I haven’t written in a while, mostly I think because I have been disenchanted and just reading the news instead of writing about it.
I read some interesting things today. One of the most interesting things I read came from a blog from fellow Alaskans.
The writer lauds this:
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Northwest released a statement this morning stating that under today’s ruling, millions of women will have access to birth control without a co-pay starting in 2012—protecting their health, making their reproductive choice more affordable, and reducing infant mortality rates if and when they do decide to have children.
What I don’t get, is how this reduces infant mortality rates? If anything to me this sends the message that it’s okay to go out and get jiggy with it. That it is the right of everyone, including young teens to go have sex, and it’s their RIGHT to have contraception provided to them by the tax payers. It doesn’t say anything to me about personal responsibility, like “Hmmm I can’t afford condoms, and if I got pregnant now I wouldn’t be able to afford the baby either. I guess I better not fool around.” But let’s get back to infant mortality rates…
I guess it all depends on who you consider an infant. You see, at Planned Parenthood they don’t consider an unborn child an infant who could be considered in their mortality rates, because it hasn’t taken it’s first breath yet. So the babies that are slaughtered in their clinics under the term “abortion” can’t be counted in the mortality rates, now could they?
Guess a beating heart doesn’t count? I saw this on Facebook and totally agreed with it. What do you think?
Yet others have blogged about, and I agree with them, then why on earth could a person who murders a pregnant woman be charged with double homicide? I guess it just depends on who decides when life starts?
Speaking of who decides things. I was doing some reading on the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Which will determine preventative care under Obamacare. Now lets just see how this fares in regards to women…
- The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) strongly recommends screening men aged 35 and older for lipid disorders.
Grade: A Recommendation.
- The USPSTF recommends screening men aged 20 to 35 for lipid disorders if they are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.
Grade: B Recommendation.
- The USPSTF strongly recommends screening women aged 45 and older for lipid disorders if they are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.
Grade: A Recommendation.
- The USPSTF recommends screening women aged 20 to 45 for lipid disorders if they are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.
Grade: B Recommendation.
Now… did you notice that they only recommend screening WOMEN 45 and older IF they are at increased risk? But they recommend screening MEN age 35 and older. YET… the CDC itself states:
Heart disease and stroke are among the most widespread and costly health problems facing our nation today, even though they are also among the most preventable. Heart disease and stroke are leading causes of death for both women and men.
And I did a bit more research on this matter. I found this little bit of info:
TRUTH: Heart disease threatens all women, even those as young as 30 and 40.For example, the rate of sudden cardiac death of women in their 30s and 40s is increasing much faster than in men their same age—rising 21 percent in the 1990s.
So where is the outrage on the war against women? *crickets*
The U.S. Preventative Task Force also does not recommend teaching women to do a monthly self breast exam anymore. Yet breastcancer.org has this to say:
“New guidelines recommending that women not perform breast self-examinations (BSEs) could seriously endanger women’s health and lead to later detection of cancers in some women,” says Marisa Weiss, M.D., president and founder of Breastcancer.org and a leading breast cancer oncologist. “These guidelines do not reflect a new point of view, but they are still very bad advice.”
So if you want to consider the SCOTUS decision a win… a victory if you will, for women. I think you are misguided. If you want to consider it a win for the American people I think you are also wrong. Our debt cannot bear the burden of such a program first of all. Secondly, the system will become overwhelmed with people seeking their FREE care for things that they might not have gone to the doctor for. When it becomes “FREE” clinics will be full of people seeking care for every little ache and pain, clinics will be overwhelmed triaging real medical necessity and the “cough cough” ill. The providers will become jaded, begin to treat every patient as a “cough cough” patient and before you know it your FREE healthcare really sucks.
Just have a go at Indian Health Services if you don’t believe me. Just say you are from Elizabeth Warren’s tribe, worked for her, should work for you right? No need to show ID or proof here, right? So, if you could get into IHS care, you might find that it’s not all that it’s what it’s cracked up to be, this free healthcare, and a lot of real illness get overlooked or missed, a lot of “cough cough” illnesses see to destroying providers ability to give two *coughs* and some people even end up dead. But no ones complaining about that now are they, because it’s all free right? Oh wait, complaints might be made but they fall on deaf ears. Besides, there is not a big enough constituency of these IHS recipients to make a difference in the polls anyhow. I guess when it is the general populace the constituent pool would be bigger, but we aren’t looking at that now are we??