A Very Cervical January

Dear Millicent,

Just as I was absolutely wondering about the origins of Flying Fish, I bet you were wondering about Cervical Health Awareness Month, which turns out to be right now.  Here’s an interesting cervical fact from Our Bodies, Ourselves: when local anesthesia is injected into the cervix, a possible side effect is a numbness of the lips and tongue.

Do you remember the 1998 Drew Barrymore Luke Wilson movie Home Fries? It’s an insane movie, Shakespearean in plot,  and one that I loved in high school.  It’s all up on Youtube. One of the oddest moments is when they make a birth education class, with all its huffing, puffing, and caressing, into a scene fraught with sexual tension. I can’t find the right clip, but I distinctly remember a scene were the couple kisses (complicated by the fact that Wilson is the baby’s daddy’s stepson), after which a very pregnant Barrymore happily proclaims that an open mouth is an open vagina. Shocking stuff in 1998–well, even the word vagina uttered on a screen was shocking to me then.  And now, we know that a numb cervix is a numb mouth.  Happy Cervical Awareness Month!

Thanks Tuba City!

Dear Millicent,

In this article in today’s NYT, Denise Grady does a great job of covering the major issues surrounding the maternal healthcare debate in the US by looking at the successes of a small hospital run by the Navajo Nation in Tuba City, Arizona.  There is a lower rate of cesareans, most births are attended by midwives, and most women deliver at their own pace with friends and family supporting them. In a quick two pages, the article justly illustrates:

  • the issues surrounding VBACs (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean)
  • the benefits of the midwifery care model
  • how insurance costs often affect care
  • the benefit of emotional support during delivery
  • the benefit of a community that is familiar with the birth process (in Tuba City, several families members attend a birth, meaning that most people have seen the process several times).

Grady asks “Can the rest of the country learn from Tuba City?” and finds that doctors are “intrigued by the model” but don’t know “how transferable it is.”

The model is not a complicated, as Tuba City proves.  There are midwives, doulas and OBs working within this model every day.  They trust women, celebrate and normalize birth in our culture, and worry less about profit.  But, they, like Tuba City, are the exception, hopefully transforming the rule.  Still, it’s great to see articles like this that so clearly show what is out there, and what is at risk.

And for those who think shit isn’t superserious in America’s maternity wards, I offer  this video from 2007 of one woman’s account of how she was arrested mid-labor and forced to have a Cesarean because of hospital restrictions on VBACs.



To Angie: A Thank-You Note

Dear Carla Fran,

I want to write today about Angie, the woman who had a chemical abortion after her IUD failed and has been documenting the experience via Twitter and Youtube. Her account of why she’s getting an abortion is here. Her circumstances—she has a special-needs son, pregnancy puts her health at risk, she doesn’t want another child—aren’t what motivated her to make the abortion public. She gives her reasons in the first of many Youtube videos she’s made on the subject, here. To badly summarize her position, she’s trying to destigmatize and render transparent a process that remains shrouded in spin and fear.

Since announcing her decision on her own website and on the Friendly Atheist, she’s been dealing with the expected Internet craze. I want to take a minute to applaud the physical courage it took to put herself at the center of a controversy that’s provoked real-world violence, and to do so at a physically demanding time. People say she knew what she was getting into. True—but the fact that civil rights champions know the resistance they’ll face doesn’t make them any less brave for facing it.

The Friendly Atheist post provided a format for the usual debates to take place, but I was surprised by the (mostly) respectful tone in the commenting thread. Things took a turn later on; in any case, I’m reposting my comment on that thread here, as an open letter:

Hi Angie,

Thanks for doing this. Word on the slippery slope argument getting out of hand.

Two quick remarks to the louder commenters here: Folks, rape isn’t the point. Let’s stop arguing statistics. The point is that you, a person, have the right to decide whether or not to go through a life-altering procedure (whether that procedure is pregnancy or abortion is your call).

To the responsibility advocates: you’re disproportionately interested in enforcing your stated principle in situations where women bear all the physical consequences. (As a local instance of this, count how many on this thread are asking why she didn’t get a tubal ligation; compare that to how many asked why her partner didn’t have a vasectomy—a cheaper and far less risky procedure).

Sure, actions have consequences. And yet, if you’re a smoker and discover a tumor (a cluster of cells that will develop and grow unless interfered with), no one will cite your “irresponsible behavior” as a reason for refusing you the right to have that tumor removed.

