NationStates Jolt Archive

New American federal health guidelines for women and their doctors:

Treat all fertile women (from teen to menopause) as 'pre-pregnant', regardless of whether she is planning to become pregnant, or even have a child at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html?referrer=emailarticle

While most of the recommendations are generally good from an "anyone's health' perspective (stop smoking, watch weight, look after chronic health conditions, take vitamin supplements), the focus seems a little weird. Is it just me, or do these new guidelines treat women as potential baby machines?

Yes, the US has shockingly poor birthweight and infant mortality rates, but studies have shown that it is most likely because many women don't receive proper medical care while they're pregnant, not because they have unhealthy life styles before pregnancy (women who drink alcohol or smoke or do other recreational drugs during pregnancy being a separate issue). Wouldn't an initiative that ensures all pregnant women could get affordable pre-natal care be more effective than treating all fertile women who do go the doctor for regular checkups as walking wombs?

Or better yet, universal healthcare?

And to keep all genders involved:

If the government told doctors with male patients as a "pre-parent", would that be okay? Should doctors remind their male patients not to wear tight pants or stop using hot tubs?

I'll run and get my folic acid. I'm still in high school, but I wouldn't want to ruin my chances of having healthy babies, just in case I hook up with a hot buy and forget to use a condom next week-end.:rolleyes:

And to keep all genders involved:

If the government told doctors with male patients as a "pre-parent", would that be okay? Should doctors remind their male patients not to wear tight pants or stop using hot tubs?

That would completetly ruin '80s nostalgia parties.

That's new? I thought they've been recommending folic acid for a while. And of course they've been against smoking and such in general.

I'll run and get my folic acid. I'm still in high school, but I wouldn't want to ruin my chances of having healthy babies, just in case I hook up with a hot buy and forget to use a condom next week-end.:rolleyes:

So it's a date? :D
*cough* You didn't see that.

Ummm...What does folic acid taste like? Is it like Vitamin C (asorbic acid)?

So it's a date? :D
*cough* You didn't see that.

Ummm...What does folic acid taste like? Is it like Vitamin C (asorbic acid)?

*is instantly disturbed*

I've never had folic acid, so I don't know how it tastes. I'm too afraid to even try the cod liver oil caplets that my master...I mean, singing teacher...commanded me to take.

i found it pretty offensive

its all "what if you get pregnant?" rather that what is good for YOU

you should give up smoking not because its good for your health but because what if you get pregnant? same with a good diet and keeping diabetes under control. you cant drink alcohol, what if you get pregnant??

every doctor a woman sees should have a focus on "what if she gets pregnant?" to always council a woman as if she might get pregnant at any time.

if a woman is planning to get pregnant, she should follow doctors advice about healthy living but no i dont think she should live her whole life as if she could be pregnant at any time.

i would find it hugely intrusive and annoying if every doctor i saw was concerned about the chances that i might get pregnant.

*is instantly disturbed*

I've never had folic acid, so I don't know how it tastes. I'm too afraid to even try the cod liver oil caplets that my master...I mean, singing teacher...commanded me to take.

*shhh* I said you didn't see that...but if you did, take it as a compliment. Sides, it'd certainly be more than a weekend before anything like that. :p

Hmm...I'd try it, but that'd just seem weird...

you should give up smoking not because its good for your health but because what if you get pregnant? same with a good diet and keeping diabetes under control. you cant drink alcohol, what if you get pregnant??

That doesn't seem fair, considering they already tell you to stop smoking and moderate drinking for your health, this is just focusing on pregnancy. Obviously it's somewhat offensive, but it doesn't make 'em bad suggestions, or make them only concerned about pregnancy.

That doesn't seem fair, considering they already tell you to stop smoking and moderate drinking for your health, this is just focusing on pregnancy. Obviously it's somewhat offensive, but it doesn't make 'em bad suggestions, or make them only concerned about pregnancy.

"Well, ordinarily I'd recommend a hysterectomy for uterine cancer, but that would be bad for your pre-pregnancy, now wouldn't it?!"

It sounds suspiciously like the next phase in the Bush Administration's war on straight sex. After all, if you view all women as being pre-pregnant, it makes it difficult to prescribe things that prevent pregnancy altogether like birth control.

That's new? I thought they've been recommending folic acid for a while. And of course they've been against smoking and such in general.

Folic acid was only recommended for women planning or wanting to get pregnant.

My problem is that the focus seems different now, as though doctors should treat women as broodmares. The new recommendations aren't "you shouldn't do these things because it's not healthy for you", they're "you shouldn't do these things because they might hurt a baby you might decide to have someday".

Do you see a difference? I see a difference.

"Well, ordinarily I'd recommend a hysterectomy for uterine cancer, but that would be bad for your pre-pregnancy, now wouldn't it?!"

Was something like that in the article? I'll have to read again, I mostly skimmed.

That doesn't seem fair, considering they already tell you to stop smoking and moderate drinking for your health, this is just focusing on pregnancy. Obviously it's somewhat offensive, but it doesn't make 'em bad suggestions, or make them only concerned about pregnancy.
they arent bad suggestions. but it IS offensive to suggest that the possibility that i could get pregnant is more important than my own health even when im not planning to get pregnant.

there are doctors who should discuss with every sexually active woman the possibility that no matter what birth control she uses she could get pregnant and how important it is to not ignore that possibility. they should recommend folic acid as it is important to be taking it before you ever get pregnant. i think most multivitamins cover the recommendations.

however, to have EVERY doctor a woman goes to for whatever reason be talking about "what if she gets pregnant" even when she has not indicated any plans to get pregnant is offensive. it suggest that she doesnt know she could get pregnant, that she is having sex, that she would never take care of herself for any other reason. that the very extremly potential baby is more important than her own life.

Also, it's already difficult for a young woman to have her tubes tied "because some day you might want to have children". What's next? "I'm sorry, I can't prescribe you birth control because it will damage your pre-pregnancy condition"?

Folic acid was only recommended for women planning or wanting to get pregnant.

My problem is that the focus seems different now, as though doctors should treat women as broodmares. The new recommendations aren't "you shouldn't do these things because it's not healthy for you", they're "you shouldn't do these things because they might hurt a baby you might decide to have someday".

Do you see a difference? I see a difference.

Except that they haven't stopped saying "you shouldn't do these things because it's not healthy for you". They've simply also begun to say "you shouldn't do these things because they might hurt a baby you might...have someday"

Was something like that in the article? I'll have to read again, I mostly skimmed.

So, we can put you down as being for government brood mare schemes? Do you feel that men should also have the government proscribe their activities to ensure they're more likely to have healthy sperm?

Also, it's already difficult for a young woman to have her tubes tied "because some day you might want to have children". What's next? "I'm sorry, I can't prescribe you birth control because it will damage your pre-pregnancy condition"?

Okay, I didn't see anything in there that would suggest doctors should stop doing certain procedures because they're treating women as "pre-pregnant". Where's all this coming from?

So, we can put you down as being for government brood mare schemes? Do you feel that men should also have the government proscribe their activities to ensure they're more likely to have healthy sperm?

Health of sperm would have nothing to do with it. This is for taking care because half of pregnancies are unplanned, and the things you do before you know you're pregnant may lead to increased infant mortality rates.

Except that they haven't stopped saying "you shouldn't do these things because it's not healthy for you". They've simply also begun to say "you shouldn't do these things because they might hurt a baby you might...have someday"

Not in the case of folic acid. That's definitely an addition to the healthy list.

they arent bad suggestions. but it IS offensive to suggest that the possibility that i could get pregnant is more important than my own health even when im not planning to get pregnant.

No, seriously. WHERE was this suggested?

however, to have EVERY doctor a woman goes to for whatever reason be talking about "what if she gets pregnant" even when she has not indicated any plans to get pregnant is offensive. it suggest that she doesnt know she could get pregnant, that she is having sex, that she would never take care of herself for any other reason. that the very extremly potential baby is more important than her own life.

Ummm about half of pregnancies are unplanned, and again, all these things are good for her anyways, where would it be impling it's more important than the womans life?

Not in the case of folic acid. That's definitely an addition to the healthy list.

*sigh* Fine, but is folic acid so much trouble? It's just that you might get pregnant, and in the intrests of fewer babies dying, a multivitamin or another tablet in the mornings would be a good idea.

Okay, I didn't see anything in there that would suggest doctors should stop doing certain procedures because they're treating women as "pre-pregnant". Where's all this coming from?

