Let's Take T'Day

Today, the socially-conscious spent the day posting Thanksgiving reality checks on Facebook and Twitter, some of which were inflammatory to a fault.  I read a number of pieces that basically told me I should renounce the tradition altogether, never again to gorge myself on another drumstick (that is, if the drumstick is being consumed on the fourth Thursday of November). 

Now, I'm not oblivious to the gruesome history regarding this land's Native population and the way they were (and continue to be) treated by European invaders.  It is absolutely imperative that we remain mindful of such a history and make sure our children aren't fooled by the whopping load of bullshit they're taught in school about the "cooperation" and "togetherness" between Natives and Europeans.  And mindfulness can and should occasionally come with staunch, honest humor.  Like so...








Yes, the history of our nation has a gruesome history.  But is such a history truly the root of Thanksgiving?

Not exactly.  In fact, Thanksgiving Day as we know it was more or less the brainchild of Sarah Josepha Hale, long-time editor of Ladies Magazine, who was instrumental in petitioning the federal government to make it a national holiday.  And despite school pageants that suggest otherwise, the day was not established as a national holiday to commemorate a supposed cooperative effort between First Persons and Europeans.  In fact, Hale's convictions rested on a far more ubiquitous concept.  After the Civil War left the nation fragmented, Hale saw Thanksgiving as an opportunity for unity:

Let us consecrate the day to benevolence of action, by sending good gifts to the poor, and doing those deeds of charity that will, for one day, make every American home the place of plenty and of rejoicing. These seasons of refreshing are of inestimable advantage to the popular heart; and if rightly managed, will greatly aid and strengthen public harmony of feeling. Let the people of all the States and Territories sit down together to the "feast of fat things," and drink, in the sweet draught of joy and gratitude to the Divine giver of all our blessings, the pledge of renewed love to the Union, and to each other; and of peace and good-will to all men.

Now obviously we do not commemorate Thanksgiving in this way.  We continue with our story of the supposed "First Thanksgiving" where "pilgrims" and "Indians" joined together to help one another survive the winter.  This clear distortion of history should, indeed, be taken to task.

But why does it mean we can't celebrate Hale's vision of peace, good-will, collectivism, and good company?  How does slicing up a turkey and gorging oneself on stuffing and mashed potatoes equal honoring genocide?  Most importantly, why is it important to only feel guilty about our ancestors' actions against the Native population on Thanksgiving Day?

I think you can be mindful of a gruesome history while still enjoying some of the (benign) traditions it produced, especially since the entire myth of Thanksgiving is bullshit anyway... what about a day in November where we just get together and eat some good food?  Why is that so bad, if we remain mindful of this country's history?

For those of you that are about to jump down my throat for the above statement: if you don't think you can enjoy a tradition or take advantage of a practice that has a gruesome history, you had better be ready to renounce a lot of things you take for granted.  Modern medicine comes to mind.  Much our knowledge of the human body, its limits, and safe treatment options came from Nazi Germany, Tuskegee, and, in the case of women's health, Marion Sims.  What about the Pill? That drug specifically came from dangerous experiments on Puerto Rican women.  Are you really ready to renounce all that?


I didn't think so.  

Something I've learned is that, while we work tirelessly to change the future, you can't change the past.  Being mindful, honoring those lost to unethical and/or genocidal practices, and working for a better future is one thing.  Trying to denounce and "opt out" of everything with a gruesome history is, for the most part, completely impossible.  I mean, you live in America, where every day this history is celebrated on some level, Thanksgiving or not.  Your clothes were made in Vietnam, the products that fill your home were made in China, and your food is probably not 100% ethically produced.  


I'm not going to apologize for enjoying my turkey, stuffing, gravy, cornbread dressing, and all that good stuff, especially since those foods have little to nothing to do with the horrific actions taken against the Native Americans.  Let's make Thanksgiving something rad... let's celebrate collectivism without all the baggage of historical myths, distortions, and what is in essence White Liberal Guilt.  If we do it on the fourth Thursday in November, so what?  It's not a bad thing to get together to eat, drink, and be merry.

Prematurity Awareness and Labor Induction

I learned from RH Reality Check that yesterday was Prematurity Awareness Day.  According to March of Dimes president Jennifer Howse, the United States has one of the highest rates of premature birth in the industrialized world, receiving a letter grade of "D" from the MoD.   The March of Dimes cites lack of access to early prenatal care and education as a main reason for the discrepancy. 

While I appreciate blogger Robin Marty for calling attention to this major problem in the United States, I must say I was shocked to find no mention of a common medical practice that contributes to premature birth: labor induction without medical indication. 

