The Family Medical and Leave Act protects the rights of mothers to take up to 12 weeks off from work for childbirth (see the fact sheet here: http://ping.fm/PWUZZ). Despite this, more and more new mothers are returning to the workplace sooner than they wanted to help stabilize family finances, as reported by Dana Mattioli in the Wall Street Journal (http://ping.fm/rHfzN).
The current economic climate has put a strain on American families – especially when a mother is out of work and a father is laid off. Our need to earn has forced women to give up their rights and the precious bonding that only mothers and babies can share.
The FMLA requires that employers with at least 50 employees allow for 12 weeks of unpaid workleave – but allows mothers to waive that right. And that's exactly what many mothers are doing. The FMLA is now essentially worthless.
If the government really wants the FMLA to do some good, it would require that maternity leave be paid. We're expected to give 30 years of our lives to the workforce, profiting CEOs exponentially. Can't they be expected to help cover the bills for a few months out of three decades? Or should the government pick up the tab with all the paper money it is printing?
Perhaps originally intended to help disadvantaged mothers invoke their right to recovery and bond with their newborns, a lack of foresight has now made the FMLA relevant to the advantaged. If families can't afford maternity leave, then the Family Medical and Leave Act does little for them. It benefits the advantaged, yet leaves the disadvantaged to struggle for survival.
Perhaps the Obama administration should revisit the Family and Medical Leave Act and not only provide time, but also the means to survive while women care for their children.
COBRA Alternatives for Uninsured Pregnant Women
If your pregnant and recently lost your job due to layoffs, you’ve probably been offered COBRA – an opportunity to continue to receive health insurance benefits provided that you pay for them. And, you’ve probably discovered that COBRA is expensive – extravagantly so.
If you’re eligible for COBRA, the stimulus plan has provisions to subsidize 65% of your premium until December 31, 2009. That means that if your monthly COBRA premium is $1,000, you will actually pay $350 – still a large chunk of change, especially when you’ve recently lost your income.
eHealthInsurance.com has instituted a new COBRA comparison tool (https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/health-insurance/cobra-learning-center.html?allid=Com22130) that allows you input your COBRA premium, find out what your subsidized payment would be if you take COBRA coverage, and then offers alternative individual and family health care plans.
WARNING: Watch what you sign up for. While the eHealthInsurance.com tool seems to offer excellent COBRA alternatives (starting at around $50 per month for a 29 year old woman, depending on location and health history), certain factors can turn appealing offers into nightmares laden with shortcomings.
For example, a plan with a $50 premium might sound good, but when you take a closer look you might find that you have a $10,000 deductible, a 20% co-pay, and that the plan DOES NOT COVER PRENATAL CARE OR HOSPITAL DELIVERY. At the end of the day, such a plan would not offer much of a benefit to pregnant women at all; despite the $300/month premium savings over COBRA.
The bottom line is that comprehensive health insurance policies are not cheap – so don’t be fooled by affordable policies that will come up short when you need them the most.
If you’re eligible for COBRA, the stimulus plan has provisions to subsidize 65% of your premium until December 31, 2009. That means that if your monthly COBRA premium is $1,000, you will actually pay $350 – still a large chunk of change, especially when you’ve recently lost your income.
eHealthInsurance.com has instituted a new COBRA comparison tool (https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/health-insurance/cobra-learning-center.html?allid=Com22130) that allows you input your COBRA premium, find out what your subsidized payment would be if you take COBRA coverage, and then offers alternative individual and family health care plans.
WARNING: Watch what you sign up for. While the eHealthInsurance.com tool seems to offer excellent COBRA alternatives (starting at around $50 per month for a 29 year old woman, depending on location and health history), certain factors can turn appealing offers into nightmares laden with shortcomings.