They're usually referred to as "logical counterexamples". We're essentially trying to show that treating all women as pre-pregnant, at least if carried to its logical conclusion, interferes with the larger goal of physicians to do no harm. In a larger sense, we're using biting sarcasm as a means of showing displeasure with the means by which this policy is carried out. If you want to get women to eat more folic acid, launch a campaign extolling the virtues of folic acid in the diet. Don't treat women as "pre-pregnant", any more than you would treat heart disease in men by giving all men nitroglycerin.

Health of sperm would have nothing to do with it. This is for taking care because half of pregnancies are unplanned, and the things you do before you know you're pregnant may lead to increased infant mortality rates.

Did you know that improperly formed sperm can cause Down's Syndrome in a baby? A man can get a woman pregnant every time he has sex. Shouldn't he do everything possible to ensure that his sperm are healthy and prevent Down's Syndrome - especially if your wife is over 30?

*sigh* Fine, but is folic acid so much trouble? It's just that you might get pregnant, and in the intrests of fewer babies dying, a multivitamin or another tablet in the mornings would be a good idea.
The best way to keep babies healthy and not die is to ensure that all women have access to pre-natal care. The number one reason that the US has a high infant death rate compared to other western nations is because not all women have access to doctors.

These government guidelines that concern me do absolutely nothing to address that.

Did you know that improperly formed sperm can cause Down's Syndrome in a baby? A man can get a woman pregnant every time he has sex. Shouldn't he do everything possible to ensure that his sperm are healthy and prevent Down's Syndrome - especially if your wife is over 30?

I suppose so, if he's worried about Down's Syndrome, he should do something. And we have people who are capable of recommending some things he can do.

The best way to keep babies healthy and not die is to ensure that all women have access to pre-natal care. The number one reason that the US has a high infant death rate compared to other western nations is because not all women have access to doctors.

These government guidelines that concern me do absolutely nothing to address that.

Well, considering the fact only 1% of America is willing to pay more taxes to deal with that paticular problem, the have to do the best they can with reason number 2, or 5, or whatever.

I'll run and get my folic acid. I'm still in high school, but I wouldn't want to ruin my chances of having healthy babies, just in case I hook up with a hot buy and forget to use a condom next week-end.:rolleyes:
How much are you willing to spend on your "hook-up" :D

Keep people healthy.

Though as far as the "what if you get pregnant" thing goes, too many kids around anyway, so don't.

They're usually referred to as "logical counterexamples". We're essentially trying to show that treating all women as pre-pregnant, at least if carried to its logical conclusion, interferes with the larger goal of physicians to do no harm. In a larger sense, we're using biting sarcasm as a means of showing displeasure with the means by which this policy is carried out. If you want to get women to eat more folic acid, launch a campaign extolling the virtues of folic acid in the diet. Don't treat women as "pre-pregnant", any more than you would treat heart disease in men by giving all men nitroglycerin.

So...basically, things like this could lead to the sort of things you suggest?

How much are you willing to spend on your "hook-up" :D

Dude, I totally called it first. :p

I suppose so, if he's worried about Down's Syndrome, he should do something. And we have people who are capable of recommending some things he can do.

So you don't see the difference. This isn't a question of whether he's worried about Down's Syndrome, or whether the woman wants to prepare for a baby. You're giving him a choice; the government isn't mandating that the man's doctor get on his case for tight pants and owning a hot tub. But a fertile woman is being hassled just because she might potentially decide to have a baby someday; even if she's 45, unmarried, and vehemently anti-child.

This doesn't bother you at all?

So you don't see the difference. This isn't a question of whether he's worried about Down's Syndrome, or whether the woman wants to prepare for a baby. You're giving him a choice; the government isn't mandating that the man's doctor get on his case for tight pants and owning a hot tub. But a fertile woman is being hassled just because she might potentially decide to have a baby someday; even if she's 45, unmarried, and vehemently anti-child.

This doesn't bother you at all?

The government hasn't mandated anything here either. I mean, if you find getting recommendations from your doctor as "hassled"...The government isn't force-feeding women folic acid here you know.

No, seriously. WHERE was this suggested?



Ummm about half of pregnancies are unplanned, and again, all these things are good for her anyways, where would it be impling it's more important than the womans life?
thats the implication of the entire program.

they arent talking about ob-gyns. its their job to discuss potential pregnancy with their patients. they are talking about....if i have diabetes and visit a doctor for that on a regular basis. HE is going to talk to me about how i should control my diabetes for the sake of my future possible unplanned pregnancy--as if i wouldnt do it to save my own life. HE is going to tell me i need to take folic acid because i might get pregnant when that has nothing to do with why i am there.


consider this quote from the article:

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.


so i should quit smoking because i might BE pregnant, i shouldnt ever drink alcohol because i might BE pregnant, i should take folic acid because i might BE pregnant, i should keep control of chronic diseases because i might BE pregnant.

they want doctors to advise me to behave as if i might BE PREGNANT at any time. i have a duty to take care of myself because of the very extremely potential baby i might be carrying at any one moment. not because its good for me but because its important to live each and every moment of my reproductive years as if i might be pregnant and not know it yet.

Dude, I totally called it first. :p
True dat - I honestly didn't see the hint in your post :p

thats the implication of the entire program.

they arent talking about ob-gyns. its their job to discuss potential pregnancy with their patients. they are talking about....if i have diabetes and visit a doctor for that on a regular basis. HE is going to talk to me about how i should control my diabetes for the sake of my future possible unplanned pregnancy--as if i wouldnt do it to save my own life. HE is going to tell me i need to take folic acid because i might get pregnant when that has nothing to do with why i am there.

So...why are you there? Ob-gyns do diabeties? He's isn't telling you to stop controling it for the sake of you own life because it's not important is 'e?

so i should quit smoking because i might BE pregnant, i shouldnt ever drink alcohol because i might BE pregnant, i should take folic acid because i might BE pregnant, i should keep control of chronic diseases because i might BE pregnant.

they want doctors to advise me to behave as if i might BE PREGNANT at any time. i have a duty to take care of myself because of the very extremely potential baby i might be carrying at any one moment. not because its good for me but because its important to live each and every moment of my reproductive years as if i might be pregnant and not know it yet.

Do I have to get a article that says that you should quit smoking for yourself, and then you'll calm down? They've been saying you should do most of those things because it's good for you anyways long before this. And if you're really pissed off by rather reasonable suggestions, guess what. You can't be forced to do it! Shocking how you have a choice and all, isn't it?

The government hasn't mandated anything here either. I mean, if you find getting recommendations from your doctor as "hassled"...The government isn't force-feeding women folic acid here you know.

Given that some US states allow doctors and pharamacists the right to deny women birth control, I honestly feel that yes, some of them may take this whole 'treat all women as pre-pregnant' thing a little too far.

And consider, how do you think parents will feel when their doctors say they should treat their 13-yr-old daughter as 'pre-pregnant'? Especially those parents that feel that their daughters are not having/should not be having sex? Particularly, the ones who argue that their daughters shouldn't be taught birth control because it might lead to sex. Would they believe that treating their daughter as 'pre-pregnant' might lead to pregnancy? (Oh wait, I'm getting facetious about the wrong thing here. Is it okay for me to be snarky about two different things in this thread?)

Given that some US states allow doctors and pharamacists the right to deny women birth control, I honestly feel that yes, some of them may take this whole 'treat all women as pre-pregnant' thing a little too far.

Then I recommend litigation when they do.

And consider, how do you think parents will feel when their doctors say they should treat their 13-yr-old daughter as 'pre-pregnant'? Especially those parents that feel that their daughters are not having/should not be having sex? Particularly, the ones who argue that their daughters shouldn't be taught birth control because it might lead to sex. Would they believe that treating their daughter as 'pre-pregnant' might lead to pregnancy? (Oh wait, I'm getting facetious about the wrong thing here. Is it okay for me to be snarky about two different things in this thread?)

Okay, do you all just have a problem with the term "pre-pregnant"? It seems as though it was a bad choice of words, considering the adverse reactions. Do you want "potentially pregnant"? Because that's true from the first period to menopause, they can get pregnant then. Would that make y'all feel better?

Do I have to get a article that says that you should quit smoking for yourself, and then you'll calm down? They've been saying you should do most of those things because it's good for you anyways long before this. And if you're really pissed off by rather reasonable suggestions, guess what. You can't be forced to do it! Shocking how you have a choice and all, isn't it?

