally, and thankfully) one week before going for my annual gynecologist visit was a "WART!!!"  The term is beyond misleading.

When my doctor told me what I had and treated me, she was careful to warn me that I had a very high chance of getting cervical cancer in a few years.  And lo and behold, two years later, I was diagnosed with severe dysplasia and underwent a LEEP procedure - just the sort of thing you like to do when you're a sophomore in college.

At that time, one in three young women my age had HPV.  ONE IN THREE.  Many had no idea.  MOST found out when they, too, were diagnosed with dysplasia or actual cancer years down the road.

3) Because of my experience, I am very aware of the effect HPV has on the poor and underprivileged.  I was fortunate enough to have a mother I could turn to.  I had access to a doctor I could trust.  And I had the money to pay for treatment, and later, the insurance to pay for surgery.  Mine was a best-case scenario.

What if I had been one of my many classmates who had neither the support or money to get any of that?  What if I hadn't ever been to a doctor and ended up with advanced cervical cancer that metastasized by the ripe-old age of 22?

The reason my initial response to this state mandate is positive is because it means cost will not be an issue for the poor and undeserved in this state.  Girls whose families cannot afford nearly $400 to pay for the vaccine (assuming they only have one daughter) won't have to subject their daughters to prospect of cervical cancer simply because of money.

4)  As for the relative safety of this vaccine, I simply cannot say.  I am not a doctor or a scientist.  And I am more than grateful that I have the blessing of time (at least eight more years) before I will need to make this decision for Hannah.  I was/am, however, under the impression that big, substantial changes had been made to our drug approval processes precisely because of disasters like DES.  Could I be wrong or naive about this?  Absolutely.  [Did anyone happen to watch Special Victims Unit last night, because that one scared the pants off of me about the EPA, for instance.]

I, do, however, find it interesting that we (as a public) bemoan the lengthy approval process for drugs that treat cancer or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, while remaining so negative and dubious of a vaccine to prevent a "sexually transmitted disease" [which, by the way, you can contract through heavy-petting and other non-intercourse activity] which was put through the same process.  I can't help but feel that a lot of the push-back has to do with the "dirtiness" of this issue.

I also feel that it's a bit misleading to liken a drug for treatment to a preventative vaccine.  It is my understanding that a drug and a vaccine work in two very distinct ways.  Not that there aren't potential side-effects.  But I gave my daughter the chicken pox vaccine, knowing that the worst-case scenario of not giving it to her was a week of extreme inconvenience.  The worst-case scenario of cancer seems much more worthy of serious consideration.

 

5) None of this is to say the concerns over safety aren't very, very valid.  Or that I am not worried about them. 

I do think it is important to note that all a parent has to say is "I object to this vaccine" and their daughter won't have to get it.  And I believe the state agencies responsible for providing affordable vaccines to the underprivileged with ABSOLUTELY make this known because it still comes back to the underlying notion of cost.  What state agency do you know of that actually wants to dole out expensive treatment?

6) Due in part to the atmosphere of my state and the local news coverage of the issue, my gut reaction on this is that the push-back is primarily about the taboo of a sexually transmitted disease.  It is the first complaint issued by those who are opposed to the mandate (again, in TV coverage) and the most political aspect of the debate.  This makes me crazy.  It's not about sex, it's about cancer.  If you're uncomfortable with the vaccine because of safety, I get that.  But saying that giving this vaccine to girls (boys are never mentioned) gives them permission to go out and screw any boy with impunity is like saying that chicken pox vaccine will give Hannah the urge to go licking a be-poxed friend just because she can.

If the vaccine proves safe and I choose to have Hannah vaccinated when she is ten, there won't be a discussion of it with her any more than when she gets a tetanus booster.  Those talks will come when we talk about safe behavior and sex in general.  And she will know that HPV is just one of the myriad of concerns that pop up when you're considering sex.

In short, I am so glad to have access to smart, considerate women and men like yourselves because it gives me yet another opportunity to learn more about issues that are very real and necessitate serious thought.

So let's talk more!!  Especially if you have links.  I love the links.

Picking My Jaw Up Off the Floor

Who would have thunk it?!

Texas Becomes First State in the U.S. to Mandate Cervical Cancer Vaccine

I don't even care that his motives (a strong link to Merck) may be questionable.  It's just so freakin' reasonable!!  How would my state ever be the first to do something so progressive?!