Category Archives: Reproductive rights

A Time for Reflection

Like much of those in America, including possibly the winner himself, the results of the 2016 Presidential election came as a huge shock to me. So sure of the result was I, that when questioned why I would take children to an election party given that results don’t finish coming in until after midnight, I rolled my eyes and said “Oh, by 8, maybe 8.30, we’ll know. I mean, we won’t know, but it will be obvious”. I was anticipating the vote for Hillary to be such a landslide that in my wilder dreams I almost saw Texas as a swing state. I nearly made a T-shirt that said “Spoiler alert: Hillary wins”.

In the end, I was half right. By 8-8.30 I did indeed know. I can’t remember the exact time my heart stopped hoping, but at a certain point it was clear that the majority of the swing states were leaning red, and in other states Trump’s margin was greater than expected. Together, it was clearly an indication of what was to come. At 9-ish I said to friends “I don’t want to get in the car and drive home, because I know that when I get out of the car it will be a done deal”. But in the end keeping my children up far too late, and clinging on, and staying up 2 hours’ after we got home was in vain. Trump won.

Trump won. And I am afraid. And after the tears, for me, came the time for quieter introspection. How? I needed to understand two major “hows”:

1. While I respect that there were a multitude of reasons for voting Trump, many of which reflect values that I hold dear (but choose to manifest differently), how did an open misogynist, who mocked disabilities, who acted a racist to an almost caricature level, and who made hatred-inspired division a cornerstone of his campaign, win? I understand how he got some votes e.g the pro-life vote, but how did he win?

2. How did I so totally and utterly not see it coming? How did the Democratic Party and associated media not see it coming?

The answers to these are many layered and complex. They are being debated in the media now, and they will be written about for years to come. I am not Political Science savvy-enough to add to the experts, but for now I am recognizing that the DNP did not listen to their followers who actually echoed the same sentiments as the Trump followers.

I was not a Bernie Sanders fan. I liked his ideals, but I felt they were too extreme for the US at the present time, and his past record in the legislature (or more to the point, his lack of record) told me that he would not work well within the system to compromise and make change happen. I saw stagnation. But it seems I was an outsider in wanting someone more proven, more acceptable to other politicians, more used to working with the other side and deploying their army of machinations to achieve a compromise goal. I think the people overwhelmingly wanted Bernie the outsider and consistently overlooked his negatives – even some of the same negatives theory through at Hillary. And in the end, The DNP looked around at the American public overwhelmingly asking for an outsider, and put in place: the ultimate insider.

That’s just the start of what will surely be characterized in history as a catalogue of mistakes. But it is not even really where my thoughts were; they were more at the grass roots level (albeit how this reflects DNP actions) and with personal guilt. Why did Trump win? The difference this year seems to be because he exploited divisions while mobilizing a group of people that liberals all but ignore: non-college educated (I refuse to say “uneducated” like the divisive media), often rural, whites. He spoke to them, and he spoke for them. But surely, he could only get them to vote for such a heinous character but making the division between him and the other candidate strong. He must have made that wound so deep. And thinking about this, when I did some soul searching I realized that as an enlightened, tolerance-preaching all-loving liberal I was as guilty of contributing to these divisions as anyone.

Did I have any interest in America’s other  whites? No. Did I care about disenfranchised whites? Oh, I read about the African American experience, and the Transgender experience, and the Refugee experience and so on. I lapped it up! I shared articles, I spouted about how enlighten I was because I could never really appreciate what it was like to be one of these minorities, but I could appreciate the environment they were in and how terrible my white straight privilege was! Oh, now I saw the light indeed. Now I was so much a better person indeed. Enlightened. Accepting. So open minded. So liberal. How did even manage to see when my halo was so bright.

But what about others? How could I not read about others who were disenfranchised? Is it that I had no access to such literature? No. Immediately I can think of two occasions where people directly tried to engage me on this issue. I  posted about white privileged and two people directly said to me “I don’t think African Americans do have a disadvantage compared to me”. Of course, we all know my response. It’s the classic white liberal response: You’re wrong! And not only are you wrong, you want to be wrong. You don’t like the changing status quo my pompous ass concluded. Whether here is any veracity to those statements or not, yet problem to me is not what was said or through, but what was not. I cannot remember a single time I engaged with a disenfranchised white and said “tell me about your troubles”. “Tell me about how you feel marginalized”. “Let me listen to you”.

Why? I don’t think I am generally someone who doesn’t try to to see other people’s point of view, or who carries a self-righteous rightness about them. So why now? Why couldn’t I listen to family members and friends, of all people. Thinking long and hard about why I have changed to be like this, I have drawn the conclusion that a large part of it stems from living on Facebook for me. At the time of the election, I got almost 100% of my “news” from Facebook recommendations and click fests, and lived in that Facebook bubble where (and I forget what the name of it is), FaceBook shows you posts and media articles that reflect your previous interests and likes. How could this not entrench my views further? Everyday I logged on to have my views reaffirmed and deepened. Every day others logged on to have the same to their different views. How could this not create a chasm? Clearly this is only a problem when you get your information exclusively in this manner, but I am ashamed to say that I did. And now I think about it: that’s incredibly dangerous. Surely, it has to be incredibly dangerous to encourage oneself to narrow your world view? And to keep reaffirming your underlying opinions rather than evolving and challenging them. And often, let’s face it: doing all this with sound bites and memes. I nearly started a running series on this blog about liberal memes that annoyed me because so they so entirely missed the non-liberal point of view. Yet I still willingly exposed myself to them day after day.

Against this background of realizing that Facebook was not doing my world view any good, things started to get heated in my feed. I watched comment after comment get leaped on, and yelled at, even though the original intent was not to incite. The divisions deepened and became personal.

I am honest and true to my beliefs, but I express them differently depending on the views of the audience. I talk about them in person subtly and with nuance (I hope). I take care not to hurt people if they disagree with me. I try to listen. But it is very difficult to do this on Facebook. It tends to be quick status updates, memes and headlines. You speak to everyone at once, and in the same way. You can’t gauge  those non verbal cues as to how someone is being affected by your words. But you do get all those self affirming likes and shares! It just wasn’t good for me.

I don’t know when much of my interpersonal discourse moved from real life to Facebook, but embarrassingly, it did. Some months ago I stopped making political posts and stuck to baby pictures and selfies. But it creeps in. A picture of Caroline in a (bi-partisan) election hat started flurry of passionate debate – by accident it seems (although I did tag it #imwithher). (#imstillwithher). That wans’t the only example. Being careful with what I posted on my own page probably deepened my resentment of the so-perceived “others”, rather than leading to discourse and learning.