Actually, Ashmoria made a good point there, about the social or moderate drinking. Generally speaking social drinking is considered pretty acceptable, and some studies even say that a glass of wine a day could provide health benefits. On the other hand, most studies indicate that any alcohol at all could put a fetus at risk for FAS.

Which will take precedence? A woman's pre-pregnancy state, or:

* Reducing her risk of developing heart disease, peripheral vascular disease and intermittent claudication
* Reducing her risk of dying of a heart attack
* Reducing her risk of strokes, particularly ischemic strokes
* Reducing her risk of gallstones
* Possibly reducing her risk of diabetes

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024

I don't see anything wrong with what the article is suggesting. It seems like a question of are you prepared to get pregnant? If not what steps are you taking to avoid pregnancy? It is a pretty logical thing for a doc to be asking. If you are leading an active sex life with no protection then it can be assumed that you are likely to become pregnant in the near future.

Then I recommend litigation when they do. Litigation has not helped women in small towns with no access to alternate doctors or pharmacists so far. The courts have upheld the right of those doctors and pharmacists to deny her birth control.

How will this be any different?

As near as I can tell this is primarily a choice they are encouraging women to make with their doctors and not a choice they are encouraging doctors to make for the women without their consent or knowlege. As long as this treatment is done with the woman's knowlege and consent I dont see a problem.

That is until I read this paragraph.

"Research shows that "during the first few weeks (before 52 days' gestation) of pregnancy" -- during which a woman may not yet realize she's pregnant -- "exposure to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; lack of essential vitamins (e.g., folic acid); and workplace hazards can adversely affect fetal development and result in pregnancy complications and poor outcomes for both the mother and the infant," the report states."

That can be used to keep women out of alot of jobs on the grounds that they might be pregneant without knowing it. There is much wiggle room for abuse from both employers and emploees if that is adopted as policy. A few expensive frivolous lawsuits because "I didnt know I was pregneant and my child has a birth defect now because you made me do work hazardous for pregneant women" and much progress in equality in the workplace will be lost.

Actually, Ashmoria made a good point there, about the social or moderate drinking. Generally speaking social drinking is considered pretty acceptable, and some studies even say that a glass of wine a day could provide health benefits. On the other hand, most studies indicate that any alcohol at all could put a fetus at risk for FAS.

Which will take precedence? A woman's pre-pregnancy state, or:

* Reducing her risk of developing heart disease, peripheral vascular disease and intermittent claudication
* Reducing her risk of dying of a heart attack
* Reducing her risk of strokes, particularly ischemic strokes
* Reducing her risk of gallstones
* Possibly reducing her risk of diabetes

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024

True, this is one of those things were you have a choice. Avoid drinking altogether, or continue drinking in moderation?

Litigation has not helped women in small towns with no access to alternate doctors or pharmacists so far. The courts have upheld the right of those doctors and pharmacists to deny her birth control.

How will this be any different?

*shrug* Well, I suppose that's something you need to deal with in your courts...

Oh and that whole exposure to smoke thing in your pre-pregnancy state - are married men being asked to refrain from smoking in their own homes to protect the health of potential future offspring?

Why only have recommendations that effect women when a male's behaviour could also effect the health of the potential-baby-that-a-fertile-woman-might-someday-accidentally-have?

As near as I can tell this is primarily a choice they are encouraging women to make with their doctors and not a choice they are encouraging doctors to make for the women without their consent or knowlege. As long as this treatment is done with the woman's knowlege and consent I dont see a problem.

That is until I read this paragraph.

"Research shows that "during the first few weeks (before 52 days' gestation) of pregnancy" -- during which a woman may not yet realize she's pregnant -- "exposure to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; lack of essential vitamins (e.g., folic acid); and workplace hazards can adversely affect fetal development and result in pregnancy complications and poor outcomes for both the mother and the infant," the report states."

That can be used to keep women out of alot of jobs on the grounds that they might be pregneant without knowing it. There is much wiggle room for abuse from both employers and emploees if that is adopted as policy. A few expensive frivolous lawsuits because "I didnt know I was pregneant and my child has a birth defect now because you made me do work hazardous for pregneant women" and much progress in equality in the workplace will be lost.

We've already got "expensive frivolous lawsuits" trouble. If that's an issue for you, deal with lawsuits in general, not just with this. Also, I don't think they can do much legally if they didn't know they were pregnant.

Oh and that whole exposure to smoke thing in your pre-pregnancy state - are married men being asked to refrain from smoking in their own homes to protect the health of potential future offspring?

Why only have recommendations that effect women when a male's behaviour could also effect the health of the potential-baby-that-a-fertile-woman-might-someday-accidentally-have?

Aren't they also already being asked to refrain from smoking to protect the health of already existing offspring?

True, this is one of those things were you have a choice. Avoid drinking altogether, or continue drinking in moderation? The important questions are: which will your doctor recommend? Which will take priority? Will the doctor offer this as a choice?

Aren't they also already being asked to refrain from smoking to protect the health of already existing offspring?You're assuming that there are other off-spring. We're talking about protecting the health of children that do not and may never exist.

Do you seriously believe that doctors are recommending that to potential fathers?

You're assuming that there are other off-spring. We're talking about protecting the health of children that do not and may never exist.

Do you seriously believe that doctors are recommending that to potential fathers?

I've seen commercials telling people not to smoke in a house or in a car with their family.

The important questions are: which will your doctor recommend? Which will take priority? Will the doctor offer this as a choice?

He can't force you to stop drinking can he?

He can't force you to stop drinking can he?Think about it for a second. What if you are potentially at risk for developing gallstones, but the doctor doesn't tell you that drinking a single glass of red wine may prevent future pain and surgery because there is a chance you might get pregnant?

Again, if doctors are mandated to treat all women as 'pre-pregnant' or 'potentially pregnant', which scenario takes priority for the doctor? Which recommendation does the doctor make? Does the doctor even tell her that there is a simple way to avoid the pain and suffering of gallstones?

Think about it for a second. What if you are potentially at risk for developing gallstones, but the doctor doesn't tell you that drinking a single glass of red wine may prevent future pain and surgery because there is a chance you might get pregnant?

Again, if doctors are mandated to treat all women as 'pre-pregnant' or 'potentially pregnant', which scenario takes priority for the doctor? Which recommendation does the doctor make? Does the doctor even tell her that there is a simple way to avoid the pain and suffering of gallstones?

Well, I suppose if I can't detect whether or not she's pregnant then, I'd tentatively recommend the single glass. Which she still has a choice as to whether or not she follows.

P.S. Then again, I'm no doctor. Ask one for yourself.

We've already got "expensive frivolous lawsuits" trouble. If that's an issue for you, deal with lawsuits in general, not just with this. .

I would be proud if I could just deal with one new reason for silly lawsuits. Or even get a few people to acknowlege one Straightening out the entire twisted root ball of civil law is too ambitious for me.


Also, I don't think they can do much legally if they didn't know they were pregnant.

What do you base this legal opinion on?

What do you base this legal opinion on?

Not sure...Maybe from Jocabia's thing in that abortion thread. If a woman didn't know she was pregnant, and drank a lot and retarded the child she had, it wouldn't be something in the way of gross negligence, because she was unaware.

So if I chose to practice abstinence for my entire life, would I still be considered "pre-pregnant"?

So if I chose to practice abstinence for my entire life, would I still be considered "pre-pregnant"?

Prolly not. Then again, if your uterus had to be surgically removed, then definitely not.

So if I chose to practice abstinence for my entire life, would I still be considered "pre-pregnant"?
of course you would be.

well not your entire life, just from menarche to menopause.

after all, you are only abstinent until you arent and THEN what if you get pregnant??

according to this policy you should live your life as if you are either already pregnant or so close to becoming pregnant that your bad habits cant be quit quickly enough to save your baby's life.

In my opinion there is no such thing as Pre-pregneant. That would mean I'm Pre-Dead since I can die at anytime. There goes my Life Insurance!

after all, you are only abstinent until you arent and THEN what if you get pregnant??


The only way that I would not be abstinent would be if I ever got married, and the chances of that are extremely close to zero. And if I never get married, which is the most likely situation, then I will always be abstinent.

<snip>
Okay, do you all just have a problem with the term "pre-pregnant"? It seems as though it was a bad choice of words, considering the adverse reactions. Do you want "potentially pregnant"? Because that's true from the first period to menopause, they can get pregnant then. Would that make y'all feel better?
First of all, these "recommendations" are being made to doctors and the health care system for how they should treat their female patients, not what they should tell female patients.

