Proposed Pregnancy Parking Placards Pooh-poohed

[KamaAina]

the actual headline!

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/drn/pregparking0204.html

CA Assemblyman Tony Strickland was just trying to "make life easier for everybody". Instead, he has put himself at the center of a battle over accessible parking.

Two weeks ago, the Republican lawmaker introduced a bill in the state Legislature that would allow pregnant women to park in spaces designated for people with disabilities.

Gee, I would never, ever in a million years have guessed this would be coming from a Repuke! </sarcasm> I'm surprised he didn't try to get a separate space reserved for the fetus!

Disability rights groups are worried that the new permits would make people with disabilities compete against 500,000 pregnant Californians each year for parking that is already limited....

Women's groups, on the other hand, are worried that the move would send the subtle message that being pregnant is a form of disability.

Well, that makes me feel a little better about John Edwards patting that woman on the head the other day. At least we know that Repukes are still the champs, uh, chumps, uh, chimps when it comes to boorish, bull-headed insensitivity! Top Ten nomination, anyone?

[SaddenedDem]

1. Not to mention

That the LAST thing a pregnant woman needs is LESS EXERCISE!

[hlthe2b]

3. Exactly... Diabetes in Pregnancy rates are up 35%

according to a recent study by Kaiser. (See today's Denver Post), another reflection of the obesity crisis in this country.

I know pregnancy is a challenge and uncomfortable, but this is not the way to help (with a few exceptions)...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. letting pregnant women park closer to the door is somehow bad?

I'm sorry I just don't get it. Because you want them to get more exercise? You must be kidding.

[SaddenedDem]

19. Yes, it's equivalent to giving a cardiac patient a handicapped space

Cardio vascular exercise is HEALTHY. Sedentary lifestyles are BAD.

I note these very same pregnant women have no trouble walking around the shopping center or mall. It is reportedly bad to be walking because it's OUTDOORS?

[outinforce]

24. Perhaps Where You Live --

there is never any issue with ice or rain or anything else that the outdoors are prone to have.

But in my neck of the woods, there is, frequently - and expecially this time of the year, ice or snow on parking lot surfaces. And then there are automobiles that can be hazards. And sometimes rain.

I know that some people consider me to be a misogynist pig, but I do see the difference between a pregnant woman walking within the confines of a well-lit, well-heated store with dry, even and car-free surfaces for floors, and a pregnant woman making her way across an icy, wet parking lot surface, dodging moving autombiles as she does so.

I would rather provide parking spaces to pregnant women -- just call me an old-fashioned pig.

[starroute]

104. Having a toddler is more of a hassle than being pregnant

When they've one, you have to carry them to and from the car. When they're two, they're even more more of a hassle, because they're walking on their own but don't have the sense not to run out into traffic. Having a three or four year old plus a new baby can be worse yet.

Compared to that, just being pregnant is a breeze.

[camero]

31. The diabetes argument is bunk

I could post about 30 or 40 links within the hour that show some environmental causes of diabetes. Save the diabetes argument until you got real evidence and not well worn cliches.

Edit: and look who did the study. Kaiser Permenente. Might they have a financial incentive to coming to that conclusion?

[hlthe2b]

45. Ahhmmmm. Type II diabetes is DEFINITELY linked to obesity....

I'm afraid you are thinking TYPE I which is insulin dependant.

Camero, I did not attack you. Please do not attack me. I do have facts. I work in the field, thank you very much.

[camero]

46. LINK, not cause

Put up some links when you have a thesis please.You also have an interest in making money then, eh?

[hlthe2b]

51. I certainly do not have any money making interest

Why on earth can't you discuss without attacking? You need to read peer-reviewed medical literature rather than simply "google." The National Library of Medicine can be accessed by anyone using medline as a search engine. As we all know internet searches can bring up both useful and highly questionable information.

Here is but one good article:

Authors
Dye TD. Knox KL. Artal R. Aubry RH. Wojtowycz MA.
Institution
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of New York, Health Science Center at Syracuse, USA.
Title
Physical activity, obesity, and diabetes in pregnancy.
Source
American Journal of Epidemiology. 146(11)961-5, 1997 Dec 1.
Abstract
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is the most common medical complication of pregnancy. Women with GDM are at elevated for numerous maternal health complications, and their infants are at elevated risk for death and morbidity. Management of GDM has traditionally been through diet and close monitoring of glucose levels, with initiation of insulin therapy when diet alone fails to maintain euglycemia. Recently, however, it has been suggested that alternative treatment modalities, such as exercise, may overcome a peripheral resistance to insulin, thus preventing GDM or controlling hyperglycemia in women with GDM. In this study, conducted from October 1995 to July 1996, the authors used a population-based birth registry to determine whether exercise has a preventive role in the development of GDM in women living in central New York State. They used contingency tables and chi-square statistics to examine bivariate differences among maternal and demographic variables and the occurrence of GDM. When stratified by prepregnancy body mass index category, exercise was associated with reduced rates of GDM only among women with a body mass index greater than 33 (odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.2-3.1). The effect of exercise in obese women was further complicated by insurance status. When the data were stratified by insurance status, it appeared that women of higher socioeconomic status who were obese and did not exercise were at a significantly elevated risk of GDM compared with their counterparts of lower socioeconomic status. The results of this study suggest that for some women exercise may play a role in reducing the risk that they will develop GDM during pregnancy.