For example, a plan with a $50 premium might sound good, but when you take a closer look you might find that you have a $10,000 deductible, a 20% co-pay, and that the plan DOES NOT COVER PRENATAL CARE OR HOSPITAL DELIVERY. At the end of the day, such a plan would not offer much of a benefit to pregnant women at all; despite the $300/month premium savings over COBRA.
The bottom line is that comprehensive health insurance policies are not cheap – so don’t be fooled by affordable policies that will come up short when you need them the most.
I Need Your Help
Advocate Aaron Supporters:
As you all are aware I fight every single day to help make sure moms can have affordable access to prenatal care. Prenatal care is VERY serious and without it “babies born to mothers who receive no prenatal care are three times more likely to be born at a low birth weight, and five times more likely to die, than those whose mothers received prenatal care.” –US department of Health & Human Services
Three weeks ago I was in Washington, DC lobbying and fighting for this very cause. I had the pleasure of working with Karen Fennell, one of the top lobbyist in the women’s health arena. Karen contacted me today and asked me if I could enlist the Advocate Aaron Army. I responded with an ENTHUSIASTIC "YES", and told her it would be impossible for our moms, friends, family, relatives, etc. to NOT come through with flying colors. The task is SIMPLE, but, I need you to do it NOW and I need you to forward it to EVERYONE you know. This isn’t about us. It is MUCH bigger. This is literally about life and death for the innocent babies whose mothers CANNOT access affordable prenatal care.
Please see the message from Karen below and then TAKE ACTION NOW!!!
PRO MOM!!!
AdvocateAaron
A Healthy pregnancy for a Healthy baby
www.AdvocateAaron.com
Dear Mothers and Friends:
Pregnant Women’s Access to Care is in danger in many States. Over 43% of women’s pregnancy care is paid for by the Medicaid program; an additional 18% of pregnant women have no health insurance.
Action by the Federal Government has jeopardized the financial stability of our birth centers. I am asking you and your friends to sign on to a letter to the United States Congress to fix this problem. As a Mother and Grandmother of twin girls, I cannot stand back and let pregnant women be left with no care.
We need 10,000 signatures by May 31st to ensure that all pregnant women have access to quality, affordable health care. Stop the Federal Government from excluding pregnant women from receiving the care they deserve.
Go to the American Association of Birth Centers website at www.birthcenters.org/news/breaking-news/?id=82 and sign our consumer letter. You can make a difference!
Sincerely,
Karen S. Fennell, MS, RN
Consultant
Healthcare Advisory Solutions
As you all are aware I fight every single day to help make sure moms can have affordable access to prenatal care. Prenatal care is VERY serious and without it “babies born to mothers who receive no prenatal care are three times more likely to be born at a low birth weight, and five times more likely to die, than those whose mothers received prenatal care.” –US department of Health & Human Services
Three weeks ago I was in Washington, DC lobbying and fighting for this very cause. I had the pleasure of working with Karen Fennell, one of the top lobbyist in the women’s health arena. Karen contacted me today and asked me if I could enlist the Advocate Aaron Army. I responded with an ENTHUSIASTIC "YES", and told her it would be impossible for our moms, friends, family, relatives, etc. to NOT come through with flying colors. The task is SIMPLE, but, I need you to do it NOW and I need you to forward it to EVERYONE you know. This isn’t about us. It is MUCH bigger. This is literally about life and death for the innocent babies whose mothers CANNOT access affordable prenatal care.
Please see the message from Karen below and then TAKE ACTION NOW!!!
PRO MOM!!!
AdvocateAaron
A Healthy pregnancy for a Healthy baby
www.AdvocateAaron.com
Dear Mothers and Friends:
Pregnant Women’s Access to Care is in danger in many States. Over 43% of women’s pregnancy care is paid for by the Medicaid program; an additional 18% of pregnant women have no health insurance.
Action by the Federal Government has jeopardized the financial stability of our birth centers. I am asking you and your friends to sign on to a letter to the United States Congress to fix this problem. As a Mother and Grandmother of twin girls, I cannot stand back and let pregnant women be left with no care.
