Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across a bit of a different issue this morning, and I want to propose it for discussion in the Politics & Other Controversies Forum. I may end up moving it to the Parenting Forum if there is a lack of interest here.
California is considering legislation to issue a temporary handicapped parking permit to women who are entering their last trimester of pregnancy, good for the final three months of pregnancy and an additional two months after childbirth (five months total).
What I find interesting though is the support and objection to this proposal.
It is being proposed by a male Republican State Representative, who believes that women at that point in time should be provided some additional consideration due to the physical inconvenience associated with the last stages of pregnancy, and the need to provide a bit of time for post birth recovery.
The bill is mainly opposed by two organizations, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' California chapter, and the California chapter of the National Organization for Women. The first group opposes it due to the message of encouraging exercise while pregnant and the second group because they don't want pregnancy seen by the public as a disability.
When you look at how organizations and political parties are viewed by many folks, doesn't this seem a bit odd? You have a male Republican from a very strong republican district (Irvine, CA) proposing this support, and aren't Republicans generally viewed as a bit cold hearted? You have the two women's support groups rejecting this proposal because they don't want ladies in the later stages of pregnancy identified as potentially needing special considerations.
Politics - California bill would give free parking to moms-to-be - sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/799215.html - broken link)
I wonder if this guy is not just trying to institutionalize the idea that women are inferior to men because they need 'special care' while pregnant. I think such a judgment be made by the woman and her physician on an individual level.
Having been pregnant four times, I'll give you my thoughts. NO, NO, NO! Being pregnant is not a handicap. It is a normal life event and IMO, part of the reason so many woman need so many epidurals and C-sections is because they are conditioned to believe that pregnancy and delivery are something to be worried and afraid of. Please understand that I am not saying that some people don't have prior injuries or conditions that would warrant handicapped placards during their pregnancy, but a healthy woman can walk, exercise, and work until delivery. This is ridiculous when you think about the fact that many of our grandmothers gave birth at home and never saw a doctor during their entire pregnancy.
Having been pregnant four times, I'll give you my thoughts. NO, NO, NO! Being pregnant is not a handicap. It is a normal life event and IMO, part of the reason so many woman need so many epidurals and C-sections is because they are conditioned to believe that pregnancy and delivery are something to be worried and afraid of. Please understand that I am not saying that some people don't have prior injuries or conditions that would warrant handicapped placards during their pregnancy, but a healthy woman can walk, exercise, and work until delivery. This is ridiculous when you think about the fact that many of our grandmothers gave birth at home and never saw a doctor during their entire pregnancy.
Your view is consistent with the organizations opposing this proposal.
However, the ladies would also have the option of not obtaining or using the handicapped placard. Do you oppose providing the benefit to those who would like to use it?
I don't think it is that surprising. Republicans say they are big on "family values", NOW is a women's organization for equal rights and equal treatment. Pregnancy is not a disease and I am sure, women that face physical problems will have no problem getting a handicapped placards, with a signature from their physician.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
However, the ladies would also have the option of not obtaining or using the handicapped placard. Do you oppose providing the benefit to those who would like to use it?
If it was a general rule of allowing every woman in their last trimester to get one, then no, I would be opposed to that rule. However there are some woman who are limited in their mobility in their last trimester. If the doctor and the pregnant woman feel the placard would be a temporary benefit to them based on their individual situation, then yes, I think it should be allowed. I feel that a pregnancy for some woman can create a temporary disability.
Being pregnant is not a handicap. I didn't own a car either time I was pregnant and I managed to walk my happy butt a mile and a half both ways to the supermarket every couple days, plus a quarter mile to the laundromat every week carrying the laundry.
Newsflash: WALKING IS GOOD FOR YOU. Unless you've got something wrong with you other than being pregnant, WALKING IS GOOD FOR PREGNANT WOMEN TOO.
I came across a bit of a different issue this morning, and I want to propose it for discussion in the Politics & Other Controversies Forum. I may end up moving it to the Parenting Forum if there is a lack of interest here.