Angie, thanks for making this process public. Philosophical issues aside, it’s hard for women thinking about it to find out what a chemical abortion is actually like. That––to my mind––is what’s most important about this piece. Anyone thinking about a chemical abortion is drowning is misinformation and spin, so to have an account of what physically happens is crucially important. It is emphatically, absolutely not “TMI”.

So, Angie, to add another voice to the majority on this thread, most of whom think human beings deserve to exert reasonable agency over their bodies regardless of their gender: thanks.


What Utah’s Miscarriage=Homicide Laws Could Mean: Some Scenarios

Dear CF,

Your post about the pregnant Olympians was so damn good, and so timely: I opened the Internet the next day and found this news on legislation in Utah, which would allow any woman whose pregnancy ended in miscarriage due to an “intentional, knowing, or reckless act leading to the pregnancy’s illegal termination.” If the Winter Olympics had been held in Salt Lake City this year instead of in 2002, every one of those pregnant Olympians would have risked being charged with homicide if they happened to have a miscarriage.

This is clearly one of those bills that stemmed from a sensational news story—the kind we love, the kind that 20/20 and its ilk have fed us for decades. Remember when everyone wanted to come up with some way to legislate away Megan Meier’s suicide, caused by Internet bullying? This bill—which does not allow women to be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion—was passed because “a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged.”

Easy to see how that story caught Utah’s imagination. Let’s sit a minute with the wording of that bill, though: any “intentional, knowing, or reckless act” followed by miscarriage can result in a woman being charged with homicide. As Jezebel and others have pointed out, that last little word, “reckless,” means that legally, anything that has ever been labeled as a suboptimal practice for pregnant women could be retroactively used to charge a woman whose pregnancy has ended. Correction: it can be used to charge a woman whose pregnancy has been “illegally terminated,” meaning not that she obtained a legal abortion but that she miscarried through some other means, the legality of which is to be determined by the circumstances leading up to the miscarriage.

To see how dangerous this is, let’s pretend we’re looking to prosecute a woman who miscarried. For this exercise, we’ll look to the newspapers to get a sense of what might reasonably count as “common knowledge” that a pregnant woman disregarded, neglected or disobeyed, and how any of the following cases could arguably have resulted from “reckless” behavior.

Case 1: She got pregnant. She didn’t get the swine flu vaccine. She got swine flu. She lost the baby:

On Sept. 29, 2009, the New York Times printed this story: “Pregnancy Is No Time to Refuse a Flu Shot,” in which authors Lyerly, Little and Faden note that pregnant women “are deluged with advice about things to avoid: caffeine, paint, soft cheese, sushi. Even when evidence of possible harm is weak or purely theoretical, the overriding caveat is, ”Don’t take it, don’t use it, don’t do it.'”

They point out that many pregnant women avoided the flu shot and got terribly sick or died:

This is a sadly familiar pattern. After the thalidomide disaster of 1960s, and the very real concerns it raised about the impact of drugs on fetal development, many ended up viewing the use of any medicine by pregnant women as anathema. As a result, doctors and women alike often eschew or discontinue medications for serious illnesses, even when the harms of untreated disease, for women and the children they bear, are worse than any risks of medication.

The Montreal Gazette puts it more strongly in their Dec. 2, 2009 headline: “Pregnant women urged to get shot; Only way to protect fetus, expert says.”

(Note the language here: The ONLY WAY to protect your fetus is to get the shot. It’s a cut-and-dried case. By avoiding the flu shot, our case study was reckless. The language of the bill specifies that her behavior could be  “intentional, knowing OR reckless.” There’s no need to prove all three.)

Case 2. She got pregnant. She DID get the swine flu vaccine. She lost the baby.

“Stillbirths deter women from swine flu shots,” printed January 24, 2010, in the South China Morning Post, in which “a nine months’ pregnant woman gave birth to a stillborn baby three weeks after receiving a swine flu vaccination, the second stillbirth case involving a vaccinated pregnant woman in a week.”

Case 3: She got pregnant. She exercised. She lost the baby.

The June 21, 2005 headline of The Globe and Mail: “Pregnant women especially prone to summer injuries, study finds.”

Case 4. She didn’t exercise enough. She lost the baby.

“No Excuse for a Pregnant Pause,” Washington Post, November 29, 2005, talks about how women who don’t exercise enough are endangering their babies.

Case 5: She got pregnant. She works on a farm. She lost the baby.

