"Selling" breast milk

From the weekly Our365 email I get about my baby's development (courtesy of the people who took newborn photos in the hospital):

Yes, of course. You'd find it right next to the gallons of blood and sperm.

First of all, we don't package and sell breast milk as if it were, say cow's milk. It's distributed by donor milk banks, you know, same as we do with blood. And sperm. 

Because there are so few donor banks (and the requirements are so strict -- I can't donate milk because I'm on antidepressants that are safe to take while nursing, but those meds prohibit me from donating), and because the fees to use donated milk are so steep and insurance companies put so many restrictions on who is "worthy" of receiving the little human milk there is available, some moms contribute to programs like Eats on Feets, or share their milk informally with a mom friend in need.

Yes, there have been instances of moms asking for a fee for this service (I don't have any links, but I saw people asking about it on one of the birth/parenting Facebook pages I follow, so it must have happened, at least once...), but it's not a money-making business, as Kristina C. makes it sound. It's "donating breast milk," not "selling" it.

And, Kristina C., if you're going to use an analogy... well... use the analogy. We donate and distribute human breast milk same as we do human blood or sperm: through banks, with medical screenings, and you must apply to receive the product. We don't sell blood or sperm at Stop & Shop either, so if your child is bleeding out after a car wreck, are you going to refuse the blood transfusion that could save hir life?

Birth Control Injection For Men

OK, I admit I did not read the WHOLE article (it's long, and I have a baby stirring in his basket, he's about to wake up and my Internetz time will be up); I saw something on Twitter or Facebook about this the other day, but that article seemed wonky, and I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. This article has, like, sciency-talk in it and stuff.

If this is for real, then... DUDE.

If it IS 100% effective, and reversible, then... DAMN. MonkeyBoy will be strongly encouraged to get this injection when he's 13. He can reverse it when he's ready to have kids, if he and his partner choose to make babies.

And speaking of, he's awake. So I'll leave you with the article: The Revolutionary New Birth Control Method For Men. Go read, be amazed, get excited, and find that doctor in San Francisco who wants to bring this to the FDA. Let's make this happen! Soon!!

"About half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. Come up with a better contraceptive and the likely results are all good: fewer unwanted kids, fewer single parents, and fewer abortions."

"Where your money is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21

Hungerfast.org

Abstinence-Only Driver's Ed

After the rousing success of abstinence-only sex ed programs, the only logical next step is implementing this highly successful method in other areas, such as driver's education programs. No?

It would probably look something like this:

Or, also, like this.

Women's Day of Action for Health Care Reform: The Choice Movement and [Trans] Women's Health

The choice movement is not about babies or fetuses. It's about women* and their bodies.

It's about a woman's right to medication and medical care.

For the majority of women, meaning hetero cis women, "medication" translates into birth control and "medical care" translates into pregnancy care: how to have a healthy one, how to terminate one if needed, and how to avoid one in the first place.

When we talk about "women's health" we are, sadly, talking about hetero cis women, and we usually end up talking about birth control and pregnancy, even though hetero cis women do have other medical needs, not related to their reproductive organs.

Now here's the newsflash: not all women are hetero cis women. And guess what? They have medical needs too.

I am pro-choice because I have a right to tell my body what to do, not the other way around. I have a right to use birth control to make my periods regular, to reduce my cramps and other PMS symptoms, and to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

Now, for me personally, I'm lucky that my periods are pretty regular, and I don't really suffer from cramps. (I did have that one issue with the unwanted pregnancy, though.)

For me personally, I'm also lucky that what's between my legs (i.e., my sex) matches what's between my ears (i.e., my gender). That's another medical need I personally do not have. But millions of trans people do.

Just as I have a right to tell my body what to do and what not to do (by using birth control to regulate my periods or keep me from getting pregnant), a trans woman has the same right to control her body and tell it what to do and not do. And, if anything, I'd say a trans woman's needs trump my own; if worse came to worst I could control my body by not having sex or trusting the rhythm method. But a trans woman doesn't have another choice.

Disclaimer: I am new at this. I am probably going to screw up language and I know I am talking with little knowledge of trans medical needs and care. If I do screw up, please let me know, and I will correct myself.

