‘Forever Pregnant’

May 17, 2006

I understand the point, but this is just odd.

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves — and to be treated by the health care system — as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

While most of these recommendations are well known to women who are pregnant or seeking to get pregnant, experts say it’s important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed.

In other words, even if a woman is not pregnant and has no intention of becoming pregnant, she should take the same precautions pregnant women take — just in case — as part of a new emphasis on “preconception health” from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What’s driving all of this? According to the WaPo article, the U.S. infant mortality rate increased in 2002 for the first time in more than 40 years and is now higher than those of most other industrialized nations — three times that of Japan and 2.5 times those of Norway, Finland and Iceland. If all women of child-bearing age acted “forever pregnant,” the idea goes, the national mortality rate would drop.

I might recommend a slightly different emphasis.

From the article:

Progress toward further reducing the rate of unhealthy pregnancy results, including premature birth, low birthweight and infant mortality, has slowed in the United States since 1996 “in part because of inconsistent delivery and implementation of interventions before pregnancy to detect, treat and help women modify behaviors, health conditions and risk factors that contribute to adverse maternal and infant outcomes,” according to the report.

In other words, gaps in the existing health care system are leaving many expecting mothers behind. Almost 17 million women lack health insurance in this country. Maybe that has something to do with why other industrialized nations — nearly all of which offer universal health care — are doing better on infant mortality.

would women get the two weeks off work before their pre-baby’s pre-birth?

  • CB – why blame the health care infrastructure when you can always blame women instead?

  • You left off not teaching women about contraception, so they are more likely to get pregnant after a night of drunken debachery and unlimited drug usage.

    We could, of course, mandate a subdural contraceptive implant for all girls and women of childbearing age until they prove their physical, emotional and financial ability to conceive, bear, birth, and raise a child. I bet nothing in the world would get women to stop smoking and doing drugs, exercise and eat right, and secure and maintain a good relationship and job as establishing such a policy 😉

  • …and they should walk three steps behind their husbands, with heads bowed…

    sheesh, smoking leads to a lowered sperm count for men. where are the guidelines there?

  • I agree with tsquared. This is just another example of trying to blame every social ill on “irresponsible” women. A slightly more subtle act 2 of the whole “welfare queen” approach. Except now you can get middle class women into the blame cycle too.
    This statistic is 100% due to the extremely poor access Americans have to health care (including a lot of working middle class Americans). This is the consequence of the whole ownership society/you are on your own philosophy in a nut shell.
    Also, you can use this data to imply that women should be sitting home acting as (potential) incubators, or else they are bad (potential) mothers.
    Heaven forbid we should blame the fee for service system that is unique to the USA!
    Once again, the radical right should be commended for killing so many birds with one stone.

  • In other news, reports that women may, in fact, be a part of the human race and not merely an extension of the male reproductive system.

  • Even though my husband tends to agree with me on these issues, he is not the type to fly off the handle (unlike me) when he hears the latest outrage. Even he became upset when reading this yesterday. We recently had a daughter after 13 years of marriage, and he is really taking to heart even more this infantization of women that seems to drive policy from this Administration. We both worry that Kate will have less rights than I have.

    Also, you are right in your implication that this really doesn’t address the problem. If a woman doesn’t have insurance, she has few options. One of them, Planned Parenthood, does prenatal care at low cost for these women and their families, but Planned Parenthood is under constant attack. State and federal programs are being constantly cut. What do they expect will be the result?

    By the way, I don’t think that it is a bad idea generally for a woman to reminded that vitamins (not “folic acid supplements”), refraining from smoking, maintaining a healthy weight and keeping chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control is good for her and good for any children she may plan to have. BUT, thinking about “preconception” health from the onset of menses (as young as 10 or 11 in some girls) sends the creepy and wrong message to girls that all they are good for incubating babies.

  • Well, we could fight poverty, provide all with access to health care, teach sex education, provide more access to contraception, etc. Nahhh! That would take too much love for mankind and the elimination of a wrathful God.

  • “take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.”

    Sounds like good advise for anyone to stay healthy, regardless of gender.

