Recently in Pregnancy Category
I was feeling anxious. I was crampy, slightly nauseous, and my period, while wonky anyway due to my Mirena, hadn't made an appearance. I figured I'd be a big girl and buy a pregnancy test for the first time. I figured I'd get one from the grocery store. No biggie.
I was jitters thinking about it. I wanted to just stick my head into the ground and recite the Mirena pregnancy prevention rates, but I had to be responsible. I went to the grocery store, approached the glass case that held the pregnancy tests, condoms, nicotine substitutes, and lubes, standing in front of the condoms, like I was surveying them, when in reality I was staring at the pregnancy tests a little to my right. I looked around, seeing if I could find someone who worked in the parmacy department with keys. I didn't spot anyone, and i chickened out. I went home, without a pee stick.
When the cramps didn't quit, and my period still hadn't showed up, I decided I had to get one this time. I marched down to the grocery store again. I marched to the pharmacy department.
This time it was peak business hours. People were mulling around the pharmacy, dropping off and picking up scripts and medication. The case was RIGHT between the pick up and drop off windows. People were lined up at the windows. I looked at the case. I'd probably have to get someone to unlock it. I'd wait until the lines went down before I'd ask if someone would open the glass-case-o-shame for me. I hated feeling ashamed, because I had nothing to be ashamed for, yet part of me was deeply ashamed of plucking a pregnancy test from the case in front of all of those people.
Looking at all of these people, trying to prentend I was interested in the aspirin, I did something I never thought I would do: I took my claddagh ring off my right hand and put it on my left. I turned the ring around so the design was facing into my hand. So it looked like I was wearing a wedding band. So it looked like I was married. I felt it would reduce my shame somehow. I felt like it would make people judge me less.
Finally, people did leave long enough for me to approach the pharmacist. I asked him if he could unlock the case for me. He smiled at me, and said a little loudly "Oh the glass case just outside? It's unlocked sweetie." I forced a polite thank you, then scurried to the case. I plucked out a pregnancy test, then checked out via self-checkout. I stuffed the test in my purse, along with the receipt, before doing the rest of my grocery shopping. The rest of my day, I cursed myself for the shame I still had buried in me, even after years of telling other women there was no shame in being responsible, no shame in stepping up to the plate, and no shame in making choices for your pregnancy.
The test came back negative.
Full headline of the article on Huff Post : Is a woman in labor a "person"? New assults on pregnant women's civil rights in NJ Case.
I can not believe the outcome of this case. It seems to defy all logic!
Not only does it show complete lack of respect for a pregnant womans rights over her own body, it puts the baby's life ahead of her own. I also believe I am not wrong in thinking that this sets a terrible prescident for women to be charged with a crime when they have an abortion, especially if it was late term.
The most annoying thing about this case is that the baby was born 100% healthy, despite the mothers refusal of a c-section. She was quite clearly making an informed decision! Despite this, her child remains in foster care and the reason seems to be that the hospital didn't like her attitude.
ARGH!
I've long been a reproductive health advocate. While I live in Canada, I follow repro health stories from around the world: cringe when you cringe, cheer at the small victories [there is no criminal regulation of abortion in Canada... though it's by no means a moot issue here, it's nothing like the battle currently waging in the US]. It's an issue that I am very passionate about, because access to reproductive health options is so important to me.
So it was when I found myself pregnant last week that I also found my foundations shaken.
This is not to be read as "suddenly, the white light poured over her, and the rationale of the sanctity of the fetus' right to life opened her cold, cold heart". This is most certainly not the case. It shook the foundations of what my arguments in support of abortion sounded like.
by Amy Peyrot, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Intern
"Baltimore Finds a Common Sense Solution to Crisis Pregnancy Centers" at RH Reality Check
On Tuesday, the Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, Jenny Blasdell, posted a blog at RH Reality Check with CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, John Nugent. It explains the Limited Service Pregnancy Center Disclaimers Bill, groundbreaking legislation introduced this week in Baltimore City that would require CPCs to inform women that they do not provide or refer for comprehensive birth control services or abortion.