I intend never to have children under any circumstances. If my birth control fails and I get pregnant, I will abort that pregnancy immediately. Why should I have to plan my health care around pregnancy? And trust me, if I find that a doctor, hospital or insurer is limiting my health care options to favor a pregnancy that does not and will never exist, there will be trouble. I will not tolerate having my life decisions made for me by others.

It's not a matter of what diet recommendations get made. It's a matter of what kinds of treatment are offered to female patients. And it's a matter of making pregnancy seem like the single most important thing a woman's body does, so important that all her health care must be geared towards supporting it. That is what is troubling about this.

Yes, the US has shockingly poor birthweight and infant mortality rates
I have yet to see a study that breaks down the birthweight and infant mortality figures by month of pregnancy and compares them to other countries thaqt way. Until said studies do so, the figures themselves are rather skewed.

Not sure...Maybe from Jocabia's thing in that abortion thread. If a woman didn't know she was pregnant, and drank a lot and retarded the child she had, it wouldn't be something in the way of gross negligence, because she was unaware.

That would be criminal law. In civil law an employer must maintain a workplace which is safe for employees. If it becomes policy that all women who can become pregneant are to be treated as potentially pregneant, then employers must treat all women working for them environments which are non-hazardous to the women and their potential fetuses. Whether the women know they are pregneant or not. Since workplace hazards are specifically listed it puts employers on the spot. Which is fine with most people, until many jobs are denied to women as they cant be made safe enough.

*snip*

Ay-yi-yi. If that's the case, talk to your doctor about it, and maybe you two can come to an understanding.

That would be criminal law. In civil law an employer must maintain a workplace which is safe for employees. If it becomes policy that all women who can become pregneant are to be treated as potentially pregneant, then employers must treat all women working for them environments which are non-hazardous to the women and their potential fetuses. Whether the women know they are pregneant or not. Since workplace hazards are specifically listed it puts employers on the spot. Which is fine with most people, until many jobs are denied to women as they cant be made safe enough.

These are for doctors treating the women, not employers hiring them...

The only way that I would not be abstinent would be if I ever got married, and the chances of that are extremely close to zero. And if I never get married, which is the most likely situation, then I will always be abstinent.
It would make no difference. These so-called recommendations are asking the health care system (your doctor, clinic, insurer, maybe even pharmacists) to ignore your life decisions and still gear your health care towards the assumption that you will produce babies. The recommendations make no allowance for your decisions that are not about babies, and make no allowance for health problems you might get that can only be treated by medications that would harm your fertility.

I am pretty confident that no doctor would deny a woman chemotherapy because it might stop her from getting pregnant, but I can see some cases where a private insurer might try to refuse to pay for chemo because it violates pre-pregnancy health recommendations.

And I also agree with those who have pointed out how such guidelines could be abused in order to discriminate against women in the work place, in competitive sports, and other such situations.

It would make no difference. These so-called recommendations are asking the health care system (your doctor, clinic, insurer, maybe even pharmacists) to ignore your life decisions and still gear your health care towards the assumption that you will produce babies. The recommendations make no allowance for your decisions that are not about babies, and make no allowance for health problems you might get that can only be treated by medications that would harm your fertility.

Geez, you don't think much of a doctor's ability to think for itself do you?

Ay-yi-yi. If that's the case, talk to your doctor about it, and maybe you two can come to an understanding.
What are you ay-yi-yi-ing about? Why should I need to "come to an understanding" with anyone about this? My decisions are mine to make. If a doctor keeps lecturing me about "what if you get pregnant" after I have told him of my decision, he will lose a patient. If a doctor or, more likely, an insurer denies me a reasonable treatment because it would affect my "pre-pregnancy" condition, he/it will lose a patient/client and possibly gain a lawsuit, if the denial causes me harm. What is there to negotiate in that?

What are you ay-yi-yi-ing about? Why should I need to "come to an understanding" with anyone about this? My decisions are mine to make. If a doctor keeps lecturing me about "what if you get pregnant" after I have told him of my decision, he will lose a patient. If a doctor or, more likely, an insurer denies me a reasonable treatment because it would affect my "pre-pregnancy" condition, he/it will lose a patient/client and possibly gain a lawsuit, if the denial causes me harm. What is there to negotiate in that?

Of course it's your decision! When has it stopped being your decision? And I've still yet to see why anyone is going to get a treatment denied by their doctor because of this. Will it bother you so much if he tells you you should take folic acid? Because near as I can tell that'd be the only new development here.

The only way that I would not be abstinent would be if I ever got married, and the chances of that are extremely close to zero. And if I never get married, which is the most likely situation, then I will always be abstinent.
i wouldnt suggest that i have more understanding of how you will behave in the future than you do. that would be stupid on my part

im just saying that THIS POLICY would suggest that you live your life as if you are either already pregnant or could become pregnant at any time. not just to take folic acid which needs to be started before pregnancy to have its best effect but to refrain from ANYTHING that you would stop as soon as you found out you were pregnant.

i wouldnt suggest that i have more understanding of how you will behave in the future than you do. that would be stupid on my part

im just saying that THIS POLICY would suggest that you live your life as if you are either already pregnant or could become pregnant at any time. not just to take folic acid which needs to be started before pregnancy to have its best effect but to refrain from ANYTHING that you would stop as soon as you found out you were pregnant.

I'm pretty sure Chand should be avoiding smoking and alcohol in the first place, and is already constantly reminded of this for many reasons, this is just another one.

Geez, you don't think much of a doctor's ability to think for itself do you?
Very cute. Did you deliberately choose to pretend I didn't address that in that post, or are you just too impatient to read two whole paragraphs?

Here's the part you ignored:
I am pretty confident that no doctor would deny a woman chemotherapy because it might stop her from getting pregnant, but I can see some cases where a private insurer might try to refuse to pay for chemo because it violates pre-pregnancy health recommendations.

Very cute. Did you deliberately choose to pretend I didn't address that in that post, or are you just too impatient to read two whole paragraphs?

Here's the part you ignored:

So...You think insurers might try not to pay money?

Of course it's your decision! When has it stopped being your decision? And I've still yet to see why anyone is going to get a treatment denied by their doctor because of this. Will it bother you so much if he tells you you should take folic acid? Because near as I can tell that'd be the only new development here.
Yes, it will. It will piss me the hell off. Not so hard to do, as you've probably noticed by now.

If I go to a doctor for a checkup and maybe treatment for any of the minor conditions that run in my family, and this doctor starts telling me all about how folic acid is good for gestating fetuses, I will get pissed off. Especially if I didn't ask him for advice about getting pregnant.

If I tell him I do not intend ever to have children, and he persists, something along the lines of, "well, you might, so...", he will never see me again as a patient. I have already been through this scenario with one doctor in my past. This kind of attitude is paternalistic and disrespectful to me.

But as I have made clear already, I am much more worried about what hospitals and insurers might do with these so-called recommendations, and about the potential for abuse of them in discrimination against women, having little or nothing to do with actual health care.

I'm pretty sure Chand should be avoiding smoking and alcohol in the first place, and is already constantly reminded of this for many reasons, this is just another one.
and i think its ridiculous to suggest to a completely abstinent woman that she needs to abstain from smoking and drinking because it might harm the fetus she very obviously isnt going to be carrying any time soon.

So...You think insurers might try not to pay money?
In the US where everything depends on private insurers, you bet they would. They jump on any excuse, however lame it may be.

These so-called recommendations will pose a problem as long as the US lacks nationalized health care, because it creates an excuse for insurers to try to declare this or that treatment as "contra-indicated" or some such nonsense and thus weasel out of approving the expense -- i.e. refusing to pay. That is the first, most immediate, and mostly likely problem in this issue.

Yes, it will. It will piss me the hell off. Not so hard to do, as you've probably noticed by now.

If I go to a doctor for a checkup and maybe treatment for any of the minor conditions that run in my family, and this doctor starts telling me all about how folic acid is good for gestating fetuses, I will get pissed off. Especially if I didn't ask him for advice about getting pregnant.

If I tell him I do not intend ever to have children, and he persists, something along the lines of, "well, you might, so...", he will never see me again as a patient. I have already been through this scenario with one doctor in my past. This kind of attitude is paternalistic and disrespectful to me.

So, if the doctor bothers you about something, you'll get a new one. Well hey, I think you just solved your problem!

But as I have made clear already, I am much more worried about what hospitals and insurers might do with these so-called recommendations, and about the potential for abuse of them in discrimination against women, having little or nothing to do with actual health care.