    Is there any connection between these guidelines and John Gibson’s bizarre remarks last week about “we need more white babies” ?

  • I remember a grad student, years ago, a Sunni, otherwise very bright , good natured, and definitely fond of his wife and two children, who nevertheless viewed women as “the oven” within which “his bread” was baked (i.e., turned into “his” baby). Our political administrations, beginning with Eisenhower’s cave-in on birth-control aid to India, have been trying their damnedest to return to such medieval “pleasantries”.

    The aims of this program, while no doubt laudatory, could’ve been handled with less obvious sexism/patriarchalism. Instead of labelling ALL women of child-bearing age as “pre-pregnant”, wouldn’t it have been better to refer to “women who have reason to believe they might become pregnant”?

    Aside from using the language politely and with respect, why not study what all other industrial nations are doing to meet these problems so successfully? Find out how we can overcome the mental illness of Puritanism when it comes to sex education, provision of public-health neonatal, natal, and postnatal and early childhood services.

    I just saw an article in the newspaper about King Abdullah – our Saudi royal “friend” and Bush hand-holder – telling a conclave of news editors in his family’s fiefdom that they should avoid printing pictures of women in the newspapers, so as not to tempt male Saudis. What nonsense! How Bush Crime Family! Yuck!

  • How soon before women of child bearing age are banned from drinking, smoking, strenuous activities (except housecleaning), driving, etc. Is Danica Patrick endangering her pre-pregnancy by racing in dangerous automobiles?

  • And do Bush’s daughters’ follow these guidelines?
    Barbara, maybe
    Jenna, doubt it

  • A hypothetical letter to the president:

    “Dear George,

    I know that you’ve repeatedly demonstrated concern over issues such as abortion, child neglect, and the like. If we implemented a single-payer, universal health provision policy for the United States, then it might be possible to reduce the number of abortions, provide for healthier/happier children, and improve the current demise of family values. Dr. Dobson, by the way, seems to be running out of steam…and he IS such a bore….

    But, there’s another benefit. Universal health carwe would cost a lot less than all of these “provider” friends we have right now. Personally, we could save a lot of money on Christmas presents to the insurance industry, stop sending expensive Christmas cards to the drug manufacturers, do completely away with all the holiday dinners for those nasty lobbyists (they keep stealing the good silver, by the way)—and we’d finally be able to do something about Dick’s salt-fetish (the janitor told me just the other day that the salt-content in Mr. Cheney’s urine is rusting out all the drain-pipes in Blair House—again).

    Love,

    Laura (p.s.—your wife)

    Sorry for the lackluster humor, CB, but the absolute vagueness of the CDC’s cloud could, if it were played up with the correct amount of moderate/liberal “spin”—might be the silver lining that’s been lacking all these years in the effort to procure a National Health Policy in thic country….

  • In addition to Bush’s daughters, ask the same of Chelsea Clinton. (Whatever is Chelsea up to these days?)

  • The pre-pregnancy thing is annoying (didn’t conservatives formerly fret about a “nanny state”? and now they’re telling half the country what to drink and smoke, not to mention who to screw?), but the thing that bothers me is the way “pre-pregnant” women are lumped together with “women who might not know they’re pregnant.”

    If they wanted to define the group of women who should do these things because they don’t know they’re pregnant, they should focus on the group of women called “women who had sex with a guy and haven’t had a period yet.” Except, that’d require (1) admitting that women have sex of their own volition, and (2) unintended pregnancies are almost *exclusively* the result of people fucking. Very, very, *very* few pregnancies are both unplanned *and* unknown (I put the list at *one*, but maybe they’re preparing for the Second Coming).

    Memo to the CDC: People fuck. Deal.

  • Okay, let’s see if I’m getting this. Our infant mortality rate is worse than many industrialized nations – has been for a long time – so we should treat women as pre-pregnant. Got it. So, too, is our life expectancy lower than these other nations. So we should treat all of our citizens as pre-dead? Did I get this right? The new kind of “reasoning” that this administration engages in?