So, it’s time for a break. I had thought about it before, but never managed to pull the trigger on deactivating my account. It makes me quite sad – there are so many people I am only in touch with through Facebook and I have enjoyed my friendships there. I have been to a wedding and had a marvelous friend come and stay with me because of it. I have reconnected with an old “sister” (“” because she is not family buy blood, just by love and experience). But I need a break. I seem unable to control my usage and use it only positively so Facebook is gone.

I’m sad that I have lost messenger as I deactivated Facebook, and I worry about lost friendships. But I am hoping that I can still connect with people here, and through emails and text messages. I’m not quite a hermit / dinosaur yet.

*********************************************************

The above is just a snapshot of what is going through my mind. It’s worth saying that I recognize:

*There were many reasons for voting for Trump other than “white disenfranchisement” to include for example, his pro-life stance, and his business acumen.

*I don’t hate Trump supporters. I don’t just “tolerate” them. I love many of them, and I recognize and understand their reasons for voting Trump where I have heard them. In the same breath, I don’t dismiss articles which say, for example, that racism can be just about actions as about beliefs and voting for an open racist with racist policies can be seen as a racist act. I have trouble reconciling a lot of this in my head.

*A lot of my decision just reflect a need to hide away from the ugliness in the world for a while. It’s not helpful, but I need to be able to distance myself.

*Many felt Hillary was just a truly non optional alternative. I loved her, but they saw entitlement, dishonesty, murder and warmongering. She lost a lot of her vote because of this.

*Many (the majority?) of people are able to use Facebook in an entirely constructive way. I am not one of them at their moment. You would probably be horrified if you knew quite how much time I spent on there. This is a personal decision that does not reflect what I think of Facebook and its users in general.

*The extreme right seem to be gaining traction all over the world (including Europe and Australia). This is a world patterns right now which probably has nothing to do with social media and everything to do with the fallout of several wars and economic depressions.

*At times I sounds like I am really beating myself up. I am very sad at the moment. It is hard to put into words what watching a man who was vocal racist, who said women should be punished for abortions, who promised to enact racist policies and undo some of the greatest social progress this country has seen in decades, and who has no political experience to temper his actions, what it has done to me to see this man be put in power. What it has done to me to see literal hate spewed forth and not only be legitimized but supported. If I played any part in this, if I even contributed to underlying movements that in some allowed this to gain momentum, if I was even prepresentative of the problem rather than part of it, I take that very seriously and will demand dramatic changes of myself. Change must happen. A man such as Trump much not be allowed to be the face of a Nation.

*Coming off Facebook is not the most helpful thing I can do. I know this. I have already been researching organizations and making lists of what I can feasibly contribute to, both financially and by giving my time or expertise, to counteract racism, and promote gender equality. Good will come of this.

Advertisements

Really Huffington Post? Really?

C’mon, I love the HuffPo. I like ‘crunchy’ / ‘hippie’ ideas – I even have such leanings myself. I proactively support women’s right to make choices about their healthcare. But can they not collide so horrifically in a piece such as:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/photos-home-birth-social-media_n_4549531.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

I’ll save you clicking the link. Ruth Fowler wanted to instagram every moment of her homebirth. She did – including her decision to have a whisky sour to take the edge off the pain (in her “all natural” [cough – alcohol?] birth]. She shared much of the pain, and the wait, and then boom: a cute little baby on an immaculate, naked mother… a big gap and ‘Oh, I woke up in hospital after a hemorrhage, took lots of fentanyl [a sedative] and ohmygosh my midwife and doula were amazing I couldn’t have done it without them’.

The Huffington Post called it the ‘uncensored… beautiful, messy, reality of homebirth’.

As someone who has been though a severe postpartum hemorrhage, let me disagree. That is bull. What we saw was beautiful, I will agree.

But I saw no mess. You want to know mess? It is when you bleed so much a biohazard bin is full, your blood runs off the bed, off the splash pads, can’t be absorbed and runs all over the floor for your husband to clear up. That is the mess.

This is the aftermath of a (much cleaned up) messy birth

This is the aftermath of a (much cleaned up) messy birth

And the reality? The reality is that in these births, the husband sits by helplessly, holding a newborn he is not sure he wants – if it costs him his wife.

P1000800

The reality is that it is not your midwife and doula you should be thanking, but the medical team (for me: 14 specialists and counting) and the nameless blood donors who allowed your child to have 2 parents.

The uncensored? The uncensored is not ‘yay I have a baby… ooooh fun! I am in hospital in soft focus and makeup with a cute baby 2 days later’. The reality is being wheeled to the operating room fighting the versed because you don’t know if you will wake up from it, it is waking up WITHOUT your infant despite wanting him desperately, it is waking up without you infant (fort he first time in 9 months) and being told they are ‘doing their best, but you are not out of the woods’, it is screaming in pain in the night, it is feeling blood transfusion after blood transfusion burn (10 units of such), it not being allowed to alone with your baby. It is gritty, and it is cold, and it is pale with blue lips and sadness.

Carefully place the baby by the mother... look, it is almost as if she got up and picked up the baby herself

Carefully place the baby by the mother… look, it is almost as if she got up and picked up the baby herself

Why do I say this? I do not think hospitals are perfect – I do think that unless you are informed and prepared to discuss and push for your views things may not go your way. I am not against home birth at all. AT ALL. I had a friend who just 5 months after Sam came told me that she was planning a home birth and I was all ‘OK, she knows what happened to me – cool’ and was pleased and supportive. But I am pro informed choices. And pieces like this spread the misinformation that if something goes wrong in childbirth its not that bad. It spreads the idea that hospitals are not necessary in any cases [Thanks to my doula! Thanks to my midwife! Umm… yeah… that’s all I needed].

This “uncensored.. [and]..messy reality” [sic]” gives a completely false account of the reality of when something goes wrong. Not to mention: where is the father in all this??? Where are his emotions? His experience?

Women need to know what happens when birth goes wrong. They need to see the actual messy reality. They need to hear doctors and nurses thanked and know they did something amazing. Then they need to look at the statistics, see how incredibly rare it is, and make their own decision – with their partner (please involve your partner if you have one). And be loved and supported through it. But just as I hate medical professionals who overplay risks and rush to C-sections, so I hate crunchies who downplay what what the reality can be.

Personally, I would much rather read “Wow… it went really badly, here is how awful it is, but I transferred to hospital, survived and so would make the same choice again. See if these are risks you are prepared to face’. Let people make the choice: unnecessary intervention (likely) vs. the real consequences if it goes wrong (unlikely).

Ugh.

Of course, the important thing is how well it all turned out:

Love being a Mum!

Love being a Mum!

Enhanced by Zemanta

How this right-wing Christian Tory girl ended up supporting Obama

… Or [alternative title]:

“I am sorry I was an ass-hat for the last 6 months”.

