Interviewed Kathy Freston for BlogHer. She's awesome:
It's fascinating to read the details.
It's not that this pancreas will create insulin...there will still be a need to have some kind of patch/pump system to provide the insulin, but the "pancreas" would monitor levels and dispense in an automated fashion.
Read the whole post, so much information.
It may not be a hovercraft, but it feels like the future to me!
Ever since I found out I have a Vitamin D deficiency (like half the population), I've been trying to get a little more sunlight into my life, unblocked by sunscreen
“I typically recommend people go out for a period of time—depending on the time of the year, the time of day, the latitude, and the degree of skin pigmentation—if you know you’re going to get a mild sunburn after 30 minutes, I typically recommend about 10, no more than 15, minutes of arms and legs exposure, or if you’re in a bathing suit, abdomen and back exposure as well, 2 to 3 times a week. Always wear sun protection on your face because that’s the most sun-damaged area and it’s only about 9% of your body surface, so it doesn’t provide you with that much vitamin D. Go out, enjoy yourself, get some sensible sun exposure, then put sunscreen on if you plan to stay out for a longer period of time. People with a higher degree skin pigmentation, such as African Americans, are walking around with an SPF of 8 to 15. That’s why they need to be exposed for much longer periods of time and why people of color are at especially high risk of having vitamin D deficiency.”
Well, to answer that question, perhaps first you need to know what the Surgeon General actually does. So, for that, you might want to go read the interview Dr. Val does with the 17th Surgeon General of the US, Richard Carmona.
One of my regular reads, ShortWoman pointed me to a story about the Department of Health and Human Services with this provocative paragraph (Which is only part of a much longer post about the global war on women that I urge you to go read):
And now, the federal Department of Health and Human Services has decided that they know better than actual doctors, and is attempting to redefine pregnancy in such a way as to magically turn the use of hormonal birth control into an “abortion.” This would of course free up pharmacists and doctors to refuse allow women to get it on “moral” grounds. It would also effectively prevent any public health system from dispensing birth control. This, ironically, will raise the number of unwanted pregnancies, which will in turn raise the numbers of abortions out there. Bizarro Government.
In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services.
Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.
An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.
The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.
The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience.
All that to say that although I'm sure he and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum I respect what he does and I respect that he blogs. The above, however andunfortunately, is plain old political doublespeak. At first you might think he's denying that he's trying to define contraceptives as abortion. He says "Not true", and if you only scan it quickly you might be relieved.
But be not so relieved. All he is doing is denying that the intent of the proposed regulations is to address abortion or contraception. No, the intent is to accommodate physician conscience.
Whatever. I don't really care about the intent, what matters is the outcome...what does the regulation, you know, regulate?
His blog post doesn't pass the smell test by about a mile.
I'm going to point you to two posts on a prolific blog that could suck up all the time in my day if I weren't careful: The Women's Bioethics Project.
The first discusses a ruling Kansas that is requiring a healthcare provider to turn over the medical records of all patients who not only received but inquired about late-term abortions.
The Women's Bioethics Project lays out the details pretty succinctly, so I recommend reading their post.
I'll just say that the details provided make it clear this isn't really about medicine, or even about law enforcement (which the folks who want those records are purporting the issue to be) but about politics plain and simple. Or perhaps more about the continued assault on a government that respects all religions and is ruled by none.
The second is about the Daily Mail's report that british scientists have discovered how to turn women's one marrow into sperm. Yes, you read that right. So, now, apparently, we really can self-reproduce.
I don't know why I'm pointing this out, except I find some of the comments on the Daily Mail story pretty funny in their paranoia, especially the ones about malevolent feminism. Hilarious.
'cause it's women who have cause all the world's problems, yeah.
So, there you go...some good weekend reading.