Letters to the Editor
-
Again, too late!
"Better yet, get your tubes tied NOW, because you whiny bitches will never be fit to be mothers."
Heh. Too late. I'm already a mother. That's why I find this so disturbing.
I love it how people are turning objections to this report into an insistence on a right to continue unhealthy lifestyles throughout pregnancy, as if there is no sensible objection to the notion that our unacceptable infant mortality rate is the result of the lack of "pre-conception care", and that the best way to fix the problem is to treat all women who see doctors as if they were essentially life support systems for their uteri. What, anyone who thinks this is off-base is obviously smoking crack while pregnant? Or is it possible that most of us who are objecting are either following or have already followed most of this advice, and that's why we know that CDC's report was a redundant waste of time?
Again, "pre-conception care" already exists. It's called "preventive care" and it's part of things like routine physicals and care for chronic conditions. Women with consistent access to medical care get it. Their babies do just fine. Women with little or no access to health care are the ones with the problem, and most of the CDC's recommendations are going to miss them completely. Even worse, the one that has a hope of hitting is the one least likely to be implemented because it involves tax money going to poor people. The Bush administration would rather cut off these women's access to health care even more, and then blame them when things go wrong.
-
there's another hidden issue
The report recommends that women taking medications that are known teratogens look into switching medications. Period. Not "look into switching medications if they think they might want to become pregnant."
As the discussion of the CDC report has exploded on the internet, I've seen multiple examples of women whose doctors will NOT prescribe them medications that will help them because these medications *might* harm a potential fetus that doesn't exist. Saying one is using contraception doesn't always help. There have also been reports of women not being able to get needed abdominal Xrays or CT scans.
Most egregious example: a woman I know in real life whose anti-seizure medication has caused her to lose over 25 pounds. She is dangerously underweight (5 feet tall, 80 pounds), but her doctors WILL NOT switch her to another medication because it might harm a fetus that she never intends to have. (Yes, she needs a new doctor -- she is moving soon, so that's possible. And she does not want to get her tubes tied because it is possible that she and her current partner will want to have a baby if her condition stabilizes. But they wouldn't try to start one while she's taking teratogenic medicine.)
-
Riiiiight...
...like she's really going to be able to get pregnant and carry a healthy baby to term at that weight anyway. (Not to mention that they don't seem to care whether she lives or dies.) WTF is wrong with these people?!?
-
Oh, lawdy!
"As the discussion of the CDC report has exploded on the internet, I've seen multiple examples of women whose doctors will NOT prescribe them medications that will help them because these medications *might* harm a potential fetus that doesn't exist."
I was denied pain medication for a kidney stone until a blood test for pregnancy could come back from the lab, in spite of the fact that I was menstruating heavily at the time, never mind my contraceptive use. There was a tiny little ghost of a chance that I could be pregnant, so I got to suffer through hours of the most agonizing pain known to man until the hospital could be absolutely, positively sure. Thankfully, that incident was not repeated, but it's disturbing to read that I'm far from the only one.
Another reason to be disgusted at the CDC, come to think of it. This lovely set of recommendations has a very real potential to turn a now relatively minor problem with women of reproductive age getting adequate treatment into a serious problem. After all, if women are potentially pregnant from menarche to menopause, they shouldn't have any treatment during that time that might harm a potential baby, right?
No woman, regardless of her intentions where motherhood is concerned, should be treated medically as if she had no other function. Her medical treatment and self-care should not change throughout her lifecycle, they should be undertaken with the same care and consideration from birth to death. Everyone's should. This is what drops infant mortality, and it has the side effect of improving everyone's physical health.
-
kenai9
I am delighted you have chosen to remain child-free or to abort should you become pregnant.
Anyone--anyone who thinks of a human as a parasite has no business being a parent, anyway.
Too bad your parents didn't see you as a parasite. Too bad for us, that is.
When you said, "Fuck anyone," that's exactly what you meant, obviously.
-
Those Horrible Childfree
Yeah, no name, it really is awful when precious babies grow up to be people with opinions different from yours, isn't it?
-
Well, I'm late
to this thread, but actually what the CDC is doing is encouraging women to behave in healthy ways. In this case they're emphasizing issues of possible pregnancy. That doesn't seem threatening to me. Like the fact that OSHA has all sorts of material telling people how to work safely doesn't threaten me or control my life.
Once again, feminists are threatened and perceive that the government is trying to dictate their every thought and deed. C'mon ladies, relax. If you don't want to follow the guidelines, don't. Others may find the advice valuable. Will you never be done with this passive posture, this helplessness in the face of the slightest thing? It cannot possibly promote respect for you.
-
Robbie Clark
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I went back and read the CDC report. This really stood out to me
Since 1996, progress in the United States to improve pregnancy outcomes, including low birthweight, premature birth, and infant mortality has slowed, 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 (8).
I read that to mean that the CDC wants to get to women before they conceive. Two no-brainer ways to avoid risk factors that "contribute to adverse maternal and infant outcomes" is by preventing pregnancies and, if all resources are exhausted and still a woman becomes pregnant, (condom fails, she forget her pill, or just one little super sperm gets through) by having the choice to "terminate".
This report has the end-goal of decreasing adverse maternal and infant outcomes. Period. The best, Number 1 way to decrease the numbers of adverse maternal and infant outcomes is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Let me use one glaring example: Though I don't have any of the stats at my fingertips I'm certain that there are loads of studies out there that demonstrate direct correlations between underserved women (read as no primary care physician to give her the CDC recommended advice) and infant mortality. What is the best option for these women (and all women)?
1. Rational, logical, practical sex education classes starting in elementary school;
2. An array of readily available birth control options;
3. OTC Plan B;
4. Free family planning advice that gives choices;
5. Affordable opportunies to terminate a pregnancy.
Once this kind of "family planning" infrastructure is in place we will have an opportunity to have open and frank dialogue about real family planning, about preparing for pregnancy, about mother and infant care.