Trying to express my inarticulate rage...

Hi, everyone, forgive this more personal post. I've had to leave Pro and Con again. I know many of you post there, and I enjoy reading your posts. Quite often I learn something from reading the group. But I don't need my blood boiling this early in the morning. It's not just the bizarre idea that pet owners somehow are responsible for homelessness (I know I'm eliding, but that's essentially what the argument boils down to). It's also that every time women's reproductive health comes up as a topic, whether in the form of contraception, abortion, or just access, it's treated as something without any real legitimacy, something that women are getting too worked up about. Right now it's the Planned Parenthood videos. Reminds me of Ted Cruz's inane comment that women don't need insurance coverage for contraception because "there are plenty of rubbers in America." Those parts of our bodies where the unborn babies they love to protect grow are just not worthy of special health care. Those doctor's visits to Planned Parenthood are just "sex visits," as someone told me once.

Which brings me to a current topic, the Zika virus, which can cause birth defects like microcephaly. Women in South and Central American countries are being told just not to get pregnant, in countries where they don't have easy access to birth control, abortion is criminalized, and rape is commonplace. I would say the cultural chickens are coming home to roost, but of course, the people who pay the price are the mothers and the babies, who are not getting the assistance they need.

I just had to rage a bit about the sometimes overwhelming hypocrisy of our species' preoccupation with controlling women's reproduction.

One of the stories on Zika (I also heard a good report on it and the intersection with reproductive rights yesterday on NPR): http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/27/rights-groups-denounce...

Yup, yup, yup. Men are used to being able to debate about things like abortion, contraception and female autonomy in a pleasantly theoretical way. It's an intellectual exercise to them, because it does't affect them in the slightest. And then they are taken aback when a woman shares that space and has the temerity to point out that it is a personal issue. Which then leads to complaints about female hysteria and lack of emotional control.

It's like a medieval debate about whether women have souls or not. Comfortable as long as the only people taking part have testicles.

When it's an issue that directly affects them, and they feel threatened, well, you haven't seen anger, panic and rage until you've seen comfortable dudes suddenly faced with being a little less comfortable.

Which, of course, #notallmen. There are many men who get it, who are allies, who will jump up and point out that there are choices that women must (get to) make without having to consult or defer to men (this is why abortion is so fraught - how can there be a legitimate decision that is taken independent of any men?). But on the site I regularly discuss issues, if the topic is abortion, or contraceptives or female health issues, it is a given that there will be a visitor (or three), invariably male (or at least self-identifying as such) who just want to explain (because clearly we have not had abortion properly explained to us) why it is so wrong (always a variation of "well, we don't know exactly when a fetus becomes a person, so lets be safe and just never abort. Also, babies are a consequence, so don't try to get out of your punishment, sluts).

I think you hit my rage button, Shannon. And, yes, that particular conversation is full of self-righteous babble.

>1 sturlington:

Oh, just saw this thread--so sorry for your trouble, Shannon, and what can I say, of course I commiserate fully. (On Pro & Con specifically, understand completely, for years I've been yo-yoing between ignoring and lurking and posting... :)).

>1 sturlington:, >2 RidgewayGirl:

Yes. Abortion is virtually impossible and rape of young girls widespread--but it's up to women to "avoid" sex and pregnancy.

Thanks for the commiseration, I just needed to vent. I had managed to block many of the most egregious blood-boilers, keeping Pro and Con relatively safe, but there is one person who has been getting under my skin lately but I don't want to block him because he may occasionally have something of interest about this website to post. Y'all probably can guess who I mean.

And it really is just another aspect of living in a world where women and their concerns are consistently dismissed as unimportant. The Zika crisis is just yet another example, but the good thing is that it really has started a conversation, spurred by international women's rights and health organizations, about how exactly women are supposed to follow their government's health advice when their options are so limited by their own government.

I totally get it. For people who post that sort of stuff it's an academic talking point. They don't seem to get that it's people lives that are being discussed. Annoys the hell out of me, too.

>4 sturlington:

Y'all probably can guess who I mean.

Heh... Been there, been suspended too! :)

>5 IanFryer:

I also blame religion. As they say (approximately), to commit REALLY great injustice, nothing works quite like religion.

Vent away. I'm right there with you. Pro/Con has felt particularly anti-woman to me lately but perversely this just makes me keep posting. Not so much because I expect to change anyone's mind, but there are some statements I just cannot let stand unchallenged. Complacency irks me.