[camero]

54. Key word "may". Results, "inconclusive"

http://www.healthrecipes.com/food_additives.htm

Dyes, bleaches, antioxidants, preservatives, chemical flavors, buffers, noxious sprays, alkalizers, acidifiers, deodorants, moisteners, drying agents, expanders, modifiers, emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners, clarifiers, disinfectants, defoliants, fungicides, neutralizers, anticaking and antifoaming agents, hydrolyzers, hydrogenators, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic hormones, antibiotics, steroids and four thousand other drugs that just make your mouth water with anticipation.

They find their way into the human food chain and become the raw materials for every cell of your body. They disrupt the natural chemistry resulting in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, allergies, diverticulitis, emphysema, stomach ulcers, premature aging, impotence, hypoglycemia and arthritis. These countless diseases exist because chemically-synthesized substances disrupt the bio-chemistry of hundreds of billions of microscopic living cells which make up the body.

http://www.foresight-preconception.org.uk/summaries/frames/foodadd-nf.html


A food additive is any substance not commonly regarded or used as food, which is added to, or used in or on, food at any stage to affect its keeping quality, texture, consistency, taste, colour, alkalinity or acidity, or to serve any other technological function in relation to food, and includes processing aids in so far as they are added to or used in or on food (1,2). Food additives in use today can be divided roughly into three main types: cosmetics, preservatives and processing aids, totaling presently about 3,794 different additives, of which over 3,640 are used purely as cosmetics, 63 as preservatives and 91 as processing aids (3). The growth in the use of food additives has increased enormously in the past 30 years, totaling now over 200,000 tonnes per year (4,5). Therefore it has been estimated that as today about 75% of the Western diet is made up of various processed foods, each person is now consuming an average 8-10 lbs of food additives per year, with some possibly eating considerably more (57). With the great increase in the use of food additives, there also has emerged considerable scientific data linking food additive intolerance with various physical and mental disorders, particularly with childhood hyperactivity (8-31).


The use of food additives has increased enormously in the last few decades. As the result, it has been estimated that today about 75% of the Western diet is made up of various processed foods, each person consuming an average 8-10 lbs of food additives per year, with some possibly eating even more. The following 16 adverse effects have been attributed to the consumption of food additives: eczema, urticaria, angioedema, exfoliative dermatitis, irritable bowel syndrome, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, rhinitis, bronchospasm, migraine, anaphylaxis, hyperactivity and other behavioural disorders (31).

There is also now clear evidence that the health of the nation in the U.K. has detoriated considerably during the last few decades. This was found by Dr Michael Wandworth, when he compared the health records of over 5000 people born in 1946 to their first-born children a generation later. The survey found among the new generation a substantial increase in hospital admissions of children up to the age of four, a tripling of instances of asthma, a six-fold increase in both eczema and juvenile diabetes, as well a double increase in obesity (222).

The main excuse of the food manufacturers and the government officials for the importance of the use of preservatives is that without them foods would soon spoil. This argument is indeed quite realistic. However, it is interesting to note that of the nearly 4000 different additives currently in use, over 3,640 are used purely for cosmetic reasons and as colouring agents, the preservatives accounting for less than 2% of all additives when counted by number or by weight (225).



Seems we are mixing cause and effect. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[camero]

69. Umm. and when someone says they work in the field

They usually make money off of it. Just pointing that out. Thanks.

:toast:

[hlthe2b]

73. I am a salaried employee

who works in public health medical research. I prefer not to say more on a public board, but my life's work and those of my colleagues has been dedicated to improving and promoting health for the public. We have no financial relationship with any commercial companies, nor could we, even if we wanted.

[camero]

75. As I'm sure

And listening to the boss and keeping the job also come in handy. :)

[hlthe2b]

77. it doesn't work that way....

Highly trained professionals working in public health are not so susceptible to subterfuge and manipulation as you obviously think...

[camero]

79. Ah, yes, the experts

Who are no strangers to twisting data to come up with the desired affect, eh?

[camero]

50. You did attack me

By making a sweeping generalization of all diabetics with no supporting evidence. I consider that an attack. Thank you.

BTW: What you won't say. That all type II diabetics progress to type I at some point. Care to explain? With evidence. And not one done by a pharmacuetical. I never trust those studies.

[hlthe2b]

52. I spoke ONLY to gestational diabetes... Certainly not to all diabetes

How could my discussion of gestational diabetes be an attack on you, when 1. I had no way of knowing you were a diabetic and 2. the fact I am tallking about the etiology of a specific subtype of diabetes-- that of gestational diabetes. I'm saddened that your condition has made you so wary of even scientific discussion, such that you find insults or attacks when none are made. I truly wish you well, but hope that you won't be so upset by discussion of a condition for which you obviously have a specific and personal interest.


While it is true that both Type I and II (non-insulin dependant) diabetes are multifactorial in their causes, which includes genetic predisposition, it has been decisively shown that obesity and lack of exercise are major determinants in the explosion of type II diabetes in this country. It is also true that type II diabetes that is uncontrolled for years can progress to an insulin dependent form.

