Rage Diverted

[swan_tower]

I was literally in the middle of writing a long and ranty entry about this article in the Washington Post, when I got a heads-up from Ellameena to read this entry of hers. I don't have the motivation to wade through the actual CDC document at the moment, but the short form is, the spin the WP writer put on the situation may well be a misinterpretation of the CDC recommendation.

Which I rather hope for, since I'd prefer to live in a world where the CDC isn't actually recommending that all women of childbearing age be treated as "pre-pregnant."

But I thought all of you currently chewing on your desks in fury might appreciate the (hopefully accurate) perspective.

Comments

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I've passed on that link to one other LJer so far, and have friended Ellameena.

Pun alert

[dr_whom]

Don't tell me I'm the only one who thinks it's hilarious that we're talking about misinterpretation and spin in a secondary report of CDC guidelines on... wait for it... "preconception care".

[anghara.livejournal.com]

I DID go to the CDC website. ANd it made me, if anything, angrier.

There's so much sanctimonious claptrap there.

And they DO advocate treateing women as pre-pregnant. Perhaps the WP writer put a stronter spin on it, but the germ of that idea is right there.

And I'm STILL mad.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Misinterpretation?

[gollumgollum.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that. Need to install acrobat to read the file, but it confirms what i was suspecting--the CDC has made a good public health decision but it got worded/interpreted rather poorly.

I'm sure i'll be posting about this today or tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up.