>7 southernbooklady: I'm impressed that you can do so without violating the terms of service.

>8 sturlington: I count to 10 100 before typing.

Let me cheer you all on, because I avoid Pro and Con like the plague. I fall into the "not able to engage while abiding by terms of service" camp. I also tend to find it useless to argue about women's rights with religious men (worse even than averagely devout or irreligious men). It's never worked even once in my entire life.

I suppose I persist because I'm not really talking to the people I'm arguing with, but to the people who might be listening.

"Men are used to being able to debate about things like abortion, contraception and female autonomy in a pleasantly theoretical way. It's an intellectual exercise to them, because it does't affect them in the slightest."

Syntactical incoherence prevents me knowing what "it" refers to.

One of the most important lessons I learned, many years ago, is that there is very little a person does that doesn't affect someone in some way. It's false to think of ourselves as islands.

This idea that men are not affected "in the slightest" by abortion, for example, is so obviously wrong. Men create children. They are affected from the beginning. They are the fathers. They share half the responsibility.

I take note, easily, that rage fuels the original post. Nothing wrong with venting to stranger, I guess. But that doesn't enhance one's arguments. I've known for many years that feminism is fueled by rage, founded by rage and jealousy. Feminism is less a theoretical exercise, political position, or social movement than an illness waiting to be treated, in this case excessive anger which prohibits clear thought. Excessive anger can be treated by medicine. I would also advise any angry person to avoid, if possible, whatever triggers anger.

Perhaps if all this rage could be turned down like a stereo volume knob, then we can all get along more peacefully.

>12 barney67: Thank you so much, Barney, for explaining things to us poor women. I'm so glad to have the benefit of your manly advice.

>12 barney67: Actually, dude, rage was not my reaction to your post. The movie Clueless was a comedy, ya know. But thanks so much for venturing over into this scary place just to provide us with the perfect example of what we're talking about.

Spread of zika highlights lack of access to contraceptivess in countries where women are being advised not to get pregnant: http://www.statnews.com/2016/02/01/zika-pregnancy-warnings-latin-america/

>16 sturlington: In places where contraception is difficult or impossible to obtain, what they're really saying is that heterosexual women shouldn't have sex until they develop a vaccine, maybe around 2020.

I've learned to avoid Pro and Con (plus the political sections of most forums I go to) because the thread titles frequently reveal the slant of the thread.

>17 RidgewayGirl: It displays such a head in the sand approach to the problem. A lot of women do not have control over when they have sex. And the rate of unplanned pregnancies is very high.

Thank you for the compliments. If you need more help, just ask. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

It's times like these when the blocking feature comes in handy.

>16 sturlington: The jump from 150 cases to 4100 (as is stated in one of those links) seems beyond staggering to me. Front page news and the kind of situation where we start sending in relief, research people and medical resources to combat the spread of the infection. So "don't get pregnant" is on its own a ridiculous response. Like "don't drink the water" or something.

>22 southernbooklady: Don't drink the water is Flint, Michigan.

>23 gilroy: Heh.

I only block people who have made numerous personal attacks against me over a period of time, not because, like many here, I'm afraid of the opinions of others or because I would rather stick my fingers in my ears and say "blah blah blah men misogyny blah blah blah just don't get it blah blah"

>12 barney67:, >20 barney67:, >25 barney67: So, you think a health crisis for women and children that goes unrecognized by many men (who happen to be in control of most governments) is "feminism fueled by rage"? It seems you should be talking to your fellow guys who are the ones denying women access to fundamental elements of health care because they just don't get that it affects them and their fellow human beings both male and female. No sense of compassion? Nothing?

Sign me,

Puzzled

Edited for clarity.

>16 sturlington:, >22 southernbooklady: Well, this just came across my newsfeed:

World Health Organization declares Zika Virus an International Health Emergency

My husband was also just reading about it this morning or yesterday morning, I think in the French news (which he reads to improve his French). So it is definitely making the news rounds now.

>28 .Monkey.: I do wonder what these predominantly Catholic countries and cultures can do to be effective when faced with such a crisis. "Abstinence" is just not a real or serious response. The Catholic church could come out pro-contraception given the situation, but I don't think they can muster the will to put the real health of their constituency ahead of their debates over dogma.

Yeah I'm not sure. I know he mentioned the article said something about them trying to get rid of all the mosquitoes, since they're a main contributor to the spread of the disease, but obviously that's not entirely feasible. I'm sure they can reduce the amount of them, but...

