?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Monterey · Bay · Jane

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
I have plantar fasciitis, and as it turns out, I've actually had it for about a decade. I didn't realize what it was at the time, but it developed the first round of my starting to run, and then stayed around for years of retail and standing around on concrete jobs. I joked with the Doctor that I don't know how something would have been wrong with my feet for that long when I spent so much of college on my back, and she thought I was suggesting maybe I have a back problem. Maybe I'm not so funny afterall. It only actually got awful, legitimately awful (read: hobbling) for a week, and then I looked into it, saw a doctor, and what do ya know, I have PFasc. And then, after tracking pain levels after what activities, realizing I've had some grade of it for fucking years. So much for being excited to turn thirty.

Though I did successfully dig my kit out of the trash, I have not used it and it sits frozen in a block of ice in the freezer. I plan to bury it somewhere at some point but for now that feels like... I know it's not rational and I know it's not true but I do feel and I am afraid that if I bury it or get rid of it now, it's a friend that has been there for me (yes, right or wrong,) and I am abandoning it. And, completely irrationally, I worry that it will feel abandoned by me and might need me and I won't be there. I know that is full-on fiction. I do think having it here is some grade of unhealthy maybe, but I also think it feels better to have it here and frozen so that if I ever truly, really truly feel like I need it, I can go ahead and thaw it, at which point I will likely have cried my way out of it and not use it, and I also don't have to sit through feeling like I abandoned it.

And I've started looking at my mother like an addict. That was likely the Intervention marathon I went on, but it's occurred to me that much like anyone dealing with the mentally ill, it's possible she's an addict of her own kind and her addiction is him. She's got to enable, she's got to be there, she's got to fix. It's not right, again, but it's nice to let go of wondering how guilty I should feel, or how much I should question not speaking to her ever, when I think of her as an addict that can't help it. It's compassionate to view her as someone that truly can't help it, and it's liberating to view her evil, so to speak, and something that can't be helped. It's sad, but it's also who she is at her core. It's worth recognizing who she is, but it's also...exactly that. Girl, that is who she is. Without help she's an addict that will continue to do this and help him.

Dad was diagnosed with ALS, I don't know if I'd mentioned much of that. He has ALS and now I'm afraid to call him. Had that big blowout with Vince about calling him. Vince says he wants to give me money. I don't want to call and then have everyone think I did so for money. I also don't want to not call to avoid that rumor and then have him hurting knowing I didn't call, on his deathbed, for the sake of forgoing a rumor. And now I'm worried I'll call and I'll catch him on a bad day and he won't remember me anyway. Then again he was a shitty father so how much did he have to remember in the first place. It's a shitty question to ask, and it's pregnant with blame, but I don't think it's unfair.
* * *


Today was perfect. I got to do our LNO: the oral edition today, which was a huge success last year and was the same this time. One of my employees is letting me borrow her TV and its so stupid that that's been a morale boost but the silence in this apartment was killing me.

 

Caught up on the walking dead which only lead to tears but it was the perfect end to the day. Today its the first day in maybe three months where it hasn't felt like I was going Through something. I felt like I had wins under my belt. Its between a good night. Hasn't felt like i'm a victim of something, I'm not dodging any bullets. The locks are changed. I slept safely for the first tine last night and tonight hasn't just been me and my thoughts in an empty apartment. It's good. I laughed out loud alone for the first time in seriously five months.  I'm so much better today than ever in the last five months. It's good.

Tags:
* * *
I'm tired of being around men with no style. A style of any kind is still style, but having something you do, a theme in your wardrobe or look is so awfully sexy and I'm tired of lazy men not having one. Keep an eye out, be willing to spend $50 and learn a couple things.

You ought to own a white, button-down Oxford shirt. You need to know how to dance one proper dance with a woman, lady or otherwise, make a proper martini, and tie an honest-to-god, big boys wear it with a tux black bow tie. Wire rimmed aviators are classic, oxford shirts are classic, a jacket you chose because it looks good with something you wear regularly, not the rack you got it off, is a great place to start. Style isn't your money, it's taking an objective eye to what's on you. Have a couple nice things and wear them around, around the house, out somewhere that isn't a funeral and get to be comfortable in them so you're not bumbling around acting like you didn't have a father when you do wear them to something requiring them. Just a thought.
* * *
Today, President Obama is to sign an executive order underscoring the already-stated in the Hyde Amendment rule that the fed will not fund abortions. Stupak has said "This executive order has the full force and effect of law and makes very clear that current law of no public funding for abortion applies to the new health care reform legislation," which is, in my opinion, the most ridiculous piece of shit maybe ever.