[camero]

56. And your argument has degenerated to the obvious

We don't know what actually causes these diseases. So, let's just deflect blame onto the "little people" through "personal responsibility" and then we can therefore decrease regulations on industry and continue polluting the environment.And mess with the gene pool. We only need to show quantifiable links to illness and they will fall for it.

[hlthe2b]

59. I hear in your post...

lots of anger and what appears extreme sensitivity to the message on the preventable causes of type II diabetes. As one who struggles with my own weight and poor patterns of exercise which has led to a health problem of my own, perhaps I can understand more than you think.

But, it is not my intention to upset you nor to "blame you." That you have been made to feel that way is a real tragedy IMO and I'm very sorry that has happened. If the public health community can not do a better job educating the public on health problems, including what they themselves can do to prevent or reduce the seriousness-- in a manner that does not lay blame-- then the public will not be served. The key is to empower people on ways to improve and protect their own health-- certainly not to place blame or judgements on them.

I'll end this and any further posts on this subject with a toast to your health now and in the future. :toast:

[camero]

61. one more, just for good measure

http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/environment021024.htm

Seventeen million Americans have diabetes, and the incidence of new cases has increased 32 percent since 1990, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In the past, researchers have considered everything from zinc and arsenic in drinking water to viruses and cows' milk. But dioxin exposure may be the most significant environmental risk factor related to adult-onset, or Type II, diabetes.

Dioxin is a chemical byproduct of industrial processes that use chlorine, from plastic manufacturing and paper bleaching to waste incineration. It accumulates in fatty tissue and causes a variety of health problems, even at very low levels of exposure. Dioxin is known as an endocrine disrupter, and diabetes is a disease of the endocrine system.

The most intensive studies of diabetes and dioxin focus on Operation Ranch Hand, a group of 1,000 Air Force veterans who sprayed the dioxin-laced herbicide Agent Orange during Vietnam. When scientists compared a group of Ranch Hand veterans to a control group, they found the Ranch Hand veterans with the highest exposures were 50 percent more likely to develop adult-onset diabetes.

Oh, BTW, I've always been quite thin and active. Thank you.

[hlthe2b]

64. From your own article:

Seventeen million Americans have diabetes, and the incidence of new cases has increased 32 percent since 1990, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

People are being diagnosed at younger and younger ages, and experts are still searching for the cause, but most say it is related to high-fat diets and a lack of exercise.

"It's really mirroring the increasing trend of obesity," said Dr. Francine Kaufman, president of the American Diabetes Association. Many scientists believe diets heavy in highly refined carbohydrates and environmental factors also play a significant role.

While my previous posts discussed the multi-factorial etiology of diabetes, the fact remains that obesity, lack of exercise and diet have been confirmed to be the leading risk factors for type II diabetes. The role of yet to be determined environmental exposures and genetics would make up the remaining risk. That's what multi-factorial etiology means. But, that does not negate the importance of acting to reduce those causes that we do know about....

I don't see the argument here. But, again, I am saddened that you have been made to feel so defensive about diabetes. it is a disease, after all, and one that it only increasing in importance.

[camero]

65. You come back to link

Links, links, links, and more links. Hehe, which points right back to post #54. You have not and nobody has found a direct cause and affect of diabetes.
Only anecdotal evidence. I know BS when I see it and your argument is pure BS.

From same article:


The Institute of Medicine report prompted the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to offer special compensation payments to veterans who believe they developed diabetes because they were exposed to Agent Orange. The department estimates that 9 percent of the nation's Vietnam veterans (about 200,000 people) qualify for the payments because they have diabetes. But Weidman, director of government relations for the Washington, D.C.–based Vietnam Veterans of America, wonders if the diabetic veterans who qualify will actually get the help they need. "The VA has done practically no outreach on this," he said. (Hmmm...Wonder why?)

In a related study of dioxin and diabetes, Matthew Longnecker of the National Institutes of Health showed a connection between dioxin exposure and diabetes in Vietnam veterans who did not work directly with Agent Orange. "He found those with higher background levels of dioxin contamination had a greater risk for diabetes," said Dr. Arnold Schecter, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health.

[hlthe2b]

70. I use terms like "link and correlation and risk factors," because these

are epidemiologic terms. They are not ANECDOTAL studies, but rather well defined population-based studies with comparison "controls" that do not have diabetes.

BTW, I am no fan of the VA, and I can understand your or any one else's reluctance to trust them. I encourage you to read more of the medical literature. We have no argument between us, that there may be environmental causes in addition to genetic, dietary and the known behavioral factors (including obesity). The dioxin study you reference is also an epidemiological study and its evidence for causation is based on statistical correlation (i.e., establishing a statistical "link" between exposure and outcome). That is the nature of epidemiological studies and if combined with consistency of results between this and other similar studies, a dose-effect (higher doses of exposure increase risk of outcome), scientifically valid methods, biologic plausibility (including animal or in-vitro studies) can generally be concluded to establish causality.

[camero]

74. Link, correlation, and risk factors

are anecdotal terms. Which is the same argument you use for obesity and lifestyle choices. I am not that stupid as you so think I am.

