Sen. Coburn says women with breast implants are healthier
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a new member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was at last week's meeting on a bill restricting class-action suits. "You know," he said, "I immediately thought about silicone breast implants and the legal wrangling and the class-action suits off that…And I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows...In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier."
Ahahahaha. He's fucking insane.
During the campaign, Coburn asserted (with absolutely no foundation) that there were _elementary_ schools where girls were not permitted to go to the bathroom in groups because of lesbian activity.
He also recommended capital punishment for abortion, though he himself has performed them.
Finally, he sterilized a young woman (20 years old, if memory serves) who needed one ovary removed due to an ectopic pregnancy. He took out both. She sued him, saying she did not consent to the procedure. What also came out, was that he instructed her not to tell Medicaid that the procedure was a double- and not a single ufarectormy (I'm guessing on the spelling here), because sterilization would not be covered. That's fraud in my book.
Actually, it sorta mmakes sense - if you can afford the luxury of breast implants, it's more likely you don't have to worry about going hungry, getting access to medical care, etc... but it's a devastating confusion of cause and effect...
Public Citizen has an email campaign if you'd like to give either Coburn the Schmoe or your own in-state Schmoe/Senator a wake-up call about pending legislation to gut-- er, "reform" class action laws. Check it out here if you're so inclined:
http://action.citizen.org/pc/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6889261
donna-
Women that can afford breast implants may be healthier for the reasons that you mention, but he is confusing correlation with causation. He's not right about anything. Getting implants will not make you healthier, as he states, women that can afford them are more likely to be healthy in the first place.
I suspect that for "healthier" you should read "more sexually appealing to me." Because that's what matters about women. We're pretty objects to look at; we're incubators for babies; we're collections of orifices into which one can stick a penis. We're healthy inasmuch as we're able to fulfill those functions. Nothing else really matters.
Pissed off? Me? Why would I be pissed off?
Well shows you how much conservatives know about science: Nothing
"The most compelling reason for caution is the risk of local complications. Silicone implants can cause infection, scarring or bleeding in the breast and nearby tissues. They can also rupture, causing pain and disfigurement. The Institute of Medicine estimates that in the first year after a silicone implant, complications occur in 18 percent of women having breast augmentation[. . .]"
(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3606199/)
They're not incredibly harmful, but it's not as though they're amazingly helpful, either. I'm not aginst women getting them if they really want to; it just seems like Sen. Coburn has no idea what he's talking about.
i think my real ones are healthy enough. and i imagine he means saline, not silicone, but with the "s" at the beginning & all, i guess he was easily confused. i cannot believe this man is an elected official. just when i think i can't loose anymore faith in humanity, i get knocked down another notch
crys, you can't believe Coburn is an elected official? I can't believe this guy graduated from medical school and hasn't been stripped of his license in some state.
For example, we should show, how a society which silently approves man's violence in relation to women and children, whether it be an incest and a house beating, violence in streets or sexual harassment on work, encourages occurrence of the aggressive people assured of the right to oppress of others on the basis of such distinctions, as colour of a skin or a nationality. Or we can show, how the heterosexist statement, that the "present" woman wants support and maintenance from the man, feeds economic policy which generates poverty feminization worldwide. This refusal to accept the woman who lives without the man, as the high-grade person allows developers of a policy to offer such ideas, as restrictions of charitable payments or even possibilities of work for single mothers as they “bring the contribution to family destruction”.
These tendencies are observed everywhere. Examples are infinite. The problem consists not in change of our questions, and in expansion of the list of problems which define our work. We can use our operational experience over "women's issues", and connect it with other areas, not including their competing, but giving chance to achieve more radical changes.
It is impossible to put an end to militarism, not having put an end to domination which is shown in man's violence of the house. And on the contrary, we never will stop man's violence over women until we will not stop glorification of the organised violence during war as "man's" and noble behaviour.