Uncommon Julia

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?!

Who Did Your Drapes?

Did the President really just offer the services of his decorator to Nancy Pelosi so she can get her new office decorated?  Get it?!  'Cause she's a woman!  Hah! heh. he.  oh.

_________________________________________________

In all seriousness, I am so relieved that cooperation will have to be the reality over at least the next two years.  It is my fervent hope that our nation and its leaders find some way to focus on our common issues and the middle ground, rather than poking each other repeatedly with the sharp stick of extremist ideology.

Then again, I do still live in Texas.  Who knows, I may be coming to a town near you if my state goes off the reservation with some of its more extreme proposed legislation.

I'm Famous! (In a First-Name-Only Kind of Way)

I had some time to kill before my moms' night out last night, so I went looking for a book or two by Susan Estrich to get a feel for her writing style before her new book came out.  Lo and behold, what I found instead was said new book.  The one I'm in!  I had no idea it had already hit the shelves.

Apparently, they went to print prior to my decision on the whole "What's in a name?" debate because I'm feature in the book as Julia ____________.  I've only had a chance to breeze through the chapter of her book that includes my excerpt.  She included my entire testimony, which made me happy.  I always get nervous at the thought of someone cutting out parts here and there.  But I was a bit surprised that there was no direct commentary on my testimony.  It just sort of sits there.  It's in good company, with other relevant facts about the abortion debate, as it stands in our country right now, but I was a bit surprised that she didn't go on to highlight any items in particular or break down my ideas in any further detail.

So far, I'm on the fence about the book in general.  I agree with Estrich that Coulter is a raving lunatic who embarrasses the majority of those who fall to the right of center.  But what I've read so far seems a bit too disjointed to be really engaging.  I'll let you know more when I get a chance to really read it in its entirety in a full review.  (Which, I promise, will be more balanced than the "reviews" on Amazon right now.)

In the meantime, go get the book and tell me what you think.

Psuedo-Thoughts

Cecily is my new BFF.  If she lived closer, or if I had money for a plane ticket, I would give her a big, sloppy kiss and write "LYLAS!" with my 8-color pen in her infertility year book.  As Cec mentioned, she and I are forever linked by our similar stories.  What she doesn't know is that while I may be a "skinny blond" on the outside, inside I am really a big-bosomed bad-ass with a set of 50 lbs. brass balls who's worthy of hero worship.  I think.

Thank you so much to all of you (on her post and mine) for your helpful and thoughtful advice.  While we all know this is a decision I have to make with my family and no one else, it is always good to get as many "takes" on each side as possible.

As an interesting and unintended side-effect of my posing this question publicly, I cannot tell you the decision I've made.  If I did, it would automatically tell you (or any prying lunatics) whether or not you could reliably use my published name to track me down (you have to picture maniacal rubbing of the hands and cackling here to get the full effect).

What I can tell you is that each "side" brought up some very valid and interesting points, which had me swaying to and fro like a willow tree with each comment.  I can also say that you all are unequivocally awesome.  Especially Charlie, who I would totally hit on, were it not for my undying love for Cecily... oh, yeah, and Todd and Hannah and Tori.  But you know, in another universe.  His advice (I wish I knew how to link to a specific comment) to simply consider the decision each way (without going further down the line) was something I'd never heard of before.  And his eloquence is something I'm completely unused to (read: mute husband who still relies upon grunts and hand signals to convey meaning).

Your comments also led to some of my own that I may or may not have voiced previously:

- I agree that the violence (in general) is aimed at the providers and clinics.  But (you infertiles will appreciate this), it only takes one.  One crazy who thinks my telling our story is "causing" women to get abortions.

- I do think that if I choose to use a pseudonym, anti-choice people will try to say it is because I am ashamed.  Of course, that makes as much sense as saying a SWAT team guy is a pussy for wearing a Kevlar vest.  But whatever.

- I love my state.  Texas is a phenomenal place - a country unto itself.  There are so many beautiful things about where I live.  But, especially during the last decade, the state has become increasingly stilted in it's political and religious views.  And living here does make things different that if I lived in a more "blue" state.  Quite different.  If I ever come knocking on your door seeking shelter, you'll know why.

- I am intrigued by people who say they are "primarily pro-life"*. Who among us isn't?  I don't know anyone who runs around saying "Yay! Abortion! I hate life!  Down with life!"  All of us are in favor of life.  But being pro-choice means that you do understand that there are situations that call for the option of abortion.  Maybe not for you (and God willing, you'll never have to find out how deep your convictions are).  But if you read my story and agree that my family, and others like ours, must be afforded the choice of ending a painful life of suffering, they you ARE PRO-CHOICE.  There is no magic wand you can wave to begin drawing a line in the sand about when and how and where they're allowed.  Because as soon as you do, I can tell you of a woman (or girl) whose situation defies your logic.