California is considering legislation to issue a temporary handicapped parking permit to women who are entering their last trimester of pregnancy, good for the final three months of pregnancy and an additional two months after childbirth (five months total).
What I find interesting though is the support and objection to this proposal.
It is being proposed by a male Republican State Representative, who believes that women at that point in time should be provided some additional consideration due to the physical inconvenience associated with the last stages of pregnancy, and the need to provide a bit of time for post birth recovery.
The bill is mainly opposed by two organizations, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' California chapter, and the California chapter of the National Organization for Women. The first group opposes it due to the message of encouraging exercise while pregnant and the second group because they don't want pregnancy seen by the public as a disability.
When you look at how organizations and political parties are viewed by many folks, doesn't this seem a bit odd? You have a male Republican from a very strong republican district (Irvine, CA) proposing this support, and aren't Republicans generally viewed as a bit cold hearted? You have the two women's support groups rejecting this proposal because they don't want ladies in the later stages of pregnancy identified as potentially needing special considerations.
Politics - California bill would give free parking to moms-to-be - sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/799215.html - broken link)
Thoughts?
So this tiny little proposal is the Republicans's way of saying "we care"?
People are right when they say this isn't needed....pregnancy is NOT a disability unless the doctor says so in individual cases..
Some women have run marathons whilst pregnant. It is not a disease, not a weakness.
It could even be Republican's way of saying women are weak and helpless, see, we need to take care of them.
So this tiny little proposal is the Republicans's way of saying "we care"?
People are right when they say this isn't needed....pregnancy is NOT a disability unless the doctor says so in individual cases..
Some women have run marathons whilst pregnant. It is not a disease, not a weakness.
It could even be Republican's way of saying women are weak and helpless, see, we need to take care of them.
This seems to be the current poster sentiment.
I asked just asked my wife her view, having had three kids ourselves. She supported the proposal, stating that many parking lots are crowded and this would reduce risk, especially if also taking another small child with you while in the later stages of pregnancy (as often happens).
I came across a bit of a different issue this morning, and I want to propose it for discussion in the Politics & Other Controversies Forum. I may end up moving it to the Parenting Forum if there is a lack of interest here.
California is considering legislation to issue a temporary handicapped parking permit to women who are entering their last trimester of pregnancy, good for the final three months of pregnancy and an additional two months after childbirth (five months total).
What I find interesting though is the support and objection to this proposal.
It is being proposed by a male Republican State Representative, who believes that women at that point in time should be provided some additional consideration due to the physical inconvenience associated with the last stages of pregnancy, and the need to provide a bit of time for post birth recovery.
The bill is mainly opposed by two organizations, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' California chapter, and the California chapter of the National Organization for Women. The first group opposes it due to the message of encouraging exercise while pregnant and the second group because they don't want pregnancy seen by the public as a disability.
When you look at how organizations and political parties are viewed by many folks, doesn't this seem a bit odd? You have a male Republican from a very strong republican district (Irvine, CA) proposing this support, and aren't Republicans generally viewed as a bit cold hearted? You have the two women's support groups rejecting this proposal because they don't want ladies in the later stages of pregnancy identified as potentially needing special considerations.
Politics - California bill would give free parking to moms-to-be - sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/799215.html - broken link)
Thoughts?
It's just more government intervention into our already owned lives. It seems these clowns have nothing to do in thier 6 and 7 figure jobs but sit around and try to invent more and more and more laws.
Women have walked during this time for hundreds of years. Why change things? The arguments on all sides for why and why not are just more government bickering which they do best and that never ever benifit us peons.
In a world where we are taught that we are all equall and should be treated as such then why do we continue to create special considerations for certiain genders, races, handicapped and so on and so on? All these laws are not treating people equall. They are giving special rights to some and not others.
I am not being heartless towards those less fortunate. I do believe in we all are equall though.
This looks like just more politicos trying to look busy to justify their
astronomically ridiculously unjustifiably high salaries.
Why cant we just leave well enough alone? Dont fix what ain't broke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