Others would call this "elective induction," but I've seen enough to know that it's usually the doctor, not the mother, that pushes for the induction, and therefore I find the term "elective" puts undue blame on the mother.  After all, we're supposed to trust our care providers.  When a doctor tells you that you "need" to be induced, we're not supposed to have to ask why.  We figure the term "need" means there's a problem.  But when it comes to induction of labor, a doctor telling you it's "needed" without providing an explanation usually means it's not needed at all.  (I always encourage my clients to ask lots of questions, even if they have a care provider that lays everything out for them.  If there's a problem, they'll usually tell you, but if they're pushing for an induction without saying why, you should know beforehand what the problem is, if any.)

Estimated due dates are just that: estimates.  In most cases, your body is the best indicator of when a baby is ready to be born, and the onset of labor is your cue.  Unless there is another complication (pre-eclampsia, placental insufficiency, gestational diabetes, etc), most babies will come when they're supposed to come.  As my dad says, "Babies are always right on time."  Inducing labor for the convenience of the doctor, the parents, or even the doula might seem okay or even preferable, but you could be cutting off valuable gestation time where the baby will be getting her/his final developmental markers.

In other words, babies born from induction can be (and sometimes are) classified as premature even if they're born at or slightly after the 38 week mark.  Again, your estimated due date is just an estimate, and different babies take different amounts of time to be "ready."  Studies show babies born at 38 weeks from a spontaneous labor have much better outcomes than babies born at 38 weeks from induction.  Babies born from induction are more likely to have jaundice, respiratory distress, lower APGAR scores, difficulty establishing a sleep cycle, increased risk for sepsis, and of course, difficulty breastfeeding.  Many induction babies need transfer to the NICU.  Being induced puts the mother at risk for cesarean, difficulty establishing a milk supply, and retained placenta (with or without cesarean surgery). 

Of course, there are good medical reasons to induce, and you should trust your care provider to help you make that call.  If there is an emergency and the baby needs to be born, good medical care and support from trained professionals can help curb these problems, but if induction is not necessary, why take the risk?  As far as the prematurity issue goes, well, you simply cannot address premature birth without addressing the medical practices that cause more babies to come too soon, and that practice is routine induction without medical indication.

Taking CPC Awareness to the Streets

The following was first published as a ChoiceActivism submission at ChoiceUSA's ChoiceWords blog.
------------

Anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers continue to pose an affront to informed choice in our country. Outnumbering real abortion clinics 2-1 nationwide, CPCs often advertise themselves as abortion providers or places where women can obtain unbiased information about their reproductive options. They are known for misleading women with bunk statistics about a purported link between abortion and breast cancer/infertility/depression and for effectively delaying a woman's decision past the point where she would be able to choose a medical, non-invasive abortion procedure. While disclosure requirement efforts by activists in Baltimore, MD, Austin, TX, and New York, NY would help to stave off confusion, a group of grassroots activists in Greensboro, NC are taking public awareness into their own hands.

Organized by simple word-of-mouth, monthly demonstrations take place in front of the Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center, an affiliate of CareNet. They hold signs reading, "FAKE CLINIC," "Honk 4 Choice," and others in order to educate passing cars about the Pregnancy Care Center. They do not engage with people going in and out of the center. The participants are students, workers, and retirees. What brings them together each month is their continued concern over the information given out by the CPC.

During an appointment, a staff member at the center told a UNCG student that abortion is linked to higher instances of breast cancer, a claim that has been continually repudiated by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and others. When I personally called the center to inquire about emergency contraception (they call it simply the "morning after pill"), the woman on the phone told me I would have to make an appointment, and that the next available appointment was in three days. Had I really needed emergency contraception, this would have put me past the point where the drug would have been effective, possibly leading to an unintended pregnancy and possibly an abortion. What's more, the woman on the phone never told me the center did not carry the medication.

It's not just personal experiences that led to concern over this particular CPC's operation. While they recently added a disclaimer that they do not provide or refer for abortions, their website continues to claim that they offer "accurate information about all pregnancy options." Or do they? Under "Abortion Education," they claim that medical abortion ("abortion by pill") can only be used up to seven weeks since the last menstrual period (LMP), when in fact it is effective and prescribed up to nine weeks LMP. Another page ("Morning After Pill") claims that emergency contraception can cause "an early abortion," which is not only a medically inaccurate claim, but could dissuade a woman who is morally opposed to abortion from taking steps that could prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Until these centers are held accountable for the misinformation they provide, policy-based activism and grassroots activism alike will continue. The concerned citizens of Greensboro, NC are no exception. From a press statement:

We hope to alert women to seek help for their pregnancies or suspected pregnancies at proper clinics and OB-GYN offices. As advocates of the pro-choice movement we believe that every woman deserves the right to be informed about every option (abortion, motherhood, adoption) truthfully and without coercion or intimidation.

