"Clinics must find a way to do this and not scare women." Wow. God knows we can't be trusted to put our own best health interests first, and for fuck's sake let's protect the self-destructive, hysterical incubator from herself. Mm-hmm. Between this and the conference on STD's that turned into an abstinence-only denialfest, he CDC is putting out some scary stuff these days.

What's next? Reporting women of childbearing age for eating sushi?

"folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control."

While that's good advice "pre-pregnant" is one of the most retarded buzz-words I've heard all year. And I emphasize the fact that it's just a buzz-word. Unfortunatly buzz-words have become so damn pervasive and recalcitrant these days that it seems the entire debate consists of each side shouting buzz-words and clique rhetoric back and forth. It's sad really , and prepregnant is just the latest in a long line of meaningless bullshit that has become difficult to escape from.

This is madness. I guess I have to go home and tell the BF that I can never clean the catbox again, as "exposure to cat feces" may endanger me in my delicate state of pre-pregnancy.

This is so maddening. Set aside, for a moment, the notion that all women are nothing more than baby-makers, constantly in a "pre-pregnant" state. And just focus on the fact that the article contains all this finger-wagging about developing a "reproductive health plan" at a time when the government is curtailing access to abortion and contraception services.
The CDC openly acknowledges that many women lack access to care, but rather than admonish the Bush administration and legislators who've cut funding for low-income women's reproductive health, they'd rather tell women to "manage risk factors."

Arrrgh!

Can I say it again? ARRRGH! (Sorry, this one's got me really pissed off.)

ACOG is in on this? Why?

This is absurd and maddening. I am all for ensuring healthy pregnancies, but the federal government announcing that we are "pre-pregnant" simply because we bleed is upsetting. I am so SICK of being given the mantle of motherhood without ever asking for it.

Where are the directives that all men between the ages of 12 and 75 should be considered potential fathers, and thus should avoid pot-smoking and alcohol to increase their sperm count?

Let's encourage healthy lifestyles for EVERYONE regardless of their potential to procreate. For pete's sake.

They put smoking in there, but forgot to add that all women in a pre conception state should not drink alcohol. Or is a man's right to rape drunk women higher on the list than the life of the fetus?

"Preconception care should be delivered by any doctor a patient sees" So then my optometrist should ask me if/when I plan to have children? Perhaps he will even be kind enough to evaluate my decisions and tell me what I "choose" to do.

My ex-sister-in-law is well respected in academia genetic research. She has given papers worldwide and is lead researcher at a prestigious university.

For a year before she and my brother conceived their son, my brother refrained from smoking, drinking and was especially careful with his diet.

Let me say this in basic layman's terms: according to her, the condition of sperm is important to producing a healthy child.

Their son is very smart, though obviously takes after her side of the family.

Can one be pre-pregnant and on the pill at the same time? What about women who never intend to have children or who can't have children or who want to adopt children? Oh, right - we're all supposed to be dropping litters for the Fatherland, at least if we're white.

i just have to say that i gasped out loud when i read this. that's all.

It can't be pre-pregnant if you never plan on getting pregnant -- just like there's no such thing as pre-marital sex if you're never getting married.

We godless liberal baby-killers should just specify -- we're pre-abortion.

It puts the lotion on its skin.

God, this is awful. You shall take the pills, you shall do nothing 'bad.'
Sign me up for a hysterectomy.

The thing about avoiding contact with cat feces is a crock. The threat to a pregnancy from cat feces is toxoplasmosis, which is only a problem if contracted during pregnancy. Those of us who have been scooping cat poop for lo, these many years without gloves have long since been exposed (and if there's any doubt re immunity, there's a test. I had myself tested before becoming pregnant just so I wouldn't have to worry). You can also get it from gardening or eating undercooked meat (nearly the only type of meat worth eating). Most people never know they've been exposed and become immune.

So where is the advice for pre-paternal men?

Sad and stupid. As a "child-bearing-aged" woman I had to talk my way around the baby subject before being prescribed teratogenic drugs that I needed. In the end, though, I got them without much hassle, which kept my screaming fit at bay. I suppose it helped that my doctor was a woman who trusted that when I said "I don't want children" I meant it.

Pre-pregnant. Jeeziz. When will they drop the female pronoun and just start calling us "it"?

So I guess the 9 year old girls who start their period should be taking folic acid supplements?

Amanda: exactly what I was thinking. I guess the government doesn't care if I smoke, eat too much, and don't take care of my asthma or diabetes. Same goes for women to can't conceive. I don't know which is more sad: young women treated only as baby makers or everyone else as expendable.

