Be Sure to Drink Your Folic Acid?
Apologies for the breaks, but they will happen more often from now on. I have life that doesn't involve me being mad at all kinds of social/political issues. Luckily, there are those things that still piss me off, so the rants will continue. And this time, well, there's more than enough to go around, but it's to focus on something that escaped most political notice. The CDC, between worrying about hurricanes, avian flu, and boats, has started on a new campaign to increase preventative health measures for pregnant women. Or you know, possibly pregnant women. Including women who are "non-contemplators", as in those who are not thinking about geting pregnant. Yes, this new campaign for women to take more folic acid and drink orange juice because this is good for pregnant women, aand to be fair, it is good for everyone. This campaign was started by the CDC and the March of Dimes in an effort to prevent birth defects. While we all agree the motive here is laudable, but the actions are heavyhanded. And the reactions from people have been predictable.
People have read into this medical suggestion a greater social or moral agenda. The idea that all women, as seen by this administration, as little more than baby-factories. The idea that women are meant to be pregnant. The idea that the government is telling women that they should perpetually prepare for being pregnant since "half of all pregnancies are unplanned". In order to have maximum effect, folic acid and vitamin need to be taken early in the pregnancy to prevent birth defects. Of course, people are not looking at this as strictly a medical issue. Then again, this is no longer just a medical issue. As soon as aa government agency issues a statement about something in the specific field, it stops being in that arena alone. Saying women should take folic acid becuase they might get pregnant is not just about preventing birth defects.
When a government agency, say on energy policy, makes a statement about what is or even what money is being spent on, people read it as being symbolic about the entire administration's feeling on a subject. It's read as being indicative as an entire policy agenda. And, that's usually for a good reason. When a government agency does something, they have to vet it through their superiors, and it has to pass through an under secretary, who is picked by the Secretary of whatever department it falls under. Administrators make the policies happen that politicans dream up. A Secretary is a politician, in this sense, since they are appointed by elected officials and directly answerable to elected officials.
It is no small matter when a government announces something. Luckily, this was just an advisory agency. The CDC webiste says they cannot give out medical advice. There is a way this could have been worse. For example, if there was an actually enforced Nationalized health care, this wouldn't be advisory. They could compel women to get folic acid injections whenever they see a doctor, since medical proclamations in that case are backed up by law, since the doctors in that case are government employees. They simply inject you, and if you don't want it, well, that's tough. Your government assigned doctor is doing this, and you can darn well not see a doctor. Look up Sweden, The Empire (ok, fine, the UK, but it's still a damn Empire. *grumble, grumble* HMS Deathstar *grumble, grumble*), Germany, Japan and many others. When governments control funding, they control policy. When they fully control policy, they can make it law. When they make it law, good citizens have to obey.
And that's what seperates a good government from a bad one: advice versus force.
So it is written, so do I see it.
People have read into this medical suggestion a greater social or moral agenda. The idea that all women, as seen by this administration, as little more than baby-factories. The idea that women are meant to be pregnant. The idea that the government is telling women that they should perpetually prepare for being pregnant since "half of all pregnancies are unplanned". In order to have maximum effect, folic acid and vitamin need to be taken early in the pregnancy to prevent birth defects. Of course, people are not looking at this as strictly a medical issue. Then again, this is no longer just a medical issue. As soon as aa government agency issues a statement about something in the specific field, it stops being in that arena alone. Saying women should take folic acid becuase they might get pregnant is not just about preventing birth defects.
When a government agency, say on energy policy, makes a statement about what is or even what money is being spent on, people read it as being symbolic about the entire administration's feeling on a subject. It's read as being indicative as an entire policy agenda. And, that's usually for a good reason. When a government agency does something, they have to vet it through their superiors, and it has to pass through an under secretary, who is picked by the Secretary of whatever department it falls under. Administrators make the policies happen that politicans dream up. A Secretary is a politician, in this sense, since they are appointed by elected officials and directly answerable to elected officials.
It is no small matter when a government announces something. Luckily, this was just an advisory agency. The CDC webiste says they cannot give out medical advice. There is a way this could have been worse. For example, if there was an actually enforced Nationalized health care, this wouldn't be advisory. They could compel women to get folic acid injections whenever they see a doctor, since medical proclamations in that case are backed up by law, since the doctors in that case are government employees. They simply inject you, and if you don't want it, well, that's tough. Your government assigned doctor is doing this, and you can darn well not see a doctor. Look up Sweden, The Empire (ok, fine, the UK, but it's still a damn Empire. *grumble, grumble* HMS Deathstar *grumble, grumble*), Germany, Japan and many others. When governments control funding, they control policy. When they fully control policy, they can make it law. When they make it law, good citizens have to obey.
And that's what seperates a good government from a bad one: advice versus force.
So it is written, so do I see it.