The Election Night Trap

Every election cycle, I get hyped up.  I can't describe it... it's like a trap.  I want Democrats to win.  Like, really want Democrats to win.  Why?  I'm not a Democrat, I don't generally support the Democrats, and I don't really think simply having Democrats in office will lead to monumental change.

Yet every Election Night, I'm here, refreshing CNN or whatever, looking for more results.  I get down to find that a Republican has taken this district, get excited to see that a Democrat took that district, and what's funny is these aren't even places I live!

Maybe I get caught up in all the excitement.  Maybe I just like living in a Blue area, because having a fun color-coded map that tells me where people fall on a very limited political spectrum is reassuring; it's good to be able to easily see that my neighbors are at least partially on my side.  Maybe I just love to see conservatives get angry. 

Maybe, though, I think it matters more than I'd like to think it does.  I mean honestly.  This morning, I voted.  I voted for lots of Democrats: Elaine Marshall (defeated), Don Vaughn (winner), Maggie Jeffus (projected to win), and whoever ran against BJ Barnes (dammit).  I justify it clearly enough with issues that matter to me: especially as a woman of reproductive age, living in a state represented by a Senator who thinks zygotes should get more rights than women, well, is it any wonder I suck it up and vote every two years?  I mean it's not like I'm kidding myself.  Sure it's "lesser-evilism," but a lesser-evil is better than a pure evil. 

Then the reality check sets in.  I have to come back from it all and say to myself, "Self, there are things about tonight's results that will change my country, my state, my neighborhood, my friends, and my life.  But are these results going to drastically change what I do on a day to day basis?  I mean, is any elected official going to make it effectively unnecessary for me to continue to fight for social justice on multiple levels?"

And of course the answer is no.  Then, only after this repetitive inner-dialogue, I can climb out of the Election Night trap, get a good night's sleep, and wake up ready to continue doing what I do all over again tomorrow.

Productive Disagreement

As both a person of activism, a non-moderate, and still a fan of The Daily Show, much of the discourse surrounding the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear troubled me.  I'm speaking both about the discourse on the part of Stewart/Colbert as well as the part of those that I see very much as brothers and sisters in the same struggles I am involved in. 

In many ways, I believe Stewart's endeavors can and possibly did hurt the public's opinion of those of us who take to the streets and don't apologize for it, and that is something that he and the entire Daily Show staff should be held accountable for.

That being said, I really like Stewart's closing statement.  

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
Jon Stewart - Moment of Sincerity
www.comedycentral.com
Rally to Restore Sainty and/or Fear The Daily Show The Colbert Report

[Full Text Here]

I agree, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing." And in most cases, in the case of people we disagree with but who aren't the extremists who are in short supply but get 90% of media air time, we do need to listen. That's something I've learned in the past couple of years, that we do need to listen. And we need to gather all our strength to add our rebuttals, but we need to do so without screaming and getting unduly inflammatory (yeah I'm still working on that). 

I believe there is a time and place for screaming, but he's right: screaming isn't the right course of action when dealing with people who could actually become partners in a struggle, and it's certainly not the right course of action when dealing with someone whose opinions are so close to yours they're nearly indistinguishable, but you get hung up on insignificant boundaries that end up dividing you. I'm not sure if that's exactly what he was saying here, but if it is, I wholeheartedly agree.

I will say, though, that I'm not 100% on board with the lot.  Again, I'm a person of activism and a non-moderate.  I'm not a fan, for example, of the "why would we reach across the aisle to Marxists" comment. That was the one thing that rubbed me the wrong way. But again, he's speaking about Marxism as we see it, Marxism through the lens of a misrepresentation machine, ironically enough the same one that Stewart is holding accountable here.  To not have realized that is a gross oversight on his part, and a damaging one at that.

Regardless, the closing statement is important.  It isn't all gold, but a lot of it is good to hear, to listen to, and then either take to heart or discard after giving it a fighting chance.  Your choice.  The important thing is that you heard it and you gave it some thought and were willing to listen, and by listening you either changed your way of thinking or carefully and reflectively reinforced what you already knew.  Especially when it comes from a left-leaning moderate, surely there is something those of us on the Left can agree with.  I know there's lots in this statement, tons about the rally, that many of my dear friends on the Left found disheartening or even infuriating.  But if you can't still have a listen, really hear what it is he or anyone else you disagree with is saying, and see through the handful of things you don't like while possibly gaining something positive still, then we are truly lost for good.