As you may already know, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are typically run by anti-choice activists who often misinform and mislead women about abortion and birth control to dissuade them from considering their full reproductive health options. In investigations of Baltimore City CPCs, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland (NPCM) volunteers were told many lies, including:
"Condoms are ineffective and don't protect against STDs."
"Natural family planning is as effective as the Pill."
"Abortion providers are not medically trained or licensed."
Just in case there is any doubt, all of these statements are False (yes, with a capital F).
Since 2007, NPCM has been pioneering efforts to expose the deceptive practices of CPCs. It is very exciting to see a bill addressing CPCs introduced on a local level (the first of its kind in the US!). At a time when political change is moving at a snail's pace, it is reassuring to see 11 of 15 city council members co-sponsor this common-sense bill. A special thanks goes out to City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who introduced the bill.
The goal of this legislation is to ensure women are informed about the limited services offered at CPCs. Women seeking information about pregnancy, birth control, or abortion need to know what services an organization provides in order to make an informed decision about whether a facility can meet their needs.
CPCs are not just a threat to women in Baltimore City. CPCs are giving misinformation all over the nation. If you want to be an advocate for women's access to truthful, medically accurate information, inform yourself about the Myths and Facts of CPC claims . Get involved with your state NARAL affiliate . If you live in or near Maryland, join our Truth Revealed Campaign and help us educate people in Maryland about CPCs' harmful practices. Check out our upcoming volunteer opportunities in Baltimore.
"A pregnant woman was forced to lie and promise supermarket staff she would not eat a certain type of cheese before they would sell it to her.
Janet Lehain asked for some Canadian Cheddar while she was shopping at Sainsbury's.
But the member of staff serving her on the deli counter said she could not have it because it was made from unpasteurised milk."
Even though the supermarket, Sainsbury's, has admitted they 'got it wrong' and it's not unpasteurised milk that pregnant women are advised to avoid eating, so what? This seems another attempt to police the actions of women because of the status of their wombs. Lehain wrote a letter of complaint, though, in which she states:
'What followed was the most patronising encounter I have had the misfortune of experiencing in a long time and made worse by the fact it was entirely unexpected given the seemingly simple task.
'The member of staff told me how lucky my generation of pregnant women are to have such information available to them because this was not the case "in her day".
'I could only respond by saying that I thought pregnant women in the past were probably a whole lot less stressed and guilt-ridden as a result.'
When I went to kindergarten most of my friends were girls, in fact all of my friends were girls except for one boy and his name was Chelsea. Looking back to that time I don't think I quite understood that Chelsea wasn't a girl. After all, he had a "girl's" name and to my simple mind that meant he had to be a girl, right? Perhaps if I was in kindergarten today I would have assumed that half the girl's in the class with names like Riley, Logan, Hunter and so on were in fact boys.
We progressed into elementary school together and at some point I thankfully learned more about the differences between girls and boys and that it wasn't just based on a name. Looking back though, I did also observe just how confusing having a name of the "wrong" gender can be, for the teachers at least.
This experience I think led to my fascination with names. Today I notice the trend, which seems to get stronger and stronger, of parents giving their daughters so-called "strong" names, which most typically means "boys" names. Are there really no 'strong" classical girl's names that can be used?
While I don't believe that names define gender and wish that parents should be able to name their child free from traditional gender assoications that put names on one side of a list or another and actually choose a name just because they like it or not, I dislike that for the most part this trend is also one way.
By Dahlia Ward, State Strategist, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
Imagine this — you're the busy mother of two small kids with another one on the way. This pregnancy has been fraught with complications. During a medical exam, your doctor orders bed rest for the remainder of your pregnancy. You explain that you can't possibly stay in bed for four months with two small children (!). The doctor insists. You say you want to get a second opinion. The doctor refuses and goes to court and gets a court order mandating your confinement in the hospital for the remainder of your pregnancy.
Sound crazy? Well something along these lines happened to Samantha Burton, a mother of two in Florida who was 25 weeks pregnant when she was hospitalized against her will due to pregnancy complications. When she requested a transfer to another hospital so she could get a second opinion, the state refused because it was not in the fetus' "best interests at the time." After three days in state-mandated confinement, Ms. Burton lost the baby. The ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and the ACLU of Florida filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Burton earlier this week.
