![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Listening to the news this morning, there was a Republican talking about how a government advisory panel's recommendation that women don't get mammograms until age 50 instead of 40, saying this is how health care will be restricted under a health care reform law. (Let us put aside for a moment that I think it's boneheaded to advise women to have LESS screening. Just for the record.) He then says the problem is how the govt. is getting between women and their doctors.
It doesn't take much probably to guess my reaction to this. You mean how you and your party want to interfere with a woman's access to abortion and birth control? Honestly, do these Repubs think, or just parrot?
It doesn't take much probably to guess my reaction to this. You mean how you and your party want to interfere with a woman's access to abortion and birth control? Honestly, do these Repubs think, or just parrot?
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 04:21 pm (UTC)But then these idiots come along...
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 05:13 pm (UTC)But MY larger point is, this isn't the first time I've heard this argument against the public option from a Republican against it (are there any in office for it?). There was a lot of this early being tossed around, how the government shouldn't interfere with patients and doctors and their relationships. BUT IT'S OKAY TO PREVENT OR RESTRICT ACCESS TO ABORTION AND/OR BIRTH CONTROL OPTIONS - in fact, we're going to tread dangerously close to women's rights and insert language in the health care bill that prohibits any of those funds going for abortion? (Gee, I sure hope no poor woman giving birth needs an emergency abortion to save her life. See, maybe it DOES provide for this - but I'm betting it doesn't. Welcome to the "partial birth abortion" debate - which is maddening, since THERE IS NO SUCH KIND OF ABORTION.) I'm sort of mad nobody in a high profile is bringing this up and pointing it out on a regular basis.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 04:46 pm (UTC)However, statistically, most women aren't at risk until an early age. I think, considering how agonizing they are, waiting until 50 for ROUTINE SCREENING mamograms is just fine. But when issues are suspected, and a doctor thinks it's medically necessary, insurance will still pay for it.
Of course, women should be doing their self exams. So many don't. The boob smasher isn't the best detector.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 04:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 05:15 pm (UTC)I still think a combination is the best way to detect early cancer. Catch it early, it can be better treated. I wouldn't stand in the way of anything that does this.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-21 08:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 04:41 am (UTC)As for not allowing women to have access to one until age 50 well, I think that is foolish as well as all the anti-abortion clauses. I'm not big advocate on abortion. However with that being said, I am also not the type of person who feels they have a right to dictate what choices other people make. The option should be available to them should they chose it.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-21 12:29 am (UTC)