Letters to the Editor
-
This ain't no conspiracy, it makes sense
As a father, who happens to be professionally involved in the political struggle for reproductive rights, I found the response to the CDC recommendations surprising. I am very alarmed at the constant attacks on our rights from all quarters, including supposedly independent federal agencies. But the CDC recommendations are common sense.
The vast, vast majority of women will be sexually-active during some part of their reproductive years. A very substantial portion will become pregnant. A large number will carry their children to term; and planned or unplanned, it's in the interest of mothers, fathers, and society to have healthy pregnancies, healthy women, and healthy children.
It's called preventative care. To the degree that we can educate the population to observe healthy practices to minimize risk, we should do that.
Should men also be educated on any theoretical risks to their future potential children? Of course. But the basic reality of biology is that the zygote, embryo, and fetus are all within the mother, and it is the mother's health and lifestyle that have verifiable and often permanent impacts on the health of the eventual child. Men's sperm count and their children's health have been linked to smoking, over-consumption of alcohol, obesity, and heat (can't stand in front of an oven for long periods or wear tight briefs if you want to maximize your chance at fatherhood). Men are educated on these issues, but perhaps they can be educated more. But still, fair or not, as far as we understand, a mother's smoking before pregnancy is much more likely to cause problems with her child than a father's smoking before pregnancy.
I would agree that there are even more effective strategies out there for ensuring healthier children and less risky pregnancies. Supporting proven strategies (comprehensive sex ed and accessible/affordable family planning services) to decrease the inintended pregnancy rate would do wonders. About 50% of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. Roughly half of those go to full term. Children resulting from unintended pregnancies and/or very young mothers are statistically more likely to have a health and development problems.
Addressing the issue from a pregnancy prevention is a no-brainer. But even so, large numbers of women will still have children, planned or not. Why not give them the tools to maximize their chances to have healthy children? It's good for the children, the mothers, the families, and society as a whole. We don't have to see a conspiracy around every corner.
-
girl x
You showed that dumb 'ol CDC, didn't you?
Rather than follow some excellent advice written with a less-than-perfect gender angle, you fuck up a good poem to say "you first." Someday when you've popped out your 3rd by as many absent fathers and you're bitching about the cool life you used to have, maybe then it will sink in.
You know, the fact that you're a fucking idiot for passing up great advice because you oh-so-maturely decided no one is gonna tell this feminist what to do with her body.
-
It's information ...
The baby, if there is a baby, is much more fragile than the mother. It isn't that her health is less important; it's that ignoring these health guidelines has only a limited effect on a woman (at least in the short term), but is potentially devastating to the health of the fetus. The earlier in the pregnancy, the more fragile the fetus is. So, before you even know you are pregnant, permanent damage may be done.
(As many have noted) These guidelines have been presented in an offensive, heavy handed, and uneven way: where is the circumstance of the woman discussed? where are the men? where are the other risk factors addressed (like the need for universal health insurance, or environmental issues)?
Doctors should be discussing whether the woman is sexually active, what she is doing about birth control, whether she is thinking about a child, etc., before blanketly ordering them to behave like good pregnant women. It's partially the way this has been presented that is so offensive.
On the other hand, at the heart, this is just an extension of the Accutane/birth control issue. Accutane is a drug for really bad acne, but it causes such terrible birth defects that physicians will not prescribe it unless the woman is on birth control while she takes it. Social conservatives have been up in arms because their daughter wouldn't have sex, or shouldn't have sex, or shouldn't be encouraged to have sex ... but tough! Even promising to have an abortion isn't considered enough protection, because the consequences of changing her mind are so high.
Also, remember thqt flap about including age as a risk factor in low fertility? when it was seen as an attack on working women? But it was a fact, even if an annoying one, that is important information for a woman planning her life.
Let's take a deep breath, get a good doctor, and use this as information rather than as an attack.
-
Wow, I can't believe some of these reactions!
Considering the rapid declines in women's reproductive options in recent months (South Dakota's ban on abortion, the HPV vaccine being blocked, pharmacists having the right not to dispense birth control, I could go on...) I don't think it's too hysterical to be concerned about this. Women who want reproductive rights have plenty of reasons to be worried lately, and this is yet another reason.
If the recommendations were just trying to improve maternal and child health in general, it would be one thing. But they're not putting their money where their mouth is. It takes more than just recommending that all women of childbearing age take vitamins and avoid the litter box. It means improving health care for everyone. It means changing the childbirth practices in this country - many of which are directly implicated in worse outcomes for infants. And yes, if the experts are really that concerned about pre-conception female health, they need to be equally concerned about male pre-conception health as well.
As long as these recommendations focus solely on female habits, and apply them to ensure better infant outcomes rather than just general adult health, it certainly looks like yet another in a long line of measures designed to control female fertility. I don't think it takes an "overreacting feminist" to recognize that, either - even my husband said this latest recommendation sounds like shades of the Handmaid's Tale.