He's admitting already knowing that there is current law forbidding federal funding for abortions. So if you already knew this, what the hell was the whole show being held up for with your complaints that you needed to personally amend the health care reform bill to ensure precisely such a thing! Surely, as a government official, you know that the fed cannot pass laws that directly fly in the face of other laws, surely you were already aware the Hyde Amendment existed and that federal law already held there is no funding for abortions through fed gov. Surely you knew this, and given this quote, apparently you did and yet you still held up the whole show to ensure the inclusion of an amendment you then backed away from! What is this?

I don't care about the federal funding, that's fine. That's how it's always been in all of my lifetime, I don't know any different and haven't lived any different, I couldn't possibly care less about the executive order, I'm just tired of the scare tactic news reports about "OMG we have to debate federal funding because we might all pay for abortions in just a minute if we don't get this out!!!" when there's already law in place prohibiting such a thing. Stop it.

I'm tired of the gov't going back over and legally repeating itself, bills, amendments, executive orders, just repeating bills, amendments, executive orders that already say the same thing and then lifers Still aren't happy.
* * *
The potential problem for abortion rights caused by the Nelson restriction on abortion coverage in the now passed health care reform bill is not really the fault of the Nelson restriction.

It's a solid compromise and I personally am more than a little geeked it passed. The idea is that insureds can now opt-in for abortion coverage, writing a separate check to pay for this coverage, allowing insureds to have coverage like they do now, and allowing insurance to cover it, like many agencies do now and avoiding all that ridiculous argument about federally-funded abortions (in a seriously round-about, not actually at all way) already outlawed in the Hyde Amendment.

The fear, rightly held, is that because nobody ever expects they'll have to have an abortion, especially because (in my experience) most of the women having them claim to be pro-life, very few will opt-in for it and most insurance will stop offering coverage. I see this fear, I understand it, and I do think it's a very real possibility.

But this problem does not lie with the NRestriction. This is a fair compromise that even if it isn't exactly what we want, it's better than what was being offered and in this case I do believe health care reform is important enough that we have to take our lumps here, and cannot conscientiously object to the larger idea.

The problem lies with lifers and stigma. Nobody believes they'll ever have an abortion, I think partially because of their own reasons, nobody wants to think any given undesirable situation is looming, but also because I think many times women aren't allowed to consider the possibility out loud, honestly. How do so many women having abortions claim to be against abortion? Because they still believe, we still believe, abortion only really happens to "those girls," doing something other than what we're doing, and we have stigmatized it accordingly. So I believe when people consider writing a check in understanding the possibility of an abortion in their lives, they're saying in their heads that the check would be to pay for an irresponsible, child-despising, anti-family, drug addicted little girl to have an abortion. This girl doesn't exist in that person's family, so why would that person write a check to cover her abortion? She doesn't exist in your family, but a girl whose birth control failed, or a woman who thought she held a stable professional position does, and these are the majority of the real women that have abortions.

The NRestriction is the best hand to be made of the cards being dealt and attacking it is ignoring the larger problem, that when the average American thinks of abortion, they don't think an average person can have them. Women who have abortions who are average human beings, don't think an average person can have them. We have to change the way we think about abortion and this isn't a pro-abortion rant, we have to change the way we think about abortion because at best, it isn't accurate. If you've had an abortion, you're hurting yourself by keeping it to yourself, and I hate to suggest it's your responsibility to tell anyone. It's your business and your determination as to who in your life is privy to this, but if you've had an abortion, you're doing a service to other women who will ever have to have an abortion, morally-bankrupt, drug-addicted and family-hating or otherwise.
* * *
* * *
Georgia considering outlawing abortions based on race, gender

The state cannot be allowed to decide what reasons are okay for medical procedures. My books are in storage right now, so I can't cite it but in my Boundaries of her Body: The History of Women's Rights in America it details the cases also found in the news on women prosecuted for refusing C-sections strictly because it was deemed a stupid reason. This isn't okay, we can't decide a surgery isn't okay based on the reasons behind it, that is literally thought policing and it gets us into an area of having to refuse women seeking abortions if a boyfriend says it's because of the race or she says that's part of her reason but not all of it. I can't tell you how many women I saw say they'd had multiple partners of varying races and if the child was of one man she would abort but not the other because she didn't want people to see the child and know she had cheated and yes it makes me uncomfortable and no I don't like it but I don't like the million reasons people give anyway. I don't like that women have ABs because they can't be "tied" to an abusive partner because I don't like that she's even in that situation. I don't like that women have them because of divorce, I don't like that they have them because of money, I don't like that they have them because they're in school, because I don't like that people demonize women who have abortions but aren't willing to give help to stop the situation that put them against that decision, nobody likes medicaid and nobody wants to be taxed to support it and nobody wants to vote for affordable birth control. The whole thing is such a shit bag scenario every time an abortion happens and I hate to pull out the slippery slope but nobody that proposes these ideas seems to consider the second and third steps, we have to start scrutinizing the reasons for every abortion ever had.