We need 10,000 signatures by May 31st to ensure that all pregnant women have access to quality, affordable health care. Stop the Federal Government from excluding pregnant women from receiving the care they deserve.
Go to the American Association of Birth Centers website at www.birthcenters.org/news/breaking-news/?id=82 and sign our consumer letter. You can make a difference!
Sincerely,
Karen S. Fennell, MS, RN
Consultant
Healthcare Advisory Solutions
Childbirth: Can the U.S. improve?
C-sections are expensive. Doctors ask if we are doing too many.
After an emergency cesarean with her first baby, Ruby Wales was holding out for a vaginal birth with her second one.
With a toddler underfoot, the 33-year-old Mission Viejo woman wanted a faster recovery. But finding a physician to deliver her second child wasn't easy. Her first obstetrician turned her down flat. "She said, 'No -- no way,' " Wales recalled.
Once reserved for cases in which the life of the baby or mother was in danger, the cesarean is now routine. The most common operation in the U.S., it is performed in 31% of births, up from 4.5% in 1965.
With that surge has come an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications -- and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.
It is a big reason childbirth often is held up in healthcare reform debates as an example of how the intensive and expensive U.S. brand of medicine has failed to deliver better results and may, in fact, be doing more harm than good.
"We're going in the wrong direction," said Dr. Roger A. Rosenblatt, a University of Washington professor of family medicine who has written about what he calls the "perinatal paradox," in which more intervention, such as cesareans, is linked with declining outcomes, such as neonatal intensive care admissions. Maternity care, he said, "is a microcosm of the entire medical enterprise."
As the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions, childbirth is a huge part of the nation's $2.4-trillion annual healthcare expenditure, accounting in hospital charges alone for more than $79 billion.
Because spending on the average uncomplicated cesarean for all patients runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs. (Among privately insured patients, uncomplicated cesareans run about $13,000.)
Pregnancy is the most expensive condition for both private insurers and Medicaid, according to a 2008 report by the Childbirth Connection, a New York think tank.
"The financial toll of maternity care on private [insurers]/employers and Medicaid/taxpayers is especially large," the report said. "Maternity care thus plays a considerable role in escalating healthcare costs, which increasingly threaten the financial stability of families, employers, and federal and state budgets."
The cesarean rate in the U.S. is higher than in most other developed nations. And in spite of a standing government goal of reducing such deliveries, the U.S. has set a new record every year for more than a decade.
The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean -- delivery via uterine incision -- exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns. Even without such complications, cesareans result in longer hospital stays.
Inducing childbirth -- bringing on or hastening labor with the drug oxytocin -- also is on the rise and is another source of growing concern. Experts say miscalculations often result in the delivery of infants who are too young to breathe on their own. Induction, studies show, also raises the risk of complications that lead to cesareans.
Despite all this intervention -- and, many believe, because of it -- childbirth in the U.S. doesn't measure up. The U.S. lags behind other developed nations on key performance indicators including infant mortality and birth weight.
And in at least two areas, the U.S. has lost ground after decades of improvement: The maternal death rate began to rise in 2002, and the typical American newborn is delivered at 39 weeks, down from the full 40. Public health experts view the trends with alarm.
At a recent conference held by Childbirth Connection, physicians, employers, insurers and hospital operators wrestled with the disappointing data and discussed thorny questions, such as whether insurers should stop paying more for cesareans than for vaginal births.
"Cesarean birth ends up being a profit center in hospitals, so there's not a lot of incentive to reduce them," said Dr. Elliot Main, chief of obstetrics for Sutter Health, a Northern California hospital chain.
But there is a lot that hospitals can do to reduce them, as illustrated by the wide variation in cesarean rates. Among California hospitals, cesareans range from 16% to 62% of births.
Such variation means a lot of women are getting unnecessary cesareans, Main said. "There's no justification for that kind of variation."