Being pregnant does not mean that you lose the basic right to make decisions about your own health care. In a free society, each of us has the liberty to conduct our lives according to what we believe is best for ourselves and our families. Though we may disagree with the health decisions of some, we do not force people into medical care, or in the case of Burton, into confinement in a hospital.
Don't get me wrong — of course I want pregnant women to follow their doctor's advice. But I do not think that pregnant women should be confined against their will if they are unwilling or unable to do so. If we allow the government to confine a pregnant woman for not following orders to remain in bed, what's next? Will we forcibly hospitalize pregnant women for having a glass of wine with dinner? Or eating too much fast food? What if they don't take their prenatal vitamins? Or miss their doctor's appointments? What if a pregnant woman refuses a cesarean section? While we each may have strong opinions about such behaviors, our government cannot interfere in a woman's personal private medical decisions. Allowing the government to make medical decisions for pregnant women means that literally every decision and every activity a pregnant woman engages in could be regulated by the state. And certainly the possibility of state-mandated hospitalization for those who have engaged in "unhealthy behaviors" would deter some women from seeking any prenatal care for fear of being punished. In that situation, everybody loses.
We would all be better off engaging in healthy behaviors. In our society, we motivate people to do so through education and information, not threats of confinement or punishment. Unfortunately, Samantha Burton's case is not unique. We hear of a number of cases in which women are discriminated against, even thrown in jail, simply because they are pregnant. Every pregnant woman should be able to access the health care she needs to have a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby without fearing forced hospitalization or confinement.
Health Insurance Woes: My $22,000 Bill for Having a Baby
From the article:
Nope. Birthing our daughter was so expensive precisely because we were insured, on the individual market. Our insurer, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, sold us exactly the type of flawed policy--riddled with holes and exceptions--that the health care reform bills in Congress should try to do away with. The "maternity" coverage we purchased didn't cover my labor, delivery, or hospital stay. It was a sham. And so we spent the first months of her life getting the kind of hospital bills and increasingly aggressive calls from hospital administrators that I once believed were only possible without insurance.
By Anna Russo, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
As a native Texan and a young woman, I cling to the legacy of leaders like Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards. These women fought a tireless battle to end sex discrimination and to leave future generations a world where justice and compassion guide us. Unfortunately, Texas doesn’t always honor their legacy and pay tribute to their struggle.
A case in point: yesterday , the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit involving the unfair and discriminatory incarceration of a pregnant woman who violated her probation.
In 2005, Amber Lovill pled guilty to the crime of felony forgery and received three years probation. In July 2007, during a routine report to her probation officer, Lovill took a required drug test and informed the officer that she was pregnant. After testing positive for drug use, the state moved to revoke her probation and incarcerate her for the rest of her pregnancy. According to the ACLU’s brief, officers repeatedly admitted that if Lovill were not pregnant, less restrictive alternatives would have been the typical response to a positive drug test.
A lower court has already ruled that probation officers treated Lovill differently from others who violated probation, but were not pregnant. The ACLU has asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm this ruling.
The state of Texas clearly discriminated against Lovill because she was pregnant. Lovill’s probation officers have openly testified that this was not the standard course of action in response to a positive drug screen, and that because of Lovill’s pregnancy, they were not willing to “work with” her and felt there were no “other options” besides putting her in jail. It sent her to Nueces County Jail, a facility known to be unsanitary and unsafe for the remainder of her pregnancy. The state sought to incarcerate Ms. Lovill regardless of whether the facility was safe and could meet her medical needs for both prenatal care and substance abuse, and regardless of whether it is legal to treat women differently simply because they are pregnant.
While drug use during pregnancy raises serious concerns, if the state really wanted to help Lovill get the care she needed, it could have placed her in a program that specifically treats pregnant women. In fact, not only did a residential drug treatment program that specializes in treating pregnant women and their families exist, Lovill expressed a strong desire to enter the program. “I was clean for 21 months and I had one relapse. And I know that I can stay clean again. I’d just like the chance because I want to keep my baby with me,” Lovill said. Nevertheless, the state locked her up in Nueces County Jail.