Well...I'm hearing what could happen...and...why are they going to happen? Technically, a slippery slope arguement isn't always a fallacy if the steps are small and well connected...

In the US where everything depends on private insurers, you bet they would. They jump on any excuse, however lame it may be.

These so-called recommendations will pose a problem as long as the US lacks nationalized health care, because it creates an excuse for insurers to try to declare this or that treatment as "contra-indicated" or some such nonsense and thus weasel out of approving the expense -- i.e. refusing to pay. That is the first, most immediate, and mostly likely problem in this issue.

Sorry, that was sarcasm. OF COURSE they're going to try not to spend money. Alright...So...How ya gonna make people willing to pay for nationalized healthcare? Becuase I'm sure insurance companies already do this sort of thing...should be working on that in general...

and i think its ridiculous to suggest to a completely abstinent woman that she needs to abstain from smoking and drinking because it might harm the fetus she very obviously isnt going to be carrying any time soon.

That's true. I choose not to drink or smoke because I know that it would hurt me in the long run and damage my health, not because I happen to have a uterus.

That's true. I choose not to drink or smoke because I know that it would hurt me in the long run and damage my health, not because I happen to have a uterus.

Then I guess this isn't a very big deal for you now is it?

Then I guess this isn't a very big deal for you now is it?

No, it really isn't. I just don't want to be treated as if I could become pregnant at any time, when I am not going to do anything that could possibly result in that, and so there is really no chance of it. I suppose if my doctor talks about it, though, I could just tell them that.

This is the kind of mentality that leads to oppression. This is why feminism is (or should be) alive and well today.

IIRC, the primary cause of birth defects in the US is neural tube disorders - caused by a lack of folic acid during the first few months of pregnancy.

Also, a time when a fair number of women are unaware that they are pregnant, or don't care.

Maybe what they should do is administer a quick pregnancy test to the women coming in - and if they are pregnant, ask them if they plan on having the baby or not.

Ay-yi-yi. If that's the case, talk to your doctor about it, and maybe you two can come to an understanding.

You just aren't seeing it at all, are you?

What we are seeing, is a worrying MOVE in policy.

First - the medical profession decides to adopt a 'pre-pregnant' status.

THAT is not the worry.

The worry is what comes as a DIRECT implication of that little policy shift...


a) Doctors already chose to provide or refuse assistance based on personal convictions, such as religious arguments... with this 'policy shift' a doctor COULD (legitimately) refuse to prescribe birth-control - because he (or she) could argue that it 'interferes with the pre-preganant state'.

b) Medical insurers could legitimately start to amend the policies of women to 'punish' those that do not fit a certain profile. They could claim that - for example - a little light drinking is ACTUALLY an unaceptable risk of harm to the 'pre-pregnant state', and thus - could chose to increase premiums as they choose... or even - choose to REVOKE insurance completely.

c) By far the most worying possibility - is the FIRST time a woman opposes this 'suggestion', and has her case overturned. At that point - you have legal precedence... a legal 'recognition' of the 'pre-pregnant' status.

Once you have legal recognition - you have the immediate capacity for law to address that situation - such as LAW to prevent harm to the 'pre-pregnant state'.


Don't just think about what the article is telling you - step outside the box, and THINK about the implications.

It is really not THAT far from 'doctors should advocate pre-pregnant specific care' to - law that protects the 'pre-pregnant' state... and then you are in the abortion arena again - conflicted legal 'jurisdiction' over who really OWNS the reproductive capacity of EVERY woman.

You just aren't seeing it at all, are you?

What we are seeing, is a worrying MOVE in policy.

First - the medical profession decides to adopt a 'pre-pregnant' status.

THAT is not the worry.

The worry is what comes as a DIRECT implication of that little policy shift...


a) Doctors already chose to provide or refuse assistance based on personal convictions, such as religious arguments... with this 'policy shift' a doctor COULD (legitimately) refuse to prescribe birth-control - because he (or she) could argue that it 'interferes with the pre-preganant state'.

b) Medical insurers could legitimately start to amend the policies of women to 'punish' those that do not fit a certain profile. They could claim that - for example - a little light drinking is ACTUALLY an unaceptable risk of harm to the 'pre-pregnant state', and thus - could chose to increase premiums as they choose... or even - choose to REVOKE insurance completely.

c) By far the most worying possibility - is the FIRST time a woman opposes this 'suggestion', and has her case overturned. At that point - you have legal precedence... a legal 'recognition' of the 'pre-pregnant' status.

Once you have legal recognition - you have the immediate capacity for law to address that situation - such as LAW to prevent harm to the 'pre-pregnant state'.


Don't just think about what the article is telling you - step outside the box, and THINK about the implications.

It is really not THAT far from 'doctors should advocate pre-pregnant specific care' to - law that protects the 'pre-pregnant' state... and then you are in the abortion arena again - conflicted legal 'jurisdiction' over who really OWNS the reproductive capacity of EVERY woman.


So, can I use the slippery slope argument when it comes to preserving my right to own and carry a pistol?

So, can I use the slippery slope argument when it comes to preserving my right to own and carry a pistol?

Personally, I have no problems with slippery slopes - where they apply.

If I let gays marry, people will marry toasters... ignores the fact that marriage is a matter of legal consent - thus the slippery slope is not a realistic mechanism.

If I let a medical status such as 'pre-pregnant' (or - hey, 'brain-dead') be formalised - there WILL be legal ramifications - is not so much of a slippery slope, as a realistic observation of the fact that professionally recognised status gains legal recognition, and has contingent law.

But then, I support the 'right to carry', just because of the risk.

We should always 'hope for the best', but prepare for the worst.

You just aren't seeing it at all, are you?

What we are seeing, is a worrying MOVE in policy.

First - the medical profession decides to adopt a 'pre-pregnant' status.

THAT is not the worry.

The worry is what comes as a DIRECT implication of that little policy shift...


a) Doctors already chose to provide or refuse assistance based on personal convictions, such as religious arguments... with this 'policy shift' a doctor COULD (legitimately) refuse to prescribe birth-control - because he (or she) could argue that it 'interferes with the pre-preganant state'.

b) Medical insurers could legitimately start to amend the policies of women to 'punish' those that do not fit a certain profile. They could claim that - for example - a little light drinking is ACTUALLY an unaceptable risk of harm to the 'pre-pregnant state', and thus - could chose to increase premiums as they choose... or even - choose to REVOKE insurance completely.

c) By far the most worying possibility - is the FIRST time a woman opposes this 'suggestion', and has her case overturned. At that point - you have legal precedence... a legal 'recognition' of the 'pre-pregnant' status.

Once you have legal recognition - you have the immediate capacity for law to address that situation - such as LAW to prevent harm to the 'pre-pregnant state'.


Don't just think about what the article is telling you - step outside the box, and THINK about the implications.

It is really not THAT far from 'doctors should advocate pre-pregnant specific care' to - law that protects the 'pre-pregnant' state... and then you are in the abortion arena again - conflicted legal 'jurisdiction' over who really OWNS the reproductive capacity of EVERY woman.

I wish I had posted this, because it's true. All I ever seem to be able to say is basically, "This is bad. Verrrry bad. Aargh!"

I wish I had posted this, because it's true. All I ever seem to be able to say is basically, "This is bad. Verrrry bad. Aargh!"

I say it as I see it.

Glad I could articulate what you were trying to say - I am to please. :)

(Actually - thinking about it - since you quoted me in entirety, you DID 'post this'...) :D

IIRC, the primary cause of birth defects in the US is neural tube disorders - caused by a lack of folic acid during the first few months of pregnancy.

Also, a time when a fair number of women are unaware that they are pregnant, or don't care.

Maybe what they should do is administer a quick pregnancy test to the women coming in - and if they are pregnant, ask them if they plan on having the baby or not.
its already recommended that all women of childbearing age take folic acid suppliments. it is best taken BEFORE pregnancy occurs. its included in most multi vitamin pills.

that not what is different about this policy. this policy aims to cut down on all birth defects by encouraging doctors and their female patients to consider themselves "pre-pregnant" at all times and to not engage in ANY activity that they would discontinue as soon as they found out they were pregnant. smoking, drinking, drugs, bad nutrition, whatever.

now of course ob-gyns discuss the possibility of pregnancy with their patients frequently. its their JOB. this new policy isnt about ob-gyn visits.

they want that if i go to see my doctor to get a wart removed, that he discuss my "prepregnant" state and advise me to quit all my bad habits NOW so as to avoid any possible damage they might cause a fetus that im not now and probably never will be carrying.

they want to convince all women to think of themselves as liable to get pregnant at any time so that they must keep their bodies in peak health for the sake of the baby that might some day be born.

as someone else asked, when are they going to suggest the same thing to MEN? after all a man could get a woman pregnant at any time and HE needs to keep himself in top shape so that he makes top quality sperm. shouldnt a man getting a suspicious mole looked at be advised to quit drinking, smoking, drugs, bad nutrition, whatever just in case he goes out that day and gets some unsuspecting woman pregnant?