And health care organizations and pharmaceuticals have financial incentives to pass the buck so to speak. Also to create more customers. Mainly to deflect blame from thier own actions which would cost them money.

Nice when you get wind of someone who is bound and determined to find out exactly what is killing him and why isn't it? :)

[hlthe2b]

76. Link, correlation, and risk factors are epidmemiological terms.

Look em up. And, no, I can only applaud you for being interested in your own health. But, I hope you will also spend some time learning about how studies are done and how to interpret (and critique) the medical literature. I'm part of no conspiracy to keep you from the answers you seek, though you seem to want to conclude this.

Well, I've enjoyed our discussions and again, I can only wish you the best. I hope you'll keep reading, though and keep and open mind. There are few areas of medicine for which we have ALL the answers, but that does not negate the importance of what we do know.

[camero]

78. They all point to one thing regardless

A guess. A guess dependent upon the bias of the person doing the summation. Thanks again.

I stand corrected on my use of anecdote. Thanks much.

[kiahzero]

84. I call BS

Anyone who's ever taken Stat 101 knows that correlation is not an "anecdotal" term. There is an equation for R, and it is:

(N*Sigma(XY) - Sigma(X)*Sigma(Y))
/
((N*Sigma(X^2) - Sigma(X)^2) * (N*Sigma(Y^2) - Sigma(Y)^2))

You, sir, have no clue what you're talking about.

On Edit: Fixed the way DU screws with square brackets.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

96. You say "care to join the bully in her disinformation?"

I won't argue with someone who is so disrespectful to others. I have in no way "bullied" you nor tried to spread disinformation. I don't know where your anger originates, but I will not be your focus.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bearfartinthewoods]

88. speaking of the degenerator.......do you have a mirror?

[camero]

89. Do you?

[blondeatlast]

62. Heh. From another who knows....

Thanks.

[shanti]

34. i think diabetes rates are up for ALL people

my sister was just diagnosed (no family history), and i know several other who were just recently diagnosed. this puzzles and worries me. what is going on!?

[camero]

38. Do two googles

Type diabetes+virus or diabetes+arsenic. Thousands of links.

[shanti]

105. thanks for the heads up

i did as you suggested and i'm stunned. what popped out first is the word "autoimmune disorder". that condition right there is also something that has exploded exponentially too, and i can think of several folks with ai disorders (graves disease, lupus, etc). i will pass this on to my ex-RN mother.

[alittlelark]

86. Gotta tell ya, pregnancy sucks, I'm sick of people saying how

'wonderful' and 'inspiring' it is. It reeks - childbirth is even worse. I had two - hated the pregnancies, but the results were awesome!!

What's the prob. w/ a placard during the last 2 months, At least....I mean, you are huge, people are either scarred of you or trying to touch your abdomen in inappropriate ways...EEEWWWW!!!
Give 'em a break!!!1

[outinforce]

4. Several Shopping Malls and Grocery Stores

in the area where I live have spaces -- separate and apart from the handicapped spaces -- designated for pregnant women and mothers of newborns.

There is, as far as I know, no criminal penalty (as their is with regrad to handicapped spaces) in parking in these spaces if you are not pregnant or the mother of a newborn child.

Are you suggesting that the next time I come upon one of these speaces, that I, a 52-year-old man, should just go ahead and park there, and let the pregnant women park in the far reaches of the parking lot?

[KamaAina]

17. Goodness, no

I'm suggesting that more malls and stores should start doing this, rather than taking spaces away from people with disabilities.

If Strickland were really interested in pregnant women, he'd suggest making them mandatory, using your neighborhood stores as an example (if you're in CA that is).

But then again, he IS a Repuke.

[formernaderite]

42. You know I've never seen more than 20% of the handicapped spaces...

...used. I think it's terrific they have them, but no where have I seen them well used. If they let pregnant ladies use them...great, particularly with many older first time moms, I can only imagine there are a myriad of issues with pregnancy that make it difficult to remain mobile, especially in the 8th and 9th month. They could certainly always designate a few spaces as handicapped only.

[rocktivity]

21. I used to live near a Shop Rite supermarket

That had designated spaces for the pregnant and newly parented. But they didn't reduce the number of disabled spaces to make it happen. If this is what they want to do, they ought to increase the number of blue zones.

:headbang:
rocknation

On edit: Shouldn't overweight people be eligible to use the spaces, too? You're only pregnant for nine months--obesity is forever!

[outinforce]

26. This Is Truly Bad News!

"obesity is forever!"

This is truly bad news, rocknation.

I had put on some e xtra weight over the holidays, and I have been hoping to lose a few pounds, so that I could still wear some of my perfectly good clothes (perfectly good, that is, except for the fact that they are now too small).

And now you tell me this!

I'll just give up, then, and resing myself to a life of obesity.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. If you've never been 8 months preggers

and skated your way across a parking lot in February with a sackful of groceries under one arm and a two year old under the other....

Seriously, I am all for making the unmarked lots just next to handicapped lots marked for pregnant mothers. Usurping handicapped spaces.. well.... that's a bit trickier. :^(

Granted in CA it might be less of an issue, but there are times when a pregnant woman does not need to be trudging across 3 lots to get from her car to the store and back.