The surge in cesareans may owe more to celebrity magazines than medical journals. After word got out that Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham had three, physicians reported a surge in requests for such deliveries, dubbed the "too posh to push" bump.
Physicians, too, have been blamed for failing to make women fully aware of the consequences of cesareans, and for promoting them for convenience.
But change is underway. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Strategic Partners program trains hospitals to implement a set of guidelines, such as the careful use of oxytocin, and a ban on elective deliveries before 39 weeks. In four years, 60 hospitals have signed on.
"It's a culture change," program director Frank Federico said. "We're at a tipping point. . . . It used to be that we spent more time defending the 39-week rule. Lately, there's no question about that. It's, 'How can we improve the process to support that?' "
WellPoint Inc. and UnitedHealthcare Services Inc., the nation's largest health insurers, also are trying to curb cesareans.
In an analysis of its claims, United found that 48% of newborns admitted to neonatal intensive care units were from scheduled deliveries, many of them before 39 weeks.
United targeted a group of Texas obstetricians with particularly high rates of deliveries before 39 weeks.
An analysis showed that the babies these doctors delivered were admitted to neonatal ICUs twice as often as the national average.
After being notified of the correlation, the physicians changed their practices and reduced neonatal ICU admissions by 46% in three months.
The rise in avoidable first-birth cesareans has had a multiplier effect. Most U.S. physicians discourage vaginal deliveries after a cesarean because of some widely publicized cases several years ago in which the uterus split disastrously along the prior incision.
That's why Ruby Wales' first obstetrician refused.
"She said it was because there is a 1% chance of a uterine rupture," Wales said. "And I thought that was weird because there's more chance of things going wrong with a cesarean section."
But some obstetricians believe that new evidence supports allowing some women the option of trying for a vaginal birth.
"If the old incision was a vertical, then a trial of labor is not a good idea," said Dr. David Lagrew, medical director for the Women's Hospital at Saddleback Memorial Medical Center in Laguna Hills. "But what happens now in the United States is the low transverse, an incision in the bottom part of the uterus, from side to side. Those heal better. All the studies say, in those types of incisions, the risk is less than 1%, probably a half percent, that it will open during labor."
Saddleback delivers about 3,000 babies a year. In March, it joined a few hospitals nationwide that are pioneering the "hospitalist" approach to maternity care, which adds a measure of safety to attempted vaginal births after cesareans. A hospitalist is a doctor who cares only for hospitalized patients.
Hospitalist obstetricians staff the maternity ward 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are there to deliver babies when an attending obstetrician gets stuck in traffic, to monitor lengthy labors and to assist in emergencies.
Saddleback supported Wales' desire for a vaginal birth. Nine days after her due date and after 30 hours of labor, she gave birth -- the way she wanted -- to an 8-pound, 11-ounce boy.
"I was so glad nothing happened at the last minute to have an emergency C-section because I'd gone through all this work," said Wales, resting in her hospital bed with baby Carson in her arms. "I'm so relieved that I don't have to deal with a [cesarean] recovery because I have a 2 1/2-year-old at home who is very active."
lisa.girion@latimes.com
After an emergency cesarean with her first baby, Ruby Wales was holding out for a vaginal birth with her second one.
With a toddler underfoot, the 33-year-old Mission Viejo woman wanted a faster recovery. But finding a physician to deliver her second child wasn't easy. Her first obstetrician turned her down flat. "She said, 'No -- no way,' " Wales recalled.
Once reserved for cases in which the life of the baby or mother was in danger, the cesarean is now routine. The most common operation in the U.S., it is performed in 31% of births, up from 4.5% in 1965.
With that surge has come an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications -- and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.
It is a big reason childbirth often is held up in healthcare reform debates as an example of how the intensive and expensive U.S. brand of medicine has failed to deliver better results and may, in fact, be doing more harm than good.
