In honor of lots of people going back to school (which I realized happened a few weeks ago), and in honor of continuing DW's love affair with Sarah Haskins, I thought you all might enjoy this:
Sarah Haskins never fails to disappoint. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to try to get some more "blingitude" so people will "rockstare" at me.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Victim of domestic violence? Under SD law, that's a pre-existing condition.
If there weren't already so many stories out there about people being denied or losing health insurance because of such serious pre-existing conditions like acne, having had C-sections, and -- GASP -- hay fever, the idea that people could be denied health insurance because of domestic violence would be completely unbelievable.
In reality, denying coverage because someone has been abused is allowed right here in South Dakota.
This is heartbreaking. Women and men who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse struggle enough with breaking the cycle of that violence -- alas, insurance companies know that it can take time to get out of those situations, and time is money, right?
I was disappointed to see Pat Powers claim that being denied insurance is no big deal, that people can still get treated. Apparently someone hasn't been doing all their homework, as it's often impossible to get on transplant lists if you're uninsured. Need spendy cancer treatment? Good luck getting that. Unless you're somewhere close to Steve Kirby Rich, you're simply not going to get treated. That's part of why 60 percent of bankruptcies in the U.S. are because of medical bills. People lose their homes, their farms, their businesses because they can't get or they lose coverage. I'd call that a big deal.
Obviously, getting and keeping health insurance is important. It's not just about telling people to "work harder." We're talking about people who can afford insurance and are denied it, or people who have been paying premiums for years and lose coverage the moment they get sick. President Obama's health care plan includes removing discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, including -- and I can't believe I have to freakin' say this -- domestic violence. If you haven't already, let Johnson, Herseth Sandlin, and Thune know how important it is to pass health care reform, including the removal of pre-existing abuses.
In reality, denying coverage because someone has been abused is allowed right here in South Dakota.
This is heartbreaking. Women and men who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse struggle enough with breaking the cycle of that violence -- alas, insurance companies know that it can take time to get out of those situations, and time is money, right?
I was disappointed to see Pat Powers claim that being denied insurance is no big deal, that people can still get treated. Apparently someone hasn't been doing all their homework, as it's often impossible to get on transplant lists if you're uninsured. Need spendy cancer treatment? Good luck getting that. Unless you're somewhere close to Steve Kirby Rich, you're simply not going to get treated. That's part of why 60 percent of bankruptcies in the U.S. are because of medical bills. People lose their homes, their farms, their businesses because they can't get or they lose coverage. I'd call that a big deal.
Obviously, getting and keeping health insurance is important. It's not just about telling people to "work harder." We're talking about people who can afford insurance and are denied it, or people who have been paying premiums for years and lose coverage the moment they get sick. President Obama's health care plan includes removing discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, including -- and I can't believe I have to freakin' say this -- domestic violence. If you haven't already, let Johnson, Herseth Sandlin, and Thune know how important it is to pass health care reform, including the removal of pre-existing abuses.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Adoption not always the rosiest of reproduction options
I'm not sure I've ever mentioned this here on DW, but I'm an adoptee: I was adopted as a 1-month-old infant, 24 years ago. As a pro-choice adoptee, I often cringe when people automatically point to adoption as the be-all, end-all "solution" to pregnancy for unmarried women, simply because a would-be adoptive couple theoretically has more money and support than a single woman (as if, you know, rich people automatically raise their kids better than poor people do). While I know adoption might be the best option for some women, there's a lot of evidence that not everyone's experience with it is quite so rosy.
This is why I was so glad to see The Nation recently publish an article called Shotgun Adoption, which outlines the problems pregnant women often encounter at crisis pregnancy centers like the Alpha Center and Bethany Christian Services (both in Sioux Falls). The article points to the stories of several women who were celebrated by Bethany for opting against abortion, but who were then coerced into relinquishing their babies. One woman in South Carolina, speaking under the pseudonym Carolyn Jordan, was hesitant to agree to adoption. At one point, her counselor at Bethany promised an open adoption, which would allow her to maintain contact with her child. The day she gave birth, she was told that completely open adoptions aren't legal in the state, and that she would be given no information about the couple adopting her baby. When she said she was reconsidering giving up her baby, the Bethany counselor brought in the would-be adoptive parents to plead with her. If that isn't a hard-sell, coercive tactic, I honestly don't know what is.
