A CDC report came out recommending that women between the ages of the first menstruation and menopause be considered "pre-pregnant". The Washington Post has an article about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html
The CDC reports that all these women should take folic acid, stop smoking, keep weight, asthma and other chronic conditions under control. The CDC is recommending this because half the pregnancies in the US are unintended, and the US has a high child mortality rate.
Many feminist bloggers have been reacting to it, feeling insulted for being treated only as "baby carriers". See:
http://f-words.blogspot.com/2006/05/barefoot-and-pre-pregnant.html
http://feministing.com/archives/005043.html
http://sagespot.livejournal.com/214109.html
Among others.
Now, this is about reproductive health. Aren't these women in favour of reproductive health?
I understand that some of this can seem ludicrous. Giving an innocent 11-year-old abstinent girl folic acid? Treating her as pre-pregnant? C'mon.
The notion that women are pre-pregnant, is, well, kind a dumb.You can take any condition and just say a person is "pre-". I'm a pre-senior. Should I be treated as a pre-senior? I'm potentially pre-cancerous. Should I be treated as pre-cancerous?
From the point of view of the unborn child, it's not dumb for women who are sexually active and can conceive to be sensible. Yes,women should do it for themselves, but some women won't until pregnancy is involved. But why invent a really stupid concept for it?
I think some of the feminist reaction is hysterical. These are guidelines after all. You can take 'em or leave 'em. Nobody is going to shove folic acid down their throats.
On the other hand, let's get real. As I said: giving an eleven-year-old folic acid? Telling a middle-aged woman to avoid cat feces? People have lives. We've reproduced without this advice for centuries, and we're all here!
I think the intentions of the report are good. This isn't about treating women are incubators, and really, the notion that these authors are trying to do that is ludicrous. On the other hand, some of their recommendations are not really rooted in reality. We're not obliged to be so scrupulous about our every action because of something that MIGHT happen. The risks have to be weighed. I don't think there's a great deal of risk. That's the stupidity of it. They're grasping at straws.
