How was your weekend?

[heidi]

I'm trying to mesh everything into one post...

But first - if you're not interested in the political issues, check out the Palin Baby Name Generator - my name would be Trinket, it seems. Which I don't dislike.

1. Did you see Sarah Palin in her Tina Fey glasses on SNL last night? Note-perfect and full of amazing soundbites. It's up on Hulu if you missed it last night.

2. Speaking of video clips, the "Not Worth the Risk" one that I've been working on over the last two weeks is up on YouTube and DailyKos and

- please pass it around!


I've talked to mijan about doing a second one, if anyone is interested in participating. We didn't manage to get stem cell research, same-sex marriage, the fact that she calls people who've disagreed with her haters, rape kit coverage, or anything about her utter lack of knowledge of international relations and diplomacy into this one, so if you're interested in participating in a second one, let me know.

3. Speaking of the rape kit issue, it hasn't been covered much by the mainstream media, but the gist of it is, Palin and her chief of police in Wasila billed sexual assault victims for the cost of the rape kit used to collect evidence when they reported the crime. No, they didn't also charge burglary victims for fingerprintings, or battery victims for the cost of photographing their injuries. Just rape victims. Just rape kits.

The quirky thing is, states and municipalities are required to absorb/cover the cost of rape kits because of an important provision in the Violence Against Women Act, which was shepparded through Congress in 1994 by Joe Biden.

Oh, and McCain voted against it at the time. He's also voted against Equal Pay for Equal Work legislation. Dude.

So when Wasila continued charging victims, Alaska's governor pushed passage of a statute that mandated municipalities not charge victims for the rape kit costs, and at that point, they stopped.

Rape kits include the Morning After pill, which prevents conception (that's the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall). Sarah Palin seems to believe that this is the same thing as an abortion, and as she does not believe in women being able to choose to have an abortion even after being raped, she did not want taxpayers to pay for such things.

The thing is, the Morning After pill does not cause an abortion when used properly. As the Mayo Clinic writes, "Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm."

If you think life begins at conception, then something that blocks implantation does *not* cause an abortion because conception hasn't yet happened. And blocking the ovaries from releasing eggs is also pre-conception!

So her whole thing about wanting women to carry to term even if the pregnancy results from rape or incest? She put that into practice by obligating women to pay for the rape kit that contained something that would prevent conception.

Perhaps this means that she doesn't think life begins at conception but instead she thinks it begins at fertalization! To me, that's meshing church and state because my religion's theology holds that life begins at quickening, and an embryo or a blastocyst is not a living entity.

Anyway, if you think that a woman who's been the victim of rape should be allowed an abortion in the first days of pregnancy, then you have to have a problem with her refusal to comply with the Violence Against Women Act.

4. I ordered some campaign signs and buttons from the Obama website but I got an email yesterday saying that some things were on backorder. Does anyone have recs for any un-"official" storefronts on cafepress or elsewhere that will use any profits from their yard-sign and button-sales for good causes, so I can order from them until the Official stuff arrives?

Comments

[hllangel]

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin was perfect on SNL last night. ♥ Tina Fey.

Also, great job on the Add! I'll make sure to pass it around.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

If you think life begins at conception, then something that blocks implantation does *not* cause an abortion because conception hasn't yet happened. And blocking the ovaries from releasing eggs is also pre-conception!

Devil's advocate:

I think that those who would make a distinction here think that life begins when the egg is fertilized. So prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg = murderomg.

Problems a lot of these folks have with even some hormonal birth control, are that they are thought to reduce the chance of implantation in the case that they fail to prevent ovulation in the first place as they are supposed to. It's not known how often they actually fail to prevent ovulation AND the backup kicks in and they succeed in preventing implantation, because really, how would you study that.

Anyway, I'm only saying this to state what the argument is. Personally I'm in favor of just about any means of preventing babies that are Do Not Want.

[phoenixsong]

I was going to say something along these lines, too -- for the people who believe "life begins at conception," conception == fertilization, not implantation. (In fact, I think most even most people who don't believe in "life begins at conception" would still consider conception to be another word for fertilization -- the joining of egg and sperm into a single organism.) The latter is what the medical community considers the beginning of biological life, because if the fertilized egg doesn't implant, it's never even considered a pregnancy (medically speaking).

Also, I would not be surprised if a lot of people who are opposed to hormonal birth control don't realize that it is supposed to prevent ovulation, not implantation. And if they think that the latter two are what it prevents, then yes, by their definition of "life begins at conception," deliberately preventing implantation would be murder.

