Friday, February 23, 2007

I finally bit the bullet...

...and decided to join Weight Watchers online to hopefully lose those extra 15 pounds I can't seem to get rid of. I've already lost 4 pounds since starting Valentine's day. Apparently, it's normal to lose quite a bit at first, and it's supposed to slow down after the first month or so. Here's hoping!

Thursday, February 22, 2007

We have a new nephew!

Born on Tuesday at 8:16 p.m., weighing 7lbs. 7oz. and 20" long. He's a real cutie. :o) According to his mom, the birth went really well, too. Hypnosis for childbirth really works! :o)

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Happy Valentine's Day!

Here are pictures of the cards I made for Tyler's little friends at school.

For the girls



For the boys

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Another good one...

Found this today. All of Utah's senators are intending to sign this resolution.

Concurrent Resolution Urging Participation By Taiwan In World Health Organization

This is a document prepared by the Utah State Legislation. Two points that make me go "hmmmm...."
lines 44-46 WHEREAS, both the WHO Constitution and the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights declare that health is an essential element of human rights and that no signatory shall impede on the health rights of others;
lines 65-66 WHEREAS, good health is a basic right for every citizen of the world and access to the highest standard of health information and services is necessary to help guarantee this right;

This is what the State of Utah is hoping to present to President Bush, the WHO, and Taiwan. And then there are some of these Senators, who were part of drafting this resolution, who are at the same time hoping to pass SB 243. SB 243 would violate the very human rights this WHO resolution is proposing Taiwan should adapt. Anyone care to explain to me how all this makes sense? I'm no politician, maybe I'm missing something???

Monday, February 12, 2007

Um, wow.

Senator Dayton, who proposed the bill I talked about a couple of days ago, must really be concerned for the health and safety of children.

Article in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Legislation: Vote may ban lighting up around kids
Article Last Updated: 01/31/2007 02:25:11 AM MST

SB43 Would ban smoking in a car with young children. Next step: Final Senate vote Today's expected final Senate vote on prohibiting smoking while driving in a car with a child age 5 or younger should be a tight one. The bill, sponsored by Salt Lake City Democratic Sen. Scott McCoy, made it through a preliminary vote Tuesday, but a number of senators indicated they could switch sides. The legislation would make it a secondary offense to smoke while driving with a child, similar to the state's seat belt law. The ticket would cost $45, but could be waived if the person signs up for a smoking cessation course. McCoy argued the bill would protect minor children who are forced to breathe second-hand smoke. Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, led the charge against the bill by arguing the prohibition would infringe on personal rights. - Matt Canham

What I don't understand is, homebirth has been shown over and over again to be safe. Smoking around children, on the other hand, has been proven over and over again to be un-safe. There are studies that show second-hand smoke increases the risk of SIDS, developing cancer, asthma, and all kinds of health related problems. If you're going to push your bill through Senate, citing safety concern for mothers and children, at least be consistent!!! What really gets me is the fact that Senator Dayton uses infringement of personal rights as an argument. Like her bill wouldn't be exactly that, and infringement on personal rights? WOW.

From the American Lung Association.
Note especially the reference to children.
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.11
And even reference to short-term exposure.
The current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.17

From the American Academy of Otolaryngology (ENT doctors)

Convinced yet???

I did it!

I just sent off a letter to my Senator about the bill. He was opposed to the initial legislation legalizing homebirth and providing a way for direct-entry midwives to be licensed with the State a couple of years ago, so I'm not all that hopeful. But hey, it's better to have tried and failed, than never to have tried at all, right? I shall post again if/when I hear back. :o)

Saturday, February 10, 2007

SB 243

To give a little background, 2 years ago a law was passed in UT legalizing direct-entry midwives (DEMs), and giving them the opportunity to be licensed with the State of Utah. It was a big breakthrough in the homebirth community here. It is now legal for midwives here to attend homebirths, and administer oxygen, medications to stop hemorrhaging, etc. as needed, making homebirth a safe and good option for women. Now, Senator Dayton is trying to get this bill passed that would regulate DEMs to the point where almost no woman would "qualify" for homebirth anymore. In fact, 96% of all homebirths in UT last year would have "risked out".

Here is the bill.