>29 southernbooklady: If they didn't budge on the use of condoms, when they were shown as an effective way to prevent AIDs, they're not going to change their mind now.

>29 southernbooklady: Isolation to get closer to God and only contact with immediate family. Follow the ways of Jesus in the Desert for 40 days...

Well, it's a guess anyway. :)

>31 RidgewayGirl:, >32 gilroy: -- Right. It's like the moral principle that rejects the use of contraception actually forces people into a worse moral situation -- endangering children.

OMFG. Now the CDC is declaring that all women who might possibly at some time get pregnant abstain from drinking all alcohol, because you know, fetuses. You don't know if you might have one in there, and is a glass of wine and taking a little bit of pleasure in your life really worth the risk? As if we need any more evidence that women are seen as nothing more than walking wombs, not entitled to any autonomy whatsoever, except presumably when we're post-menopausal and become officially invisible. When do we start seeing the anti-drinking while being female laws? Probably won't have to wait too long with all those Republican legislatures, who are just overly concerned with our health, don't ya know. All of us who have gone through the change will have to get special cards we can flash at bars and restaurants when well-meaning people tell us not to drink because we might hurt some theoretical, nonexistent baby.

I am so fed up with the world today.

Link: http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/fasd/index.html -- Infographic states that doctors should advise every adult woman not to drink alcohol if she is not using birth control.

>34 sturlington: Now the CDC is declaring that all women who might possibly at some time get pregnant abstain from drinking all alcohol, because you know, fetuses.

The CDC isn't known for being alarmist. The advice on that link is that women should not drink if they are trying to get pregnant or "could" get pregnant -- but it doesn't read as if they meant to imply "as long as you are fertile," rather, it is a caution to women who have sex without using birth control.

What does concern me is the way such advice gets warped into legislation. "Fetal assault" laws could potentially be interpreted to make every miscarriage suspect criminal activity, and every action a woman takes criminalized if it is deemed to be possibly harmful to her fetus. That would go not only for drinking wine, but also for things like being in a dangerous occupation, sky diving, speeding, etc.

The US is weird about alcohol, too, though. I spent my first pregnancy in Europe and my French guide to being pregnant advised sticking with one glass of wine with a meal.

>36 RidgewayGirl: Also very true.

>35 southernbooklady: It is still an unknown how much alcohol is a risk factor and at what point in the pregnancy. It is very difficult to get accurate information on the real risk factors. I have researched it. The prevailing strategy seems to be to scare women rather than inform them and trust them to assess their own risk.

>36 RidgewayGirl: Guidelines on how much alcohol is "safe" vary widely by culture and really have little grounding in science.

Just to add, the CDC has a past history of elevating the health of theoretical fetuses over the needs of actual adult women in its recommendations. Here's another example: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/01/27/cdcs-newest-report-opioids-prioriti...

Surge of Zika Virus Has Brazilians Re-examining Strict Abortion Laws

This got my goat, though:

“Getting an abortion creates guilt that will stay with the woman for the rest of her life.”

I had an abortion. Did not feel guilty then, do not feel guilty now; in fact, never felt a twinge of "guilt" about it all these years. Certainly, in the imaginary universe where everything happens exactly on our order, I'd have vastly preferred not having had that experience. In this one, I count myself both lucky and right.

Oh, look, second goat down:

Religious leaders are vowing to resist any effort to ease Brazil’s abortion laws because of Zika.

“Nothing justifies an abortion,” the Rev. Luciano Brito, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife, told reporters. “Just because a fetus has microcephaly won’t make us favorable” to changing the law.

This in a country with an estimated 850 000 illegal abortions every year.

>34 sturlington:

So, are the outcomes for children born to abstinent mothers that significantly different to comparable mothers in the general population? I mean does the demographic of Mormons, SDAs, Baptists, etc, who putatively consume no alcohol have noticeably healthier children?

>41 librorumamans: I am not aware of any such studies having been done. There is not a comparatively higher rate of FAS in European countries where consuming alcohol even while pregnant is more culturally acceptable, as far as I know.

I went looking for some research and found this: http://m.alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/3/276.full

Free to access.

>43 sturlington: Fascinating article. Thank you.

>34 sturlington: I am so fed up with the world today.

I am too! In so many ways.

