The New Lies About Women's Health (Sexy Pic to get your attention!)

http://www.glamour.com/features/healthandbody/articles/060403fewohe

As a retired social worker, I knew that this was happening, but now I have it from the Experts' mouths. I forwarded it on to my progressive friends. It is scandalous and unconscionable; but, then, there is so much that Dubya and his Evil Cabal have done in the past six years.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_rcc.htm

Quotation:
"Sterilization is evil. It is a mutilation that frustrates the purpose of the marriage act. You can't call that health care." Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Wenski, in the Miami Herald.



The National Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a document: " Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" which specifies conditions under which Catholic hospitals are to be operated. This document forbids:

Abortions.
The provision of contraceptive information and devices.
Issuing or providing information on emergency contraception.
Performing in-vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments.
Voluntary tubal ligations, vasectomies and other sterilizations.
Dissemination of AIDS and other STD prevention information involving condoms.

These restrictions appear to be followed by most Catholic hospitals. Catholics for a Free Choice surveyed the emergency departments of 589 hospitals in the U.S. which are affiliated with the Roman Catholic church. They studied the availability of emergency contraception (EC) -- commonly misnamed the "Morning After Pill." They found that:
82% do not provide EC, even for rape victims,
9% had no policy on EC,
9% supply EC to some rape victims.

Of Catholic emergency departments that deny EC treatment:
22% provide referrals with with phone numbers upon request,
47% provide referrals but no phone numbers, and
31% do not provide referrals. 2


This essay continues at the link above.

Defintely a 5+ recommendation story...

and they are waging something very much like a war on women ("woman tempted man").

That picture (link) may violate the rules, although it does have marketing value.

......"The government allowed people to believe—and encouraged people to believe—that abortions were a risk factor for breast cancer, even when the government knew that this research had been discredited and that better research showed no connection," says Marcia Angell, M.D., a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School in Boston and former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. She goes so far as to call the pressure from the religious right "a source of corruption."

To date, abortion-breast cancer laws, called "Women's Right to Know," have been passed in Texas, Kansas, Montana and Mississippi. Texas State Representative Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin) vociferously opposed such a law, pointing to the scientific evidence that abortion does not raise the risk of breast cancer. But, she says, legislators who "pushed this law, supported this law, were terrified by right-wing Christian organizations. Some of my colleagues said, in confidence, 'I agree with you, but we are told that if we vote with you on this, we are supporting abortion.' They knew this information was invalid. They were frightened. These folks are afraid of this Christian coalition." Why? She says legislators were worried that the groups would mobilize against them in upcoming primaries. Herb Brown, M.D., an ob-gyn and faculty member at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, says these laws "put doctors in a terrible position. You have to show a pamphlet produced by the state to the patient and explain that it is part of the regulation. The conversation I have is that, 'This is what is written in the pamphlet. I disagree with it ethically and scientifically, but this is what the legislation has forced upon me.' That's all I can say… If I want to be consistent with the law, I have to lie."

(allies, manipulators, fellow-travelers) have taken over the republican party (at least insofar as the primaries are concerned) in many places. (The sad thing is that with the typically low voter-turnout in the primaries, this really doesn't take much -- yet the opponents of fundie control can't seem to muster the numbers to nominate alternatives.)

And as a result, the fundies (etc) have disproportionate power in the republican party, which they do not hesitate to use. So republican politicians are pressured into voting for measures driven by the fundies (with many Dems being dragged along), even where these measures do not have majority support in district. Because if a republican can't get nominated, then he can't win, and if he angers the fundies, this makes it harder (even impossible) to get nominated.

(Similarly, fundies have disproportionate control over government appointments, hiring and policy, which in the past had at least some elements not entirely given over to ideology, cronyism and payoffs.)

Besides, the republican nominee can expect that many of those who vote republican (whether they're registered republicans or not) will vote for whoever is nominated. And it doesn't take much to distract people people from the likely, but unpleasant, consequences of a pending election. (A near relative of mine never thought of SCOTUS as a reason not to vote for w in 2000.)

For example, you hear much bitching-and-moaning about certain recent SCOTUS decisions -- but this was easily foreseeable -- and many of the people who are bitching-and-moaning now (about SCOTUS, w, or whatever) will vote republican again in the fall, even though adding another justice to the block-of-four would prove disastrous -- because these voters will be easily distracted and driven by whatever bullshit the neocons are spinning at the time, even where it's conceivable for them to change their voting habits.

;-)

Thanks for posting that article, OP. Great read. I hope all of the women here read it.

She sure has a nice butt.;)

blowing up things.



They won't give information to prevent a pregnancy caused by rape...

But they can fucking tell women whether or not they can have a surgical procedure called abortion?!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

edit for rage induced grammar issues.

Maya Jacobsen* was one such victim. In fall 2001, she was raped in her room on campus at the University of Denver. After her attacker escaped through a back door, she sat crying on a couch, frightened and stunned. Like many sexual-assault victims, she was too shaken at first to report the incident and waited until the next morning before she drove to the closest hospital, Porter Adventist. She says she spent hours undergoing a sexual-assault exam, but nobody brought up the issue of how she might prevent pregnancy—until she asked.