[KamaAina]

6. Current CA law allows for use of the "blue zone" spaces, if

a doctor determines that their pregnancy limits their mobility to a significant degree. In this case, pregnant women can get a temporary disability parking placard. (from the original article)

I have not been, nor shall I ever be, 8 months preggers, due to a congenital X chromosome deficiency. :-) But why stop at pregnancy? Seems to me that the sackful of groceries and the two-year-old are inconvenience enough. One shopping center in Honolulu has the right idea: free valet parking for people with a disability placard. Maybe some savvy mall operator will start doing this for moms?

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Here in Maine I've seen signs, similar to the

disablity parking signs, but showing a stork with a bundle of joy. *l*

You have those out your way at all? (It seems to me it was Wal*Mart I saw those at.)

[outinforce]

18. Are You Actually Admitting

to shopping at Wal-Mart?

And are you actually suggesting that Wal-Mart might be something other than the personification of evil?

Oh, the horror! The humanity!

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Yes :(

I don't want to. But a family of four living on $25,000/year has only so many resources available to them.

[outinforce]

27. Glad You Said That....

I don't want to go off on a tangent here, but I do sometimes find that those who rail the most against Wal-Mart are people who have the means to shop somewhere else.

They forget that for some people, low-priced products can make the difference between eating and not eating.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Yeh. Still want to leave literature on Fair Trade and

Unionization in the bathrooms though!

Maybe one day I'll try that. *lol*

[kath]

33. Target's prices are as low as Wal-Mart's -- and they're not nearly as evil

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. We have one opening next month!

How's that for Kismet?

We have a Kmart too. Try to buy there, though we know their CEOs are crappy, the guys at the bottom are just trying to get by.

[outinforce]

43. Target Always Seems

just a bit pricy to me. I really can't say much about Wal-Mart's prices, but I would be very surprized to learn that Target's prices are as low as Wal-Mart's.

[SaddenedDem]

15. Excuse me....

I've been 8 months pregnant in midwest winters.....

And, yes, I've skated across parking lots.

There's one reason why pregnant women should park at the FURTHEST reaches of a parking lot - it's called exercise. The other reasons would be a) an easier delivery, b) a healthy mother produces a healthy baby.

[NicoleM]

25. I'm currently

8 months pregnant in a Minnesota winter. And I'm freakin' tired. Early in my pregnancy I was so tired that I would almost pass out. It's not that bad anymore, but if I walked all the way across the parking lot, I would have no energy left to do my shopping. None.

What worked for you may not work for everybody else.

[outinforce]

5. Can I Ask A Question Here?

SInce this appears to involve parking spaces for women, should this discussion be limited to women?

After all, if you've never been pregnant, or never can become pregnant,.... well, you know how the rest of that line goes.

[stopthegop]

9. no...should discussions of affirmative action

be limited to minorities...same concept

[outinforce]

20. You and I Do Not Disagree

I just wanted to ask, because, when it comes to another issue that involves women (and to which I often post), I am often told that my comments are not welcome -- because I am a male, and because I will never ever become pregnant.

I was just interested in people's thoughts on this, as it regards parking spaces for pregnant women.

[stopthegop]

22. ahhh...sorry..

I'm sure you've heard the "you can't know what it's like" line a lot then...the line may be true, but irrelevant...have a good weekend

[KamaAina]

10. It also involves parking spaces for people with disabilities

of which there would no longer be nearly enough, what with 500,000 pregnant Californians a year zipping in there.

Now if they wanted to add additional stalls to accommodate this, that would be another story -- but remember, the guy behind this is a Repuke, so don't hold your breath.

Edit: "Californinas" -- Freudian typo of the year!

[stopthegop]

7. this makes sense..

a late term pregnant woman is somewhat disabled...her balance is different, her muscular/skeletal system is changed..other things...

even if only as simple courtesy it would be a good thing

[Tempest]

8. Maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut but...

I don't see any altruism in Strickland's measure.

What he is trying to do is dilute the disabilities group so that it becomes meaningless.

And then the Repukes will do away with the disability act altogether.

We've already seen this when Bush failed to support ergonomic measures to protect workers.

Strickland is too fucking conservative to do anything to help people, especially women.

[DemBones DemBones]

63. EXACTIMUNDO!!! Strickland wants to dilute the disabilities group,

making it meaningless, because the GOP would like to do away with any "special rights" for the disabled. They'd bury ADA if they could.

[camero]

81. They pretty much already have

In employment cases anyway.

[DemBones DemBones]

102. Too true! Most disabled people would still be working if

employers were actually required to comply with ADA and provide whatever modifications are needed. Yet when I was still on the faculty of a small, and not wealthy college, the college of course had to accommodate all disabled students and make their learning experience as close as possible to that of a non-disabled student, which is fair -- but read on.

We had a legally blind student register for introductory biology one year. . . had to spend a bunch of money on learning materials suitable for helping this student have a close-to-normal biology laboratory experience -- in labs where we used microscopes a good bit, dissected starfish and frogs, etc. I was able to track down a lot of good, though expensive, tools, and things went pretty well for her in class.