A trans woman's body tries to act like a man's body. It tries to grow hair on her face and have a deep voice and not grow breasts or have the proper curves. Her body betrays her. The only way she can control this is with medication and/or(?) hormone therapy. She needs this medication just as much as, if not more than, I need birth control.

When we talk about women's rights and women's basic health care we need to make sure we also talk about trans women's rights and trans women's basic health care.

They may not need access to birth control, but they need access to hormone therapy (and/or other medical treatment of which I'm ignorant) if they choose to do that.

Then there's the day-to-day medical care. For me, it's things like my yearly well-woman exam, breast exams, so on and so forth. And those other things that come up randomly, like yeast infections, UTIs, etc. When any of those things comes up, I have the right and the ability to go to a doctor to get the care I need to fix the problem. Even if I don't have health insurance to help me pay for it, I know I can go to a clinic, such as Planned Parenthood, and get the care I need.

A trans woman also has the right to this, but at the moment, she does not have the ability to go to a doctor or a clinic to get the medical care she needs. Mainly her medical needs don't "match," according to cis standards, with her gender.

It's been decades now since we cis women have had to resort to the coathanger in a back alley. But for trans people, a back alley butcher with homemade tools is the only medical care they have access to. Part of the reason, I'm sure, is that insurance companies don't approve claims for Pap smears for men, or testicular cancer screenings for women. Part of the reason is doctors' offices don't know how to file paperwork for someone who was born a "man" but is now a woman. (This is a damn stupid reason, but it happens, and it's a barrier to medical care.) Part of the reason is probably that your average doctor or even your average OB/GYN doesn't know how to treat a trans person's needs.

Cis women have a specialist they can go to who knows all the details of their bodies. Why can't trans people have a specialist, a trans doctor, who specializes in treating their medical needs?

Do they even teach this stuff in medical school? I know a while back we pro-choice feminists got all up in arms about an anti-choice bill that wanted to remove the "abortion" pages from medical textbooks. Do those textbooks have any "trans" pages in them to begin with? Is this part of a med student's training? My very uninformed guess is NO.

I know it's easy for us cis women to say we're not qualified to speak up on trans issues because we don't know enough about it. We don't know what their needs are, we don't know what it's like to go through a gender transition. If we don't know what their needs are, how can we campaign for their needs? How can we advocate for their rights, when we don't know that much about the issue?

Do we allow cis men to get away with that cop-out when we're talking about cis women's reproductive rights?

So, guess what. If you don't know, learn. Find out. Ask. Engage trans women in the conversation. They're out there, and I bet they have a lot to say.

Ask your doctors and other medical professionals. They should be the experts, right? Find out if they are.

Does your primary care physician serve trans people? Are they welcome in your PCP's office?

Does your OB/GYN know how to serve the needs of trans women seeking hormone therapy? Does your OB/GYN treat trans men?

Does your local clinic offer services to trans people? Are they made to feel welcome there?

All women have a right to basic health care. This includes access to medication and medical treatment. This includes yearly exams, regular checkups, and any other specific diseases, infections, maladies, or concerns that pop up in-between. This includes birth control, pre- and post-natal care, labor, and abortions. And it also damn better include trans people's needs.

Even if the details of the execution (birth control v. hormone therapy) are different, the moral principle is the same. If you are pro-choice, as I like to proudly call myself, and fight for your right to basic medical care specific to your body and reproductive organs, then you need to also fight for a trans person's right to do the same.

We are feminists. We fight because the patriarchy has oppressed us for years, and we're not going to take it anymore. But we need to be aware that we are not the only group who has been and is oppressed, and I for one want to make sure that I am not oppressing anyone else. I don't want to do to others what has been done unto me.

If we leave trans women out of the discussions of and demands for women's health, then we are oppressing that group of people. And that goes against everything feminists fight for.

The health care reform debate has been hijacked by talk of abortion, which is sad because women's health care is so much more than that, even if we're only looking at the limited cis woman's definition of health care. But in all these talks, in all these calls and letters and petitions, can wen please include trans women? Can we let their voices be heard? They need health care reform more than any of us.

*See fourth paragraph from the end. But first, read all the paragraphs between the asterisk and the fourth paragraph from the end. And then read the last three paragraphs. All that to say, "women" means different things to different people; we need to be inclusive of all women.

Want some commentary on women's health care?