I say it as I see it.

Glad I could articulate what you were trying to say - I am to please. :)

(Actually - thinking about it - since you quoted me in entirety, you DID 'post this'...) :D

Yes! I am smrt!

Yes! I am smrt!

:D

Me to!

its already recommended that all women of childbearing age take folic acid suppliments. it is best taken BEFORE pregnancy occurs. its included in most multi vitamin pills.

that not what is different about this policy. this policy aims to cut down on all birth defects by encouraging doctors and their female patients to consider themselves "pre-pregnant" at all times and to not engage in ANY activity that they would discontinue as soon as they found out they were pregnant. smoking, drinking, drugs, bad nutrition, whatever.

now of course ob-gyns discuss the possibility of pregnancy with their patients frequently. its their JOB. this new policy isnt about ob-gyn visits.

they want that if i go to see my doctor to get a wart removed, that he discuss my "prepregnant" state and advise me to quit all my bad habits NOW so as to avoid any possible damage they might cause a fetus that im not now and probably never will be carrying.

they want to convince all women to think of themselves as liable to get pregnant at any time so that they must keep their bodies in peak health for the sake of the baby that might some day be born.

Honestly, you act like all this is new. You've never been told not to smoke before? These are things they already suggest anyways, I don't know what it has to do with warts, and if your doctor has been telling you to quit smoking, listen to him. Don't your doctors already tell you to keep your body in peak health just to be in peak health?

as someone else asked, when are they going to suggest the same thing to MEN? after all a man could get a woman pregnant at any time and HE needs to keep himself in top shape so that he makes top quality sperm. shouldnt a man getting a suspicious mole looked at be advised to quit drinking, smoking, drugs, bad nutrition, whatever just in case he goes out that day and gets some unsuspecting woman pregnant?

Again, people in general are already advised to do those things, so it wouldn't be that big a deal if they gave us another reason for it.

Honestly, you act like all this is new. You've never been told not to smoke before? These are things they already suggest anyways, I don't know what it has to do with warts, and if your doctor has been telling you to quit smoking, listen to him. Don't your doctors already tell you to keep your body in peak health just to be in peak health?


It isn't what is being said that is the problem, it is the rationale.

A doctor (not OB GYN... just regular doctor) making policy decisions based on the 'pre-pregnant' status of his/her patient.

It is discriminatory, it assigns the role of pregnancy to ALL women as an 'eventuality', and it opens a Pandora's Box of legal ramifications to thwart the rights of a womn to govern her own uterus.

It isn't what is being said that is the problem, it is the rationale.

A doctor (not OB GYN... just regular doctor) making policy decisions based on the 'pre-pregnant' status of his/her patient.

So far it seems the only policy decisions are the one supposed to happen in your predictions.

It is discriminatory, it assigns the role of pregnancy to ALL women as an 'eventuality', and it opens a Pandora's Box of legal ramifications to thwart the rights of a womn to govern her own uterus.

As a possibility. And considering half of pregnancies are unplanned, I'd imagine it's a still a distinct possibility even when you aren't trying, for most anyways. and near as I can tell the woman retains the right to disagree with her doctor.

So far it seems the only policy decisions are the one supposed to happen in your predictions.


Once you allow the concept, you allow the law.

Terri Schiavo is the perfect example... what starts out as a technical term ('brain dead') eventually becomes the legal precedent marker.

It's not a matter of 'prediction'... it's how law works.


As a possibility. And considering half of pregnancies are unplanned, I'd imagine it's a still a distinct possibility even when you aren't trying, for most anyways. and near as I can tell the woman retains the right to disagree with her doctor.

At the moment, yes. And they should. All of them... loudly, legally. On the streets if necessary. And, any man that believes a woman CAN be more than a vagina-and-incubator should be right alongside.

What demeans one of us, demeans all of us.

I have female friends that I know will never have children. Some would abort if they conceived... some just don't 'swing' in a direction that makes it likely. Those women will be given this 'official advice', if this becomes policy. But, they have no need for this advice, and would resent being termed 'pre-pregnant'.


As a side-thought... bearing in mind the other related thread... if a woman is given this 'advice', doesn't take Folic Acid, and gives birth to a 'less-than-perfect' baby... what recourse does that child have?

Once you allow the concept, you allow the law.

Terri Schiavo is the perfect example... what starts out as a technical term ('brain dead') eventually becomes the legal precedent marker.

It's not a matter of 'prediction'... it's how law works.



At the moment, yes. And they should. All of them... loudly, legally. On the streets if necessary. And, any man that believes a woman CAN be more than a vagina-and-incubator should be right alongside.

Well, sounds like you already know what you plan on doing to make sure it doesn't get into law. What're you here for? If this goes along and eventually gets into a court like you say it will, you can do your protest thing you seem to have in mind.

I have female friends that I know will never have children. Some would abort if they conceived... some just don't 'swing' in a direction that makes it likely. Those women will be given this 'official advice', if this becomes policy. But, they have no need for this advice, and would resent being termed 'pre-pregnant'.

Well, they can deal with that on a personal basis, but resentment doesn't change them being physically caplable of being pregnant. If they don't need it (which would be odd, considering not smoking and less drinking is generally good advice.) I'm sure their doctors can understand that.


As a side-thought... bearing in mind the other related thread... if a woman is given this 'advice', doesn't take Folic Acid, and gives birth to a 'less-than-perfect' baby... what recourse does that child have?

Hmm...Well, you'd have to show she knew she was pregnant, knew she should have taken folic acid, and it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the child's problem was caused by her not taking folic acid, I'd assume he could sue like anyone else harmed by someones actions. Course, to show it was specificallly because she didn't take folic acid might be difficult.

Well, sounds like you already know what you plan on doing to make sure it doesn't get into law. What're you here for? If this goes along and eventually gets into a court like you say it will, you can do your protest thing you seem to have in mind.


Seem to have it on my mind, huh? You say it like I'm making a big fuss about nothing. If it wasn't for exactly the kind of thinking I'm advocating, women still wouldn't be voting, and the colour of a person's skin could condemn them to a life on the plantation.


Well, they can deal with that on a personal basis, but resentment doesn't change them being physically caplable of being pregnant. If they don't need it (which would be odd, considering not smoking and less drinking is generally good advice.) I'm sure their doctors can understand that.


So - what, lesbians should be groomed for pregnancy 'just in case'?

You still aren't seeing it... the advice is not being solicited, is it. It is being given as 'policy'. The role of women is being subtly altered.


Hmm...Well, you'd have to show she knew she was pregnant, knew she should have taken folic acid, and it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the child's problem was caused by her not taking folic acid, I'd assume he could sue like anyone else harmed by someones actions. Course, to show it was specificallly because she didn't take folic acid might be difficult.

Actually - if the 'pre-pregnant' policy is allowed to establish itsef as legitimate, you will NOT have to "show she knew she was pregnant", will you...? After all - the whole premise behind 'pre-pregnancy' is that the woman is effectively groomed FOR carrying a child to term.

Thus - you can arrive in a situation where a child is born 'harmed' and the woman is held legally responsible, since the advice is POLICY - and thus, she must have CHOSEN to directly oppose 'medical policy'.

Hmm...Well, you'd have to show she knew she was pregnant, knew she should have taken folic acid, and it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the child's problem was caused by her not taking folic acid, I'd assume he could sue like anyone else harmed by someones actions. Course, to show it was specificallly because she didn't take folic acid might be difficult.

Actually, that would be the easy part. The hard part would be showing that she knew she was pregnant.

The only defects known to be prevented by folic acid consumption are spina bifida and anencephaly - both neural tube defects that result when the neural tube does not properly close. In most cases, a woman does not know she is pregnant by the time this defect would already have occurred.

As for the original topic, I really think this is getting blown out of proportion. I understand where the fears are coming from - I just think they are relatively unfounded. I don't think that this recommendation grew out of a giant conspiracy against women. Most likely, it came from the recent reports that infant mortality rates in the US were higher than most other Western countries.

