Gay-friendly Providers

Blog powered by Typepad

« Your Daily Dose: Tom Daley's coming out, Madonna stands up to Russia, and more! | Main | 2014 Sochi Olympics: Billie Jean King's "Watershed" Moment? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You write well will be waiting for your new publications.

I would look online

Hi,, i have anal warts and do not know where to turn for help,, i can not go to my docotor,, because i do not want him to know,,,i would also like to know ,, can they gause problems in my back n legs

A lot of good information. I come here all the time and am very happy with your updates, Thank you

It really deednps on your doctor. I know some will let you go as long as two weeks past your due date, but all of mine have either wanted to induce by the due date or threaten to if I go a week past the due date. Most commonly, they will let you go a week late. As far as what determines inducing and c-section, (with some exceptions, of course) they will only do a c-section for medical reasons, including the baby not fitting through the birth canal, the baby being in the wrong position, and some conditions in the mother or with the baby that would cause harm to one or both if a vaginal delivery occurred. Unless your doctor has said you are at risk for a c-section, you are more likely to be induced if you don't go into labor on your own. One downside to induction is that if your body or the baby isn't ready for labor, you may end up with a c-section because once they start things, especially if your doctor breaks your water, they will finish it one way or another. So if your labor doesn't progress after being induced, they will do an emergency c-section to deliver the baby. Hopefully you won't have to worry about this, but make sure you know exactly what your doctor's views are on these issues and that you understand exactly what procedures he/she intends to perform and on what timeline, just in case. Was this answer helpful?

Yes, you should get teestd again because HIV is very tricky you may test negative for it this time but the next time you will be positive. You can never know when it will show in tests because its tricky like that. Go to to read about the testing.

On reflection, I think what the US may or may not do on gay rithgs is very important from an international perspective. To use an analogy we haven't really got very far on dealing effectively with global warming primarily because of US opposition. Its going to be even harder for international gay rithgs, which is far more divisive than climate change. At least with the latter, everybody except the RWDBs agree something serious has to be done to fix the problem.With gay rithgs its going to be much more difficult, especially in the face of opposition from the Muslim world, the Vatican's opposition to gay marriage and a semi-theocratic US. (regarless of the Jeffersonian doctrine of separation of church and state that doesn't mean zilch to the Republicans or southern Democrats.)Even here in Oz, arguably the most secular country in the world nowadays, because of the serendipity of European early settlement/invasion at a period when Enlightenment values were still highly influential and the new Protestant Evangelicalism via the Clapham Sect was only just getting off the ground, and most of our convict founding fathers and mothers had a contempt for Anglicanism as the religious arm of state suppression. Even with the ruling elite, Hunter aside, their Anglicanism (god-bothers aside) in its expression of Protestan Xanity was very much a veneer. But this inbred srcularism of Get religion Outa My Face Unless Its Sunday/Saturday/Friday, with its tendency to mock religious leaders eg Fred Nile, Cardinal Pell, the former Mufti of Australia, has not seen great advances in gay rithgs, let alone gay marriage, until very recently. As I understand it gays have only just received property/inheritance/superanannuation/pension rithgs that the rest of us took for granted. (I'm willing to be corrected in this if I've got it wrong.) And gays and lesbians have no hope whatever of state-sanctioned gay marriage here.To state the bleeding obvious.So US leadership is important, but I doubt we'll see it. The fundies won't allow it, let alone the homophobes.

Sorry to sound really uroenisus when it comes to standing up for gay rights, but I am absolutely gobsmacked that nobody here thinks that the presence of at least one viciously homphobic regime in a document supposed to advocate the rights of homosexuals is not worth commenting on.Nickws by writing that, didn't you just contradict yourself? You might as well have stated This sentence is false. So, I do some checking and I find that Cuba is no longer really shitty to teh gays.Cuba's better than it was it legalized sodomy in 1979 (a decade before Queensland). However, there are issues. : According to the World Policy Institute (2003), the Cuban government prohibits LGBT organizations and publications, gay pride marches and gay clubs.[14] All officially sanctioned clubs and meeting places are required to be heterosexual . That Wikipedia article is quite schizoid lots of passages implying Cuba is cool with the gays interspliced with Cuba's government is homophobic . It's heaven for cherrypickers on both sides of the debate. The country is well past the homosexuality is a capitalist deviation phase. But even if you think Cuba is hypocritical regarding the equality regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity resolution, does that negate the value of the statement? I don't think it does.As feral sparrowhawk pointed out, Albania is a supporter of the statement. I find that interested as Albania (unlike Bosnia) is also a member of the OIC, the group pushing the homophobic counter-resolution. Hey one of their members broke the party line! What's going to happen? Nothing, I guess no expulsions, no disciplining, not even a reprimand. The group's not nicknamed Oh, I see for nothing. That's another reason why I don't take opponents of the resolution that seriously.

the same thing, and then it was okay. Ha!.What’s your positive prsoapol to address such issues internationally? Or don’t you really care?.Good question. What can we do about Iran? Invade it? The trouble that the UN has in actually enforcing any of its declarations is that it can't actually enforce any of its declarations. How do you do it? Lock a country up? Sanctions? (They might work). War? Well that tends to work quite well if you want to remove states. Trouble is you can't control what happens next..None of these is really an option. Won't happen. I'm in favour of granting refugee status to anyone from a country that does this sort of thing however..However the only thing that really works is material affluence, high levels of secular education and liberal polities that guarantee human rights. Now how do we get everyone in the world to go there? Well you could um no. Well maybe you'd um no..Well I'll just sign a petition, I'll just paint a banner. I'll get my megaphone. I'll march and chant. What? You heartless fascistbastdocopnservative fuck. Don't tell me it's useless. At least I'm doing something..True. Can't argue with that..I'm going to spend the next three minutes singing I'm a teapot for the rights of the oppressed worldwide. See now I'm doing something. And it's just as effective as any of the above.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Contact Us

Ask the Doc...