Plywood sign on the side of the highway. Yes, that is stenciled in spray paint. Need I say more?

Can you afford to wait?

Health care, explained via World's Largest Hog analogy

Wouldn't the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," granted unalienably in the Declaration of Independence, by definition grant us a right to health care? Or am I just being silly and making sense? Can I pursue happiness if I'm suffering from preventable ailments? Can I exercise my right to life if I die from, say, an abscessed tooth due to lack of basic health care?

EDIT [because, apparently, my best inspiration always has to come in the shower]: This is the price we pay for living in a society. I will gladly pay for the idiots who eat the chocolate-covered bacon, if it means I'm also paying for the mother dying of breast cancer, or if it means a husband doesn't have to divorce his wife so his medical bills don't repossess their house and demolish their kids' college funds.

Just wanted to share this with you...

... my insurance coverage expires tonight. So I made sure to refill my prescriptions yesterday (not just because I would not be allowed after today; I was actually out).

I got my first paycheck from New Job on Friday, so I could afford to buy my meds. (Insurance from New Job won't start until November 1st, even though I started working there August 3rd.)

I paid 10% of my (monthly) paycheck for my (monthly) meds. I found that interesting, so I thought I'd share those numbers with you.

(Also, new insurance covers "the pill" and Norplant. Not Nuvaring, which is what I use. So, either I pay $70 a month for my birth control, or I go back to the less-reliable, more-prone-to-human-error daily pill. Can you tell how thrilled I am about all this?)

"Make sense, not death threats"

(I really should have posted this last week, or whenever the 40th anniversary of Woodstock was... but I still want to post it and use my clever title. Because I'm so proud of my clever title.)

I don't really have any words for this whole health care debacle. I don't even watch the news (gave that up a long time ago; there was no point since they've stopped worrying about that whole "providing information" thing), but I do click on links via Twitter and Facebook. Maybe I shouldn't, especially when those links lead to debates with racist Republican uncles (don't worry, I've blocked him. Smartest move I've made in a long time).

This video really made me want to pack up and move to a more civilized country (it's not the best quality video; you can read a transcript of the show instead, if you prefer).

EDIT: And, of course, who could forget Joe The Plumber? Of course he has something intelligent and elocuent to add to the debate! How can people stand behind a party whose prominent members are resorting to death threats instead of discussing the facts and issues, like rational, intelligent, sane people?

The few debates I have unfortunately engaged in leave me dumbfounded, because the people opposed to health care reform MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL. I don't understand the words coming out of their mouths. I understand the individual words, but the way these people string them together... I'm baffled.

I should know better than to expect logic and reason from right-wingnuts, but they are really outdoing themselves this time. Case in point?

Michelle Bachmann:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I mean, SERIOUSLY? How can you possibly not realize what you just said???

Are they from another planet? Am I?

There are teeny-tiny rays of hope in this whole thing, like MomRising.org's Healthcare Truth Squad: Everyday Heroes, Busting Myths, Spreading the Truth!

It would be nice of we could talk about the actual points of the bills. If we could deal with facts, without yelling, and without assault rifles. Is that too much to ask of a civilized nation?

"Facts? We don't need to teach you no stinkin' FACTS!"

Here in Texas, we don't need to worry about silly things like scientific facts when we teach, like, science (I mean, really -- HOW are those even related!) Evolution? That's so weak. There is no proof! It's just a theory! We're not going to let the LIBERAL MEDIA brainwash our children with their "insufficient" theories on, like, evolution and the Big Bang and whatnot.

You see how much we value factual information in our classrooms. So it is really a surprise that we don't want no stinkin' medically-accurate information in our health classes?

So far the three bills introduced in the Texas legislature this session trying to get FACTS in sex ed classes have gone nowhere. What did these radical bills demand?

• SB 1076 / HB 1567 "would require that information about contraception and disease prevention in sexuality education classes be scientifically accurate. It would also require that sexuality education classes not discourage sexually active people from using any form of contraception or method approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reducing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."
• SB 515 / HB 741 (Education Works) "would require that information taught in public school sexuality education classes be medically accurate. They would also require that schools teaching about sexuality education include information about the importance of abstinence and medically accurate information about contraception and other methods of responsible pregnancy and disease prevention."
• SB 1100 / HB 1694 "would require that sexuality information taught to students be medically accurate and that schools inform parents about what they are teaching in sexuality education classes."