Aren't these guidelines general common sense health tips that everyone should be following?

And what about sushi and Stilton cheese? guess if you might sometime in your life get preggers, you should avoid those too.
but don't quit smoking, eat healthy or any of those things for your own sake. the fetus is all that counts.

So you can be a cloistered nun /and/ an expectant mother your entire reproductively available life.

Woohoo!

There are just so many ways this is wrongly aimed. Is there any way to divine who put these new 'federal guidelines' together?

Thanks for writing ladies. You basically covered all points in your comments.

Now how do we get our message across to the people that aren't just CDC Bush employees/flacks? All the paternalistic, well-intentioned doctors quoted in the piece need to have us explain to them why what they wrote is dehumanizing and wrong.

it's obviously not worded/marketed in the best manner and coming from this administration, it's definitely suspect.

But I work on the issue of mercury in seafood. Mercury is more damaging to the fetus than to the mother and unfortunately it can take up to or over a year for mercury to leave your system. So educating women about this issue (among others) even if you aren't pregnant (or don't plan to become pregnant) IS important.

Especially since birth control is not actually really available to all or 100% reliable...

this is worrying in a climate where republican types want to prosecute women for harming fetuses by drinking/smoking/driving/voting /not covering their elbows and ankles while pregnant. can drinking while pre-pregnant or potentially pregnant be far behind?

Please tell me that the Post's source for this was The Onion. Please?

Seriously, as I understand the matter of pregnancy, the pregnant woman is not supposed to take certain prescription medications. Do all of us newly "pre-pregnant" (why does that term sound like the "bullshit" cough?) have to stop taking our prescription meds on the off-chance that we might one day, theoritically, perhaps maybe become pregnant?

Seriously, as I understand the matter of pregnancy, the pregnant woman is not supposed to take certain prescription medications. Do all of us newly "pre-pregnant" (why does that term sound like the "bullshit" cough?) have to stop taking our prescription meds on the off-chance that we might one day, theoritically, perhaps maybe become pregnant?

Here are my questions for the doctors that came up with this insanity:

Does a woman actually need to bleed (have regular periods) to be considered "pre-pregnant"? What about those of us that use the pill to suppress periods for very long stretches?

That elective hysterectomy may not be so elective much longer...

You guys have basically covered it. I'll add this, just because it'll make me feel better to say it:

I am not pre-*anything*. I am what I am right now.

Dear Mr. Governmento:

First things first: miracle of miracles, women have been pregnant and given birth without your advice. But since you're giving it anyway, I have my suggestions, as I think your advice to "Pre-Pregnant and Scared" was way off the mark.

I know this is all part of promoting a "culture of life"--but if we care about life, I think that you'd be more apt to advise that we take care of the life that's already alive. For example, we could work on making sure all children in the US have access to basic nutrition. And then we could move on to the rest of the world. And don't get me started on education! If you really like life so much, improve the life we have

End world hunger and I will consider taking your folic acid.

With all due sincerity,
"Disgruntled Incubator"

Dear Mr. Governmento:

First things first: miracle of miracles, women have been pregnant and given birth without your advice. But since you're giving it anyway, I have my suggestions, as I think your advice to "Pre-Pregnant and Scared" was way off the mark.

I know this is all part of promoting a "culture of life"--but if we care about life, I think that you'd be more apt to advise that we take care of the life that's already alive. For example, we could work on making sure all children in the US have access to basic nutrition. And then we could move on to the rest of the world. And don't get me started on education! If you really like life so much, improve the life we have

End world hunger and I will consider taking your folic acid.

With all due sincerity,
"Disgruntled Incubator"

This has lots of inclinations for women in the workplace too (or at least if it really were to be taken seriously, which is daft). In my line of work I've come across chemicals that shouldn't be handled by those who are pregnant or plan to be for the abortive/teratogenic nature of those chemicals -fair enough. Some have tried to push that women should not use these chemicals in case they are unaware of pregnancy but I've always pushed that this shouldn't be the case. Guidlines like this would change what I would be able to do and make me have to ask my male collegues to carry out some of my work for me!!

May i add that there has never been any insination that men should not be alowed to use pyridine, a chemical which can cause infertility in men only!! That and the protective clothing and equipment that is issued in the workplace should avoid all contact where possible anyway.

Add pthalates to that list. For all you artist women and men, you may no longer paint with the color blue. It likely contains pthalates, and will harm your unborn children, or, horror of horrors, render you unable to have children at all.

