You skimmed linguaphiles right. I heard about the pre-pregnancy thing, too, it's like being stuck in The Handmaiden's Tale. Can I just move over there with you?
No national language yet, thank GodmeandthemajorMay 19 2006, 13:30:41 UTC
I looked into the linguaphiles business, and that was the result of some bad reporting on the part of the Post.
The vote that passed was an amendment to one of many immigration reform bills that are being considered, and not one of the bills that most people think will pass (if I've been following it right). It will probably get lost in the conference committee between house and senate, although with this political climate, who knows.
All in all, it looks like a publicity stunt more than anything else.
As regards 3a: I did a little poking around about it, and it seems that most of the problem comes from shitty reporting. Note: I have not read the whole report, but have seen excerpts.
The CDC released a report about "pre-conception health", based on data that half of all pregancies in our Good Old U. S. of A. are unplanned. The report did not use the term "pre-pregnant", the press did. What the report wanted to emphasize is that even women who do not plan on becoming pregnant may, so health-care providers should keep this in mind - maybe make sure that a woman on a drug that could harm a fetus is on effective birth control, for instance.
And, taking more folic acid won't hurt anyone. I agree that withholding drugs could, but from what I've read, the report doesn't say to do that - just to consider all possibilities.
The CDC report was intended as a recommendation to medical professionals about issues relating to the link between unplanned pregnancy and birth defects. It was not trying to address contraception in it's own context, nor was it intended as a statement of "the government's" policy.
CDC issued a report about what can be done to improve maternal and infant health. Washington Post reports this as "pre-conception", pisses off a whole lot of people. So, instead of taking a serious look at public health, we get a controversy. But, it's my belief that whoever issued the report should've seen this coming given the current political climate / polarization...
Here's an interesting discussion from one of the communities I read: public health post.
Comments 11
Reply
The vote that passed was an amendment to one of many immigration reform bills that are being considered, and not one of the bills that most people think will pass (if I've been following it right). It will probably get lost in the conference committee between house and senate, although with this political climate, who knows.
All in all, it looks like a publicity stunt more than anything else.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The CDC released a report about "pre-conception health", based on data that half of all pregancies in our Good Old U. S. of A. are unplanned. The report did not use the term "pre-pregnant", the press did. What the report wanted to emphasize is that even women who do not plan on becoming pregnant may, so health-care providers should keep this in mind - maybe make sure that a woman on a drug that could harm a fetus is on effective birth control, for instance.
And, taking more folic acid won't hurt anyone. I agree that withholding drugs could, but from what I've read, the report doesn't say to do that - just to consider all possibilities.
Reply
The CDC report was intended as a recommendation to medical professionals about issues relating to the link between unplanned pregnancy and birth defects. It was not trying to address contraception in it's own context, nor was it intended as a statement of "the government's" policy.
Reply
Here's an interesting discussion from one of the communities I read: public health post.
Also: Frankie, maybe it's the European-ness rubbing off on ya?. :-P
Reply
Oy vey!
Reply
Leave a comment