I'm the incubator with my pocket calculator

[beautifulduckweed]

By pressing down a special key, it plays a little melody.

And the melody goes "WHAT IN THE EVERLOVING SHITFUCK IS WRONG WITH THE MOTHERFUCKING CDC?"

Via knitmeapony, here's some disturbing news: the CDC advises all women of childbearing age to consider themselves "pre-pregnant" and to treat their bodies accordingly.

Quoting from the article:

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.

Do read the many excellent comments on knitmeapony's LJ entry about this issue. The exact same things that bother her are what's bothering me; in fact, reading the comments today was sort of like re-living the discussion I had with Jay late last night. We tried to debate the issue and dissect all the implications, but both of us were bone-tired and all of my arguments boiled down to "Goddammit, I'm not an ambulatory incubator, so I'd kindly like the government to stop viewing me as such."

I'm not sure I'm going to be a whole lot more articulate about the issue now because of my stupid bastard sinus headache, but that isn't going to stop me from indulging in my unnatural love of numbered lists, oh no, preciousss:

1. It deeply disturbs me that the government is going with the assumption that all women, across the board, want to be pregnant, and furthermore, that if they DO get pregnant, that they'll want to carry the fetus to term. Using terms like "pre-pregnant" and "pre-conception" uses the pregnant state as a sort of baseline, and...wow. Talk about NOT something I personally want to use as a baseline now, and very likely not ever.



2. Yes, yes, the health guidelines are actually very sensible and healthy--stop smoking, don't drink to excess, keep to a healthy weight, etc. etc. etc. What I want to know is, why my health isn't the focus of these guidelines. By defining me as pre-pregnant, they've chosen to focus on the health of the fetus instead. What the fuck is with this obsession with fetuses, to the extent that fully-formed humans who've been around for quite a bit longer are seen as secondary to them?



3. Is anyone else kind of paranoid about the possibility that this is yet another attempt to invest fetuses with personhood, with all the attendant rights thereof?



4. Does anyone else think this advice is just a touch sexist? Sure, the father's health won't impact the health of a fetus as much as a woman's, since the fetus isn't physically connected to the male, but I can imagine that indulging in certain types of drugs and exposure to some varieties of environmental toxins may lead to a greater chance of fetal abnormalities. Shouldn't these pre-inseminators be concerned about the health of fetuses, too? Really, if women are going to be defined by their biological functions as a mother, I don't see why men shouldn't be tarred by the same brush, too.



5. I highly resent being defined by my reproductive capabilities. I am more than a baby-making machine, thankyouverymuch.



6. The article goes on to talk about the unusually high infant mortality rates: "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. (...) The infant mortality rate increased in 2002 for the first time in more than 40 years to seven deaths per 1,000 live births, but it did not change significantly in 2003. (...) The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than those of most other industrialized nations -- it's three times that of Japan and 2.5 times those of Norway, Finland and Iceland, according to a report released last week by Save the Children, an advocacy group."
   
   Telling numbers indeed. Want to know my first thoughts when reading those numbers? It certainly wasn't "Well, if more women considered themselves pre-pregnant and abstained from activities like drinking alcohol (the wee hussies!), those rates would drop, DROP I tell you." It was this: The named countries all have socialized healthcare of one sort or another. I'm willing to bet the disparity in infant mortality rate has more to do with the incredibly shitty healthcare system in America and the relatively large wealth gap.
   
   And bingo, just a couple of paragraphs down, we come across this little gem, nestled away, looking almost abashed in the bristling forest of talk about Pre-Pregnant Responsibility: "The CDC report also discusses disparities in care, noting that approximately 17 million women lack health insurance and are likely to postpone or forgo care. These disparities are more prominent among minority groups and those of lower socioeconomic status, the report states."
   
   Hey, think those 17 million women may be contributing in part to the disproportionately high infant mortality rate?
   
   Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
   
   So in short, instead of agitating for healthcare reform so that it's affordable for poor people, or even increasing funding for health education so that people are better informed about their bodies in general, up to and including matters pertaining to Yon Fiddly Bits, the government is using the surefire method of telling all us womenfolk to consider ourselves potentially pregnant at all times.



7. Here's a radical idea for decreasing the numbers of preemies and babies born dead or with defects: increasing awareness about family planning options, including birth control and abortion. I'm going to bet that women who get and stay pregnant because they really, truly want children are going to take steps to make the fetus's health a top priority without all this "pre-pregnant" folderol.
   
   In short: talking about these guidelines in such a manner doesn't serve any purpose that I can see, because it only pisses off chickies like me, whereas women who really want kids are probably doing the things the CDC is recommending already, and a maximally healthy fetus is probably the least of the problems if the mother can't be arsed to stop smoking and drinking while pregnant.

Boy, all this righteous huffing + work being stupid + sinus headache = ooooowwwww and also ugh so tired.

One last thing: queencallipygos has sent a most excellent letter to the CDC, expressing her reservations about the guidelines. Once I have more time and energy, I'll do the same. Snarky letters to public officials: ooh fun.

Comments

[paraleipsis.livejournal.com]

I kept meaning to blog about this when it turned up, but I couldn't bring myself to think about it long enough to write something useful. Thank you for taking it on; you've said just about everything I could think of.

[lilithsaintcrow.livejournal.com]

Here's an apple I'm going to throw in. The base issue here isn't woman's rights, it's property rights.

I did a post not too long ago called "A Question of Rape" (oddly enough, spurred by your Napoli Googlebomb.) The underlying assumption here isn't about pregnancy.

The assumption is that a woman's body does not belong to her. It belongs to the State (or God, which amounts to the same bloody thing) or to her father until he hands her over to her husband. Hence the woman can be viewed always as prepregnant, because her use is merely to transmit property from older men to younger men by way of breeding said younger men. (Daughters, of course, are more property chits.) If you think it's laughable, just think about it a bit, and realize who still writes and interprets the laws over ninety-nine percent of humanity.

That's right. Those with testes.

I just found I could understand a lot of the doubletalk and emotional ranting of conservatives against women's rights when I kept this in mind. I think understanding the root cause of the views that allow idiocy like this to flourish must be addressed, or it will keep on reiterating itself every time Bill O'Reilly or other assorted jackwads open their mouths. It's an endemic cultural problem, and though we've come a long way in addressing the symptoms the cure of the disease is still a long way off.

IMHO, that is.