(Not saying I agree with this, just that having grown up Catholic, I understand what the arguments are.)

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

Also, I would not be surprised if a lot of people who are opposed to hormonal birth control don't realize that it is supposed to prevent ovulation, not implantation.

Correct, it is supposed to. I think the argument is just that it could prevent implantation, in the event that it fails at preventing ovulation. Many people have taken the pill and seen that their period got lighter. It's often prescribed to those who don't engage in reproductive sex, for only this reason. Since periods are just endometrial linings that turned out to not be needed that month, and endometrial linings are for the purpose of harboring and nourishing a fertilized egg, it's easy to see the trail of thought process they followed there.

However, as I said, no one actually knows how often this really happens.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

About.com's entry says that as many as 75% of all fertilized eggs don't implant. Doctors have studied this by checking on hormonal levels every day, as well as examining menstruation.

To blend science and theology, this is actually why I can't accept that life begins at fertilization - because even if it's 10% of all fertilized eggs that don't implant because of a hormonal or genetic issue, or whatever other reason - what a waste of souls!

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

Right. It may go to even a higher percent when talking hormonal birth control that failed to prevent ovulation, but no one knows.

I also read somewhere that like 80% of pregancies that actually implant, self-terminate anyway.

I don't pretend to have any clue when "life" begins, but "life" doesn't really matter to me anyway. Being an aware human that can feel pain matters to me. Tumors are "alive," and I don't see anyone telling me it's a sin to eradicate those.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

That's the difference between amoeba-like and sentience. To me, a human is alive after sentience has been achieved; that's somewhere around 10 - 15 weeks after fertilization.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

...really, how would you study that...

This is the abstract to a study where they did study it.

We studied the risk of early loss of pregnancy by collecting daily urine specimens from 221 healthy women who were attempting to conceive. Urinary concentrations of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) were measured for a total of 707 menstrual cycles with use of an immunoradiometric assay that is able to detect hCG levels as low as 0.01 ng per milliliter, with virtually 100 percent specificity for hCG in the presence of luteinizing hormone. Our criterion for early pregnancy--an hCG level above 0.025 ng per milliliter on three consecutive days--was determined after we compared the hCG levels in the study group with the levels in a comparable group of 28 women who had undergone sterilization by tubal ligation. We identified 198 pregnancies by an increase in the hCG level near the expected time of implantation. Of these, 22 percent ended before pregnancy was detected clinically. Most of these early pregnancy losses would not have been detectable by the less sensitive assays for hCG used in earlier studies. The total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, was 31 percent. Most of the 40 women with unrecognized early pregnancy losses had normal fertility, since 95 percent of them subsequently became clinically pregnant within two years.

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

Yes, but that regards women who are attempting to conceive. Presumably they are not using hormonal birth control, which is what I was referring to. There is not a study like this that gauges how many spontaneous abortions there are, while using hormonal birth control. At least that I am aware of.

[likebunnies.livejournal.com]

I know plenty of people who believe life begins at fertilization and not implantation since the cells multiply on its course down the old fallopian tubes to its comfy nest. I knew of someone who used to argue against birth control pills because one of the things they do to prevent pregnancy is to prevent implantation but it was already a pregnancy in their view because the sperm met the egg and swapped chromosomes. Thus it was a baby. I always wanted to ask them if they realized exactly how many of these pregnancies women didn't even know about because implantation didn't happen and it was just a normal period. What then?

[bitterbird.livejournal.com]

oh the video looks good!!!
a lot of my flist has been posting and are outrage at the charging of rape kits, for good reasons.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

"but instead she thinks it begins at fertalization"

I think you've got it.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

And that leads to being anti-contraception and barring use of any hormonal pills and IUDs because they block implantation.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's the point isn't it? It's not about abortion, it's about having an issue. It's not about life, it's about control. If it was, they'd have attempted to outlaw IVF clinics where fertilized eggs are destroyed all the time.

One does have to wonder about the compassion in a person who would deny a rape victim a morning after pill though. That crosses the line from anti-abortion to extremist.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

If it was, they'd have attempted to outlaw IVF clinics where fertilized eggs are destroyed all the time.

Hey, did you know that one of Cindy McCain's investment groups owns at least one building that rents space to a company that destroys fertilized eggs that aren't used in in vitro?

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't but that's probably a Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of separation type of thing where you have to explain to voters in more than a slogan or sound bite. Interesting, but I don't think it's as easily explainable than all the lies coming out of their campaign.

Here's a local story that I had to laugh at its stupidity (Who knew Obama was a fabric?):

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/10/obama_sign_in_yard_stirs_up_neighbors.html

[bella-felis.livejournal.com]

conception (that's the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall)

Are you serious?