But it takes me a while to get to that part in this post. Patience if you will, please.

So, back in good old Blighty, I was actually noticeably right-wing. I was a Young Conservative. I dated a former Young Conservative. I was devastated when he broke my tax-reducing, spending-cutting heart. I cried when “New Labour” got in. I rejoiced when they were out (although not at the coalition replacement). I… OK, OK, you get the picture. So, it seemed clear to me that when I moved to the US, although I liked Obama as a person, I would support the Tory-party allies: The Republicans.  Right? Right?

No. I don’t so much hate them, as actively fear Romney becoming President. I cry at the thought of it. That’s one helluva turnaround in less than three years. So, I began to ask myself: why? How the heck did this happen? How did it happen living in Alabama (although, living in Alabama was probably causal, but that’s not the point of this post). While vaguely pondering it, I did notice other people making the same switch. Fellow displaced Brits looking confused and perplexed and going “hang on, when did I become a leftie?”. Indeed even the Tory party in the UK is struggling to love the Republicans: Cameron is trying to repair relations with his ‘sister’ party, but keeps making clear statements against Romney-Ryan.

How did this happen? I was genuinely curious. After much thinking and mulling and chatting and yelling and crying, I believe it came down to this: in the UK a lot of the ‘social’ policies are pretty done – yeah we tweak them, yeah there are groups asking for more, yes there is inequality It’s no wonderland). But it not on the same scale as the US. The decision, when voting, comes largely down to economics. Even ‘social’ policies: education, welfare etc are largely discussed in purely economic terms. I tend to be right wing economically (a fiscal conservative?), and so to vote right was an easy decision.

In the US many, many mainstream (by which I mean large) groups are fighting for basic civil rights, which I believe should be extended to them: I am socially liberal. So, with my broad sense economic views not changing, I had to choose: Right vs Left: Economics vs. Society. I chose civil rights. Here is why:

I looked at the economy, and the economic policies offered by the two candidates. I do buy the argument that Obama maybe could have done better economically. I don’t know this, I am sort of 55% on that side, 45% on the side that he couldn’t. I don’t know if Romney would do better, because he won’t lay out a damn plan, nor stick to a stated policy. (I did go and read his 8-page plan on his website. About 3 pages was criticizing Obama, about 3 were saying right wing in general is wonderful. ~2 concerned his actual plan, which was vague and non-specific).

Romney changes all the time, many people say Obama could have done better. So, while I may not be confident handing the economy over to Romney, I am not confident handing it over to Obama either. Kind of a dead heat. My history is to think of more fiscally conservative policies as better in times of strife, so I might actually just tip in favor of the Republican party. But. And it is a big but:

If Obama could have done better (and we don’t know that he could have), I don’t think it is significantly better. That is: the world is in a huge economic recession. The Western world is collapsing under financial distress. I doubt anyone could have done more than Obama, such that enough people’s lives were hugely significantly changed. We don’t know if traditionally left- or right- wing policies really work better. Historians and top economists argue about it. But it does seem pretty clear to me that no one in the current world situation could have made a giant leap of difference to the lives of most every day Americans (sure… ‘tell that to someone unemployed’ you say… but I am talking here on a grand scale). Sadly we do vote for ourselves, and our friends, and our situation and looking around, on an economic level I don’t see anyone changing the lives and happiness of those Americans I see by ‘fixing the economy’ on such a scale that it out-weighs the difference social change could make.

This point was first brought home to me when I was hiking with a girl (let’s call her Hot-Stuff A) living in Colorado. She was given great job offers at my Alabama institution and I said to her “Come on, you have to be tempted to take one up, right?”. She looked at me and said: “I can’t. I simply can’t. I am married to a woman, and she would have no rights. No protection.” I was floored, because I suddenly realized it was true. Hot-Stuff A is indeed married to Hot-Stuff B. If they moved to Alabama, both could legally be fired for being gay. Unlikely, but LIKELY s that Hot-stuff B could be denied healthcare, because Healthcare policies are allowed to only be extended to spouses ‘as recognized by the state of X’. Alabama does not recognize gay marriage. So Hot-Stuff B could, and would, be denied it. Furthermore if either got sick, their life long partner could be denied hospital visitation rights: because they are not recognized as family. Their wills could not be recognized, or legally contested by family, because in the eyes of Alabama these girls are not married, and so not family.

That’s bad. That causes actually misery and pain. Britain may wrangle about whether gay people are ‘married’ or in a ‘civil partnership’ but they do not wrangle over basic civil rights. I was horrified, horrified, that two law-abiding people were prisoners in their own state, because they happen to love someone of the same sex.

It was, really shocking to me. And I think it was the turning point. I opened my eyes to the media portraying real, and horrendous stories of people in these situations and saw the misery it caused.

Then I met a girl, a single-Mom at my new job. She works hard. She is what the rightest-of right would call a maker, not a taker. Her 13 year old girl has a genetic condition. The 13 year old (not that it should matter) is a very smart, very functioning girl – I think I last saw her reading an adult book. A very smart, very functioning, very happy and productive 13 year old, who happens to have expensive physical needs. That’s crummy enough, but the Mum was offered another job, and couldn’t take it, because the insurance offered with the job did not cover pre-existing conditions.

So… she could not advance her career, she could not make more money (be more of a ‘maker’), because she could not guarantee her daughter adequate healthcare (she would earn too much for Medicaid in that State). As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Mum told me that she had sat down and worked out that the daughter would exceed her lifetime maximum by the time she was 17. What is this lifetime maximum of which you speak? I hear you Brits say. Oh… well, that is the maximum U.T.’s health insurance will pay out, over a lifetime, for any one person. I.e. at 17 this girl will have no medical coverage. No guarantee of such. I can’t even imagine what it is like to be facing that, at her mother.

Another case: when signing up for health benefits I met a lady from CA who had moved because her cancer treatment exceeded the cost her insurance company would pay. U.T. did accept pre-existing conditions, so she moved here to get it covered. Let me spell it out: the woman had breast cancer. She was afraid of dying. She had to move across the country, away from her friends and family, support and medical doctors to be able to afford treatment.

I looked around and really saw that some social change could make a whole lot of difference to people’s lives. I may not think ObamaCare is the best solution. But it is, at least, a solution. ‘Repeal and Replace’ with some unclear (and frankly untrustworthy) hazy guidelines is not a solution. ObamaCare will at least improve the lives of these individuals. Immeasurably. More than I think an upswing in the economy – or at least, more than I think an upswing in the economy attributable to just one person / one party – could do.