But the point of all this is that the student planned to major in elementary education and was told that ADA would ensure that she would be provided a sighted classroom aide when she student taught and when she began teaching. Do you think any of that would have ever played out? I seriously doubted it, though of course I didn't tell her. As it turned out, she fell in love with a blind guy, got married, didn't graduate.

When you get right down to it, classroom aides to help all teachers are a great idea. The government could put a lot of people to work as aides and children would get a better education, with more individual assistance and better discipline in classrooms. But I doubt even the disabled can get them, doubt I could get one if I applied to teach public high school again, never saw a disabled teacher in the systems where I taught. Too bad.

[Bridget Burke]

13. Some grocery stores in Houston have "pregnancy" spots

They were added next to the handicapped ones. These are businesses that made a choice--on their own property.

I don't see making it official that all pregnant women are disabled--especially if it means taking spaces away from those who already need them. In cases of problem pregnancy--or even the last month or so of a "normal" pregnancy--what's to prevent a doctor from doing the paperwork for a temporary disabled form?

[Mick Knox]

14. UGh, as a Californian..

Who sees TONS of empty H-cap parking spots all the time.. i thought this would be a bi partisan no brainer.. Now the poor lady has to walk miles.. when she could use an unused parking spot.

Lame...

[outinforce]

29. You Really Do Not Get It, Do You?

It is because this bill was proposed by a Republican that we MUST oppose it!

We all know that Republicans are controlled by christofascists, and so we can NEVER EVER trust them!

Now go back and study up on basic theory, will you please.

[Mick Knox]

32. apparently so.... nt

[Progress]

37. Not because he's a Republican

At first glance, what he is proposing doesn't seem like a terrible idea. But a lot of people have brought up some good reasons why it might not be as good as it first sounds. That's how democracy (or really any decision-making) is supposed to work. At my company, someone might come up with an idea that sounds pretty good, but you can bet we spend some time discussing cost and other factors before we actually implement it. And a lot of good-sounding ideas never come to fruition because we've identified potential problems with it. I think it's silly to accuse DUers of being against this idea simply because the guy is a Republican.

[outinforce]

44. By My Count,

there are at least three posts to this thread that suggest that this is a bad idea -- simply because it was suggested by a Republican. One poster even copmes close to suggesting that it is part of a conspiracy to get rid of benefits for disabled folks!

Go figure.

[strategery blunder]

55. all Republicans are controlled by christofascists?!

Does that mean that if my mother is a registered Republican that she is a christofascist, even though she is ABB and never bothered to change her party registration since I was born?

I think you overgeneralize, my friend.

(For the record, if such a bill came up in my state, I would probably oppose it because it would be way too easy for people to abuse it.)

[outinforce]

58. You Were Unaware of This?

I can see that you are new to DU, so I will forgive this absolutely apalling lack of knowledge on your part.

Of course, all Republicans (except, perhaps, John McCain) are christofascists.

You need to spend more time reading the various posts here on DU.

They really can be quite enlightening.

And, if you think I overgeneralize, well -- just do some more reading Du, my friend.

[strategery blunder]

60. I can agree

that most, even the vast majority, of Republicans are christofascists.

But some Repubs out there (like my mom) were repukes 20 years ago, saw the light, voted Democrat, but simply never bothered to change their party registration.

I propose that all PRACTICING repugs are christofascists :D

There is a difference

[bleedingheart]

16. Our local grocery store has a parking section for mothers/fathers with

young kids...the kind that can't walk by themselves. I know that its hard to get a kid in a car seat, get the groceries in the car and then leave the child in the locked car unattended for a few moments while you return the cart....

I was lucky a few times in that people would volunteer to take the cart up for me so I wouldn't have to leave the baby in the car while I did it...there are nice people in the world.

[adriennel]

30. our local grocer

provides "expectant mom" parking spaces next to the handicapped spaces. First time I saw it I thought it was a little strange, but everyone parks there anyway (ie non-pregnant women).

[kath]

35. The women's movement has worked very hard to see that pregnant women are

not discriminated against in the workplace, etc (Women used to be fired fairly frequently just for being pregnant) To treat pregnancy as a disability could be a big step backwards...

[Xithras]

53. How so?

Dictionary definition -

Disability: A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.

While pregnancy in and of itself isn't a disability, it directly causes physical changes that limit or impair the ability of MANY women to get around. When my wife was pregnant with our second child she developed back problems so severe that she couldn't walk more than 50 feet without stopping and resting. This effectively meant that she was stuck at home for the last three months of her pregnancy because the che found the thought of hiking across parking lots too intimidating. She even had to quit her job because the regular parking lot was over 1/4 mile away from her classroom (but there WAS a special disabled lot up against the buildings).

Her disability wasn't considered serious enough to be "incapacitating", so the DMV wouldn't give her a temporary disability permit, and the result was that she became a virtual prisoner in our home for two and a half months. A Republican may have suggested this, but I can't help but think that this law would have given her some of her freedom back.

[shanti]

36. i've been a pregnant californian 4 times

and didn't have access to these choice parking spots. i think they'll survive without them.

[Rowdyboy]

40. One local mall has voluntarily added them here...

Upper class, yuppie area. I disagree with the idea. What angers me though, is something else altogether. Its the assholes that park in the spots without a handicapped sticker. I understand that not all handicaps are obvious, but, if you have a legitimate disability, you can get a sticker.