So don't eat your tube of blue paint, because we all know you want to.

ok
this is a clasiic example of how feminists have for so long been loud and demanding ,at first people will listen but after a while it just turns into a noise ,so we must carry on as we were before.sorry girls you are your own worst enemy

This post is a classic. It will forever be remembered as an example of what you get when you combine extreme feminist paranoia with a highly developed victimhood complex.

The recommendations are here:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5506a1.htm

The term 'prepregnant' is not used anywhere within the report.

The recommendations are aimed at improving woman's health before conception. So miscarriages and maternal deaths can be prevented, pregnancy is planned, and involve things like making sure women with low incomes are provided with health insurance coverage.

You know, the sort of women's health program feministing.com has been campaigning *for*.

I'm sure the Washington Post could have reported more accurately, but when a perfectly sensible women's health program triggers a persecution complex like this then something's very wrong.

To reiterate my point from earlier (and to summarily ignore the troll), isn't anyone else bothered by the article's mention that ACOG is involved in this movement? ACOG is generally a kick-ass pro-woman organization, I don't see why they would be involved with this when it is so offensive to so many of us. The CDC and other governmental agencies I can maybe understand. But not ACOG.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging healthier lifestyle for women. But why does it necessarily have to be done and presented as "preconception" awareness? Why not just general health awareness? Why not tell the entire population (men and women) that, hey, it's good to be healthy because, amongst other things, you will live longer, you will be more productive, breed healthier children, have more energy, be less prone to illnesses, etc?

The offense I take from this is not that I don't believe in better health standards for pregnant women (or women in general), it's that I don't believe potential mothers (i.e. all women before menopause) are the ONLY population that should be targeted for better health standards. (This could be a good time to ask why we seem to care so little about the physical and mental health of men.)

In the meanwhile, the actual report is interesting. Thanks for posting the link. :) I appreciate this statement:

Preconception care offers health services that allow women to [...] choose the number and spacing of their pregnancies and, when desired, prepare for a healthy baby.

The solid recommendations in the report are good, for the most part, and I do not object to them. But my god, why is this sort of effort only focused on women? Yes, women who intend to have children have particular health needs, yet, many of these recommendations such as health care for those with low income, preventative check-ups, better management of diabetes and obesity... these things apply to men as well. Women should not be the only targets and it says something about how women are viewed in this country when a special set of publicized health standards only apply to them BECAUSE they MAY one day produce children. It suggests that women aren't important as women themselves, but rather, as carriers of the next generation, an implication that many of us resent.

There's also the worry that this sort of report/action will give further ammunition to all sorts of anti-woman behavior: for instance, taking birth control pills have sometimes (according to some studies, and not according to others) been associated with decreased fertility. I can imagine a pharmacist from refusing a woman her birth control pills (some already refuse EC), or really, any other pills, with the excuse that s/he must preserve the preconception health of a woman. A doctor can refuse to prescribe certain medications. Abortion, which has been implicated (again, dubiously) with lowered fertility and emotional trauma ... well, that's not good preconception health either. Yes, I'm travelling down a slippery slope but it's a slope that I don't doubt others will happily slide down.

I'm not trolling. I just think you're looking at this through ideological blinkers which have caused to you to misinterpret and go nuts about something which you've been campaigning for.

"why does it necessarily have to be done and presented as "preconception" awareness?"

Giving birth raises very special health issues. The health events they are tring to avoid (miscarriages, traumatic deliveries, and so on) are associated with pregnancy and giving birth - and it's mostly too late to do much to avoid these once you're pregnant.

If you're diabetic, you've one set of problem, if you're diabetic and want to give birth, you've a totally different set of problems. This can't be subsumed under general health care.

"why is this sort of effort only focused on women?... It suggests that women aren't important as women themselves, but rather, as carriers of the next generation"

It's aimed at reducing the heath risks of pregnancy to women. Second sentence: "The goal of these recommendations is to improve the health of women and couples, before conception of a first or subsequent pregnancy". Pregnancy is traumatic. The aim is to try and prevent women being screwed over by pregnancy. That's why it's focused on women (though if you read the article, one or two recommendations do involve men).

"So where is the advice for pre-paternal men?"

Seriously and welcome to The Handmaid's Tale.

Nik-
I read the whole CDC report, too. And I agree with you that the WaPo article makes it out to be worse than it actually is. Although they don't use the term "prepregnant," the term "preconception" is in the report's title. Same thing, in my mind.

As for this:

The recommendations are aimed at improving woman's health before conception. So miscarriages and maternal deaths can be prevented, pregnancy is planned, and involve things like making sure women with low incomes are provided with health insurance coverage.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with most of the recommendations. I just want the CDC to say it's good for women to be healthy, period-- not only because they could potentially conceive. Or I'd like to see the CDC include a caveat that women who "one day plan to be pregnant" should follow these recommendations.

