Rage Diverted

Disabled

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.

0 Responses to “Rage Diverted”

  1. dsgood

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

  2. dr_whom

    Pun alert

    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”.

  3. anghara

    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.

  4. novalis

    Misinterpretation?

  5. gollumgollum

    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.

Comments are closed.