I've only read the CDC headline, and it's beyond basic common sense. In Mediterranean countries, wine is considered food and people--including pregnant women--drink it every day. They do not have a fetal alcohol epidemic, never have. Further, I read a book by a neurologist about fetal alcohol syndrome, and he said that there are women who drink insane amounts of alcohol throughout their pregnancies and still give birth to normal babies. The idea that "we don't know how much is too much, therefore have not a drop" is just nonsense. No woman who had one drink and one drink only ever gave birth to a child with fetal alcohol syndrome, and to suggest it is an insult to women everywhere.

>34 sturlington: Rebecca Solnit weighs in on the CDC's language:

http://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the-case-of-the-missing-perpetrator/

What is a woman? According to the CDC, all women are in danger of becoming pregnant. “Drinking too much can have many risks for women,” their chart tells us, and itemizes them for “any woman.” “Injuries/violence” top the list and “unintended pregnancy” brings up the rear. “Drinking too much can have risks for women including… any alcohol use for women who are pregnant or might be pregnant.” Medical professionals should “advise a woman to stop drinking if she is trying to get pregnant or not using birth control with sex.” This in a few deft, simple strokes reduces all women to fertile females in their breeding years who have what you might call exposure to fertile men. It denies the existence of many other kinds of women and the equal responsibility of at least one kind of man. Maybe it denies the existence of men, since women seem to get pregnant here as a consequence of consorting with booze, not boys.

>46 southernbooklady: Thank you, that was awesome. She says exactly what I am unable to articulate.

>46 southernbooklady: great article. I love this part: "I am myself trying to warn about the misuses of language. We are all language detectives, and if we pay enough attention we can figure out what things mean even when they don’t mean to tell us, and we can even tell when stories are lying to us."

I've been trying to pin down the source of my unease over the whole thing, and I think it comes down to the implication that the CDC would put public health second to a political position. That's probably idealistic of me. I tend to think that science eventually wins out over whatever political pressures exist.

This is healthcare policy rather than science, of course it's political.

But it shouldn't be backed up by bad science. Which is what appears to be happening here?

>51 southernbooklady:

Is it? She writes "The CDC is right to warn about the dangers of misusing alcohol, if not in how it did so."

I don't follow the pertaining scientific literature so no idea where the science is. I saw FAS babies as a student, born to alcoholic mothers, so I think it's at least true that alcoholism, at least, can affect fetal development.

I don't mean what Rebecca Solnit was writing, but the original CDC announcement.

>53 southernbooklady:

What exactly, the (as she quotes) "any alcohol use for women who are pregnant or might be pregnant.” Medical professionals should “advise a woman to stop drinking if she is trying to get pregnant or not using birth control with sex.”?

It seems ludicrous to claim that "any" alcohol use during pregnancy would result in damage, but I don't know that it could not. We can certainly point to lots of anecdotal evidence that women who drink on some non-alcoholic level don't routinely have sick children (and I don't know that a majority of alcoholic mothers do, either). So, take your chances.

As far as CDC public announcements go, I think it's more about hedging your bets and "risk-talk" and covering their asses. Academic truth and best real life policy aren't necessarily linked.

And as for how they wrote it up and "reduced" women to "one kind of woman", I would have thought that the context limits the subject sort of naturally to women with the potential to get pregnant. It goes without saying they aren't addressing those outside that context.

>54 LolaWalser: I would have thought that the context limits the subject sort of naturally to women with the potential to get pregnant. It goes without saying they aren't addressing those outside that context.

Yes that's my take as well. But the CDC announcement (definitely a hedge your bets type of announcement) was apparently vague enough, and engendered such a wide-ranging outcry, that Solnit felt obligated to list all the different types of women the announcement was not talking to.

I do think she's right in pointing out the similar approach of the CDC and the response to the Zika outbreak -- an absence of any acknowledgement or consideration that pregnancy is always a two-person event.

>55 southernbooklady:

I do think she's right in pointing out the similar approach of the CDC and the response to the Zika outbreak -- an absence of any acknowledgement or consideration that pregnancy is always a two-person event.

I think the fact pregnancy is a two-person event doesn't always have the same relevance, including in this case, alcohol consumption versus Zika (statistically). The former is considered in the framework of lifestyle. A man may or may not be present as anything more than a sperm donor, and in any case, what exactly is the connection between him and the question should the woman drink during pregnancy? None as far as I can see, or none that wouldn't actually be interfering in nature at least as much as the "government" is, via CDC and its admonitions. That is, we are not discussing here how the woman got pregnant--why should we?

There's a different framework to the Zika outbreak, occurring in countries (so far) where women are in various ways disempowered. Their problem is lack of safety and free access to abortion, which is something we can put down directly to systemic misogyny formally upheld mostly by men (since it's men who rule there).