Also, the report completely ignores the fact that their recommendations are contradicted by the federal government's attitude and policies toward women's health and family planning. (I posted on this over at the Mother Jones blog.)

"You know, the sort of women's health program feministing.com has been campaigning *for*."

I think the ulimate feminist goal should be a little switch discretely disguised as a mole on the lower back or something, that could be set to either conceive or not conceive, that defaulted to not conceive when not used. This would solve every reproductive issue from abortion, unplanned pregnancy and birth control. Can we evolve one?

What the actual report says is important, but it’s also important as to how it is represented to the public. And it’s represented in the Post as: women should be treated and treat themselves as capable of becoming pregnant (and therefore carrying foetus to term) at any time throughout their lives, whether they’re having sex or not, whether they’re on bc or not and whether they plan to have a child or not.

Also problematic is the underlying assumption that when women become pregnant they will stay pregnant. I was at the doctor recently and she asked the question about whether I was sexually active and if yes then I should probably be taking folic acid. I replied that I had no intention of having a child and she responded with the typical *half of all pregnancies are unplanned*. To me, that stat doesn’t change the fact that I’m not having a child, whether or not I accidentally become pregnant.

This is also another attempt at responsibilizing women and controlling women’s bodies and reproduction. It seems to me to be pretty obvious that one of the main factors in a high infant mortality rate is not having access to health care and in the US where (whatever the high percentage of) people don’t have access to affordable health care this is a huge problem. But, by turning it around and placing the responsibility and blame onto individual women the systemic class and gender inequalities are let off the hook. And while feminists have been pushing for women’s health and reproduction to be taken seriously, this is not really taking women’s health concerns seriously, but in a way co-opting that goal in the efforts to individualize a social problem and to continue to assert control over women’s behaviours and bodies.

And we don’t have to condemn it completely. Things like this are rarely all bad or all good, there are good aspects to this and maybe this should be considered a solid attempt at truly addressing women’s health. But I think that we should be sceptical, it’s not paranoia, unfortunately it’s scepticism based on past experience and the current political climate.

Right on, ts!

The second goal, as stated in the report, is to "assure that all women of childbearing age in the United States receive preconception care services".

I may be of childbearing age, but like ts, never intend on having a child, whether or not I get pregnant. For women who have made this decision to go child-free, suggesting that we should still prepare ourselves for that condition is demeaning and insulting -- two conditions I don't ever stand for.

All of this smacks of post-WWII England. But I refuse to close my eyes and let the government take control (let alone suggest how I should take care of) of my body.

yes but that means we should still cut out all mercury.

look i was pregnant- had an abortion-- this whole "incase you get pregnant" thing implies that they think all of us are gonna carry to term. hells no.

i can promise that god forbid should i ever get unintentionally pregnant again i will most certainly have another termination.

Ugh I know I "make the movement look bad" by saying that. and no i wouldnt want to be quoted on some GOP blog but seriously. how many of us would even consider carrying to term if we got knocked up by accident?

exactly

and especially in today's environment that is so hostile to working mothers and no childcare etc.

girls
you are a very hard to please group,first you say that you want a specific female health program .then you complain when you get it ,
i say again,because of your failure to acknowledge your own victorys,feminisem is dead in the water

Hey, anon, I don't think you make the movement look bad. I think that's exactly what we fight for, that we shouldn't have our lives seized from us just because we're sexually active and, just like everybody else, occasionally we make mistakes or contraception fails.

I just want to point out to the childfree contingent that, if you plan on getting an abortion, you are still pregnant from conception until then. There are various things that can go wrong with an unwanted pregnancy, and seriously damage you, even if you don't want to turn it into a baby.

I accept that people who plan on remaining virgins can perhaps legitimately complain. But as they tend to get get vilified on this blog, I'm not sure they'd want you speaking for them.

I guess the CDC did not read this story. So where are the guidelines for men.

Genetic Mutations Tied To Father in Most Cases
"... growing evidence suggests that men, rather than women, may be the source of most new genetic mutations in the population, and thus may be responsible for the majority of congenital diseases that seem to come from nowhere. In addition, the older the man gets, the more likely his sperm is to carry genetic mutations. " -The New York Time

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D01E1D81738F934A25756C0A962958260

Google "older father birth defects"

" ... we shouldn't have our lives seized from us just because we're sexually active ... "

Who is seizing lives? The CDC listed guidelines. This isn't law, these are recommendations.