Doctors and abortion care workers do not go to the homes of black women and ask "Hey there, any knocked up black ladies in here? Have I got a deal for you!" They come to us, the patients come to us. How many black women are actually going to doctors saying "Oh I'm having my abortion because I don't want a black child?" I don't know. I doubt many. I had never experienced that in my time in clinic. What they're worried about is doctors preying on black women which is such a nonsense idea, but it goes back to believing women are inherently stupid and if they're pregnant that's only further dumbing them down so they don't really want abortions and they don't really want to avoid motherhood and if they just knew what they were doing and if everyone else would stop talking them into it, they wouldn't have any! Women just dont' know what they want and it's doctors that are talking them into it, nobody wants to believe it's possible for a woman to find out she's pregnant, think on it, pray on it, possibly discuss with loved ones and still arrive at the conclusion that an abortion is her best option.

So we have to believe black Georgian women are having abortions more than white women not because of healthcare disparities, not because of birth control cost issues, not because they have a higher rate of child sex abuse which does in fact lead to higher incidents of risky sexual behavior, not because of financial disparities, none of these things (that are logical and KNOWN TO PLAGUE THE BLACK COMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF THE REGION,) could Possibly be the problem, the problem is doctors are bad people. Great. Good job Georgia, ignoring the issues leading to your "statistical disparities" and skipping right to the much-less-logical cause. Enjoy wasting everyone's money to pass this and finding out the numbers don't change much.

Hey there disjointed thought process! I'm off to work, I know this was all over the place.
* * *
And
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] reckless">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

And <A HREF="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/15/its-illegal-37-states-for-a-pregnant-woman-fall-down-stairs>here we are,</a> jailing a woman in the meantime to make sure we know whether she really wants to be a mother, which would then tell us if maybe she meant to throw herself down the stairs to kill her child. Better jail her until we can figure out if she wanted to be a mother or not. Good move. Iowa and Utah are batting a thousand so far.

The problem with the proposed Utah law is enforceability. How is the state to know a miscarriage even happened? Why, make Doctors report of course. If a woman is treated we'll just go right ahead and report to the state if it was a miscarriage and if women are then afraid to go to the doctor they trust after a suspected miscarriage because she's afraid that even while grieving she must prove she wanted to be a mother or at the very least that she wasn't trying to hurt her fetus (which won't always work because they include "reckless" behavior in the list of criminal actions, including behavior known but <i> not actually even intended </i> to kill the fetus, so whether you meant to or not doesn't really matter.) So if women start avoiding the doctor after a suspected miscarriage, and if it isn't a complete miscarriage and she suffers an infection and dies, well I guess we'll just jump off that bridge when we get there. I'd like to say I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but I'm not.

So Utah, what do you do now? How do you enforce your lovely "well meaning" (surely) law without investigating into possible homicide every time you hear of a woman miscarrying and further, how will you do that without scaring women away from their own doctors? What's your plan on this one? And God help the women who miscarry before having an abortion. I can't tell you how many patients I had, personally, who canceled their abortion appointments because they had miscarried. Because then you really can't prove she didn't do something to kill the fetus herself but you can certainly prove she didn't want it alive. Man oh man are those women going to get it, but thankfully we're protecting...um...someone. Someone's being helped here, surely far more than could be harmed.
* * *
This is the problem.

As I'd mentioned, the problem is not that she made a decision after conferring with loved ones, praying and thoughtful reflection on the matter, leading her to a decision she was comfortable with and still is, to this day. Ideally, that is how every pregnancy ends; with a woman firm in her decision, feeling with full faith that she made the best decision possible for her situation.