I don’t have time to write about all the cases I have met / discovered. People unable to get safe abortions (do I ‘agree’ with abortion? No. Would I ever deny anyone their right to follow their own ethical code and chose? No.). Kids committing suicide because many politicians in the US want to send out the message ‘being gay is wrong’ (according to who? YOUR God? That is not MY God? What if I don’t believe in God?). Ryan who signed a bill trying to make IVF and IUDs illegal. Endless examples of people’s lives getting worse that Obama would make better.

And lest you think I support Obama because I am a do-gooder only looking out for others, let me assure you, this is not the case. Because then, then, it got personal.

First I went to get birth control for my impending marriage. My insurance company didn’t cover the IUS / IUD (‘tiz abortion, doncha know. Sigh.). I couldn’t afford it. Instead, I got a prescription for valium and some hormones that sent me insane. I gave up on those (it was either that or give up on my marriage… which nearly happened as I went so loopy) and failed to find an affordable solution. By January I was still saving up for the cost of an IUD. By February I was pregnant. Nuff said.

I moved to Texas in June. 4 months pregnant. Not sure why, but I suffered pre-term labor. Sadly, Texas doesn’t cover individuals healthcare when they first move. I had only a ‘help hotline’ to call. I spent many night in tears, scared I was losing my baby, until my coverage kicked in. It worked out well, but for the first time I was forced to face the consequence of putting healthcare in the hands of money-makers with minimal regulations: the loss of people’s children.

Then I was denied maternity leave. FMLA doesn’t kick in as I have not been at U.T. long enough, and anyway, I am the only earner. I can’t go unpaid for 3 months. Luckily, I have a very flexible job, which I can do from home, and very kind and understanding mentors and bosses. We have figured it out. But there was no guarantee of that. The suggestion of healthcare companies I called trying to find short term insurance coverage for pregnancy (which is, of course, a pre-existing condition)? “Don’t change jobs”. Ah, so stay at a lower status, lower paid job and lose the opportunity to do well (academic jobs are scarce) because I am a woman? I see.

Oh, and I find out that C-sections are considered by some insurance companies to be a pre-existing condition. So, should I have one, I may have to make the decision: change jobs and not have children (because their birth would not be covered, and I am not sure I’ll ever have a spare $30,000 lying around), or stay where I am and have the possibility of more children. So, essentially: my career will be held back, because I am a woman. Because – I don’t see men having to make this choice… I suppose they may have to make it on their wife’s behalf. But, overall, I still see this as a woman’s rights issue.

I also have written about this before. I am sick of being told how to live out my religion. Yes, I am Christian. Yes, in my eyes I am a practicing Christian. But no, in my eyes, this does not mean gay marriage should be illegal (if Christians are harping on about the term ‘marriage’ know it was around before the Bible. So just get another term. Let gay people be married, and straight Christians be ‘Bible-married’ or whatever, just don’t base rights on that). I am used to being in a country where I am able to choose how I live my religion (no, I won’t have an abortion, yes, I will attend a gay friend’s wedding) and not told that my interpretation is wrong. I have never lost so much religious freedom as a Christian as when I came to the US.

So, I guess I looked at the options. And, no, I don’t think Obama is perfect. No, I don’t think he has done the perfect job. Nor necessarily the very best. But he has done something, and he will reach in and improve the lives of many – far more than Romney will. Romney will not make changes that affect so many people’s lives this profoundly – is my belief.

So why do I write all this? Well, thinking it through made me realize two things, that made me happier.

(1) I don’t have to hate all Republican supporters.

This is my “sorry I was an ass-hat for 6 months” moment.

I always realized that there were many Democrats I did not agree with, and did not respect. But, I found it hard to see the flip side with Republican-supporters. That there are some I realy can respect and love. There are still many Republican supporters I do not agree with, and pray hard not to judge (no… I really do). But there are also many who would like to see the problems above ‘fixed’, they just don’t have the ‘at any cost’ stance that I do. Or, they don’t think Obama can fix them. Or they think Romney can. Or they just prioritize differently.

I  fully admit there are many worthy and good causes I just don’t feel passionately enough to be swayed by: saving the environment is one of them. It is not a good thing, but it is true. I try to recycle, I try to minimize waste, I am happy to do my part. But I am not going to seriously put myself out, and  don’t really care about it (sorry 😦 ). It is what it is. People can have different priorities and can be just as compassionate. Who is to say which priorities are ‘right’ or ‘more worthy’. Not me guv’nor.

So, thinking through calmly and logically helped me remove my animosity to some people I dearly love. And I am sorry if I seemed mean or judgmental of you before – truly. That is indeed not how I live out my faith.

(2) It helped me navigate the insane media circus that is the US at election time.

Seriously Brits, think of the mud-slinging we do to our celebs. The US is actually nicer to its celebs than we are, but seems to treat its politicians as we treat Jordan. The US media at election time is an ugly, ugly place. And I used to read all the left media and get so outraged and angry at the right. Furious. Upset to tears. Almost beyond reconciling. The right does it too… and then I would get mad at how misrepresented the left was.

Then, I realised that 1/2 of what the media was up in a furor about, I didn’t care about. Do I care that Tagg Romney said he wanted to punch Obama? No. Looking above, that has nothing to do with why I support Obama.

Do I care that Mitt Romney said the humorous comment that he was brought “binders full of women”? No. He mispoke, but it was a debate and I don’t think the hysterical interpretation was what was in his heart. But I do care that when asked the question of what he would do to help women’s equality, he basically said “I’ll create more jobs in general and women can then have access to them” because that does not even touch on what bothers me so much about women’s rights (or lack of) as laid out above.

So, that is how I became an Obama supporter. But that is also how thinking through why that happened helped me be a little happier.

Oh, and to all those who want to say ‘If America is so tough for you: GO HOME’ I do understand your viewpoint. And I don’t mean to whale on America. There are a lot of great things here, and this country has been good to me. And, much as I appreciate a lot about this country, I would like to go home, very much. Indeed, I got married under the supposition that that would likely happen. But my husband examined it some more, and if I did go, I could have to choose between him and my country, and I couldn’t legally take my child. So, while I may have annoyed you, please have some sympathy too. I am not sure I wouldn’t live my life a little differently if I had known this is how it would end up.

On a more positive note, here is the top Google image for the search ‘cutest kitten ever”:


Image credits

http://egbertowillies.com/2012/10/10/jon-stewart-deconstructs-mitt-romneys-promisesliesjournalists-no-longer-serve-their-purpose-video/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/11/stephen-colbert-slams-anti-gay-christians/
http://cutestkittenever.tumblr.com/ <— check this website out.

What I miss most about Britain

or… how America turned me into an activist.


