Forever Pregnant
Washington Post published an article today entitled Forever Pregnant - Guidelines: Treat Nearly All Women as Pre-Pregnant
Why this raises my feminist hackles: Women already get asked every time we go to a doctor whether we are pregnant, have some chance of being pregnant, or plan to get pregnant soon. Usually there is also a question about use of birth control (the pill, condoms, etc.) and promiscuity. This covers the information that a doctor needs to know to make any recommendations. Men (as a class of people) are typically not considered as potential fathers until their girlfriend/wife is pregnant (i.e. until a fetus enters the question). Until that time, a man is "sowing his wild oats" and given license to take terrible care of his health and make as many mistakes as he can stand. Granted, women can be pregnant for 4-6 weeks before becoming aware of it, and we should take care of our health in the event of a surprise pregnancy. However, this concern can be addressed in terms of taking care of ourselves for its own sake, though, rather than for the sake of a fetus that doesn't exist yet and who may never exist.
I have seen a few arguments about preventive care for prostate health and erectile dysfunction in men being similar to the one presented in the article; however, the focus of these tactics is still on the man himself and his health, not singly his utility as a potential procreator. Smoking can cause sexual side effects in women as well as men, can lower the efficacy of birth control, and increases the risks of serious blood clots. Women are less likely to orgasm when they are under the influence of alcohol. While doctors and public health officials feel comfortable telling men, "By doing these things, you're probably decreasing the pleasure you get from sex," they are not generally comfortable saying the same thing to women. The argument of "do it for your potential children" implies we wouldn't want to avoid blood clots or unexpected pregnancy and we certainly wouldn't (or shouldn't) want to enjoy sex more just for ourselves.
The rates of infant mortality are significantly higher among women who cannot financially access regular prenatal or postnatal care - the same women whose birth rate is increasing as a result of restriction of access to birth control and abortion services. Making health care (including birth control) more readily available to women who can't presently afford it would make a much greater impact than interrogating every woman who goes into a doctor's office about whether she is doing enough to ensure her fitness as a potential mother.
EDIT (5/21): The original report from the CDC is here and in a not-so-shocking departure from the article actually addressed the concerns I had about these recommendations. The CDC is promoting contraception and good overall health, including improvements in health care for poor women with insufficient access right now. Shame on WaPo for making a sensationalist article that misrepresented the guidelines.
Why this raises my feminist hackles: Women already get asked every time we go to a doctor whether we are pregnant, have some chance of being pregnant, or plan to get pregnant soon. Usually there is also a question about use of birth control (the pill, condoms, etc.) and promiscuity. This covers the information that a doctor needs to know to make any recommendations. Men (as a class of people) are typically not considered as potential fathers until their girlfriend/wife is pregnant (i.e. until a fetus enters the question). Until that time, a man is "sowing his wild oats" and given license to take terrible care of his health and make as many mistakes as he can stand. Granted, women can be pregnant for 4-6 weeks before becoming aware of it, and we should take care of our health in the event of a surprise pregnancy. However, this concern can be addressed in terms of taking care of ourselves for its own sake, though, rather than for the sake of a fetus that doesn't exist yet and who may never exist.
I have seen a few arguments about preventive care for prostate health and erectile dysfunction in men being similar to the one presented in the article; however, the focus of these tactics is still on the man himself and his health, not singly his utility as a potential procreator. Smoking can cause sexual side effects in women as well as men, can lower the efficacy of birth control, and increases the risks of serious blood clots. Women are less likely to orgasm when they are under the influence of alcohol. While doctors and public health officials feel comfortable telling men, "By doing these things, you're probably decreasing the pleasure you get from sex," they are not generally comfortable saying the same thing to women. The argument of "do it for your potential children" implies we wouldn't want to avoid blood clots or unexpected pregnancy and we certainly wouldn't (or shouldn't) want to enjoy sex more just for ourselves.
The rates of infant mortality are significantly higher among women who cannot financially access regular prenatal or postnatal care - the same women whose birth rate is increasing as a result of restriction of access to birth control and abortion services. Making health care (including birth control) more readily available to women who can't presently afford it would make a much greater impact than interrogating every woman who goes into a doctor's office about whether she is doing enough to ensure her fitness as a potential mother.
EDIT (5/21): The original report from the CDC is here and in a not-so-shocking departure from the article actually addressed the concerns I had about these recommendations. The CDC is promoting contraception and good overall health, including improvements in health care for poor women with insufficient access right now. Shame on WaPo for making a sensationalist article that misrepresented the guidelines.