  • Re: #7

    By the way, I don’t think that it is a bad idea generally for a woman to reminded that vitamins (not “folic acid supplements”), refraining from smoking, maintaining a healthy weight and keeping chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control is good for her and good for any children she may plan to have. BUT, thinking about “preconception” health from the onset of menses (as young as 10 or 11 in some girls) sends the creepy and wrong message to girls that all they are good for incubating babies.

    While I agree with Michelle, I can’t help but notice the similarity between this and the arguments the religious right uses to oppose Planned Parenthood, sexual education, and family planning in general. You know, the ones about how teaching kids how to avoid STD will encourage them to be sexually active.

    I’m not a parent but perhaps everyone just needs to accept the fact that children are capable of having sex and getting pregnant at an age that is both much younger than is healthy for them and is much younger than is comfortable for parents to discuss it with them, and that the only reasonable way to deal with this is to get over this discomfort and teach them about their bodies when they start puberty, not infantalize them in the entirely vain hope that they will be protected and remain innocent and pre-pubescent forever, and allow them to learn on their own and get knocked up at 13 when they make the inevitable mistakes because they had no idea about what their parents and the religious right didn’t want them to learn.

    Wow. Sorry about the incredible run-on.

    ITMFA

  • I have to think about the 0940’s and 1950’s when my mother had four healthy children and she craved and drank beer throughout her last pregnancy. She was not alone. We all survived, are all still alive, and are all college graduates. I want the government to keep out of every woman’s womb.

    In Oakland California, many women are not seeking routine pre-natal care because of the fear of a drug test that would decide they were unfit for parenting. We are living in a crazy world. What’s next? maybe we should revive the old chastity belt idea.

  • Very nice Gracious. I imagine it would make everything better for the child with fetal alcohol syndrome or another birth defect if he or she knew that at least Mom was free from the evils of government interference and basic public health measures that “infringed” on Mom’s right to do whatever she damn well pleases. Do you also oppose mandatory vaccination programs? Think for a second. Basic mathematical skills are all that are required to understand that certain behaviors, like drinking alcohol during pregnancy, can dramatically increase the incidence of health problems. Anecdotal evidence about your own family is irrelevant. I find it appalling that certain people believe that idiotic behavior by mothers (whether drinking or abusing drugs during pregnancy, or failing to vaccinate their children) is above criticism because they buy into some holier than thou, anti-patriarchal (or kneejerk anti-establishment) rights-based philosophy. Self-validation is wonderful until it directly impacts another human being in a negative way.

  • More proof that this administration sees women primarily as breeders- by any and all means- and not to be taken seriously, or given the right to make our own choices and health decisions. And pregnancy is sacred- from the moment the sperm enters the vaginal canal until that baby is out of there- but once the child is born, who cares? Your mom can’t afford to feed you, or pay the rent, if she’s on welfare or medicaid, then all bets are off, because you don’t count in the repug society. It’s just wrong, and God knows, if any of these men had a uterus, things would be different!

  • In addition to Bush’s daughters, ask the same of Chelsea Clinton. (Whatever is Chelsea up to these days?)

    Comment by Fallenwoman — 5/17/2006 @ 1:40 pm

    If Chelsea Clinton’s parents, or their minions, were busy putting these sort of standards into the public record in official government policy papers, then you might have a point here…

    Perhaps we should be asking Mary Cheney instead of Chelsea Clinton. Or Noelle Bush. Or Annthraxx Coulterbeast. Or Michelle Maglalangalangadingdong.

  • Actually, the research for this predates the Bush administration, for the most part. The CDC is generally not an arm of the administration, as they act somewhat autonomously, and is a fairly liberal institution, at that. It’s hardly politically-motivated when the recommendations are based on some 180 research papers and supported by a large number of organizations, many of which aren’t federal.

    Nor do they state or imply that the purpose of women is to have children. What they do is come up with recommendations to lower infant mortality rates.

  • Doh — forgot. I should point out that the Washington Post article is a bunch of crap. The CDC’s actual report, an MMWR (Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report), is much more informative.

    • Comments are closed.