I could see the discussion having gone something like this:

"How do we lower the infant mortality/morbidity rates?"
"Make sure that women have prenatal care."
"But most women in the US do have access to prenatal care. Many states even fund it for those who are indigent."
"Hmmmmm. Many pregnancies are unplanned. Maybe we should suggest that women are healthier in general?"
"That might work!"

It isn't that women are being seen "only" as prepregnant. It is that pregnancy can occur, and many will choose to carry to term even if they weren't planning it.

Seem to have it on my mind, huh? You say it like I'm making a big fuss about nothing. If it wasn't for exactly the kind of thinking I'm advocating, women still wouldn't be voting, and the colour of a person's skin could condemn them to a life on the plantation.

Exactly, so if anything shows up in courts, you can head out onto the streets and get stuff done.

So - what, lesbians should be groomed for pregnancy 'just in case'?

You still aren't seeing it... the advice is not being solicited, is it. It is being given as 'policy'. The role of women is being subtly altered.

I didn't think sexual orientation made you incapable of pregnancy...

And I think you're trying to read something more into this...These are generally good suggestions that we've been hearing for years. The fact that getting pregnant without knowing it is a distinct possiblity is just anoter reason to bring these up.

Actually - if the 'pre-pregnant' policy is allowed to establish itsef as legitimate, you will NOT have to "show she knew she was pregnant", will you...? After all - the whole premise behind 'pre-pregnancy' is that the woman is effectively groomed FOR carrying a child to term.

Not really...That's just what your idea of the article seems to be...

Thus - you can arrive in a situation where a child is born 'harmed' and the woman is held legally responsible, since the advice is POLICY - and thus, she must have CHOSEN to directly oppose 'medical policy'.

And what would the child sue for exactly?

As for the original topic, I really think this is getting blown out of proportion. I understand where the fears are coming from - I just think they are relatively unfounded. I don't think that this recommendation grew out of a giant conspiracy against women. Most likely, it came from the recent reports that infant mortality rates in the US were higher than most other Western countries.

I could see the discussion having gone something like this:

"How do we lower the infant mortality/morbidity rates?"
"Make sure that women have prenatal care."
"But most women in the US do have access to prenatal care. Many states even fund it for those who are indigent."
"Hmmmmm. Many pregnancies are unplanned. Maybe we should suggest that women are healthier in general?"
"That might work!"

It isn't that women are being seen "only" as prepregnant. It is that pregnancy can occur, and many will choose to carry to term even if they weren't planning it.

I disagree. Medical care is hard to come by. Indeed, those who are poorest (and also, most likely to be having the largest number of children) probably cannot afford healthcare most of the time.

Which means that, by the time they KNOW they are pregnant, that damage is done.

A good diet is often harder to afford than a bad one, especially when you consider obligations of work, etc.

The infant mortality rate in the US is the fault of the health system. The sooner the US 'gets over' it's obviously fatally flawed obsession with 'private' medicine, and institutes 'social healthcare' like the rest of the civilised world, the sooner we'll stop killing babies.

The sooner the US 'gets over' it's obviously fatally flawed obsession with 'private' medicine, and institutes 'social healthcare' like the rest of the civilised world, the sooner we'll stop killing babies.

Which might possibly happen the sooner you get more than 1% of americans willing to pay taxes for it.

I disagree. Medical care is hard to come by. Indeed, those who are poorest (and also, most likely to be having the largest number of children) probably cannot afford healthcare most of the time.

Hence the reason that many states (Georgia included) will fund prenatal care for indigent citizens.

Which means that, by the time they KNOW they are pregnant, that damage is done.

In the case of folic acid, this could be true. Many foods are now supplemented with it, but it is still possible for women to miss out on it.

A good diet is often harder to afford than a bad one, especially when you consider obligations of work, etc.

Believe me, I've been a student for quite a few years now - I am aware of this.

Exactly, so if anything shows up in courts, you can head out onto the streets and get stuff done.


Because it is always better to try to cure a wrong, than prevent it from happening?

Imagine if the first American landowners had just said, "Actually, let's not keep slaves"...


I didn't think sexual orientation made you incapable of pregnancy...


No - but a girl who only 'does' other girls is unlikely to conceive from it...


And I think you're trying to read something more into this...These are generally good suggestions that we've been hearing for years. The fact that getting pregnant without knowing it is a distinct possiblity is just anoter reason to bring these up.


And yet, we are not seeing a 'general healthcare' push - we are seeing policy which coins a new phrase for women (it IS gender-specific), that specicifally refers to their capacity to get pregnant.


Not really...That's just what your idea of the article seems to be...


Maybe, I'm the one of the two of us that has READ it...


And what would the child sue for exactly?

I don't know... reckless endangerment? Gross negligence?

Does the specific charge make a difference?

Because it is always betetr to try to cure a wrong, than prevent it from happening?

Imagine if the first American landowners had just said, "Actually, let's not keep slaves"...

Well, considering so far you basically only assumed it's going to happen...

No - but a girl who only 'does' other girls is unlikely to conceive from it...

*shrug* So? Not impossible. Who knows, she might pretend to be heterosexual and do guys even though she isn't attracted to them. She's still physical capable of pregnancy.

And yet, we are not seeing a 'general healthcare' push...

Actually, we are, we've been seeing it for so long maybe you've forgotten. Maybe you've never seen any of these (http://www.thetruth.com/) commercials or something.

I don't know... reckless endangerment? Gross negligence?

Does the specific charge make a difference?

Well, "pre-pregnant" or no, she can hardly show gross negligence towards something she doesn't know exists. And considering things like smoking aren't considered reckless, chances are not taken folic acid wouldn't either...Then again, not a lawyer myself.

Which might possibly happen the sooner you get more than 1% of americans willing to pay taxes for it.

The vast majority in both parties want government-funded care of some kind. The problem isn't the popularity of such a proposal--it's that neither party is willing to put it on the table for discussion.

The vast majority in both parties want government-funded care of some kind. The problem isn't the popularity of such a proposal--it's that neither party is willing to put it on the table for discussion.

No, I know that. A majority of Americans support socialistic policies, but no one wants to pay for them.

Honestly, you act like all this is new. You've never been told not to smoke before? These are things they already suggest anyways, I don't know what it has to do with warts, and if your doctor has been telling you to quit smoking, listen to him. Don't your doctors already tell you to keep your body in peak health just to be in peak health?



Again, people in general are already advised to do those things, so it wouldn't be that big a deal if they gave us another reason for it.

what dont you GET?

i dont want to be treated like permanently pregnant woman. its not reasonable, its not rational and it NOT the business of every doctor i see to enquire as to my reproductive fitness

no i dont think its right for the foot doctor to recommend to me that i stop smoking and eat better. i dont think its reasonable to have every doctor a woman comes in contact with council her about her reproductive fitness. my ob-gyn? FINE, its her job. my family practice doctor? FINE, its his job to consider all aspects of my health.

my....dermatologist? NO. my surgeon? NO. my heart doctor? NO. the doctor in the emergency room? NO. (given that he must know whether or not im pregnant) those doctors are not involved in my reproductive life and they have no business advising me about it.

Which might possibly happen the sooner you get more than 1% of americans willing to pay taxes for it.

Why are we talking about it like it's optional?

Bush's war in Iraq is not MY war in Iraq. I not only do not SUPPORT this war... I actively oppose it, yet my tax dollars fund the deaths of our soldiers.

Government is ultimately answerable to it's people... but we need to stop using hiding behind the skirts of the taxman as an excuse.

No, I know that. A majority of Americans support socialistic policies, but no one wants to pay for them.

Which is a ridiculous idea... we already had this debate in another thread - it turns out that the Canadian socialised medicince costs every taxpayer, AND every individual (overall) LESS than our 'free-market' (meaning, big business monopoly) model.

Which is a ridiculous idea... we already had this debate in another thread - it turns out that the Canadian socialised medicince costs every taxpayer, AND every individual (overall) LESS than our 'free-market' (meaning, big business monopoly) model.

Hey, I'm fine with it. Tell the other 99% about that.

Hey, I'm fine with it. Tell the other 99% about that.

What is it with dodging responsibility? Turning our women into broodmares is someone else's problem... socialising medicine is someone else's problem.

The PROBLEM is, too many people claiming it is SOMEONE ELSE'S problem...

What is it with dodging responsibility? Turning our women into broodmares is someone else's problem... socialising medicine is someone else's problem.

