If they were serious, they'd provide real care to the 'pre-pregnant' by providing free health and dental care; clean, safe drinking water; a safe food source; safe neighborhoods; etc, etc. All of these things can just as easily cause problems for the 'pre-pregnant's' future fetus.

But to *just* focus on women's eating, drinking, and smoking habits without looking at the egregious social problems of health care, housing, employment, and the food and water sources in this country is a nothing more than making health care an individualized rather than social issue. Individual women* will bear the sole responsibility--not the govt, and certainly not the rest of society.

* I am still waiting for the phrase 'pre-sperm provider' to enter the lexicon.

Rather than offer "pre-conception care", I'd rather see health insurance companies offer more coverage for contraception, abortion, and sterilization. In the modern age there's no reason why pregnancy should be regarded as this random thing that might strike any woman of childbearing age at any time.

If a woman _chooses_ to allow the possibility of pregnancy, by not using contraception and/or being unwilling to have an abortion, then sure, perhaps she should consider pre-natal vitamins and abstaining from smoking, drugs, and alcohol. Otherwise, there's no reason whatsoever that she or others should treat her as "pre-pregnant".

I think it's great that women who plan to have children in the future have more information about their health. But as a non-pre-pregnant woman (I'm 36 and children are highly unlikely), it annoys me that my health needs are not considered as important as those of my "pre-pregnant sisters".

For example, my co-worker and I are covered under the same health insurance plan. We even go to the same ob/gyn. She goes to the doctor and discusses her plans for future pregnancies. This is covered as "preventative prenatal care" under our plan and she only pays a co-pay. I go to the same doctor and discuss my plans for not having future pregnancies. This is not covered under our health plan (until I fulfill the $1000 deductible) and I have to pay $350 for the visit out of pocket. This seems odd to me, since keeping me from getting pregnant is a lot more cost-effective for the insurance company than helping my co-worker get pregnant, but that's the way many health plans work.

If you are going to dedicate 9 months of your life to pupating your precious little larva, why on earth would you take a chance on doing stuff to fuck it up?

Wow! Women who say "Oh, I don't believe a little champagne is going to hurt anything, and it's our anniversary" are like the freaking Bush administration saying they don't believe CO2 emmissions have anything to do with global warming.

And furthermore, if you're going to squirt out yet another warm body onto this already over-crowded planet, could you please try for a rocket scientist instead of a retard???

Do you know which "plan" she actually chose? In my office if you chose an EPO plan, you only pay the co-pay. If you choose PPO plan, then you have to meet a large deductible and sometimes less things are covered. The choices in health care coverage under the same provider can vary greatly and choices are made based on various reasons.

I suggest that you review your health plans again before assuming it's the status of your womb that is affecting your payments.

It's possible that you chose the wrong plan for your lifestyle.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK released lengthy statement in March 2006 based on an extensive review of medical studies and concluded:

While the safest approach may be to avoid any alcohol intake during pregnancy, it remains the case that there is no evidence of harm from low levels of alcohol consumption, defined as no more than one or two units of alcohol once or twice a week.

I say better safe than sorry. I had a discussion with a friend about enviromentalism the other day, and he said that recycling wasn't really a good solution because the fault was they way that humans see the world as an endless recource. And I agreed with him, but I told him that even if recycling gets us a few more days of existence (so to speak), then it's not such a bad thing.

So I'd rather be the child of someone who didn't drink than someone who did. I mean, if you decide to be a parent, then you've just got to make sacrafices. If I ever get a woman pregnant, I'm not going to give myself a few monthes of unemployment just to get my head straight - I'm going to turn into work-hard-at-whatever-shitty-job-pays-best father man. And keep at it till the kid moves out. If you don't want kids then do your best not get pregnant, and go party with everyone else.

I have one small problem with this post.

In this context, it can be hard to hear that non-pregnant women should avoid alcohol just in case they become pregnant, or that pregnant women should avoid alcohol entirely even though science isn't settled on what effects limited alcohol consumption will have on a fetus. The advice itself may be sensible, and naturally parenting involves personal sacrifice.

You're making it sound like non-pregnant women avoiding alcohol is equivalent with pregnant women avoiding alcohol. Of course parenting involves personal sacrifice. But the key difference here is that a non-pregnant woman is not necessarily parenting! There's nothing "sensible" about telling a non-pregnant woman who's not planning on becoming pregnant not to drink. There is no equivalency between the risks for the former and the risks for the latter.

Why is that mothers, and parents more generally, can't be inconvenienced to care for their own kids, but they have no problem inconveniencing everyone else?

I have to deal with crying and noisy kids in restaurants, movie theaters, or any other enclosed space; restrictions on porn such as age verification, filters, legal persecution; restrictions on violent movies and video games or anything even remotely similar to a swear word; restrictions on what i can watch on tv and when i can watch it; the airplane thing mentioned on broadsheets a few days ago; higher taxes to cover school (a good thing in my opinion but an inconvenience nonetheless); and hundreds of other more subtle things. If I complain the response is basically "tough, we have to protect the children."

But what happens when people start expecting mothers and potential mothers to drink sensibly, not smoke, eat healthy, exercise occasionally, and lead an overall healthy life? Its suddenly a paternalistic society trying to control women. Did anyone bother to read the article? It says that drinking alcohol MAY be ok during the second or third trimester (is it worth the risk though?) but it also says that most people don't even find out if they're pregnant until 10-12 weeks in the pregnancy. 10-12 weeks is the first trimester. By the time you find out your pregnant its too late to change and the damage has been done.

Since when did it become ok to expose fetuses to chemicals that may cause severe brain damage and a host of other defects, but it is a mortal sin to say "fuck" near a child? There is something seriously wrong with that.