"We're going in the wrong direction," said Dr. Roger A. Rosenblatt, a University of Washington professor of family medicine who has written about what he calls the "perinatal paradox," in which more intervention, such as cesareans, is linked with declining outcomes, such as neonatal intensive care admissions. Maternity care, he said, "is a microcosm of the entire medical enterprise."
As the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions, childbirth is a huge part of the nation's $2.4-trillion annual healthcare expenditure, accounting in hospital charges alone for more than $79 billion.
Because spending on the average uncomplicated cesarean for all patients runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs. (Among privately insured patients, uncomplicated cesareans run about $13,000.)
Pregnancy is the most expensive condition for both private insurers and Medicaid, according to a 2008 report by the Childbirth Connection, a New York think tank.
"The financial toll of maternity care on private [insurers]/employers and Medicaid/taxpayers is especially large," the report said. "Maternity care thus plays a considerable role in escalating healthcare costs, which increasingly threaten the financial stability of families, employers, and federal and state budgets."
The cesarean rate in the U.S. is higher than in most other developed nations. And in spite of a standing government goal of reducing such deliveries, the U.S. has set a new record every year for more than a decade.
The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean -- delivery via uterine incision -- exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns. Even without such complications, cesareans result in longer hospital stays.
Inducing childbirth -- bringing on or hastening labor with the drug oxytocin -- also is on the rise and is another source of growing concern. Experts say miscalculations often result in the delivery of infants who are too young to breathe on their own. Induction, studies show, also raises the risk of complications that lead to cesareans.
Despite all this intervention -- and, many believe, because of it -- childbirth in the U.S. doesn't measure up. The U.S. lags behind other developed nations on key performance indicators including infant mortality and birth weight.
And in at least two areas, the U.S. has lost ground after decades of improvement: The maternal death rate began to rise in 2002, and the typical American newborn is delivered at 39 weeks, down from the full 40. Public health experts view the trends with alarm.
At a recent conference held by Childbirth Connection, physicians, employers, insurers and hospital operators wrestled with the disappointing data and discussed thorny questions, such as whether insurers should stop paying more for cesareans than for vaginal births.
"Cesarean birth ends up being a profit center in hospitals, so there's not a lot of incentive to reduce them," said Dr. Elliot Main, chief of obstetrics for Sutter Health, a Northern California hospital chain.
But there is a lot that hospitals can do to reduce them, as illustrated by the wide variation in cesarean rates. Among California hospitals, cesareans range from 16% to 62% of births.
Such variation means a lot of women are getting unnecessary cesareans, Main said. "There's no justification for that kind of variation."
The surge in cesareans may owe more to celebrity magazines than medical journals. After word got out that Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham had three, physicians reported a surge in requests for such deliveries, dubbed the "too posh to push" bump.
Physicians, too, have been blamed for failing to make women fully aware of the consequences of cesareans, and for promoting them for convenience.
But change is underway. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Strategic Partners program trains hospitals to implement a set of guidelines, such as the careful use of oxytocin, and a ban on elective deliveries before 39 weeks. In four years, 60 hospitals have signed on.
"It's a culture change," program director Frank Federico said. "We're at a tipping point. . . . It used to be that we spent more time defending the 39-week rule. Lately, there's no question about that. It's, 'How can we improve the process to support that?' "
WellPoint Inc. and UnitedHealthcare Services Inc., the nation's largest health insurers, also are trying to curb cesareans.
In an analysis of its claims, United found that 48% of newborns admitted to neonatal intensive care units were from scheduled deliveries, many of them before 39 weeks.
United targeted a group of Texas obstetricians with particularly high rates of deliveries before 39 weeks.
An analysis showed that the babies these doctors delivered were admitted to neonatal ICUs twice as often as the national average.
After being notified of the correlation, the physicians changed their practices and reduced neonatal ICU admissions by 46% in three months.