The January 12, 2002 Belfast News letter “WARNING FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AT LAMBING TIME” states that pregnant women “should avoid close contact with sheep during lambing periods, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland have advised.”

Case 6. She got pregnant. She was depressed. She took antidepressants. She lost the baby.

“Pregnant women warned by FDA to Avoid Paxil,” Washington Post, December 5, 2005.

“Taking Zoloft During Pregnancy Leads to Birth Defects.” Lawyers and Settlements, June 7, 2007. “A recently published case-control study has shown that infants born to mothers who took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) after the 20th week of pregnancy were 6 times more likely to have persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) than infants born to mothers who did not take antidepressants during pregnancy.”

Case 7. She got pregnant. She was depressed. She didn’t take antidepressants. She lost the baby.

“Dealing with Depression and the Perils of Pregnancy.” The New York Times, January 13, 2004. “Depressed women also have a higher rate of obstetrical complications and preterm deliveries, and a review of 11 studies has shown that they have 45 percent more miscarriages, said Dr. Gideon Koren, a pediatrician and the director of the Motherisk program at the University of Toronto, a risk-counseling service for pregnant women.”

Case 8. She got pregnant. She goes to the doctor as soon as she realizes it. There’s a birth defect. She lost the baby.

“That Prenatal Visit May Be Months Too Late.” November 28, 2006, New York Times. “The problem, doctors say, is that by the first prenatal visit, a woman is usually 10 to 12 weeks pregnant. ‘If a birth defect is going to happen, it’s already happened,’ said Dr. Peter S. Bernstein, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York who helped write new government guidelines on preconception care.” So they’ve restructured their recommendation: “Public health officials are now encouraging women to make sure they are in optimal health well in advance of a pregnancy to reduce the risk of preventable birth defects and complications. They have recast the message to emphasize not only prenatal care, as they did in the past, but also what they are calling ‘preconception care.'”

Case 9. She got pregnant. She lost the baby.

“Study Finds 31% Rate of Miscarriage,” The New York Times, July 27, 1988. “Thirty-one percent of all conceptions end in miscarriage, usually in the early months of pregnancy and often before women even know they are pregnant, according to a new study.”

“Trying Again After Recurrent Miscarriages,” The New York Times, March 25, 2008. “More than half of pregnancies are spontaneously lost even before the woman has missed a menstrual period and knows that she is pregnant, and about 15 to 20 percent of recognized pregnancies are miscarried in the next few months. For couples who want a baby, these are daunting numbers.”

The point—which I hope I’ve made sufficiently clear—is that miscarriages happen all the time. The cause of a miscarriage is much harder to pinpoint than, say, the cause of death in a crime victim. To pretend that “homicide” is an appropriate category here is beyond irresponsible: it’s insane. It’s hopelessly unrooted from the physical realities of pregnancy, a high-risk biological process during which a million things can and do go wrong every day. Let me be clear: to impose a causal relationship where in the vast majority of cases there is none is to devolve to a legal system where witch hunts were sensible judicial proceedings.

The other point is that the above studies are meant to be helpful and not prescriptive. Here, scientific and legal process are at odds. These findings are published in order to add to a huge data set that will, over time, allow us to form some reasonable theories on how to proceed. They are not definitive. They are not proscriptive. Anyone who has been alive for more than ten years is familiar with the health fads the medical community cycles through, in which fat, sugar, salt, cholesterol and carbohydrates star in turn as the main medical threat to our immortality. In pregnancy, as in health, there is not a clearcut right answer. The medical profession understands this, and bases its recommendations on what amount to “best guesses”.

The legal system does not. This piece of legislation is opening the door to exactly the kinds of arguments I’ve made above. You might think some of the examples I’ve chosen are eccentric or ridiculous. They fly in the face of common sense. This is exactly my concern: common sense plays no part in legal argumentation, which is why legal phraseology is counterintuitive and why it is imperative that we get that phraseology right and eliminate “recklessness” from that bill. ‘Course, my hypotheticals are nothing compared to the legal arguments that get made in real life. As an example, I give you the following article, which offers this dubious hope: should any pregnant women end up jailed by this system (charged perhaps with attempted murder—maybe she was caught driving without a seatbelt) they can argue that the fetus hasn’t been tried and sentenced and is incarcerated in violation of its rights.

Missouri Fetus Unlawfully Jailed, Suit Says

New York Times, August 11, 1989

A Missouri law restricting abortions has been used by a pregnant inmate to file two lawsuits against the state for what she contends is the illegal imprisonment of her fetus.