>54 LolaWalser: I think the recommendations show a remarkable tone deafness by the CDC. It implies that women of childbearing years should spend virtually every moment of their lives thinking about potential pregnancy, as if that is the overriding concern of their lives. It comes across as ham-fisted and patronizing, which is actually going to hurt the chances of the message getting through. When you turn people off, they won't listen to you. Also, I think Solnit's point about all of the other environmental factors that can harm fetuses and yet are not addressed is a good one. Also, the recommendation really does nothing to address systemic underlying issues that may be related to FAS, such as poverty and inability to access contraception, while needlessly fear mongering.

We don't have good data on this issue to adequately communicate all the risks. What is the risk of developing FAS? How many drinks? How often? How many in one drinking session? What percentage of babies develop the disorder as a result? How does that compare to the risk of riding in a car, for instance? Just living in a toxic world is a risk. Is the CDC warning all potentially pregnant women (not already pregnant ones, but all those who might possibly become pregnant) about the flame retardant chemicals present in a lot of furniture and the risks they cause? How about the risks of ingesting fish with high mercury content?

There is a moral judgment attached to this for sure. I have seen comments to the effect that if you're of childbearing years and you enjoy a glass of wine or a beer now and then, then you're a selfish alcoholic who would rather raise a disabled child than give up your own pleasures. It is part of the same culture that believes that mothers -- including all potential mothers -- should sacrifice everything for their children, that they have no identity outside the children that they may someday bear. The CDC, knowingly or not, is providing ammunition to the sizable contingent of people who would like to restrict women's behavior based solely on the fact that they are capable of growing fetuses. Some of those people are likely lawmakers or will become lawmakers.

Women in the US are being systematically denied access to abortion and contraception as well, especially if they are not women of means. At the same time, they're being given the message that their pleasures are not as important as fetuses they may potentially carry. How is this not constricting of women?

>57 sturlington:

It implies that women of childbearing years should spend virtually every moment of their lives thinking about potential pregnancy, as if that is the overriding concern of their lives.

I can see that (although I didn't get that implication myself--I'm used to filtering out the "most reasonable" assumption from this sort of communication), but I think one could argue that once you ARE pregnant or trying to get pregnant, the health of the fetus becomes of overriding concern to many women, if not all. Certainly they could have phrased it better to avoid anyone drawing the implication you mention.

Also, I think Solnit's point about all of the other environmental factors that can harm fetuses and yet are not addressed is a good one.

Yes, it's an excellent point. I think it came up already in relation to criminalization of pregnancy quite a bit.

Women in the US are being systematically denied access to abortion and contraception as well, especially if they are not women of means.

Yes--the context in which this is happening adds many dimensions to this warning.

At the same time, they're being given the message that their pleasures are not as important as fetuses they may potentially carry.

Yes, but at the same time, don't women, at least those willingly and happily pregnant, generally feel they need to modify their behaviour or observe various rules for the benefit of the fetus?

How is this not constricting of women?

It sure is, but isn't pregnancy in itself a constraint of sorts?

>58 LolaWalser: I think we need to make a distinction between advice given to women who are pregnant or actively trying and just plain women. The CDC's advice is aimed at all women of childbearing years, whether planning to become pregnant or not.

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are limited in scope. The CDC's advice is limited only by menopause.

Certainly, pregnancy is a constraint. That's why reproductive choice is so critical. The confluence of recommendations like these in a society that seeks to further restrain reproductive choice in pretty much any way possible is highly alarming.

>58 LolaWalser: The CDC's advice is aimed at all women of childbearing years, whether planning to become pregnant or not.

See, I did not get this. Like Lola, I incline towards "most reasonable assumption" -- if I were of child bearing years (theoretically I am) I would not feel the advice was aimed at me precisely because I am not pregnant, not planning to be, and barring something fairly awful happening, not at risk to be.

The CDC's advice is aimed at all women of childbearing years, whether planning to become pregnant or not.

This may be pedantry about some semantic issue, but I simply can't see how advice on pregnancy could be said to be addressed to those who don't plan to be pregnant. It's like those signs on hiking trails, "risk of rapids", "rock avalanche" etc. They are there in public addressing "everyone" but of specific relevance only to those who take this or that specific path. There's no point to having another sign saying "but we don't mean you or you or you".