I hope that the Court of Appeals will uphold the lower court's ruling, and make me proud to be a Texan again.
Stumbled on this story in my Twitter feed:
An Arkansas teenager and her mother are suing a private Christian high school over the treatment the daughter received when school officials learned she was pregnant.According to the lawsuit, officials at Trinity Christian School badgered the teen into admitting her pregnancy, then expelled her on the spot with only eleven days remaining in the school year. After telling the student (who is not named in public court documents) that she was being expelled, school officials escorted her to a Christian pregnancy crisis center, where she was administered a pregnancy test and given counseling. Staff at the crisis center then shared information about the student with the school.
At no point during their questioning of the student or the trip to the crisis center did school officials contact the student's mother.
The lawsuit charges race and gender discrimination as well as false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit claims that other students who were known by the school to have engaged in sexual activity were not expelled.
The part I'm having trouble swallowing... wait, scratch that. The principle called a minor into his office without a parent present, harassed her until she admitted the rumor was true, and then expelled her 11 days before school finished... then sent her to a CPC. The pregnancy center interviewed, counseled, and tested the minor and disseminated her information to the school employees.
Despite the fact that her pregnancy violated the school's code of conduct - which the girl and her parents signed on for when she enrolled - the school itself made some egregious errors in subjecting a minor to all of the above without parental consent. I hope the family gets every dollar out of the school that violated her civil rights. Additionally, if this case is won, the school will have to revamp its code of conduct as the clause that punishes sexual activity is only targeted at [pregnant] female students, and therefore gender-based discrimination.
One wonders if this will have an impact on other schools should the girl win her lawsuit...
This is my story. I needed to share with people that would understand what I am going through right now. I am 20 years old and i found out that I am pregnant on Monday (June 16th 2009). My contraceptive failed. I was leaving the country to go to Brazil on July 22nd because I got a full scholarship for medical school. I had dreams of a big wedding, and had plan on getting pregnant after I finished school. My boyfriend and I have been together for 4 years. We love each other. He is 20 years old as well. I am very scared, I am very depressed and I see my dreams flying through the window. I love my boyfriend and I want kids, but not right now.
On Monday when I found out that I was pregnant, I googled abortion clinics and I saw a number for abortion Hot line. They gave me the number of a clinic and I made an appointment for later that day. when I got in the clinic it was a pro-life christian clinic. I am christian but I really did not want to know all the forms I was going to regret having an abortion. I am very scared to do it now, but I know I have to make a decision for my own sake.
I went to the abortion clinic on Wednesday, but they wanted me to get the procedure right away, we did not have any counseling or anything before hand. I do not know what to do. I had so many plans for my life. My boyfriend wants this baby and so does his family, but I don't. I have no feeling towards the baby, or affection. I made an appointment at the clinic for tomorrow (Saturday), but I do not know what to do. I do not want to regret it, I do not want to live my life with ghosts hunting me forever. I just want to be happy.
I am sharing this with you to hear sincere opinions about people that have gotten an abortion in the same situation I am right now. Maybe I need support from other people.
It is one of the hardest decisions I have to make.
Thank you
This past week I had the pleasure of sitting at a booth at the Canadian Counseling Association Conference, and ended up meeting two amazing women - Elita Paterson, Tania Bird... two of the authors of the book "The Smiling Mask" written with Carla O'Reilly along with their husbands, and Peggy Collins write an extremely relevant picture of Post-Partum Depression, and its effect on families.
Elita, Tania, and Carla tell their stories which are experiences with Post-Partum Depression in a way which is relevant to all women. Their experiences enable women to take it upon themselves to read and learn about post-partum depression. With their husbands, they are candid in what happened to them, and their healing journey.
I feel its a blessing that I met Elita and Tania, for a variety of reasons - but they have definitely inspired me, and encouraged me to let others know about this book!
You can order it on their website, and $1 from every book is donated to Women's Shelters, Mental Health, YMCA/YWCA, NICU Mother/Baby Units.
I'm childless by choice and am fortunate to have always had affordable health insurance provided by my employers, so I have no clue as to the kinds of services available to pregnant women who are underinsured or have no health insurance. I'm hoping you all can help.