The rise in avoidable first-birth cesareans has had a multiplier effect. Most U.S. physicians discourage vaginal deliveries after a cesarean because of some widely publicized cases several years ago in which the uterus split disastrously along the prior incision.
That's why Ruby Wales' first obstetrician refused.
"She said it was because there is a 1% chance of a uterine rupture," Wales said. "And I thought that was weird because there's more chance of things going wrong with a cesarean section."
But some obstetricians believe that new evidence supports allowing some women the option of trying for a vaginal birth.
"If the old incision was a vertical, then a trial of labor is not a good idea," said Dr. David Lagrew, medical director for the Women's Hospital at Saddleback Memorial Medical Center in Laguna Hills. "But what happens now in the United States is the low transverse, an incision in the bottom part of the uterus, from side to side. Those heal better. All the studies say, in those types of incisions, the risk is less than 1%, probably a half percent, that it will open during labor."
Saddleback delivers about 3,000 babies a year. In March, it joined a few hospitals nationwide that are pioneering the "hospitalist" approach to maternity care, which adds a measure of safety to attempted vaginal births after cesareans. A hospitalist is a doctor who cares only for hospitalized patients.
Hospitalist obstetricians staff the maternity ward 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are there to deliver babies when an attending obstetrician gets stuck in traffic, to monitor lengthy labors and to assist in emergencies.
Saddleback supported Wales' desire for a vaginal birth. Nine days after her due date and after 30 hours of labor, she gave birth -- the way she wanted -- to an 8-pound, 11-ounce boy.
"I was so glad nothing happened at the last minute to have an emergency C-section because I'd gone through all this work," said Wales, resting in her hospital bed with baby Carson in her arms. "I'm so relieved that I don't have to deal with a [cesarean] recovery because I have a 2 1/2-year-old at home who is very active."
lisa.girion@latimes.com
The Prenatal Pandemic
While the world scrambles to understand and combat the swine flu, declared an imminent pandemic by the World Health Organization, another pandemic rages on in the United States � and this one is far deadlier.
The growing inaccessibility to proper prenatal care has caused a pandemic of enormous proportions in the United States. Consider that:
� A lack of prenatal care means a baby is three times more likely to be born premature, and five times more likely to die;
� The number of Americans without health insurance that would cover prenatal care has grown by nine million in the last 13 years;
� The March of Dimes gave America a �D� on its recent Prenatal Care Report Card � because a full 12.7% of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S. annually are premature;
� Over 19,000 babies die within the first 28 days of birth each year in the U.S.;
� Of those deaths, a full 30% are directly caused by premature birth...
� Meaning that premature birth accounts for over 6,000 infant deaths in the United States annually.
A lack of prenatal care leads to premature birth. Premature birth leads to death. A lot of it. The bell sadly tolls for over 6,000 babies each year. That's more than the death count from the World Trade Center attacks, and this wound is self-inflicted.
Many of these deaths could be prevented with proper prenatal care, yet the U.S. government is more considered with the swine flu which, as of this writing, has killed one person on U.S. soil. In fact, President Barack Obama has even requested a whopping $1.5 BILLION from Congress to combat the spread of the swine flu.
That kind of money could cover prenatal care for nearly every uninsured pregnant woman for a year. It seems as those who can think for themselves are more interested in protecting themselves from a relatively mild flu than protecting the babies who are unable to think � or speak- for themselves.
Even though a pandemic is characterized by the presence of an infectious disease, how can we be more fearful of a relatively mild swine flu than an epidemic that, in a decade's time, kills more than 60,000 babies? That's more than the population of Carson City, Nevada.