"... growing evidence suggests that men, rather than women, may be the source of most new genetic mutations in the population ... "

Shan, the CDC listed guidelines to prevent birth defects, not genetic mutations. Two different sets of problems.

I was replying to anon's comment, as was crystal clear from my first sentence, and referring to the possibility of making abortions illegal. As far as I'm concerned, being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against my will is indeed seizing my life--hijacking my body to serve somebody else's goals.

I just think this whole thing is being taken much farther than it should.

I am post-pregnant, by 19 years. I work in construction and with radar. I will NOT be having any more children. Two is enough. I look forward to being grandma.

ts -- I hope you either told off the doctor, found a new one and explained why, or both.

Dave -- No one is suggesting that you are an idiot who needs to be told every time you see Any doctor for Any reason you should be told how every choice you make will effect your future children, whether you plan on them or not. Why would you be insulted? They are saying I am. So, yes; I am insulted.

It is insulting for your doctor to look after your health and the health of your family? Even if you choose that you will not have any children in the future, you still have the ability to change your mind.

sad sad sad ,look at what you females have become.you are a disgrace to humanity .
you have seperated yourself from the real humans.
good luck

Is it just me, or are John and Dave revealing themselves as wholy unempathic and more than a little dense? Or are they just trolls?

John -- you show your anti-women bias with such statements as that of yesterday a.m. Also, treating all women as in a preconception state does not address female health; it addresses natal health.

Dave, are you really that much an idiot? I work with someting that may cause mutation. Additionally, I have a negative Rh factor and a husband with a positive Rh factor. Incidents of birth defects increase for every pregnancy in such cases, including still birth, major retardation, multiple physical problems. I am lucky to have had 2 healthy babies. I have healthy grown children. I am in my 40s.

I will NOT be having any more children, EVER. I will not change my mind. Even if I did, my husband would freak as he has no desire for us starting over just as we get the kids out of the nest.

Telling me how my indulgence in a bottle of hard cider can hurt the unborn and how I should be taking suppliments beyond what are needed for my own health just because I have not hit menopause is not looking after MY health nor that of my family. My daughter does not need anyone telling her such things either; she's a biologist who has studied both genetics and reproduction.

Guidelines saying she and I should be advised along the lines of pre-natal health Every Time we visit Any health professional is Beyond run of the mill insult.

It assumes all women have no clue. It assumes all women will have children in the future. It assumes even women who never plan on having children, or more children, don't have any notion of their own minds. How is this not insulting?

If what is say is correct, then you and your daughter are not the intended recipients of these guidelines. These are meant for those that aren't as educated in natal care.

It is much faster and easier for your doctor to run through some of these guidelines than to quiz you on your educational background and family future.

Nanny state judicial practices have decided that we as a people need to be informed of every danger that exists despite the obviousness. Example? McDonald's losing millions of dollars because the hot coffee did not have a warning label.

I was speaking with a doctor friend about this "pre-pregnant" notion. He was trying to defend it saying that a woman might not know she was pregnant and lack of folic acid could cause birth defects my reply was simple and quieted him imediatly; "If I got pregnant I'd have an abortion, birth defects really aren't an issue."

In response to Posted by: john | May 17, 2006 08:04 PM:
"girls
you are a very hard to please group,first you say that you want a specific female health program .then you complain when you get it ,
i say again,because of your failure to acknowledge your own victorys,feminisem is dead in the water."

First of all, we are not girls. We are women. Secondly, how is it a victory when the CDC encourages every doctor to ignore the family planning that women may have done for themselves and to treat all women of childbearing age as though they are prepregnant? Many times, I have told doctors that I do not plan to become pregnant and that I am not currently pregnant. Many times, doctors have delayed important medical care in order to perform a pregnancy test to ensure that I was being truthful -- and I have never been pregnant. Until my doctors consider my health at least as important as the health of an as-yet unconceived zygote, the "female-specific health program" of which you speak is not complete.

"...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."

Never mind the fact that this unplanned pregnancy may also be completely unwanted and aborted.
Oh, sorry, I forgot that abortion is somehow a criminal offence that is allowed by law but not by individuals in the health service or anyone who is supposed to help carry them out.

It's badly worded and offensive. But the medical advice is sound : most women only find out that they're pregnant at 5/6 weeks; past the critical period of organogenesis, by which time it's too late to take folate supplements. Neural tube defects can have devastating consequences - spina bifida with its related paralysis and incontinence. So, bad BAD way of putting it, but good advice. For those who DO want to get pregnant. Otherwise take OCPs - they put control back into your hands and also help prevent breast and endometrial cancer.