Here's the situation: My brother and his wife live virtually paycheck-to-paycheck. My sister-in-law found out last month that she is pregnant -- she's now little more than two months along, I think. They're both in their early 20s and new in their jobs. She is not offered health insurance through her employer. My brother was set to enroll in his company's health insurance plan this month. This week he discovered that the plan is hardly a benefit in the sense that it would cost $600 a month for the two of them and carries a large annual deductible that needs to be first met before receiving the meager reimbursements offered.
I advised them to contact the county (Hamilton County, Ohio) to see what services are available to people like them. They were advised that they make too much money to qualify for county or state assistance. While they are well above the poverty line, they're still working poor and can't independently afford prenatal visits, nutritionist consultations, sonograms, labwork, etc... I did a search of available services in our area and found most to be those pseudo pregnancy crisis centers that are really just fronts for religious operatives to shame women from having abortions. They might get diapers and a dose of Jesus from them, but not much else. I called the local Planned Parenthood's main center and was told that they do not offer prenatal services in this area. The woman I spoke to didn't know of any other options available, except to try and work with local hospitals. Two local hospitals are willing to offer a one-price fee that includes prenatal visits and delivery, but it still cost thousands of dollars that my brother and his wife do not have. Considering that she has no benefit time to take for maternity leave, they will be even less likely to afford this after the baby is born.
Does anyone know of any other program, organization or avenue to explore?
If there's any good to be had from this situation (aside, of course, from the impending birth of my first biological niece/nephew!), it's that it's got my brother re-evaluating some of his conservative views on abortion. He's no supporter of abstinence-only education nor is he a religious conservative, but he has always been largely anti-choice. He's now beginning to understand how reducing access to abortion without also providing services that support women who choose to have babies can put would-be parents in impossible situations.
This really got to me yesterday. (via BBC News)
UAE fines mother over baby death
A court in Dubai has found a woman who lost her unborn child in a traffic accident guilty of manslaughter in what is said to be an unprecedented ruling.
The Lebanese woman, who was nine months pregnant at the time, was also ordered to pay blood money. She said she had not caused the accident.
The judge based the ruling on Islamic law. The court said the rights of unborn babies needed to be protected.
Prosecutors had argued that the verdict should act as a deterrent.
The accident happened in October last year. The court found that she had failed to keep a safe distance from the car ahead of her.
Several cars were involved in the accident, English-language daily The National reports. The paper says the woman's vehicle was hit by the car following hers when she braked suddenly.
The female foetus died after the umbilical cord was cut.
Dubai's traffic court ordered the bereaved mother to pay US $5,450 in blood money and fined her for "unintentional homicide".
Salah Bu Farousha, head of traffic prosecution, said women in the third trimester of pregnancy should avoid driving altogether to protect their own and their foetuses' lives.
According to GulfNews Bu Farousha also said, "We ruled out any criminal intention and concentrated on the mother's accidental error, recklessness and failing to keep a safe distance. We prosecuted the woman to protect the foetus's rights and because accidental killing is punishable by law."
The Daily Star--Lebanon has an article from the Agence French Press about this as well.
Ugh.
[TRIGGER WARNING]
This is a profoundly heartbreaking story from a gynecologist about a baby girl born into a culture that enforces the disposability and worthlessness of women. Even more distressing is the difficulty in establishing common ground when there are language and culture barriers preventing any sort of nuanced communication.
Child "selection" of this nature occurs daily around the world, but since we often see it in the form of statistics it is harder to connect with the sexism that breeds such intentions.
Lil Bratz Early Teen Pregnancy Test
Somebody tell me this is a joke. Tell me, please, that a Lil Bratz Early Teen Pregnancy test does not really exist. I should probably question why I find the possibility of this thing actually being real something that is so shocking and appalling. But that's my gut reaction.
Tiloma Jayasinghe, staff attorney for National Advocates for Pregnant Women talks about being a lawyer AND a doula. Since it is often a method of the anti-abortion movement to classify women as either/or: women who have abortions or women who have babies NAPW offers an important voice. Will post transcript in comments when I find it.