"I said, 'What are my options here if I become pregnant?' The nurse said I would have to wait to take a pregnancy test, and if I was pregnant, there was always adoption. I said, 'That's it? What about the morning-after pill?' And she said, 'You would need to do that on your own.'" Fortunately, Jacobsen was able to get the drug from a nearby Planned Parenthood clinic later that day.

This, for those who don't know, is one of many reasons why many women do NOT trust the medical profession. Not all doctors take the time to find alternative information and the truth about what's going on as to women's health issues. And some doctors are too freaking busy "catapulting the propoganda."

My response to your OP was to post a portion of the article noting that it makes me want to start blowing up things. To which you responded with another teeth-gnasher. So, since I'm already "professing" wanting to blow up things (metaphorically, of course) you add to it with more fuel for the fire. LOL

My apologies. I guess I didn't make my particularly twisted sense of humor more obvious.

:D

But, just wanted to be sure.

:toast:

:sarcasm:

I had NO idea. But for those who are shocked, I feel for you.

have known about the misleading info on HPV and condoms but to think our own Government under Bush has set us so far back in the area of sex ed is amazing. Web sites that are federally funded supporting pseudo science and outright lies. I know my daughters' computers will now block those FDA web sites.(as well as the other ones that should be blocked)
:wow:

I've been forwarding this article to everyone woman I know who has a teenage daughter, and just to women in general.

One more crime from the BFEE.

:grr:

sex is a good thing. sex is a healthy thing. Abstinence is unhealthy. what is WRONG with these people?

not a doctor who served in the military, one who treats dogs. That says it all.

Dr Shraber isn't my doctor, but mine are just as disdainful of government propaganda.

s SHOULD be focusing on! Issues such as these.

....Glamour has also discovered that blatantly false anticondom information has been incorporated into several federal and state health websites. One, an official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) site designed for families seeking health information for teens, 4parents.gov, suggests that there is no evidence that condom use reduces the risk of HPV infection and downplays its effectiveness against chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. Similarly, several states, including Louisiana, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina, have online abstinence programs that link to a site called abstinencedu.com, which warns that HIV might be able to penetrate a latex condom (patently false), that "condoms offer no protection against HPV infection" (not true) and that "there is no scientific evidence that condoms reduce the risk of becoming infected with the other 23 major STDs" (also false). It even claims that "the Federal Drug Administration allows up to 4 percent of a batch of condoms to be defective before the batch is rejected!" (Actually, the FDA rejects a batch of condoms if even one-tenth that number are defective.)

How do lies like these become official government health information? Both abstinencedu.com and 4parents.gov get some of their information from yet another outfit, called the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), which opposes premarital sex and has become a leading provider of the kind of "scientific" data now appearing on government sites.

For more than a decade, public-health doctors and scientists have charged that MISH generates dubious and sometimes outrageously false data. One example: A 1995 letter from David R. Smith, M.D., then the Texas Commissioner of Health, rebuked MISH for a slide presentation given by founder Joe S. McIlhaney, M.D., to a panel of experts about a proposed sex-education program. Dr. Smith called the show "misleading," "false," "inaccurate" and even "ridiculous." Yet MISH continued to present the same data for years, and in the last two years, the federal government gave the group at least $600,000.

Dr. McIlhaney told Glamour that in the early days of MISH, he was still working as a physician, not an academic, and did not have the same access to resources as the now-larger organization does today. Nevertheless, he continues to stress condom ineffectiveness against HPV. "I think our conclusions were right," he says. "I was right on almost all of it, and they were wrong." Yet science does not back him up: Last November the FDA reaffirmed that condoms reduce the risk of every major STD including HPV.

:argh:

Hekate

I was telling my mother-in-law who is really conservative about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and she couldn't believe it. I think it made her realize that she had used birth control at some point and that these guys who are trying to legislate our bodies would have interfered with her personal rights at some point.

What really makes my blood boil are the assholes who want to hold back the vaccine for the virus that causes cervical cancer because they're concerned it will make young women more promiscuous!!! For one thing, I don't think too many young girls are thinking about cervical cancer whent they decide whether to have sex or not, but also, do these guys think it is a just punishment for a girl to get cancer for having sex?! Someone could have one sexual partner and get cervical cancer, yet they want to hold back this vaccine because they know what is best for women! :mad: Sorry for my rant!

:kick:

Inherent in religion's conservative pull on government is this stupid moral agenda or what one sees as the moral agenda depending on your religion. So now we have the government giving out bad advice, sometimes incorrect advice, all because of the moral agenda. Repulsive!

:kick:

I watched bushco literally dismantle the Health Resources and Services Administration in Health and Human Services. Then I read it was happening everywhere. CDC, National Institutes of Health, you name it - long-time bureaucrats who served under Republicans and Democrats for decades were forced out and replaced with religious zealots and political appointees whose main qualifications were that they were dumb and willing to toe the party line.

It will take decades to rebuild what bushco destroyed in the first term alone.