I think the author hit the nail on the head when explaining why coercion happens, especially to young white pregnant women:
The change in demand and focus of CPCs means there's likely to be a pretty prevailing attitude that "the ends justify the means," meaning they'll say anything to a pregnant woman to not only convince her to rule out abortion, but also to surrender her baby for adoption. If the focus had remained exclusively on finding homes for babies, instead of finding babies for homes, CPCs would likely see no need to coerce women into making a choice they're not happy with.
It's difficult to talk about the subject without pointing out that sadly, the huge demand among adoptive parents is overwhelmingly for white infants. Babies of color are often available for adoption, as are older children of all races, but many couples are willing to wait up to 10 years for a white infant to adopt.
Obviously, I'm not saying adoption is inherently a bad choice for women with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Adoption, like any reproductive choice, is great when it's not the result of coercion. I've never met my biological mother and don't plan to in the near future, but I'd like to hope she chose adoption, and wasn't forced into it by the Catholic adoption agency that facilitated the process. Sadly, the fact that it happened in 1985 has led me to think for a while now that it may not have been the squeaky-clean process I grew up believing it was.
This is why I was so glad to see The Nation recently publish an article called Shotgun Adoption, which outlines the problems pregnant women often encounter at crisis pregnancy centers like the Alpha Center and Bethany Christian Services (both in Sioux Falls). The article points to the stories of several women who were celebrated by Bethany for opting against abortion, but who were then coerced into relinquishing their babies. One woman in South Carolina, speaking under the pseudonym Carolyn Jordan, was hesitant to agree to adoption. At one point, her counselor at Bethany promised an open adoption, which would allow her to maintain contact with her child. The day she gave birth, she was told that completely open adoptions aren't legal in the state, and that she would be given no information about the couple adopting her baby. When she said she was reconsidering giving up her baby, the Bethany counselor brought in the would-be adoptive parents to plead with her. If that isn't a hard-sell, coercive tactic, I honestly don't know what is.
I think the author hit the nail on the head when explaining why coercion happens, especially to young white pregnant women:
The cultural shift that had followed World War II switched the emphasis of adoption from finding homes for needy infants to finding children for childless couples. Karen Wilson-Buterbaugh, founder of the Baby Scoop Era Research Initiative, has compiled sociological studies from the era, including Clark Vincent's speculation in his 1961 book Unmarried Mothers that "if the demand for adoptable babies continues to exceed the supply...it is quite possible that, in the near future, unwed mothers will be 'punished' by having their children taken from them right after birth"--under the guise of protecting the "best interests of the child."
The Baby Scoop Era ended with Roe v. Wade, as abortion was legalized and single motherhood gained acceptance. The resultant fall in adoption rates was drastic, from 19.2 percent of white, unmarried pregnant women in 1972 to 1.7 percent in 1995 (and lower among women of color). Coinciding with this decline was the rise of the religious right and the founding of crisis pregnancy centers.
The change in demand and focus of CPCs means there's likely to be a pretty prevailing attitude that "the ends justify the means," meaning they'll say anything to a pregnant woman to not only convince her to rule out abortion, but also to surrender her baby for adoption. If the focus had remained exclusively on finding homes for babies, instead of finding babies for homes, CPCs would likely see no need to coerce women into making a choice they're not happy with.
It's difficult to talk about the subject without pointing out that sadly, the huge demand among adoptive parents is overwhelmingly for white infants. Babies of color are often available for adoption, as are older children of all races, but many couples are willing to wait up to 10 years for a white infant to adopt.
Obviously, I'm not saying adoption is inherently a bad choice for women with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Adoption, like any reproductive choice, is great when it's not the result of coercion. I've never met my biological mother and don't plan to in the near future, but I'd like to hope she chose adoption, and wasn't forced into it by the Catholic adoption agency that facilitated the process. Sadly, the fact that it happened in 1985 has led me to think for a while now that it may not have been the squeaky-clean process I grew up believing it was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
