Wednesday, May 17, 2006


HOLD YOUR FIRE!

The progressive blogosphere (which I consider myself to be a card carrying member of) is currently shitting a brick over this news report from the Washington Post. The skinny:
"Forever Pregnant"

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.
As inflammatory as this may sound to many, it is music to the ears of anyone like me who is currently preparing for a career in the (overwhelmingly progressive) field of public health. The USA has the worst prenatal care health outcomes in the developed world precisely because we're not facilitating the kind of preventive medicine. Still, many of my compatriots are worried that this guideline is going to lead down a slippery slope.

A good glimpse of what's being said is just a Technorati search away.

Considering that the Post article didn't link to it, I doubt many of the folks angry about this have read the actual report. In a nutshell, it has four goals:
1) improve the knowledge and attitudes and behaviors of men and women related to preconception health;
2) assure that all women of childbearing age in the United States receive preconception care services (i.e., evidence-based risk screening, health promotion, and interventions) that will enable them to enter pregnancy in optimal health;
3) reduce risks indicated by a previous adverse pregnancy outcome through interventions during the interconception period, which can prevent or minimize health problems for a mother and her future children; and
4) reduce the disparities in adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Those goals have prompted 10 recommendations:
1) individual responsibility across the lifespan,
2) consumer awareness,
3) preventive visits,
4) interventions for identified risks,
5) interconception care,
6) prepregnancy checkup,
7) health insurance coverage for women with low incomes,
8) public health programs and strategies,
9) research,
10) monitoring improvements.
snip
CDC developed these recommendations by 1) reviewing published research; 2) convening the CDC/ASTDR Preconception Care Work Group, representing 22 programs; 3) evaluating presentations of best and emerging practice models at the National Summit on Preconception Care in 2005; and 4) convening the Select Panel on Preconception Care (SPPC), comprised of subject matter specialists on obstetrics and gynecology, nursing, public health, midwifery, epidemiology, dentistry, family practice, pediatrics, and other disciplines.
snip
The health status of minority women with low incomes contributes to persistent, and sometimes increasing, disparities in birth outcomes. In one study, the reduced overall health status (including poorer physical and emotional health) of women with low income during the month before pregnancy was associated with an increased risk for preterm labor (59). Socioeconomic status directly and indirectly influences three major determinants of health: healthcare access, environmental exposure, and health behavior (60,61). Racial inequalities in access to effective treatment also influence these determinants of pregnancy outcomes for women and infants
So let's recap. We're making an evidence-based, collaborative approach to a problem that disproportionately affects poor and minority women by empowering them to make changes in their lives that will ultimately help to pull them out of the vicious cycle of poverty and poor health outcomes. Sounds a lot better when we look at it that way, doesn't it?

But what are we to make of goal #2? Isn't it strongly worded?

Yes, it is, but for good reason. Bear with me.

This isn't a case of "them" trying to disguise an anti-abortion agenda as being about healthy babies. This is a case of "us" trying to disguise the progressive agenda as being "pro-family." We're fighting fire with fire. Poor women, under the guise of "prepregnancy checkups," will have added access to birth control. Minority women will have fewer poor pregnancy outcomes thanks to effective preventive care. Women as a whole will be given greater access to affordable health insurance... and all we have to do is put up with it being called "prepregnancy care" (a term taken from the scientific literature). Talk about the lesser of two evils.

Look, I'm as much about keeping the government's hands off of my wife's uterus as anybody, but these guidelines are about empowering women to take control of their reproductive health.

To my allies in the liberal/progressive blogosphere... please don't make the CDC's good advice a casualty of friendly fire. If we're serious about ensur[ing] that children will be wanted and loved (Planned Parenthood), we need to take the above steps, and take them in a way that brings our political enemies on board with us.

Please visit these fine progressive bloggers and ask them to read what the CDC wrote and reconsider their harsh judgment of this set of guidelines.

Bitch, PhD.
Feministing
Atrios
Feministe
pesky'apostrophe
Road to Serfdom
Hughes for America
Pinko Feminist Hellcat
Shakespear's Sister

and all the rest.

Update:
More bloggers are weighing in, mostly without reading the report first, it seems -
Bring it on
Gun Toting Liberal
Blondesense
edrants

Fortunately...

Outside the Beltway gets it.
Pandagon gets it.
Gabbiana gets it.
Echidne of the Snakes tones things down a bit after reading the report itself

One Last Thought:

From Ezra Klein:
If we want to remain the side committed to serious science and the preservation of expertise, we've got to support well-documented research when it emerges, even if its leaves us uncomfortable.
Put a fork in me... I'm done.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Back to AIDS Combat Zone

13 Comments:

At 11:55 AM, Blogger Rana said...

Um, if they _really_ cared about health, they'd be addressing male fertility issues and environmental pollutants as factors too.

Women's health is about more than their fertility; fertility involves more than patronizing women.

 
At 12:12 PM, Blogger Brad said...

Who do you mean by "they"? The CDC? The CDC does indeed address male fertility issues, just not in this document (male fertility doesn't generally effect pregnancy health outcomes, just whether or not conception occurs in the first place).

 
At 3:07 PM, Blogger Rana said...

The Post, and the administration whose views it tends to reflect. They're the ones who are choosing to spin this in natalist ways, not the CDC itself.

It's the Post's take on the CDC's recommendations that is pissing people off, not the original CDC report (which includes a lot of practical information and recommendations about things like family planning and health care).