Group B Strep, a previous big (over 4000g) or small (under 2500g) baby, history of 3 or more miscarriages, and prior c-section are just some of the conditions that would risk a woman out. In fact, I would not qualify for homebirth because I've had Group B Strep before. Nevermind the fact that my pregnancies and births were all completely uncomplicated, and I feel homebirth is a very safe option for me. Besides this personal point, though, why do we need to regulate midwives even further than they are already regulated? DEMs are trained professionals. They know birth, the know normal birth, and they know when something is not normal. They know when a woman requires a transfer, prior to or after the birth of the baby. They know how to handle emergencies. I don't believe they need a law to tell them to transfer in case of a prolapsed umbilical cord, or a uterine rupture. These women have had extensive training and experience with birth. They take the time to get to know the women they attend, much more so than any OB ever will. They take the time to be with the mother during her birthing time and to offer support, unlike OBs. DEMs carefully screen the mothers who ask them to be their caregivers, and they won't take women who they feel shouldn't give birth at home. They know their scope of practice. If they feel comfortable accepting a woman who's had a prior c-section, or a woman carrying twins, or delivering a breech presentation, who's the UT legislature to tell them they can't do that? Senator Dayton's bill refers to peer-reviewed medical literature, which I suppose is meant to support her bill. I'm wondering if Senator Dayton ever read the latest research that supports the safety of homebirth? And the fact that the rules that are in place now are enough to make homebirth a safe option?

Report of Outcomes of Utah's Licensed Direct-Entry Midwives
Utah Department of Health Report
British Medical Journal Study

Or should we assume she's completely biased, seeing as she's an L&D nurse with an OB husband? Whose interest is important here? The freedom of women to choose where to give birth, and who to have in attendance? To be able to choose homebirth, which has proven to be as safe, if not safer, than hospital birth? To have a midwife in attendance who trusts the body's natural ability to give birth without medical intervention? Or the OB's, who often sees birth as an emergency waiting to happen, as a medical event that requires intervention more often than not? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have trained medical professionals who are able to handle true emergency situations. I just don't believe that the medical model is superior when it comes to the normal, natural process of birth. Midwives trust women, they trust birth, and they know how to handle emergencies in case they do arise. They won't hesitate to transfer a woman to a hospital. The midwives I've talked to are grateful for physicians who are willing to back them up, knowing that should a transfer be necessary, the mom will be in good hands. Midwives know their scope of practice, they don't need another bill to tell them what they can and can't do. Women in the State of Utah do not need more regulation in this area. We need care providers who trust us, and the freedom to choose what we feel is best for ourselves and our babies. I don't believe women are careless. After all, who wants their baby to get seriously sick, or die - an argument used freely against homebirth? Not one woman I know who has chosen homebirth is uneducated, doesn't know about birth, or doesn't care about herself or her baby. If anything, the opposite is the case. These women are childbirth educators, doulas, or have done extensive research regarding birth. They are loving mothers, who care very much about their babies. Not one midwife I know is careless, untrained, or reckless. They all care very much about the women and babies they serve. That's why they became midwives in the first place. :o)

ETA: Really, the more I have thought about this over the past week, the more upset it has made me. Realistically, what is more risky? A woman birthing at home when her baby is ready to come, or an OB inducing a woman at 37-38 weeks for non-medical reasons, such as picking the date to fit the parents' schedule, or inducing the mom because she's tired of being pregnant, etc.? Or an OB performing an elective c-section because the mom doesn't want to go through labor, or "protect" her, um, you know? OBs freely using pitocin or other medications and procedures to augment labor, performing unecessary episiotomies, performing unecessary c-sections (no way do I believe almost 1/3 of births in this country necessitate the use of surgery), having to use forceps or vacuum extractions because mom's too paralized to change positions to better accomodate birth of a bigger or slightly malpositioned baby (thanks epidural), using cord traction to "help along" a placenta that is "taking too long"? Reading through the Report of Outcomes, and then considering the fact that 96% of the women in this study would have risked out of homebirth under this new law clearly raises considerable doubt as to whether "safety" of mothers and babies is really Senator Dayton's motive behind this bill...

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Major Breakthrough!

Two of my friends said they'd babysit our kids (at our house) so Dave and I could go out for my birthday last night. Until yesterday, every time we'd tried to leave Kaylee with someone, she just screamed and screamed (resulting in us only ever trying twice...). I was a bit worried, but thought maybe being at her own home may help. My friends came over at 6:45, and Dave and I left for Olive Garden (yum!). We came home about an hour later, and everyone was playing and having fun! Kaylee never cried at all. Yay! It's so nice when they get old enough to finally realize you're not leaving them forever, that you'll be back. :o)

Monday, February 05, 2007

It's February 5th

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Yep, it's my birthday today. Dave gave me a certificate for a 60 minute massage, yay! I think I might break it up into two 30 minute sessions. I'm excited!