no, government, i will not act like i'm almost pregnant all the time. please go do something important.

Well, considering that both times I got pregnant I was using birth control, I'd have to say that it probably is a good idea for women that could possibly get pregnant and aren't inclined to have abortions to treat their bodies well. However, I am sort of...um...insulted by the word "pre-pregnant." It does give me the "chattle to be bred" feeling.

What the hell does this have to do with Christianity?

So, I'm guessing next on the women's health initiative, the CDC will recommend that women not drive (those car accidents, nasty to the body), wear long clothing (don't want them to get skin cancer) and to not associate with non-relative males (that way they don't get accidentally get pregnant in the first place!).

Wait, this is sounding familiar...

Someone from another site suggested that this was to protect pharmacutical companies from lawsuits occuring after a woman takes a perscription harming a fetus she doesn't yet know she is carring. I thought that sounded like a someone what reasonable explanation.

That's probably it.

Actually, the term pre-pregnant appears nowhere in the CDC article. Furthermore, the article includes repeated references to contraception. Don't believe me. Download it and do a your own searches. I've already lost one friend over the hysteria this Washington Post article has generated. As I see it, getting worked up over this report is crying wolf in the most classical sense. The administration has been less than kind to women's reproductive freedoms in the past, and we should expect more for the future. Getting worked up over a cherry-picked reading of a report that goes out of its way to support reproductive freedom for women is counter-productive.

I appreciate that the last 6 years have seen an attempt by the legislative and executive to curtail women's reproductive freedom. I appreciate that it is a cause for concern that the committee that generated this report was one convened during that same administration. However, an actual reading of the text of this report does not support the claim that it is part of the assault on women's reproductive freedoms. On the contrary, the authors take pains to emphasize the importance of birth control and improve federal funding of birth control. Suggestions that women (and men) should be broadly advised on preconceptive health care include birth control in that same care.

Specifically:

The paper falls broadly into two parts: First, an analysis of statistics concerning stillbirths, low birth weights, etc., and the risk factors associated with these cases of morbidity or mortality. The second section is the one that seems to interest us; recommendations for policy based on these statistics.

Recommendations 1 through 4 are the ones that suggest that women (and men) in general need to be better educated about 'preconception'. In every case except #4 the recommended course of education includes birth control. #4 specifically covers women with health or societal risk factors for infant morbidity. To suggest birth control in these cases would be to resurrect the specter of involuntary sterilization of poor, minority, or substance abusing women that took place at government subsidized hospitals more recently than we might like to remember. ( pp.11-14.)

Recommendation 7 (Health Insurance Coverage for Women With Low Incomes) would actually increase the number of women with access to birth control. The recommendation includes suggestion that the government issue more 'family planning waivers' for underprivileged women. These waivers cover the cost of birth control counseling, pharmacy visits related to birth control, tubal ligation, STD counseling, etc. (pp.15-16)

The "reproductive health plan" the report recommends that both women and men discuss with their doctors is defined first as knowing whether or not one intends to reproduce first, and care for reproductive systems second. (p.18)

The quiz after the close of paper asks "6. The content of preconception care is the same for everyone. A) True B) False." The answer key asserts False. (pp.27 & 29)

All page references are made in regards to the PDF page numbers (rather than the printed page numbers.) of the version of the report found at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5506.pdf

^^^ Great post.

Asking FearTheReaper not to post cherry picked articles out of context is like asking the sun not to rise.



[Edited on May 17, 2006 by FireBomber]

You guys are overreacting, all the govt is doing here is finding another stupid excuse to badger people into taking care of their bodies, to help alleviate the burden on the medicare system.

The govt wants people to live healthier lifestyles, and most people love babies, so babies is the sales tactic for an healthy lifestyle.

I'm not saying it's a smart sales tactic, I'm just saying that's all it is. Now if you'll excuse me, I need a cigarette and a Tom Collins.

I agree with FridgeMagnet.

I don't agree with the "Women need to start pretending their pregnant so they'll take better care of themselves in case they do get pregnant" tactic but women (and men) should take better care of themselves.

+1

with an additional

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

my hat's off to baudot for stepping in with a cogent, enlightened "STFU NOOB! RTFR!" in reply to reactionary hysteria.

(edited to insert spoiler, cuz that pic came out rather large)

[Edited on May 17, 2006 by DownNeck]

I don't know about the folic acid supplements but everything else you should already be doing male or female.