The problem is the final proclamation:

When asked what a woman in this position, "your position" the interview says, what that woman should do, she states that woman should choose life and not kill her baby. So when a woman who already has children is faced with the possibility of death of not just herself but the child she is carrying, she should opt against abortion even if doing so could leave her dead and her children motherless, this is what she should do. No hint that a woman ought to think about what is best for her situation, no hint that a woman ought to consider what's best for the child she's carrying and certainly no hint at considering what is best for the children she has, a woman should, regardless of the circumstance, choose life. She can say this because it is what she's done. She admits she's made mistakes before, in parenting, and surely this means she is human and has made mistakes in other areas. In this area, ladies, we can be sure though: She knows this is the best option no matter who you are, regardless of the chance it may kill you and your child, it didn't kill her and it didn't kill her child and she's happy today so you will be too, and good for you. Good for you, and good luck. Besides, even if it does kill you, God will take care of your kids. (Not medicaid, just God.) Ms. Tebow says so, so...
* * *
The problem with the Super Bowl ad is not that it exists as a pro-life sentiment. Choose life? Sure, I can get down with that. You want to have a kid, you choose to have one, perfect. Why not? And Focus on the Family pays 20-some odd million to get air time for you to talk about it? Outstanding. No reason not to. Being pro-choice rests on support of women making the decisions they feel are best, which is what she did. She made her decision after conferring with her doctors and loved ones, and I support her right to do so.

It's not like nobody's aware of what a lifer is and a thirty second spot isn't changing minds and even if it did, if the promise of a Heisman-winning son makes previously unsure women sure about having a child, excellent. Good on them. The problem is that choosing, having a free and available choice, isn't usually a choice in circumstances like the ones outlined by Tim Tebow's mother. Having a placental abruption can kill you, and you can't paint doctors that monitor pregnancies like hers as careless, heartless or cowardly for being concerned when pregnancies like hers come up. It's fantastic and truly a blessing (and I say this without a shadow of sarcasm,) that she was able to get through the pregnancy with a healthy boy at the end of it. This is wonderful, and good for them. That she lived is fantastic and beyond that she even has a healthy child. That's wonderful, because that isn't how it always goes.

The choice of life isn't always a choice in these circumstances and sometimes, women who choose life when her placenta has come loose so to speak from the uterine wall far too early die and their wanted and loved fetus dies with them. Her choosing life was helpful in his birth, but her health miraculously allowing for this child had a solid part of it too, because it doesn't always end that way.

So good on them. She was lucky and managed a relatively normal pregnancy under circumstances that should have resulted in a seriously premature child, her own going into shock, or the death of one or both of them. None of those things happened and good for them, that is a serious rarity in an already rare situation (placetal abruption,) and everyone's alive to discuss it. But the doctors who recommended an abortion in this situation, knowing she was in an underdeveloped country, knowing both of them could have died, knowing her age played a factor, knowing he could have had functional complications of his own, were not preying on a woman in distress or making a careless, lazy recommendation hoping they simply wouldn't have to deal with helping her through labor. They were making a distinction between choosing life and hoping for life, being lucky enough to get it, knowing that choosing life doesn't guarantee it.
* * *
Dr. Tiller's murderer was found guilty of first degree homicide today after 37 minutes of jury deliberation. Judge Warren Wilber presided over the case and said "There is no imminence of danger on a Sunday morning in the back of a church, let alone any unlawful conduct, given that what Tiller did at his clinic Monday through Friday is lawful in Kansas," in response to the murderer's attempt at arguing voluntary manslaughter.

Ann Swengel, prosecutor, deserves our thanks for her defense of abortion care providers against the idea that we are a group open for hunting under the law. Had the murderer's attempt at a voluntary manslaughter conviction been successful, he would have been free from prison after only five years, setting a dangerous precedent for us. A devastating loss has been suffered because of what this man has done, and his imprisonment, of any length, can't fix it, but it can keep clear our system's history of just punishment for murder, as defined by unlawful taking of life, no matter what your career is.

Just two doctors, Dr. Hern and Dr. Casey, are left that can perform the work Dr. Tiller did, and they face violent opposition on the job and outside of work every day, as do all other abortion care providers. Upholding our right to practice without the threat of death because our profession gives them a green light to shoot us is a win for decent people as a whole, regardless of your feelings on abortion.

Many people who self-identify as pro-life have abortions, it happens every day, I've seen it happen twice a week, and many families who have wanted their child for years have found themselves making this decision with sorrow out of medical necessity, and those families especially are the people suffering by the death of these providers. I can't say that this ruling makes me happy, but it does lend itself to a certain ease and comfort after his death.

Of course, in Kansas, life means 15-to-life, which means that after 15 years he will be up for parole for the first time, though it is unlikely to be doled out. Kansas is one of only three states to have laws setup such that no crime, no matter how heinous, is punishable by life without the possibility of parole. So he's up for chatsies about it in 2025, when he will be 66.
* * *
* * *

Previous