- I am pro-choice for all women.  Period.  While my story is elicits much sympathy, I want everyone to understand that my experience has only solidified my belief that women deserve the right to govern their own bodies and to do what is best for their children.  While I did not know that abortion was ever something I would be faced with, I did have friends who had abortions for the more typical reasons.  And none of them did it without soul-rending thought and tears that have continued even decades later.  It is never an easy decision.  Every time I tell my story, another friend or acquaintance confides in hushed tones that she, too, had an abortion.  If I could, I would wipe away every ounce of shame they feel, because I know, as they do, that it was a heartbreaking decision no matter how you look at it, no matter what the circumstance.

- For many women, abortion isn't the right choice.  And they are my sisters just as surely as those who did have an abortion.  We are not on separate sides of a fence.  We were all offered the choice and did what we could based on the facts in front of us.  I've even met women through this blog who are raising children with the same disease Thomas had.  And we have a tie that no one can sever because we all recognize that our cases differ.  We respect that the choice each of us made was ABSOLUTELY the right choice.  And, because we're human, we look at the other and wonder "what if", only to remind ourselves that theirs is not our child, and our story would have played out differently.

Alrighty, then.  I feel better!  How 'bout you?

*I do not want to imply that I'm angry with anyone for saying this, because your supportive comments mean as much to me as anyone.  I just want to make a point about semantics.

False Name

I have a decision to make, and I'm hoping you can help.

I imagine any of you who've been in a bookstore in the past year or so have seen this book.  (Take a minute to read the editorial review, to get a feel for it.)  I'm not even what the mainstream would define as a "liberal", and yet, I'm nauseated by the book.  Anyone who can earnestly claim that a giant segment of our population considers abortion a "sacrament" is both out of touch with reality and lacking in the most human quality of all - the ability to sympathize.

This woman is writing a response to Coulter's book.  She's an author of several other bestsellers, and - for lack of a better term - a token Democrat for Fox News.  Her assistant approached me a few days ago and asked for permission to reprint Thomas's story in a chapter about the need for safe, legal abortion. 

I was flattered that Susan had even heard of me, and grateful for another opportunity to share our experiences to broaden the minds of others who might otherwise be tempted to think of abortion in black-and-white terms.  I agreed immediately to allow her to use the story.

It also dawned on me that this might be a good opportunity to help me attain a literary agent for my own book.  At the very least, it would lend some weight and national attention to our story.

Which leads me to the big question: my name.

Do I attach my full name to this story?  Or do I use a pseudonym?  It's a question I'd have to answer one way or another if and when I proceed with my book.  But now, I'll have to decide more quickly.  By the 30th, to be precise.

There are obvious advantages to attaching my name:
1. Making a "name" for myself.  Pun intended. 
2. Pride.  Not only for myself, but for Thomas, and my whole family.  We should never have to hide ourselves or be ashamed of what we did for him.  Nor should any woman who's had an abortion.
3. Assuming I did one day publish my own book, the only way to successfully market it would be to personally engage - through book tours, readings, radio and TV spots.  So my face would be connected with it, regardless of the name.

And there is a big disadvantage to attaching my name:
1. Scary, dangerous fanatics.

This one may override all others.  My family's security is paramount.  PARAMOUNT.  I do recognize that the most likely consequence to all of this would be condescending prayers for the welfare of my eternal soul. (I welcome prayer, but not false prayer that's really only intended as pity or scorn.)  I might also receive unwanted mail (pictures, "literature", etc.), but I imagine this can be circumvented by a P.O. box and someone to screen the contents.

But there are still that select cadre of human beings (I use the term loosely) who think killing is an answer.  Clinics are still bombed.  Doctors and providers are still targeted.  Would this risk extend to me?  How could I take measures to safeguard my family?

Also, I have an established career as a freelance writer.  Would publicizing our experiences cost me future business?  Would it make me easier to trace?  How would I bridge those two worlds if I used a pseudonym?

A good friend is trying to set up a meeting for me with Sarah Weddington.  (And yes, I might wet my pants if that actually happens.)  If anyone would know the implications of having your name forever linked to the topic of abortion, it would be her.

Do any of you have any thoughts on this?  I'm swaying wildly from one side to another with every passing moment.  What would you do?

An Unveiling!

We of the Uncommon are proud to present our first real-life-friend-turned-blogger, Whit!

Go forth and visit her at High-and-Mighty.  And tell her I sent'cha.