For as long as medicine has known about gametes until the fallout of Roe v. Wade, conception and fertilization have been used as completely interchangeable terms. A good majority of the world still considers them synonymous, and probably will continue to long after this fad has passed.


If you're going to start defending political platforms by changing definitions, that's certainly your ballgame, but be aware that it makes all your other arguments look questionable by association.


If you want to work for "change", start by bucking the system of misinformation, rather than buying into it and "changing" definitions.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I am serious, but the use of different terms befuddles me, which is why I took a moment to explain it. I'm not changing the definition at *all* - from my perspective they are completely interchangeable. Others feel otherwise, and have mis-used the terms over the years so that there's no coherent linear explanation of the argument.

[bella-felis.livejournal.com]

Speaking of coherency, I coherented myself more, have a look. :3

[schnoogle.livejournal.com]

Actually, according to Stedman's Medical Dictionary conception is the "Act of conceiving; the implantation of the blastocyte in the endometrium."

[schnoogle.livejournal.com]

Then again, Larsen's Human Embryology (3rd Ed) avoids using the word "conception" all together, though "fertilisation" and "implantation" are both given index listings. Hmm.

Am curious!

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Is quickening even defined in medical texts anymore, except as an archaic term?

Re: Am curious!

[schnoogle.livejournal.com]

I can find it in Stedman's dictionary but not in Larsen's embryology textbook, but Larsen's is a very scientific sort of text, not clinical. Fetal movements are a quite important sign of healthy pregnancy, so I'd imagine that you'd find it in clinical texts about pregnancy management.

[bella-felis.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my quick look at malleable online sources indicated such a trend toward treating the term with political correctness, too, but my hardcopies of textbooks dating back to the seventies show the little white lie there.

My question really doesn't have to do with the changing of the definition of the word (that happens all the time) so much as anxiety at how widely it's pretended that it's always been that way.

The fact that I'm rereading 1984 right now probably adds to my concern.

[schnoogle.livejournal.com]

I can see how reading 1984 would do that to you!

I'm only 21, a third year med student (it's an undergraduate degree here), so I'm one of the people surprised it ever meant anything different. I'd guess that the changing definition has to do with growing understanding - perhaps the studies showing that a LOT of fertilised ova fail to ever implant, even in healthy women, have prompted the change?

[irinaauthor.livejournal.com]

To me, that's meshing church and state because my religion's theology holds that life begins at quickening

It must depend on the religion, then. Catholics believe that life begins at conception, but the kid doesn't get a soul until quickening. At least, that's what Augustine said.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It depends on the religion, and the minute someone's religion is codified into law, there is a mesh of church and state.

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

If you think life begins at conception

Really, why is life even the issue? A virus is alive. A sperm is alive. So is a cow before it's slaughtered and turned into burgers.

DNA is also not the issue. Chimps, conspicuously alive, have 98% of the same DNA we have; seven million years ago, we weren't even different species. Yet if an adult chimp is killed, that's not considered murder.

The relevant issue is not life, but consciousness and awareness of the world. That Republicans don't see it this way is probably because most of them have very little of either.

[nightfalltwen.livejournal.com]

Wah the SNL clip doesn't show for Canadians. *is denied*

[poconell.livejournal.com]

I saw it at this link.

(Thanks to chickadilly!)

[nightfalltwen.livejournal.com]

:( It's not working for me. I'll try the other link once I'm down in Seattle tomorrow.

[schnoogle.livejournal.com]

I'm outside the US, and therefore can't see the video on Hulu, but I found a site where I can see it:
http://www.afterellen.com/blog/sarahwarn/tina-fey-amy-poehler-on-snl

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Oh, what a PERFECT icon. I may gack it if it's ok?

Also, btw, Joe Biden on HuffingPo last fall re legislation to help domestic violence victims.

[poconell.livejournal.com]

There's some good Sarah skits here too.



Bwahahaha!!! Who is this gal, anyway?

[airemay.livejournal.com]

I'd love to be a part of the second one!

[freya]

I don't understand her. At all. Or rather, all I get from her is that she was a pretty girl who's smarter than people expected her to be so could be a bigger bitch than people would expect of her, and got a long way by taking a position that men would defend for her.

I really don't understand how someone can lack empathy to that degree. I don't understand how you cannot think "What if it happened to me?" whilst she preaches what she does.

[ashavah]

O hai. I Dugg your video!

[cee-m.livejournal.com]

I didn't know the bit about the rape kits. Thanks for the info.