(emphasis mine)

RADICAL, I know. We are "stealing children's innocence" by giving them MEDICALLY-ACCURATE FACTS!!! How much more depraved can you get!

As Planned Parenthood of North Texas put it in an email sent out last night,

PPNT alerted you a few days ago that representatives in Austin were introducing amendments to an education-related bill (SB 283) that would require information taught in sexuality education courses be medically accurate. Thank you to everyone who called or e-mailed your legislator in support of these amendments!

Unfortunately, the House bill sponsor Rep. Mark Shelton (R-Fort Worth), who is a doctor, chose not to accept these amendments. They were then withdrawn after a point of order ruled they were unrelated to the subject of the bill. The bill pertained to School Health Advisory Councils (SHACs), locally appointed councils whose function (among others) is to recommend sexuality education curricula to their school boards.

This means there is no guarantee Texas' teens will receive factual information in their sex ed classes next fall.

Currently, Texas law does not require that the health curriculum in Texas classrooms be medically accurate. You might think such a law would be unnecessary, but a recent survey of sex education curriculum in Texas schools* found that almost half of what is taught is scientifically unsound.

However, the session is not over—any day now, the Texas Legislature could consider other bills that could restrict access to health care or information. Stay tuned for future updates.

*by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund

(emphasis theirs, links mine)

Somebody remind me again why I live in this state?

Sadly, the issue is way more complicated than that...

[Edited to include the video and give the names of the people involved.]

Yesterday I saw a YouTube clip of some Congressguy Congressman Tim Ryan on some cable news show Hardball talking about President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and his call to us to find common ground on the issue of abortion and provide access to birth control to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The Congressdude Congressman Ryan was described as "against abortion rights" but he was working with, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a pro-choice legislator to make birth control more affordable and accessible to women, specifically low-income women, to reduce the need for abortions.

I'm all for that, but one thing the guy Congressman Ryan said bugged me. He also went on about adoption and social services, to encourage women to carry the pregnancy to term. As I write that I realize that this guy did a lot of things I like (I might have to go find the video now); he used the words "carry the pregnancy to term" instead of talking about babies or other words that make the issue more emotional. He also pointed out that not having the abortion means carrying the pregnancy to term and needing social services to care for the child, so we need to provide appropriate health care for the infant and welfare for the mother and child. (So often in the abortion debate the anti-choicers scream and holler about the "baby" but forget to add its post-partum existence into the equation.)

But back to what bugged me -- I know he had very little time to make his points and the interviewer dude kept interrupting him and asking stupid questions he'd already answered, but I got the impression the Congressman thought the only reason a woman chooses to abort instead of carrying the pregnancy to term is economic restrictions: if we provide more info and support for adoption services, women will be convinced to carry the pregnancy to term; if we provide them with proper welfare and social services programs to help them care for the child, women will carry the pregnancy to term instead of abort.

Again, the issue is not that simple. There are many, many reasons why a woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy. This is not a minor inconvenience, this is a life-changing event. Even if she does not intend to keep the child, the pregnancy itself will have a huge impact on her life (and take a huge toll on her body). Think about it. Think about, every day of those nine months.

Going to work, pregnant. Dealing with morning sickness (that lasts all day long). Fatigue, because your body is taking every available ounce of energy to form the fetus growing inside of you. Showing.

Buying new clothes to fit your new body -- bigger bras, because your breasts will get bigger (they're making milk, remember?) And, in case you don't know, bras are effin' expensive. Buying new pants. Buying new tops. Buying new shoes because your feet and ankles have swollen that much.

Think about doing your job every day, pregnant. FOR A CHILD YOU WILL NOT KEEP. Are you on your feet all day? Are you talking to people who will ask you about "the baby"? (Most low-income women -- who have difficulties affording birth control -- don't have cushy desk jobs; they have more physically-demanding jobs. Do you want to wait tables or scrub toilets or restock shelves in your third trimester? Or maybe you have a customer service job, where people will ask you all kinds of baby questions and insist on touching your stomach. What fun!)