The PROBLEM is, too many people claiming it is SOMEONE ELSE'S problem...

Well, admittedly a lot of the stuff people complained about in here seemed to be some bigger issue only tangentally related to the article. Honestly, I don't even pay taxes yet, but I realize that all these socialistic things we want will require more money, and some moving around of all the money the government already has. Too many people just voting for tax cuts maybe...

And to keep all genders involved:

If the government told doctors with male patients as a "pre-parent", would that be okay? Should doctors remind their male patients not to wear tight pants or stop using hot tubs?

My doctor once did recommend that I not wear tight pants, interestingly. He said nothing about the hot tubs though.

Care to guess?

Wisconsin?

Wisconsin?

No. Though I did visit Madison, Wisconsin at one point. Nice town.

But we should probably have this conversation in another topic. Maybe ask for this one to be split off?

<snip>
It is really not THAT far from 'doctors should advocate pre-pregnant specific care' to - law that protects the 'pre-pregnant' state... and then you are in the abortion arena again - conflicted legal 'jurisdiction' over who really OWNS the reproductive capacity of EVERY woman.

It isn't what is being said that is the problem, it is the rationale.

A doctor (not OB GYN... just regular doctor) making policy decisions based on the 'pre-pregnant' status of his/her patient.

It is discriminatory, it assigns the role of pregnancy to ALL women as an 'eventuality', and it opens a Pandora's Box of legal ramifications to thwart the rights of a womn to govern her own uterus.
Thank you, GnI, for putting your finger right on the problem. The problem is the attitude behind these "recommendations," the thing that makes them tell women to control their diabetes and asthma for the sake of a possibly pregnancy, not for their own sakes.

What does all this say about the role of women in society? Is baby-making the most important thing we have to offer? So important that it trumps all other considerations, so important that every aspect of our health care has to support it? Are we really expected to make it the primary consideration in our own minds, too? Should even women who will never get pregnant -- nuns, lesbians, zero-population growth people, women with serious health problems, women who would abort if they got pregnant -- still plan their diet and exercise regimens around possibly being pregnant some day?

Why? On whose say-so? Their own, or society's? What frigging business is it of society's what I eat or drink, or how hard I train for a sport, or anything about me?

The motivation behind the recommendations is what I have a problem with.

I'm all for public education programs that will make sure that all women and all health care providers know that folic acid and other such things are good for promoting a healthy pregnancy. If I want to hold out for myself the option of getting pregnant some day, I would appreciate that information. But that is not what these so-called recommendations call for. They are advocating a policy for health care providers, so that even if I decide not to follow their advice, I will still be subject to it if the doctors and insurers do follow it.

What does all this say about the role of women in society? Is baby-making the most important thing we have to offer?

No, I'd assume living is, which would explain these recommendations coming about long before this. Nothing and no one has suggested that they think making healthy babies is more important then your general health except y'all.

No, I'd assume living is, which would explain these recommendations coming about long before this. Nothing and no one has suggested that they think making healthy babies is more important then your general health except y'all.
All right, at this point, I'm just about ready to dismiss you as someone who just jumped in to stir up a fight without actually reading the article in the OP. The whole and entire point of everyone who takes offense at these recommendations is that THAT IS EXACTLY what they are suggesting. That's the way we see it. We base this on the precise wording of the recommendations plus who they are directed towards plus the context in which they are being made (US current events). Now, can you point to anything at all in the recommendations that we may have missed that would put our fears to rest? I mean something more than "these aren't laws yet." If not, then all you are doing is just dismissing our concerns as meaningless without actually addressing them. You're being polite enough about it, but that is still what you are doing -- unless, as I say, you can persuade us that we are wrong. Can you?

No, I'd assume living is, which would explain these recommendations coming about long before this. Nothing and no one has suggested that they think making healthy babies is more important then your general health except y'all.

I don't agree.

If we were REALLY worried about the general health of our population - then these rules would be dietary, not medical.

Example - we are REALLY worried about children's teeth - so water supplies add fluoride. If you live in one of those areas that has no municipal water, or thatdoesn't (yet) add fluoride, you CAN get fluoride through your doctor... but it is being added at the 'dietary' level, effectively.

Similarly - if we are going to believe a genuine 'overall' concern for health - then helath-giving chemicals become a requirement in foods, for example... not targetted at women alone, in their doctor's surgeries.

And - what about Folic Acid... that is clearly not being recommended for 'general' reasons - it is being specifically targetted at this state THEY call 'pre-pregnant'.

The fact that a term HAS been 'coined' to claim a pre-pregnant status should be enough of an indicator of the agenda.

For your constant protestations of 'general health'... these 'suggestions' are very gender-specific, and target a specific process (hence the Folic Acid). Your claims fly in the face of the evidence.

Not in the case of folic acid. That's definitely an addition to the healthy list.
Folic Acid is good for you and the baby that you might have some day. But it's not only women who should take it. My father was perscibed Folic Acid after he had a heart attack. Apparently it is also good for your heart. Of course, the dosage that he got is MUCH higher than that recommended for "pre-pregnant" and pregnant women.

I feel very happy that I live in a country that already had universal health care. If we didn't, I don't think that I would have had my two beautiful girls and my hubby wouldn't have been snipped so we wouldn't have anymore kids. All paid for by the govenment.

The whole idea is abhorrent to me. Treating women as "pre-pregnant" is right up there with treating men as "potential rapists".

I don't agree.

If we were REALLY worried about the general health of our population - then these rules would be dietary, not medical.

Example - we are REALLY worried about children's teeth - so water supplies add fluoride. If you live in one of those areas that has no municipal water, or thatdoesn't (yet) add fluoride, you CAN get fluoride through your doctor... but it is being added at the 'dietary' level, effectively.

Similarly - if we are going to believe a genuine 'overall' concern for health - then helath-giving chemicals become a requirement in foods, for example... not targetted at women alone, in their doctor's surgeries.

And - what about Folic Acid... that is clearly not being recommended for 'general' reasons - it is being specifically targetted at this state THEY call 'pre-pregnant'.

The fact that a term HAS been 'coined' to claim a pre-pregnant status should be enough of an indicator of the agenda.

For your constant protestations of 'general health'... these 'suggestions' are very gender-specific, and target a specific process (hence the Folic Acid). Your claims fly in the face of the evidence.

I'm not talking about just...Oy...Hold up.

This (http://www.ahrq.gov/ppip/50plus/stayhealthy.htm#smoking) is the sort of thing I'm talking about. This is about drinking less and not smoking for your general health, and you've heard these sorts of things long before this article came about. Now tell me, if making babies was more important, why did it come up so much later?

I'm not talking about just...Oy...Hold up.

This (http://www.ahrq.gov/ppip/50plus/stayhealthy.htm#smoking) is the sort of thing I'm talking about. This is about drinking less and not smoking for your general health, and you've heard these sorts of things long before this article came about. Now tell me, if making babies was more important, why did it come up so much later?

Not smoking is not new. Drinking less is not new.

It is packaging these things in a new collective box labelled 'pre-pregnant' care, that is worrying... because it suggests guidelines for a 'condition'... and that 'condition' is the simple ABSENCE of pregnancy in a woman.

It's been said a number of times in this thread - the advice is not objected to - it is where it comes from, and the 'rationale'.


If I want to be checked for prostate cancer, I will go see a proctologist - I don't want my dentist to slap on a pair of gloves and chase me around his surgery.

I'm not talking about just...Oy...Hold up.

This (http://www.ahrq.gov/ppip/50plus/stayhealthy.htm#smoking) is the sort of thing I'm talking about. This is about drinking less and not smoking for your general health, and you've heard these sorts of things long before this article came about. Now tell me, if making babies was more important, why did it come up so much later?
have you read the article from the original post yet?

have you read the article from the original post yet?

It seriously seems like Dinaverg is determined to talk about a different-but-connected issue, rather than discuss the actual issue in question...

Does anyone have a link to the actual set of recommendations? The article is nice and all, but I'd like to actually see what the CDC is saying, instead of a paraphrase that might be unnecessarily inflammatory. (For instance, I'm guessing that the term "pre-pregnant" that everyone is so upset asbout was devised by the author of the article - not the writers of the recommendations.)

The closest thing I can find to any of this on the CDC website is this:

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0019479/m0019479.asp

It specifically references folic acid, recommending that all women who can get pregnant take 0.4 mg of folic acid per day, but none of the other factors are mentioned.