>59 sturlington:

But I want to emphasise this because it can't be stressed enough, I think:

The confluence of recommendations like these in a society that seeks to further restrain reproductive choice in pretty much any way possible is highly alarming.

YES!

>59 sturlington:, >62 LolaWalser: The confluence of recommendations like these in a society that seeks to further restrain reproductive choice

One thing it does do, that is alarming in itself, is invite extra judgment and suspicion on a woman who is drinking. Even if we know nothing about her, the mere fact that she a) is drinking wine and b) appears to be of child bearing age become suspicious, especially in an atmosphere where issues concerning pregnancy are increasingly criminalized.

...the mere fact that she a) is drinking wine and b) appears to be of child bearing age become suspicious, especially in an atmosphere where issues concerning pregnancy are increasingly criminalized.

And that is why anything any scientific or medical group recommends must be carefully worded. Criminal charges for miscarriages assumed to be due to the pregnant woman's own behavior are not unknown. We're heading for a society where a fetus has many more rights than its incubator.

But they specifically state that alcohol is a risk factor of unintended pregnancy. This seems aimed at women who are not planning to become pregnant. I am not the only person who read it this way.

Whatever their intentions, their messaging is undeniably unclear. That's a problem when it can very easily be misused.

>57 sturlington: There is a moral judgment attached to this for sure. I have seen comments to the effect that if you're of childbearing years and you enjoy a glass of wine or a beer now and then, then you're a selfish alcoholic who would rather raise a disabled child than give up your own pleasures.

Yes, moral judgment. It feels like something coming out of a judgmental, puritan mindset.

Are you saying the CDC advocates a specific moral position towards women? That their policies are morally-based more than scientifically based?

>65 sturlington:

But they specifically state that alcohol is a risk factor of unintended pregnancy.

I'm just trying to clarify, rather than oppose (or defend the writing skill of whoever composed the warning)--and here it obviously makes no sense to single out "unintended" from "intended" pregnancy as regards the purported effects of alcohol, so I understand it as a warning to women who may not know they are pregnant but who may care that they are pregnant.

Lots of people in relationships don't have a VERY specific timetable for having children. They could just be sexually active and let pregnancy come whenever (I think historically this is the most common "model"?) It can't be very rare that a woman (sexually active and not using contraception) gets pregnant and is unaware of that for at least a short while.

Which, of course, doesn't say anything as to what risk exactly she's running if she's drinking alcohol in that period--I'm just interpreting who and what is getting addressed here.

>67 southernbooklady: I don't know who you're asking, but I'll answer for myself. Not ever having lived in the US, I'm not well-versed on the details of the CDC, but I've always assumed they were a very scientific organization. That is why their statement left me scratching my head -- it doesn't fit.

>69 Nickelini:

I think Solnit "overinterpreted". But given the sensitivity of the subject in this climate (all the points sturlington made about the confluence of legislature against abortion etc.), it's no wonder perhaps.

Thank you for letting me know about that feature.

I totally share your sentiments

>70 LolaWalser: You may be right but I have to wonder if the folks who put together the info graphic exist in a vacuum. Did they not even run it by a few people to gauge different reactions? Of course in this day of social media, I'm constantly amazed by the naivite of large organizations regarding their messaging.

ETA The CDC has garnered this kind of reaction at least twice before that I can recall, once on their messaging around opiods that I previously posted and once when they advised young women to consider themselves "pre pregnant." I was working at a reproductive health nonprofit at the time and that did not go down well. So it's not like they could plead ignorance.

Considering the frequency that major ad campaigns focused on women misfire and have to be withdrawn and apologized for -- and these being amply funded and focus grouped -- the CDC's misstep should come as no surprise. They don't have a huge budget for this stuff (the CDC is underfunded in this new world where protecting the public's health is optional) and if no one involved in the wording had any awareness that this might be an issue, then it would be unseen until people began looking at it.

That public statements so often fail to take into account the existence of anyone who isn't a comfortably-off white, heterosexual male unless it is to treat all members of a different group as one monolithic entity is a problem.

>1 sturlington: A group of Argentinian doctors are now saying that the Zika virus may not be linked to the cases of microcephaly, but that a pesticide in use since 2014 could be the culprit:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987137/argentine_and_brazilian_d...

>74 southernbooklady: Wow.

More poisoning of poor people

Women beg online for abortion pills

In more than a thousand emails to Women on Web, a Canada-based group that provides advice and medication for women wanting an abortion in countries where it is banned, the women beg for the pills that are banned by law in their respective countries of Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru or El Salvador.