« Ouch | Main | Best Headline Ever »
May 17, 2006
What Forest?
One more thought on this CDC Report. I recognize that most folks got their information from the Washington Post article, but it seems our emphases were all off. While the phrasing of treating women as "pre-conception" was deeply discomfiting, the actual medical advice and data offered was all sound. If we want to remain the side committed to serious science and the preservation of expertise, we've got to support well-documented research when it emerges, even if its leaves us uncomfortable.
But there was something more to be seen in the report. It offered a loud call to increase health care coverage among poor women, a full-throated defense of Medicaid, and a recommendation to increase the use of family planning waivers. And that was just to start -- the report also lauds increased research on women's health, more public health programs (including increased funding for Title X which, to quote, "provide approximately 4.6 million women with family planning education and contraceptives and pregnancy tests"), and vastly increase the availability of post-partum care.
This is a liberal health care agenda and we should've jumped on it. It is an explicit condemnation of the anti-contraceptive movement, and a broadside against those who would lay blame for poor maternal health solely on individual women rather than a broken and inequitable delivery system. Bum-rushing this document was, for us, a clear case of missing the forest for the trees. The fault was, to be sure, largely in the Washington Post's coverage of the document. But hey, we're bloggers -- don't we know by now to try and read primary documents whenever possible, rather than simply trusting the "MSM"?
May 17, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8345c820969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Forest?:
» HOLD YOUR FIRE! from AIDS Combat Zone
One Last Thought:
From Ezra Klein:
If we want to remain the side committed to serious science and the preservation of expertise, we've got to support [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2006 8:37:55 PM
» More on CDC guidelines for womens preconception health from Rosetta Stones
After the initial reaction to the Washington Post article about the new CDC recommendations for womens health, bloggers have read the CDC guidelines and continued the dicussion. Here are some of the most interesting posts and comments Iv... [Read More]
Tracked on May 21, 2006 3:34:38 AM
Comments
Not much to add but praise for not only digging deeper into this to uncover the real facts, but expressing it well.
Posted by: Stephen | May 17, 2006 11:28:59 AM
Every time you use the phrase "sound science", Chris Mooney kills a kitten.
Posted by: SP | May 17, 2006 11:32:37 AM
Good point. I changed it. For the kittens.
Posted by: Ezra | May 17, 2006 11:37:03 AM
If only Chris Mooney would use his powers for good instead of evil, and instead of killing kittens, kill terrorists.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Chuck | May 17, 2006 11:54:49 AM
Oddly enough, I was in the process of clarifying what I had written earlier when I read your post. You're absolutely right. The report was a lot more comprehensive than what's been touched on in the blogs that I've read (or than what I wrote about). I think that's partially why I reacted to the report in the manner that I did vs. taking offense. I read the recommendation itself and was reacting to the information in context. I've reposted with the goals and summaries of the specific recommendations from the report itself (http://community.livejournal.com/poundofcure/21740.html). Hopefully, that will at least help some of my readers look at the information in context as well (without having to read the whole document).
Posted by: T Young | May 17, 2006 1:21:06 PM
I'm a healthcare provider, and I immediately noticed that the advice being given would be sound for any PERSON, male or female, not just women who might have a baby. But I was still offended by the tone. I also didn't like the rationale that half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned, therefore all women of childbearing age must be treated as pregnant or pre-pregnant in order to minimize birth defects. It makes much more sense, of course, to try to reduce that appallingly high unplanned percentage. Which apparently the recommendations try to do, but the whole issue was framed in an unnecessarily annoying way.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | May 17, 2006 2:07:54 PM
Rip out your uterus....problem solved.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | May 17, 2006 2:43:14 PM
But hey, we're bloggers -- don't we know by now to try and read primary documents whenever possible, rather than simply trusting the "MSM"?
It was depressing to see the jerking kneefest at places that should have known better. This was a well-sourced report with progressive recommendations (with corporate support, no less). The WaPo writeup was atrocious, and the writer had nearly a month to read the damn thing.
In other news, I see that Fred Jones is still a tool.
Posted by: nick s | May 17, 2006 7:30:14 PM
It's really sad to me that we're "supposed" to know that something like a mundane medical document is going to be propagandized to death by the WaPo. What's upsetting is there was nothing implausible about the story, unless you just so happen to be very familiar with the CDC's methods and how much they've changed under pressure from BushCo. Consider the fact that the FDA, on the subject of women's health care at least, has basically given up even pretending to do the job of analyzing and approving medication based on its safety and has gone full scale into trying to maximize the number of women who get pregnant against their will every year by denying OTC approval to Plan B.
It's worth noting that these guidelines lend themselves to a pro-emergency contraception view, in that they recommend women plan their pregnancies. So the FDA and CDC are telling people very different things.
The only people here who have anything to be ashamed of are the reporters at the WaPo who are so eager to promote a wingnut view of womanhood they misled the public. Everyone else was simply behaving in a reasonable fashion, in assuming that the newspaper was doing its job.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 17, 2006 7:47:39 PM
Way to absolve yourself of responsibility.
Posted by: Dustin | May 17, 2006 8:35:17 PM
What bugs me is that we know quite well that the WaPo and the NYT weren't to be trusted on Iraq, so why did we expect them to be trustworthy on this? Really, now, when will we learn?