It's not the recommendations per se that are the problem; it's the context in which they are presented, excerpted, and turned into policy -- and that context has been leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths lately.

Is it that surprising that people might be suspicious and annoyed?

 
At 3:19 PM, Blogger Brad said...

No, it's definately not surprising.

My take on it is that it's unfortunate that the anger over the way the post has reported this is being directed at the CDC's recommendations rather than The Post. Those misdirected feelings have the potential to counteract some of the positive changes that might take place as a result of this report. I just wish more bloggers had taken the time to see what the CDC was really saying before getting so upset over this.

Thanks for stopping by and for commenting by the way :)

 
At 3:44 PM, Blogger Rana said...

You're welcome. :)

I don't disagree with the probable benefits of these recommendations; indeed, I'd be happy to follow many of them myself.

I just wish that there was more being done to address the larger social and environmental issues I can't control. :(

*shrug*

I do think that, in the comments threads, a more nuanced reaction is developing. :)

 
At 7:04 PM, Blogger Hana said...

The Post, and the administration whose views it tends to reflect. They're the ones who are choosing to spin this in natalist ways, not the CDC itself.

Word to that. On one hand, I think it's terrific that we're finally hearing something about hitting maternal and child health issues on the level of basic prevention. On the other, I find it curious (to put it diplomatically) that there's suddenly this great interest in promoting healthier and more numerous babies when the administration in power seems to have an inordinate tendency to start military engagements abroad. I'm not just seeing "natalist" here, I'm seing "nationalist" as well. Coincidence? Maybe. Sure wasn't a coincidence in ancient Sparta, or the early Soviet Union, or a number of other societies that placed a big emphasis on keeping women in good health while investing heavily in their military.

(Not really related to the general theme of this blog, but I though I'd throw it out there anyway... it's a complex world we live in.)

 
At 10:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

brbrbrad- please don't forget that the CDC is a government institution- and is supposed to put forward reports and material that agrees with the administration. I don't see them putting out any reports saying how a normal part of preconception care is discussion contracetion and abortion.
The idea is just offensive- and it is possible to read the report and still find it offensive- as a publication put out by the CDC.GOV
--bananapouch

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger Brad said...

bananapouch,

Thanks for the comment.

I'm not ignoring the fact that the CDC is a government institution with obvious links to the Bush administration. I started off skeptical of this report for that very reason, but upon reading the "How the Recommendations were Developed," I decided there was a safe amount of distance between ideology and this the conclusions of the report.

Regarding family planning: In our current political environment, it is not acceptable to support contraception and abortion. Therefore, in a report such as this one, not mentioning contraception and abortion is tantamount to tacitly supporting it. I know I'm reading between the lines here, I think this should be taken into account.

And I haven't said that nobody will be offended by the content of this report. I've merely said that you shouldn't pass judgement based only on what the Washington Post has to say about it. After seeing both sides, I encourage everyone to draw their own conclusions... but I reserve the right to throw in my two cents ;)

 
At 12:43 AM, Anonymous Helen H said...

The CDC report frequently states "women, men and couples" and then sites only examples of and recommendations for women with the single exception of recommending a reproduction plan.

Hence, bias charges have a foundation.

 
At 1:16 AM, Blogger Brad said...

Hi Helen,

Welcome to AIDS Combat Zone.

I don't think bias has really been a part of the discussion. Nobody can deny that women have a greater burden of care when it comes to reproductive health in general, so it makes sense that the majority of the recommendations are going to affect women.

Regardless, if you'll look on page 13, Box 6, the prepregnancy visits themselves would consist of women or couples. This is quite a change from the current system in which womens' reproductive health practically always exludes men (it wasn't very long ago that men were kept out of the delivery room during childbirth).

Do you have specific ideas of other places where men should be involved in this kind of health intervention?

 
At 2:09 PM, Blogger Mac said...

I wouldn't assume that the bloggers you list haven't read the report. While I agree that the WP article was alarmist, the report itself doesn't exactly fill me with joy. Labelling me as 'pre-pregnant' and medically treating me as such just because I happen to have the equipment is silly and does nothing to actually make me or any mystical babies I might have any healthier.

If you like you can read my second post about this, but in the end it comes down to this: the infant mortality rate is so high because the poor in this country rarely have access to health coverage for themselves or their children. If poor people aren't going to the doctor in the first place, they aren't going to be able to be treated as 'pre-pregnant' and plied with healthy suggestions and folic acid supplements. The infant mortality rate will continue to be high. The guidelines do nothing but assume women are too dumb to manage their own reproductive health in a responsible manner.

If we really want to see positive movement no the infant mortality rate, we need to get people out of poverty or spend more money to make sure people living in poverty have better access to healthcare.

 
At 4:17 PM, Blogger Brad said...

Mac,

I made the assumption that those bloggers didn't read the actual report based on the fact that they didn't link to it. What reason would anyone have to read the report and make a post about the report, but without linking to it or even mentioning having read it?

Thanks for the link to your second post, I'll be sure to give it a look.

-Brad

 
At 11:06 AM, Blogger Howard County Green Party Webmistress said...

Thanks for the article.

I'm trying to put together one for my own blog, and came across some research about prepregnancy and men.

Despite the moralistic tone in the abstract, this reflects some evidence I've been hearing about for more than ten years now - that sperm is more sensitive to teratagenic effects than ovum to begin with, and damaged sperm are less likely to cause spontaneous abortions than previously believed.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home