Ilyka tipped me to new federal guidelines for women’s health. I can’t believe I missed this last week. Hold onto your hats, girls. No, actually, hold onto your uteri.
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.
Why? I’m so glad you asked.
While most of these recommendations are well known to women who are pregnant or seeking to get pregnant, 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.
Now, I could get all feminist on their asses, and point out how excruciatingly sexist and intrusive these “guidelines” are. Or I could get all libertarian on their asses, and point out how excruciatingly sexist and intrusive these “guidelines” are.
But instead, I’m going to get all Master of Juvenile Scorn on their asses, and suggest more federal guidelines, in the hopes of preventing just as much damage as the feds evidently think treating all women as potential baby machines will do.
- All sober persons should treat themselves as pre-drunk, and plan accordingly. Make sure you have a designated driver on your trip home from the restaurant, regardless of whether or not you have any alcohol. Take extra vitamin B (or is it A? I forget) supplements to prevent the next-day hangover.
- All thin persons should treat themselves as pre-fat, and go on a low-fat, low-calorie diet and exercise regime. It doesn’t matter if you’re not overweight now. You might be at some point in the future, and in order to prevent the health problems of being overweight, you need to act now.
- All nonsmokers should treat themselves pre-smokers, and begin a stop-smoking routine immediately. This involves going to a hypnotist, wearing the nicotine patch, chewing nicotine gum, and getting the American Cancer Society’s information on how to quit smoking. Everyone knows how much damage smoking can cause; just imagine how many lives you are saving by preventively quitting smoking before you begin.
- All non-drug addicts should treat themselves as pre-addicted. Go to a detox center; get onto a methadone program, do what you have to to prevent yourself from becoming addicted to prescription or nonprescription drugs. It is imperative that we stop this health risk before it occurs. Not to mention the crime wave. Which I suppose means that all non-drug addicts should consider burgling their neighbors’ homes as part of the treatment. It’s what drug addicts do, right?
- All virgins should treat themselves as pre-STD’d. Go get that penicillin shot for the syphillis you might have if you have unprotected sex. It doesn’t matter that you don’t have it yet, folks, you could get it someday. And the health damages of STDs are numerous. Ladies, definitely get that new cervical cancer vaccine as soon as it is approved, because you never know if you’re going to get HPV, even though you haven’t had sex yet. It doesn’t matter, because you just might get STDs when you start having sex. Better prepare for them now.
This plan of action was brought to you by the Center for Disease Control, with the willing assistance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention’s Division of Reproductive Health and the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
And may I say to one and all of them: Eff you very much, ladies and gents. It’s good to know that in the 21st century, Big Brother is still as annoying (and sexist) as he ever was.
Amen. And an additional piece of advice to the pre-smokers and pre-drunks: hurry up, folks, you do not know what you are missing.
On the other hand, in my industry we are careful to follow the dictum of “all women are pregnant until proven otherwise” because many of the things we do can interfere with a pregnancy.
With all due respect to all the very competent women out there there’s a high percentage of people coming through my office who are not aware of their cycles, are not very consistent about birth control [“are you sexually active?” “yes” are you using birth control?” “no” “do you want to become pregnant?” “no”] or are just plain reluctant to tell us whether they’re at risk for pregnancy.
I don’t take these guidelines as insulting; I take them as realism. Because a disturbing number of women become pregnant without knowing, don’t find out they’re pregnant until 3-4 months later, and then it’s late in the game to start with folic acid, cigarette and alcohol reduction, and good prenatal care.
I wouldn’t take this as an insult, or as an analogy to “pre-drunk.” It’s a response to a very real and very difficult situation.
The insulting part of this advice is that it assumes that all women (married or not) are “at risk” of becoming pregnant. This makes an assumption about the lack of morality in our society that …
I think that you can fill in the rest of the rant appropriately. Looking at the way people write nowadays, I wonder how we all survived to our current ages.
I do understand Doctor‘s point of view however.
Sabba Hillel
Actually, it turns out that the WAPO really misreported the CDC intents. Ilyka has more details.
I wrote the above after reading the news article, but not any of the follow-up.
Doc, if that is the case, then our educational system is partly to blame, and our parenting is partly to blame. Whatever happened to health class? Sex ed? Mother/daughter nights? Hell, I learned about menstruation in fifth grade (and learned how to embarrass boys by talking about it in the very same year, go figure).
No, Sabba Hillel, the insulting part about the article is that it treats women as potential baby machines instead of women. Everything they suggest for the baby’s health would increase the woman’s health. They might have made that the focus, and added that side benefits would be to have healthy babies in case of unintended pregancy.
I never said who was to blame; I was attempting to justify the recommendations on a real world public health basis. Regardless of who’s to blame [and I detect the wily hand of the sinister Fu Manchu at work here] it’s the situation we have to deal with…
Meryl, the points strike me as valid for sexually active women during their reproductive years. If limited to that context (and shame on CDC if it did not do so), the focus on the fetus is no different here than it is on cigarette package warnings and the labels on wine bottles. Or do you find those objectionable as well? Is it really sexist to presume that many women will care about the health of their future offspring and to offer them relevant information?
On a very remotely related point, the reviews of the third X-men movie are in, and they’re not good. Think “Return of the Jedi”–the weak sister in the trilogy. Among its flaws, it’s reported to be misogynous as all get-out, with Jean Grey/Phoenix presented as something of a succubus who keeps her clothes on.
Ben, did you read the article? It said ALL women, from their first menstrual cycle to menopause.
Actually, yes, I do find the warnings on cigarette labels and alcohol offensive. Cigarettes should be outlawed, period. Alcohol, drunk in excess, is harmful to all people, not just pregnant women.
I don’t need the federal government treating me like my first and only duty in life is to have babies.
I see the point that you are making. I find it difficult to notice unless specifically pointed out because I do not think of women as baby making machines any more than I think of men as the equivalent of a horse being put out to stud. I think that is why the assumption that all women (married or not) are to be assumed to be “at risk” for pregnancy bothered me on the moral level.
Ban tobacco? Like we don’t have enough drug laws already?
Alcohol drunk to excess is harmful to anyone, but no safe threshhold has been identified for fetal alcohol syndrome.
CDC should not have assumed that all menstruating women are engaging in intercourse with men, but I can’t see the objection to the information.
P.S. I saw the eugenics exhibit at the Holocaust Memorial Museum last month, which included a Nazi poster urging Aryan women not to drink or smoke while pregnant. The bastards didn’t give a damn about what pregnant Jewish or Gypsy women did.
Actually, the advice for the pre-fat makes sense…