Posted by: modus potus | May 17, 2006 9:26:00 PM
The recommendations are good. Nobody disputes that, least of all the WaPo. However, the paper was right to pick up on the subtext. The frame is not improving women's health, or improving women's reproductive health, but rather improving women's overall health as a means to improve their reproductive health outcomes.
It really jumps out from the first sentence of the CDC report:
Improving preconception health can result in improved reproductive health outcomes, with potential for reducing societal costs as well (1–4).
Or this sentence:
Because of the direct links between a mother’s oral health and her offspring’s risk for dental caries, dental interventions can reduce the risk for prematurity and low birthweight (140–143).
Aren't poor people's teeth valuable in their own right? I mean, I'm sure the folks who wrote the report wouldn't deny it, but I've never heard of any mainstream American pundit or policy maker (progressive or conservative) advocating for a national dentistry program. Yet, somehow, this revolutionary idea comes up in the context of how to make women better baby-makers, not how to reduce pain and suffering for poor men and women, or improve their overall quality of life.
The emphasis is all wrong: control diabetes, obesity, PKU, malnutrition, and HIV risk because you might get pregnant? That's sort of like saying that you should try to control gangrene because you might want to be a toenail model. True, but a little beside the point.
The report dances around the issue of whether certain pregnancy-specific healthcare interventions should be recommended to the women in general because so many pregnancies are unintended. For example, there's no reason for me to add folic acid supplements to my balanced diet, unless I'm planning to get pregnant (in which case even well-nourished women can help reduce the risk of neural tube defects by taking folic acid supplements). The report won't come right out and say it, but the implication is that we should all take supplements just in case. There seems to be way too much emphasis on being well in case of unplanned pregnancy, and not enough on preventing unplanned pregnancies in the first place. Moderate social drinking is probably healthy for both men and women, but even social drinking is probably bad for a developing fetus. So what about fertile women who don't intend to have a kid any time soon? Should our doctors encourage us to be teetotalers just in case?
I just scanned the report, but I didn't see anything about making Plan B and abortion available to women who get pregnant before they want to be. There's lots of mealy-mouthed talk about "pregnancy spacing" but hardly anything about birth control.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | May 17, 2006 10:02:42 PM
Way to absolve yourself of responsibility.
Oops, you didn't do your research or you wouldn't look like such an ass. I wrote the very first post that came out on the blogosphere cautioning people to read the report. Or if this post came out first, I didn't know of it when I wrote my post. Your commitment to knowing absolutely all the facts before forming an opinion has been hereby exposed as a hypocritical stance that you only took to insult me.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 18, 2006 8:30:53 AM
Oops, you didn't do your research or you wouldn't look like such an ass.
Well, you do research and *still* look like an ass, even to many of the liberals. You only comment on wimmins' issues because of your percieved war against women. Of course, it's only in this country when there are conservatives in charge. Yeah, I never hear about Clinton's attitude toward women or the Muslims or the Brazilians or the Chinese or anyone else. Yours is a self-serving rage against a windmill, and little more and all at the taxpayers' expense as you blog during business hours at a public institution. I would say 'Good Luck' with that, but I really wouldn't mean it.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | May 18, 2006 11:12:55 AM
Fred: Maybe--crazy thought--Amanda focuses on the U.S. under the current administration because she lives in the U.S. (not China, Brazil, or the Middle East) and Clinton isn't actually president anymore and thus not making policy. A blogger writing about current events in her own country! Who'd've thunk?
Posted by: Mel | May 19, 2006 12:23:03 AM
Hello,
Just wanted to let you know I linked to your blog in my column on CBSNews.com today. Thanks!
If you want to take a look, here's the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/23/blogophile/main1644914.shtml
Thanks,
Melissa
Posted by: Melissa | May 24, 2006 10:03:20 AM
Public schools have to say, don't have to say the Pledge of Alliegence
Posted by: beer pong table plan | Aug 11, 2007 3:35:30 AM
My life's been basically boring recently. I've basically been doing nothing to speak of. That's how it is. I just don't have much to say recently. Oh well.
Posted by: l m book store utsa | Aug 12, 2007 5:23:39 AM
Parents have no right in spanking you - Or do they? That could be another persuasive speech topic
Posted by: baby announcement candy wrapper | Aug 13, 2007 4:43:42 PM
I feel like a fog, not that it matters. I've pretty much been doing nothing , but eh. Today was a loss. I haven't gotten much done for a while.
Posted by: vinyl tote bag | Aug 14, 2007 3:00:01 PM
Sex offenders should be, should not be castrated
Posted by: bed frame poster | Aug 25, 2007 1:59:45 PM
Help the homeless down the street and persuade them to look for work
Posted by: antique auto glass | Aug 26, 2007 7:32:11 AM
An integrated, segregated society is better
Posted by: dealer discount tire | Aug 27, 2007 1:15:33 AM
People should be allowed to go naked in certain recreational areas only
Posted by: 2007 album avril lavigne new | Aug 27, 2007 4:10:00 PM
Today was a loss. I just don't have anything to say. Not that it matters.
Posted by: cellulitereductionnewyork | Sep 14, 2007 9:58:53 PM