My mother was very physically disabled for the last few years of her life, and I saw PLENTY of able bodied young men and women (and adults) wheel into handicapped space and haul ass into the mall. I'm not a violent person by nature, but I really wanted to kick some ass or key their SUV's.

[Indiana Democrat]

41. You're bashing an idea intended to HELP pregnant women??

I'll never understand some people...

[outinforce]

49. I Could Be Wrong,

but I think the point is that this demean pregnant women by attempting to label pregnancy a "disability" -- something which, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, feminist groups have fought to overcome.

[Progress]

71. I think you are wrong.

I think the much bigger point is that there is a limited number of spaces, and expanding the number of people with tags is going to make it harder to find a space. I would not argue that pregnant women don't sometimes have special needs, but they are already eligible for tags if their doctor deems it necessary. There is no need to implement as a blanket policy for all pregnant women at every stage of pregnancy.

[Indiana Democrat]

82. I don't buy it.

sometimes people just want to help people.

Geeeeeze! It's no wonder feminism gets a bad name when people think like this. No EVERYONE is against women!!

[KamaAina]

67. Nope. I'm bashing one that strikes at people with disabilities.

If Strickland had simply proposed to add pregnancy parking spaces alongside the disabled ones, as many malls and stores are already doing, I'd never have posted this. In fact, it would never have appeared in the Ragged Edge (sort of like the Time or Newsweek of the disability world) in the first place.

But noooooooooooo! No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. </classic-snl> With his typical Repuke mentality, he thought, "Well, why add something new when we can just take it away from those disabled folks? Most of 'em are Democrats, anyway." That is what I'm bashing.

[Indiana Democrat]

83. Oh please...

...why ADD spaces? I don't see too many fights over the current spaces.

This is a good thing.

[Pastiche423]

92. Please tell me

you are not referring to handicapped parking spaces when you say you don't see too many fights over current spaces. :wow:

So many people are ignorant as to why there are handicapped spaces to begin with. It has more to do w/size than location, although the safety of a w/c user is also at stake. Wheeling across a parking lot makes them difficult to see by drivers.

Remember seeing the hash marks to the side of HP spaces? Do you know what they are for?

They are there so that disabled people can either get their chairs out of their cars or lower their lifts.

As to pregnant women needing HP spaces, I say hogwash. If a pregnant woman is so disabled that she can not walk a few extra feet to the entrance of a store, then she should be in bed.

[Cleita]

47. Perhaps it should have been more specific, like women in

their last trimester.

[Ilsa]

48. I would hope that a doctor

would give a pregnant woman a disability card if she's having problems. Treat some as an exception.

The biggest I had was having enough energy to walk from the other side of the parking lot when I was 8-9 months along. A couple of times, I had a hard time getting into my car because someone had parked to close to my driver's side door. I had to crawl in from the other side, and that was just as big of a problem. I couldn't squeeze in, and i had only gained 25-30 pounds.

[hlthe2b]

68. You are correct that most states will allow their DMV to issue temporary

handicapped cards for various medical reasons. I think this a better approach, than adding a large sector of the population to compete with the seriously disabled for close-in parking spaces. Limit it to those who need it. Exercise is recommended in pregnancy to ensure the health of mother and child and to reduce complications of delivery. Why would we want to discourage otherwise healthy pregnant women from getting exercise? If they set up courtesy spaces as has been mentioned previously to parents with toddlers and babies, who need extra help, getting in and out of malls and stores, but in addition to the regular handicapped spaces, that is a courtesy and not a "right." Seems like a better way to go, IMO.

[NC_Nurse]

57. I know people who have gotten temp disability cards

for pregnancy-related problems. If you're having a normal pregnancy, there's no reason for it. I was tired when I was pregnant too, but it was just as bad after the births because of the sleep deprivation. And then there were the next 18 years.....;-)

If there's snow and ice, get someone else to do the shopping, like the dad. Or get some good boots....

[Ilsa]

72. I had my worst sleep deprivation

when I was pregnant. After they were born, I nursed them and kept them on my chest all night. Nursed them in my sleep, never had to get up except to pee. Slept great (they ate every three hours). But I was fortunate.

[DemBones DemBones]

80. NC_Nurse and hllt2be (post just above) -- thanks for SENSIBLE

posts. Some people are simply not getting the issue of depriving the disabled of a necessity for the convenience of pregnant women, who usually don't need the special parking consideration, and should be able to get a temporary disability sticker if they do. (I can't imagine a state DMV turning down a doctor's request for a temporary sticker, such stickers being given all the time for broken ankles and the like.)

[markses]

66. I completely ignore the "Parking for Customers with Children" signs

at the supermarket.

Yes. I am an asshole. :evilgrin:

[Ksec]

87. we already have them here Called expectant mothers parking

I saw a guy pull out of one today. Our Walmart store has about the front one third of places reserved

[maggrwaggr]

90. When my wife was pregnant, she would have LOVED it

if she could've parked in Handicapped spaces.

I'm all for it. Those handicapped spaces are always empty anyway.

Pregnant women are DEFINITELY handicapped the last couple of months their pregnant, no doubt about it.