I am often asked what I miss most about Britain, and have been since I first landed in the good old US of A. I knew I missed something big, but I could not put my finger on it. So, I often answered very flippantly: ‘Marmite‘,

or ‘Ribena

or, perhaps if I was talking to someone older and wiser: ‘my friends and family’.

I do of course miss those. Especially my friends and family, but that never quite summed up the ache in my heart. I wondered if it was bigger: public transport?

Again, I do miss that, but the answer isn’t satisfactory. Again, while I applaud and support the development of a wider public transport system I can be happy without it. There is something I find it difficult to be happy and content without, and that I have yet to find here in America:

Being trusted, protected and respected. And because of that, we are to some extent: humble.

Hmmm… let me elaborate with some examples:

In the UK, believe it or not, people do have a fairly strong personal moral codes, that encompass all the current political ‘hot topics’ from abortion, to homosexuality, to healthcare, to contraception. But that is the key: they are personal moral codes. That is: yes, contraception is as easy to get as candy – for everyone. The young, straight, gay, unmarried, old, married, male, female, rich, poor and all alike. That isn’t to say that everyone is encouraged to be ‘at it’ all the time: some people are indeed so, and some people are not. We are trusted to make my own decisions about our sexual relationships, and protected as much as possible from any consequences.

My personal story is that I decided sex before marriage was not the course for me. Then I decided to have sex before marriage, then I later changed my mind and stopped, after deciding through personal conversations with God, that it hadn’t been the best choice for me, and as my husband put it, He had ‘kicked my tail’ for it :). In England was respected for all these decisions (even though at very step of the way someone didn’t agree with them), and I was protected from any consequences. By the law, and by society (including by my parents). People are humble enough to accept that they do not know the right answer for individuals, or for society, or certainly for God, and so individuals are given all the tools they can be provided with make their own decisions, with minimal negative consequences.

I findthe moralizing and judging that goes on in America very difficult. When I expressed the view that contraception should be freely available to all, one outraged response was “Why should *I* pay for *you* to have sex??” – the implication being that sex before marriage (or sex at all – who knows) was not this person’s choice, so why should they financially support my choice if it was different? Because, here is the thing: we all make choices, and we all make choices that others disagree with and have to pay for. Whether it is the food we eat, the dangerous sports we play, the people we sleep with, the lack of exercise we undertake, the lack of sleep we get, the speed of our car, the stress of our job, our plans to travel, our decision to be married (or not): all of these are decisions that likely will affect our health and in the UK there is no moral judgement about which choices you make. Again, you are trusted to make your own decisions, and protected from them. I was so saddened today to read of doctors in America turning away patients over 200lbs: how can that be acceptable? How can you judge that you won’t help these people, but those with stressful jobs you will? Were any ‘decisions’ really made?? And if they were, who made the worse decisions? And can’t we be humble in recognizing our own mistakes and helping protect people from theirs?

This is how I arrived at my stance on abortion. Yes, personally I think it is wrong. I am: anti-abortion. But, I would never take away someone’s right to make that decision themselves: I am pro-choice. And I would never judge someone who had suffered through an abortion. Were you a friend who came t me in need, I would support, and respect you and care for you. I am anti-abortion for me. I am pro-choice for everyone. When does life ‘start’ – how should I know? How should anyone, except God, know? If you don’t believe in God then look to Scientists, or feelings, or some other deities. Either way: there is no answer. Be humble enough to know that you do not know, and trust yourself to follow your own moral / personal code, and respect other people enough to decide theirs.

I guess I miss this trust, respect, protection and humility and how it reflects on my faith as well. To me: faith is very personal decision. The cornerstone of my Christianity is a deeply personal relationship with God. I don’t think I have got it ‘right’ (other than that I love Him above all others, and am forever grateful He sent His only Son to die for my sins), but I don’t like (1) being told how to live my faith and life and (2) being judged and punished by anyone but God when it doesn’t conform to their perceptions of what my faith / life should be. My reading of the Bible is that it is outside the law: so the law should extend complete equality and a basic code of rights to all law abiding citizens, and one’s relationship to God is what decides how you choose live within that. Isn’t that ultimate freedom?

You know – I don’t agree that God asks for no contraception and no masturbation. But, I respect that some Christians do, and I will protect their right to execute these choices. I am humble enough to think: maybe they are right, but I trust myself to be guided in my own moral code (it of course, doesn’t have to be a religious code). I also *do* personally think that God asks us not to look at pornographic images, but I acknowledge I could be wrong, and respect people who do such, and certainly am humble enough NOT to judge them. Hence, much as I don’t really like the porn industry, I would not seek to punish people for accessing it. I might seek to educate and protect but as maybe I am wrong, and pornography is the healthiest thing for mankind: I would not deny others access.

I guess a good exemplary of this, is how the UK taught me about the whole creationism / evolution debate. We learned about evolution in Science. We learned about the support for evolution, and we learned about the phenomena evolution perhaps could not explain, and the criticisms leveled at evolution science. We were told that evolution was studied in Science because it was a Scientifically testable theory, but the completing theory was not, and so the alternative was mentioned in Science, but we would learn about that in Religion. Almost simultaneously, in Religious Studies, we were were taught about creationism and the arguments for / against, including again, the criticisms  leveled at evolution. (We were also taught some non-Christian but religious creation arguments). We were supplied with the facts, told that no one knows the answer, and trusted to make up our own mind. My ‘mind’ and opinion evolved (pardon the pun) over time, but it never caused me much distress. When we covered this topic in Bible group we listened to people defend and criticize the Biblical view of creation, and to people try to synthesize the two. All views were respected as potentially correct.

And through all this, I have friends who have made utterly different decisions to me: health wise, sex wise, religion wise. I love and respect them all: I don’t think either one of us is ‘better’ than the other. I do think those who do not believe that Jesus died for our sins are not going to heaven – and while this is sad, this does make me think I am better person, or that I have any right to tell them how to live their life (incidentally, much as they love me, many of them think I am gullible at best and a crazy ‘magical thinker’ at worst 🙂 ). We just all live our lives, respecting each other’s choices, and trying to protect our loved ones from any potential consequences of their decisions.

The upshot of this is that Christians are not really hated in England. I was shocked when people in America seemed to get angry or passionately against Christians. How can you be so against peaceful (now… history is a bit different, tiz true) people, who are told to – above all else – love each other. Then I totally saw why: some Christians are trying to force a life on people, based on a belief system these people don’t have! Good grief! I would hate Catholics if they took my contraception away! I would equally have hated atheists if they had insisted I had sex before marriage (returned to. Ahem.). And, I think some Christians are trying to impinge on my personal relationship to God, by telling me how to live out that relationship, when the only voice I want to hear about that comes from God Himself. Not saying I will get it right… but I have no reason to think you will do a better job, either.