Human life is too precious to politicize. It's time to get our priorities straight. Yes, the swine flu needs addressed. But it's also time to take care of our nation's babies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P_dFD0J47I
The growing inaccessibility to proper prenatal care has caused a pandemic of enormous proportions in the United States. Consider that:
� A lack of prenatal care means a baby is three times more likely to be born premature, and five times more likely to die;
� The number of Americans without health insurance that would cover prenatal care has grown by nine million in the last 13 years;
� The March of Dimes gave America a �D� on its recent Prenatal Care Report Card � because a full 12.7% of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S. annually are premature;
� Over 19,000 babies die within the first 28 days of birth each year in the U.S.;
� Of those deaths, a full 30% are directly caused by premature birth...
� Meaning that premature birth accounts for over 6,000 infant deaths in the United States annually.
A lack of prenatal care leads to premature birth. Premature birth leads to death. A lot of it. The bell sadly tolls for over 6,000 babies each year. That's more than the death count from the World Trade Center attacks, and this wound is self-inflicted.
Many of these deaths could be prevented with proper prenatal care, yet the U.S. government is more considered with the swine flu which, as of this writing, has killed one person on U.S. soil. In fact, President Barack Obama has even requested a whopping $1.5 BILLION from Congress to combat the spread of the swine flu.
That kind of money could cover prenatal care for nearly every uninsured pregnant woman for a year. It seems as those who can think for themselves are more interested in protecting themselves from a relatively mild flu than protecting the babies who are unable to think � or speak- for themselves.
Even though a pandemic is characterized by the presence of an infectious disease, how can we be more fearful of a relatively mild swine flu than an epidemic that, in a decade's time, kills more than 60,000 babies? That's more than the population of Carson City, Nevada.
Human life is too precious to politicize. It's time to get our priorities straight. Yes, the swine flu needs addressed. But it's also time to take care of our nation's babies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P_dFD0J47I
This is NOT a joke and I am REALLY PISSED OFF.
I am about to throw up. What is this country coming to and why on God�s Green Earth would we PROTECT PEDOPHILES. This is an outrage, this is sick, and frankly this makes me want to REALLY hurt someone BAD.
The U.S. Senate is set to give legally protected status to pedophiles and 30 other sexual orientations. The Senate refused to define what is meant by sexual orientation in S. 909, the "Hate Crimes" bill. This means that the 30 different sexual orientations will be federally protected classes.
The House has already passed this bill, and the Senate will vote as early as Wednesday. Pres. Obama has said he would sign the bill.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE
Call your two senators today and demand that he or she vote against S.909. Please forward this to all your family and friends. The Senate refused to define the term "sexual orientation," which means that all sexual orientations are protected. (See loophole below)
To see the orientations that will be protected by the Hate Crimes bill (S. 909) See BELOW. (I am REALLY PISSED)
The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define "sexual orientation," will be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states. See, this is the PROBLEM with our FREAKIN lawmakers. It�s the stupid loopholes that allow PEDOPHILES to be PROTECTED. (Did I mention I am PISSED)
Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:
Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one�s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one�s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals
To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.
Fighting mad,
Aaron Bouren
www.AdvocateAaron.com
The U.S. Senate is set to give legally protected status to pedophiles and 30 other sexual orientations. The Senate refused to define what is meant by sexual orientation in S. 909, the "Hate Crimes" bill. This means that the 30 different sexual orientations will be federally protected classes.
The House has already passed this bill, and the Senate will vote as early as Wednesday. Pres. Obama has said he would sign the bill.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE
Call your two senators today and demand that he or she vote against S.909. Please forward this to all your family and friends. The Senate refused to define the term "sexual orientation," which means that all sexual orientations are protected. (See loophole below)
To see the orientations that will be protected by the Hate Crimes bill (S. 909) See BELOW. (I am REALLY PISSED)
The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define "sexual orientation," will be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states. See, this is the PROBLEM with our FREAKIN lawmakers. It�s the stupid loopholes that allow PEDOPHILES to be PROTECTED. (Did I mention I am PISSED)
Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:
Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one�s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one�s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals
To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.
Fighting mad,
Aaron Bouren
www.AdvocateAaron.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