My baby was 10.5 lbs.

[Ksec]

91. 10 .5 Damn she did need that parking place...:) nt

[Ilsa]

93. My first was 10 lb, 4 oz. And I only gained the typical

33 lbs. He was a monster. Weighed in at 15 lbs at 8 weeks. I carried all forward and up very high. He was extrremely uncomfortable. My second was easier at 9lb 4oz.

[Ksec]

95. Wow. Those are some healthy babies . Ouch!

I have two kids, 11 n 14. Both smallish babies 6 lbs or so. My wife is petite and she gained like 50 lbs for the first one. Poor woman has the stretch marks to prove it. (although I would never even mention that ) Anyway I also believe woman in the last trimester are handicapped in a way so they should be able to use those spaces.

[DemBones DemBones]

97. Please see my post below as you are

desperately in need of education about disabilities.

I have been hugely pregnant and I am now disabled. Being pregnant with a large baby is certainly uncomfortable, been there, done that, got the stretch marks to prove it.

It is simply NOT the same as being disabled, though.

To make the pregnancy=disability assertion is like a white person saying they KNOW what it's like to be black and they have had it just as hard as any black person. No way, Jose!

[DemBones DemBones]

94. Listen up, I am disabled now, and I have been pregnant, and

right now I am a little annoyed that so many people are NOT getting KamaAina's point here. DUers are smarter than this , so let's walk through this again.

Disabled parking spaces are for disabled people to park in. It doesn't matter if you "never" see anyone parking in those spaces -- they are reserved for the disabled to park in whenever they are able to and want to, and it is illegal for anyone else to do so. It is also immoral, showing no concern for the special needs of the disabled.

A digression about the GOP:

(Republicans are often unconcerned about our special needs, just as they are often unconcerned about the special needs of the poor and the elderly. If you haven't noticed, they tend to favor corporate interests far more than people.)

(But this proposal to allow pregnant women to park in spots now restricted for the disabled is the issue here and it would be a bad proposal if a Democrat proposed it. Republicans are criticized here 24 hours a day but when two disabled DUers complain about a Repub idea that would have negative impact on us, WE get bashed? WTF is THAT about?)

Returning to my main topic, pregnancy itself is not a disability, and not permanent, though it may feel that way when you''re two weeks overdue. When a woman is temporarily disabled during pregnancy, her doctor can write her a note for a temporary disability sticker, if he thinks she should be driving and walking around a huge grocery store, mall or the like. When my second pregnancy was in trouble, I was on bed rest, and woudn't have felt like going shopping anyway, but every pregnancy's different. It's essential that people with disabilities have their parking spaces kept for them, not usurped by people who don't have a disability sticker but are tired or having a bad day due to pregnancy or anything else.

Finally, although I have a disabled parking sticker, I often park in a regular space if it's not too much farther from the building, saving the disabled spaces for people who might need them more than I do. In past discussions among disabled DUers, several said that they do the same thing.

So, if you're a person who feels that disabled spaces are "never" used where you shop, it may be that your town has considerate disabled folks like us, saving the spaces for those worse off then we are.


:hi: We are your disability rights O8) O8) O8)              

[hlthe2b]

99. I can't imagine many here who can speak more authoritatively to this

than you.... Perhaps your thoughtful post will cause some to rethink their positions on this whole issue.

BTW, maybe it is a carryover of the free-for-alls in GD2004 but I am increasingly seeing DUers jump on other DUers as though they were "Freepers" arguing RW talking points. Perhaps this is a bit of what you experienced in this thread as well.... No attempt to give each other benefit of the doubt nor try to see their point, but jumping for immediate deridement. I hope this does not continue....

[DemBones DemBones]

100. KamaAina and I are, I think, the only disabled posting in the thread

and as she stated, her disability kept her from being pregnant, I guess that does make me the thread's resident expert on pregnancy relative to actual disability.

It does concern me -- and make me mad, too -- when people seem to have no concern for disability rights or for the difficulties pregnant women experience.
All online forums and mail lists go through cycles where people get crabby and snipe at each other so it's never a complete surprise when it happens but still unpleasant.

I appreciate your post and hope that what you, NC_Nurse, KamaAina, and I have all said will help people understand that disability rights are important.

People don't like to think about how quickly anyone can join the disabled minority. White male heterosexuals, for example, needn't worry about suddenly being "stricken" by blackness, femaleness, or homosexual orientation, but disability is an equal employment opportunity attacker!

A stark and unpopular truth, akin to the fact that we will never get out of here alive.

:wow: :wow: :wow:

[Ksec]

103. I wouldnt be so sure of that

Although I prefer to stay anonymous your assumption is wrong. Just for the record.

[onecitizen]

101. There is nothing more natural than.......

a pregnant woman! She is not disabled for crying out loud!! As a woman who IS disabled from MS, I would really resent it if a pregnant woman used a Disabled parking spot. Oh and by the way, I've been pregnant too. Pregnant women need to walk!!

I actually feel sorry for people who don't know the difference between being pregnant and having a physical disability. If they could only know what it felt like to try to walk when you can't move your legs or feel your legs or have to contend with a cane, walker or wheelchair. Maybe they wouldn't even ask.