A more succinct summary of my views.

So, that is what I miss in the UK. I miss freedom to practice my faith in my way. I miss respect for my religious choices. I miss respect for my non religious choices. I miss a law system in which I am afforded equality and power and protection from the consequences of choices – be they mistakes or not – and a society that trusts me to make my own decisions within that.

I think my most passionate wish at the moment is that my child be bought up to respect and trust other people’s decisions, and to never judge law-abiding others as ‘wrong’, or deny them equality for these decisions. And to feel free to make his own decisions about his life, and his body and his views as he feels is right for him.

Image credits:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb.html

http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/2011/05/dangers-of-marmite.html

http://offriendsfoodandfun.blogspot.com/2010/08/homemade-snake-bite-d.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-decker_bus

Trying to understand some of America’s reaction to the Affordable Healthcare Act

Alright. Time for a brief departure from gardening, and pregnancy, and occasionally work. This is more a post to answer many questions I have had from people across the pond about the now approved Affordable HealthCare Act. Why America needed reform, why some Americans hate it and so on. It is my perspective on that for my fellow countrymen, and also an attempt for me to try to make sense of what seems like the utter craziness around me.

The current system

So to understand the reform, you need to understand the current situation of American healthcare. It is certainly very different to what I, as a naive Brit, has imagined. I had envisioned a healthcare system where if you had a ‘reasonable’ job (and I did  not define reasonable) you could go out and get private insurance for healthcare fairly acceptably within your budget. People who could afford it could choose their insurance, and then those who were insured, once they had paid their premium, got access to top notch and almost unlimited healthcare (I was actually kind of excited to get this ‘better’ healthcare than I had been receiving) . Those who were not insured, had some lower standard healthcare sort if similar to the (usually unfounded) horror stories we hear of the NHS: long wait lines, long distances to travel, limited drug availability – possibly all only available through ER.  I was sort of vague on that. Having lived in the US, it is clear to me that the main things I had misunderstood were this:

-Few people can afford private health insurance out of pocket. Prices for health services in America are ungodly high compared to say, Canada and the UK (have fun googling the cost of a C-section in the respective countries). Therefore, to cover basic services, employers provide health insurance. Employers can get cheaper insurance premiums per person, by agreeing to have all their employers on one scheme – it is in part how companies can provide insurance when individuals often cannot. Economies of scale.

-Therefore, employees often do not get a choice of providers: in both my jobs here, I have been stuck with one option and one company.

-The healthcare provided by the companies, in both my cases has not covered what I would choose in my choice of insurance company. UAB did not cover contraception outside of birth control, nor Wes’ testosterone. UT has very steep co-pays (birth is $1,000-3,500). I understand that I am lucky though, because at 3,500 I reach my yearly max and the baby is covered under that max as long as we are both in the hospital. Some companies charge separate maxes for the mother and baby, meaning the cost of 60% of US births would exceed $7,000. I am generally unhappy with the level of care offered. Some companies do not cover pre-existing conditions (kid with cystic fibrosis? Nope. Previous cancer history? You’re on your own if it strikes again). Some companies have a maximum they will pay out for a given individual. If your cancer treatment exceeds this (as was the case with a lady I met from CA): tough. But you have no decision over whether to choose a company with these exclusions / conditions or not.

-Then, for many, there is no company they work for, and so no insurance. And their only recourse for treatment is (1) pay the inflated US prices, or go to ER. So cancer treatment is out (too expensive / not available in ER). Ditto much preventative care. Care for your child who needs to go to NICU.

-So, I was shocked by the number of categories individuals in the US without healthcare. Examples:

1)The oft cited (by outsiders) / classic case of ‘tramps and immigrants’. But also in some cases:

2)Pregnant women who for whatever reason have to change jobs (it is a pre-exisiting condition)

3)Cancer patients who have ‘run out’ of coverage

4)Children with serious health issues whose parents change jobs (coz, you know, America is in a recession ‘n’ all)

5)Adults with previous health issues that change jobs

6)The self employed, including a man I spoke to today, who chose to be self employed so he could earn money while caring for his mother who had had a stroke and had cancer. So, let’s just say: carers.

and so on. Google it and make your own judgement on the accuracy of figures, but look how many actually qualify for health insurance (some say 10%), how many actually qualify for Medicaid (do not listen if people say it is open to all children and pregnant women – I was turned down!), and how many die each year from lack of insurance: I would go with ~45,000 but again, I let you make your own sense of the figures.

Bottom line: many people are dying within the current system. Both ‘undesirables’ (illegal immigrants / people not wanting to work), and ‘desirables’: me the pregnant university professor, Will the carer, Jane the child born with a hole in the heart whose father lost his job and got another quickly.

The solution

So, a solution has been proposed. I would like to say by Obama, but actually, I think Kennedy first (?) … On the basis that at least categories 2-6 are not reasonable, reforms have been proposed. Including: no pre-existing condition exclusions, and an extension of government covered health insurance. If a company cannot offer you a premium that is a reasonable percentage of your salary (it changes, depending on your situation) the government will pick up the difference. However, there is a problem: some clauses, particularly the first two, if left ‘as is’ will drive up premium prices – which is just generally and all around considered very undesirable. So, there are two twin solutions:

(1) The individual mandate. By forcing everyone to HAVE to buy health insurance (either through their company, or their pocket), if they can afford it, more healthy people proportionally to those needing services will now buy coverage, so there will be more money ‘in the pot’ and premiums shouldn’t experience a massive hike. If you don’t buy it, you pay a penalty. This penalty contributes to the health care system, either by keeping the premiums low, or by covering the ER-emergency care you may recourse to, which as you cannot afford to pay for, goes unpaid for, and so the cost is spread to other people / services, and the insurance companies pay for these (in the main) so it contributes to rising premiums. So: the individual mandate makes sure that premiums are increased as little as possible.

(2) In dealing with the issue that many people are letting healthcare conditions get out of control and into an emergency state: and thus become much more expensive to treat than they are to prevent, and thus as above, are driving up premiums: preventative care has become free. And Medicare has been extended.

So: the solution to many Americans with a lack of coverage is enforced insurance. So that everyone contributes and those lucky enough to remain fairly healthy lose their $$, those unlucky enough to be touched by devastating illness effectively gain $$. Of course, in allowing pregnant women / babies with birth defects / carers / self employed to access these benefits, which requires extending Medicare, you can’t really ‘weed out’ those who chose to take free insurance because they cannot be bothered to have a job. Or women who want to have consequence-free pre marital sex (many Americans get very upset over this. They don’t want to pay for ‘people’ to have sex so regularly get upset at free contraception. But there is no outcry for Viagra / Cialis being covered, so one must assume it is only women they don’t want to have sex without consequences). Or a host of other people you just don’t fancy paying for (personally, I might pick those who engage in dangerous sports, and chose to follow a lifestyle that leads  to obesity… but they generally seem OK in the eyes of the public).

