Here are some moreviewpoints on the Time magazine article on postpartum depression and the MOTHERS Act from some interesting women's websites and authors around the web:
Jezebel — where many of the commenters seem to be pretty informed, which is nice. One comment follows:
"I think you're jumping the gun by wondering if women will be given meds if they don't need them. It's better to make options available, and to destigmatize a relatively common problem, than to fear that a few false positives will ruin the whole program."
Sarah Mirk at Bitch Magazine, who points out:
"Time's story ignited the ire of many who argue that the article intentionally left out pro-Mothers Act voices to push an editorial agenda."
"Doubting and shaming women who do struggle or have struggled with PPD serves no-one. Time should know better. Better than Tom Cruise, anyway."
Empowher with Susan Stone's piece
"The recent Time article which appeared, 'The Melancholy of Motherhood,' presents a thinly-veiled bias against life-saving legislation, the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act, which continues its steady march toward adoption …
Like the hapless person who comes between a dog and its bone, the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act has become the pawn of frustrated antimental health and antipharma factions. Having lost too many ill-fought battles (thankfully, science, medicine, clinical practice and research still trump hysteria), they have seized upon this benign and life-saving legislation to vindicate their rage. But the argument fails to stick because the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act doesn’t mandate screening or subsidize the medication that appears to be the primary issue of protest."
And Dr. Shoshanna Bennett responds as well here, including this tidbit:
"The MOTHERS Act is about education and research, not medication — contrary to the fear mongers' rhetoric. The portrayal of the issue in the Time article was not only misleading to the public, it was inaccurate on many points."
If I've missed you, let me know!