Can you afford maternity leave? Even one weekend, to give birth and allow your body to recover? What if there are any complications with the pregnancy, and you need bedrest? Can you afford the pre-natal care? Can you afford the time off from work for the pre-natal care doctor's visits? If you suffer post-partum depression, will you be able to afford more time off to go see a psychiatrist or psychologist? What about anti-depressants, will you be able to afford those?

How are you going to face all those people you interact with on a daily basis after the baby is born, and you don't have it? How are you going to deal with their questions?

And even that is not even scratching the surface of the reasons why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy.

This is a deeply personal issue. The reasons I had for choosing to terminate my pregnancy are totally different from the reasons any other woman in the waiting room with me in the clinic that morning had. For some, the economic factor is a big deal. For others, money is not the problem -- the problem is much bigger than that.

This is why we need to leave the option open.

We need to do everything in our power to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we need to leave the option open, for all the other reasons that your average Congressman can't even fathom.

Yesterday I used obesity as an analogy for the reproductive rights debate. I felt a little uneasy writing about it, because I am rather ignorant on the topic. Today, I read Julie Neumann's post on Change.org's Women's Rights blog, and I felt even more unqualified to have written what I did. Eating disorders are an extremely complex issue and the reasons why a person develops an eating disorder are very personal (unique to each person, there is not one easy answer); yesterday I reduced it to the stereotyped, simplified version (in my defense, I was not discussion the issue itself in depth, I was mentioning it as an example, but still).

Julie shares quotes from several people with eating disorders saying what their eating disorder is "all about" -- the reasons why they do what they do. I felt extremely narrow-minded and ignorant as I read; there is so much more to this issue that we don't even realize, because we are not there. (It's an excellent post, please read it.)

We're not going to fix it with a Band-Aid (eating disorders or reproductive rights). We need to do everything we can to fix the known causes and fix the stuff that we can fix (health care, access to birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we're never going to make it go away completely. Which is why we need to allow each woman to make the choice for herself.

Health Insurers Agree to End Higher Premiums for Women - NYTimes.com

From Health Insurers Agree to End Higher Premiums for Women - NYTimes.com:

In interviews last fall, insurance executives said they had a sound reason for the different premiums: Women ages 19 to 55 tend to cost more than men of the same age because they typically use more health care, especially in the childbearing years. Moreover, insurers said women were more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic illnesses.

So, by the same token, if your child is an honor student, you will have to pay higher taxes to the schools. Because your honor student will be less likely to skip school, will be more likely to ask for make-up work when absent, and will be more likely to ask questions in class and come in for tutoring when needed. Which will requires the teachers to, uh... do their job.

Isn't the point of health insurance that it allows you to "visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medication"? WHAT AM I PAYING FOR???

Oh, that's right... I forgot I must be punished for being born with girlie parts...

Can you lay-off pregnant women?

Do pregnant women deserve special treatment when it comes to lay-offs?

Laid Off – and Pregnant - The Parenting.com Blogs

Let's think about this.

Who's going to suffer if the woman does not get proper pre-natal care? Who requires massive amounts of pre- and post-natal care?

Remember that whole potential child inside that woman?

The woman herself, no, she doesn't deserve any "special treatment." But the baby inside of her does. That potential baby (and actual baby, once it's born) requires massive amounts of medical care, and in our country, medical care is tied to your job. No job = no insurance = no doctor because how in the world are you going to afford it?*

Laying off a pregnant mother is not like laying off an expectant father. An expectant father doesn't look pregnant. Because he's not pregnant. He can still work through the pregnancy and the birth. Yes, he'll want some time off, but he can manage working through it much better than the mother can. He's also not going to be breastfeeding for the first year after the baby is born. (Guys, I love ya, but IT'S NOT THE SAME FOR YOU.)

All the points brought up in that post are true: you think you're going to be given a fair interview when you walk in preceded by that belly? And where are you going to get the money to pay for your six weeks of maternity leave when you were hired three months ago?


(PS: read the comments. I think I'm moving back to Chile. Or President Obama needs to take a trip down there and have a little chat with Bachelet about maternity leave and such.)


*And please keep in mind that is only if you are lucky enough to work for a large enough company that can provide you with medical insurance (not the case for my darling husband, though he works full-time); or that you work for an ethical enough company that they will give you full-time work so you can qualify for benefits instead of consistently scheduling you for just a few hours short of FT...