The reaction

Some Americans have gone ballistic. Fair enough: it is not everyone’s ideology that the best health care is a right. My husband’s attitude is this: if you can’t afford healthcare, you don’t get it. When I say ‘what about an adult with cancer? Would you have a preventable death occur because coverage has run out?’. He says ‘Yes. People die Lekki. It is a fact of life. I am not interested in paying to fight that for others’. Well… OK then. I guess that it at least logical. I don’t agree, but I get it. If you want to all the categories of individuals above dying, so that you don’t have to pay for the healthcare of those you don’t want to then yes, oppose the new act. Kinda shocking, but logical.

There are others who think that these deaths, or uncontrolled health conditions, are acceptable if the only alternative is no government interference in the private enterprise of healthcare. Left unfettered, private insurance went the route of the above: the government decided to step in a put a stop on it, to save lives. They either believe that this solution is unconstitutional, or accept SCOTUS’ decision that it is not but believe it is so undesirable, that they would rather people died than see it enacted. OK – again, sad but logical. Stand up and say ‘I believe cancer suffers should die to prevent the travesty that is government interference’. I will accept you as logical but politely disagree that that is a good ideology.

There are some who believe that if saving all categories of individuals above means helping ‘lazy’ people, or people without a job, then that is an unacceptable trade-off. People and children should die so that others do not get health care when they do not have a job. Again, a little shocking to me. But stand up and say ‘in order that people who do not work, and are not married to a worker, do not get coverage paid for by others, I believe the categories above should die’. Cold, but logical.

There are two categories of reactions who deeply confuse me:

-People who get picky about what ‘type’ of person they do and do not want covered. Lindsay said to me (when I couldn’t get contraception): I don’t want to pay for you to have sex. Gina said when I commented that my pregnancy was (albeit briefly) not covered: you chose to have a baby, I don’t want to pay for that decision. OKey doke. But given that in any insurance / universal system we all pay for the bad decisions of others, if you don’t want this, and only want to pay for truly bad luck, why do you want to pay for the consequences of:

-Obesity among those who chose to consume more than the recommended daily caloric intake, and conduct less than the recommended daily activity guidelines

-People who chose to get a suntan

-People who chose to ride a motorcycle, or engage in high risk sports

-People who do not get the recommended hours of sleep per night.

-People who chose to have a high stress job.

To really name but a few. I am baffled by people thinking we don’t ALL (well, nearly all, there are a few health nuts who may not fall into any such category) chose to make decisions every day that are detrimental to our health, and others pay for this.

2) People who get VERY upset when you tell them that they are choosing to let *insert emotive picture* let’s go with: a university professor needing treatment for a brain tumor, whose insurance has ‘run out’, die. VERY upset. ‘How can you say this?? I absolutely do not want any of the categories above (well, often just categories 2-6) to die. Why are you being so rude?? Why are you being so hurtful? Oh I am so upset you think I would let a child die!!’. But it seems to me: they do. For the sake of their constitution, their desire not to pay for certain sections of society, their desire to keep government intervention out or some such they are saying ‘hey, I don’t want to subscribe to a system that provides in these circumstances, and I will let people die as a result. The casualties are worth the greater ideology’.

Then, I *get* it. That is logical thinking. But, as my friend Lizzie explained it to me, I fear some people are doing only emotional thinking. Otherwise they would stand up and say ‘I want to pay for some health choices, but not others and I think I am accurately qualified to decide which ones’ or, ‘I think people must die to preserve my ideology’. Right?

 

Get with the program Jefferson County

So, I am just about at my wits’ end. Here is my situation: I am getting married in 2 1/2 weeks. Therefore I need to sort out contraception.

Yes, I said it, out aloud. I am from a culture that talks about these things since we are about 10. Admittedly, school tries to keep things very serious and biological and then we usually giggle and throw prophylactics at each other screaming “you’ve got cooties now! Gross” and behave in other age-appropriate manners. Well… maybe that was just me, but we do at least talk about it.

Now, while it is not a topic of general conversation “Hi, my name is Sarah, and I have a diagphram – do you know where the brown sugar is?” it is not a ‘problem’ topic. Because, see, contraception is everywhere. A slightly tongue-in-cheek and light hearted history of the British Attitude to contraception goes:

Britain: “Gasp! The rest of Europe is so open sexually. They are so immoral! Look at all these naked people on TV / CD covers etc! We disapprove! Now shush about the topic, lest its sordid implications corrupt our beautiful pure youth”.

Rest of Europe: “Your beautiful pure youth have horrendously high rates of unplanned pregnancy and STDs”

Brtain: “Hmmm. This is true. But what can we do?!?”

Rest of Europe: “Well… you could educate them about sex and contraception and the physical and emotional health issues that go along with it. And try… you know… to be a little more open about it”

Britain: “Interesting suggestion. But… but if we do that – people might start having sex! And we don’t want that! We are a terribly prudish and stand-offish race! And we will stay this way to keep a chaste youth.”

Rest of Europe: “Right. But… uh… as you have an 11-year old mother, and a cute 13-year old, who looks about 8, but claims to have fathered a child with a 15-year old girl, that two other children (but which we mean under 16 years) claim to have fathered too, perhaps your approach isn’t working?”

Britain:”It is not! We agree, but if we start being open about sex, and teaching kids about it, and giving them access to contraception, they will start doing IT. We are repeatedly telling them how to say no, and how not to have sex.”.

Rest of Europe: “You have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe. I think they already are”.

So, I believe I have witnessed a bit of an about turn wrt contraception in the UK, in my lifetime. From ‘don’t do’ to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ to ‘you don’t have to do, but here’s what to do if you do’.  As my friend (American) put it: “Britain gives contraceptives out like tic tacs”. It’s sorta true. I has heinously bad period pains from the age of 12  onwards. Think: vomiting so hard I pulled my tummy muscles and then passing out into my own vomit. Lovely. Think: when I was snowboarding with a broken arm I refused to believe it was broken as it wasn’t as bad as period pains. Even when I was pushing my whole body weight with said arm. Nice. So, my PCP put me on the contraceptive pill at about 14. I went with my Dad. It was OK. 22% awkward, but OK.

