Rage Diverted
May. 18th, 2006 12:22 pmI 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.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 04:35 pm (UTC)Pun alert
Date: 2006-05-18 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 05:13 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 07:05 pm (UTC)I'm sure i'll be posting about this today or tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up.