Eventually,  I used to get my refills at my local walk-in clinic as it was closer to the bus stop. I would toddle along, they would take my blood pressure, ask a few questions, then hand me 6-months worth of free pills. And charge me nothing for the pleasure. Then they would offer me condoms, and I would say ‘thank you very much, but I am not having sex. Really’. It was an anonymous service so I didn’t have to lie, but they would always say “hey – take some anyway. You never know”. And I would say “I do know!” and they would give them to me anyway, in a nice unmarked brown paper bag (because brown bags never look suspicious and remind people of hidden porn / alcohol) and throw in a load of femidoms, dental dams, information leaflets and so on. “Have them anyway… Give them to your friends” was the advice.  Frequently I would arrive home with my bounty and my Ma would eye it suspiciously and say “Do we need to talk?”. Which we didn’t, but to be fair it did open the door for me to be able to talk (however awkwardly / angrily / sullenly) with her about this through those difficult teenage years.

At some point I went on a health kick (an unempirical health kick) and decided the pill wasn’t good for me. And a vane-kick when I decided it made me fat. I was coming off this darn thing dammit. I went to my doctor. She talked me through about 20 other options both for contraception and for the period pains. She fitted me with an IUS (a super expensive intra-uterine device) within 2 weeks (I had to wait for some tests to come back first, which were done that day). For free. She gave me a load of free counseling. She gave me a load of condoms. Nice expensive ones as I am allergic to latex. I think I sold them 🙂

When it came time to have the IUS out I was in the UK. I was there for a period of 2 weeks and decided to remember this about 2 days before I left. Now in the UK there are walk-in clinics in every county and every county has both weekend and evening ones. If you cannot make any of those, GPs are obliged to see you. So, I call a walk-in clinic and explain the problem – they tell me they are full for 2 days, but give the numbers of others – all within easy distance. The others are full, or the times don’t suit me (why? Honestly? Because I am catching up with friends). So my local GP has to see me. They do. They next day. They whip it out for free, and offer me a new one. I decline, and they say “are you sure? The pain might come back”. I tell them I will sort it out in the US and they say they don’t think they is a good idea. This shocked me, and I ignored it. They offered me 6 months of the pill. I turned it down as I was not having sex (we’re British, no sex please. Oh, apart from all those pregnant teenagers). She really wanted to know if I was *sure* and then let me go with a promise to come back and see her when I was next back from the US.

Fast forward to my return to Alabama. Boyfriend proposes. I gaily accept. Hoorah. I plan a wedding. Double hoorah.  3 weeks before the wedding I think I should sort out contraception. I call my GP here and am told she is not accepting new patients. I tell them I not a new patient and they don’t care and I get a random GP. That’s cool, I don’t really care who does this. I go see her the next day. I am impressed – she is on time (rare in the NHS, and certainly better than the 2-4 hour wait at walk in clinics in England) and I pay a slightly annoying, but affordable $20. I tell her the situation and that I would like to avoid hormones.  I don’t want to use condoms. She says “OK, you need a diaphram. You need an OB/GYN. You can see one in 6 weeks”. I point out this might be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. She says there is nothing she can do. So I say “OK, how about I use hormones for a short while?”. “Not a good idea” she says, and has no other suggestions. I am floored. I glare at her. She says that there isn’t time for me to use hormones. This is actually incorrect. They (depending on the method) can be used from Day 1 – Day 5 of your cycle. She has my cycle dates and Day 1 is next week. I start to throw a shit-fit. She has no other suggestions (lower , localized hormones? Femidom? Even frikkin’ fertility tracking? Anyone?). She takes my blood pressure and says that because it is elevated, I can’t have hormones as it is dangerous. Again, this is factually incorrect. Raised bp is one long-term risk factor; I am not overweight, I don’t smoke, there is no history of thrombosis and I have a successful history of taking the pill. And bp fluctuates. And she was STRESSING me out. And I hadn’t slept much, if at all, for 3 out of the last 4 nights [because, duh, I am excited to GET MARRIED and planning a wedding and submitting a grant and seeing my very best friend in just 12 days]. Really? She says. And 2 nanoseconds later I am leaving her office, slightly dazed and confused, with a prescription for a benzodiazepine, and a refill, and no follow-up.

THAT is giving things away like tic-tacs.

I could have an IUD – not recommended given my medical history, but an option. In 6 weeks. And it’ll cost around $500 all- in- all. Because I really have that when I am postdoc, my fiance is a student and we’re planning a wedding (did I mention the wedding? Might have done. Little bit excited). No, it is not covered by insurance (but, if you were wondering… Viagra is. Yes, you did read that correctly. Wonder what the gender is of the people who make that decision? Perhaps the women are all off having babies). But anyway, it is OK, because if I can’t afford an IUD an abortion can be as low as $400.

Problem solved.

So, I return to my office, very upset. My office mate gives me the planned parenthood number and I call them the next day. “Yes, the Alabama clinics don’t prescribe contraception”. Oh. Really? That’s good planning there. My office mate suggests the student health centre, which for $30 are seeing me tomorrow, which is pretty impressive, and I hope it is a good score for UAB (who have been universally wonderful to me so far) and I hope it works out.

The thing is: contraception is so free and widely available in the UK not just because it is a health issue, but because it is an equality issue too. For two reasons:

(1) The UK believes women have the right to regulate their fertility as much as men. That is, they have the right to go out and have meaningless one night stands without consequences (it can be consequence free for men who abscond into the night).

(2) The burden of contraception usually falls on the woman – although it does not have to, it usually does. We want to help balance this out by givign her the ability not to pay (when she is already paying for feminine products) and not to have to take time out of work.

I have already lost $20 and a few hours from work. I will now have to lose more time and more money. My fiance’s response? He wants to be supportive. He volunteered: “If I’m not at work, I’ll come with you”. Because work is optional for me. I don’t blame him at all, but I see no reason not to see that statement as indicative of underlying attitudes. If I get pregnant, well, no one is going to force him off work… (that is not his attitude, just a statement).

And my honest thoughts? “Fuck it (pardon the pun). I don’t see my fiance really busting a gut to sort this out. Why should I? I want kids in the next year (he doesn’t for a couple of years, we agreed to compromise and try in a years time when we are financially better off, settled into marriage, knowledgeable about where my career will take us… all good reasons)… But perhaps I will tap out and see what happens, ‘coz quite frankly my grant not going in, not having a dress to wear, not getting these papers in, missing collecting my friends from the airport – well none of them are as important to me as not having a child when I’m married, that I want”. I am not going to do it. If possible, I would like to bring a child into the world with planning. But, it’s tempting.

Sort it out Jefferson. Educate your medical practitioners on more methods. Free up medical practitioners to give people contraception. Get evening clinics. Get anonymous clinics. Try to talk people reluctant to use the best methods of contraception for them (like me) into doing so. Push alternatives. And don’t just whack them out on anti-anxiety drugs.

Just a thought. (A frustrated one – I think the drugs must have worn off. Perhaps my GP can give me something else to keep me quiet).