The suits, brought last week in Federal District Court on behalf of Lovetta Farrar, 30 years old, and the fetus she carries, contend that if life begins at conception, as the Missouri law states, the United States Constitution should protect the fetus from illegal imprisonment. The suits assert that the fetus has not been charged with a crime, granted a trial, received counsel or been sentenced.

The Supreme Court upheld the Missouri law, which bars abortions in publicly financed medical units. But the court did not rule on the law’s preamble, which states that life begins at conception.

The Kansas City lawyer representing Ms. Farrar, Michael S. Box, argues in one suit that if the Missouri law grants a fetus personhood, the 13th Amendment protects the fetus from being forced to serve a prison sentence for another person. The other suit asks for improved prenatal care for Ms. Farrar.

Fetus Called Endangered

”The fetuses should be treated as persons and should not be put in prison without a trial,” Mr. Box said. ”The fetus should not serve a sentence for the mother.”

One suit contends that the fetus is endangered because Ms. Farrar is not receiving adequate food, exercise or prenatal care. The baby is expected to be born in late November or early December, and Ms. Farrar, who was convicted of forgery, is not scheduled to be released until 1991.

The suit asks the court to vacate Ms. Farrar’s sentence or require the state to provide a special site where pregnant prisoners could receive better care. Mr. Box plans to ask the court to hear the case on behalf of the estimated 25 pregnant women in Missouri prisons.

The case has been assigned to Judge Scott O. Wright, who ruled two years ago that the Missouri law restricting abortion was unconstitutional. That was the ruling overturned by the Supreme Court.

Both opponents of abortion and proponents of the right to abortion would like to see better prenatal care for prisoners. Yet some abortion rights advocates worry about the impact of the case.

”The court might agree with some of the contentions that the fetus is entitled to personhood, which could set a bad precedent,” said Dara Klassel, senior staff attorney with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York. ”I hope that if the court awards anything, it is based on the woman’s rights rather than the fetal rights theory.”

Samuel Lee, the state legislative chairman for Missouri Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion group that helped draft the legislation restricting abortions, said: ”I think it’s a legitimate application of the law. I can’t speak to the validity of the claim that the prisoner is not receiving adequate prenatal care, but I think it’s something the court should look at.”


The Ballad of the Pregnant Ice Dancer

Dear Millicent,

My television has a finicky antenna, so the only bits of the Olympics I have been able to watch are recaps on NBC, the Fug Girls constant Tweets about Johnny Weir, and the speedskating coverage on a Korean news channel I got to watch for one blessed hour in the sauna at the local spa.  The Olympics seem fun this year, and I have taken a shine to Vancouver’s Olympic motto “With glowing hearts.”  Compared to the Beijing summer Olympics, we seem to have let our hair down a bit, and are enjoying sport, glitter, and the gleefully foulmouthed athletes who show us what we would be able to do if only we exercised more.

One story I have been following is that of ice dancers Isabelle Delobel (a grace of a name, no?) and Olivier Schoenfelder, who came in 6th place last night.  A year ago, they were considered the business: ice dancers ready for their gold necklaces after years of working their way up the ranks of competition.  Vancouver was going to be their year.  And then Delobel got pregnant.

Pregnancy has a tendency to muck up workplace routines, and as a society, only Scandinavia seems to coolly handle the fact that women work, and women have the babies.    But when athletes get preggered, it fully highlights the physicality of the issue.  In 2004, runner Tasha Danvers-Smith found out she was pregnant as she was preparing for the Athens Olympics.  In the Telegraph coverage, which ran the story under the headline “Pregnancy came as a shock. Now I’m happy to give up the Olympics,” she says:

“The timing could not have been worse. If I had run at Athens it would have meant greater financial security, more recognition. There is nothing negative that can happen when you have a shot at an Olympic medal.

“It is different when you choose the time to start a family. But, when the decision is made for you, it is not an easy thing to deal with at all.

“I cannot lie, I considered an abortion. On the one hand you look at the situation and say, ‘I can have a baby and incur more costs, more problems.’ We don’t even have a house yet, we are staying with Darrell’s parents. And I am the major breadwinner.

“When my body is my business, then if my body is not functioning, there is no business.”

Athletes are physical laborers, their money in their muscle. Just like at the office, a woman’s pregnancy is a financial issue, as well as swerve in her career development.  For both Delobel and Danvers-Smith, the pregnancies were unexpected, and whether they decided to continue the pregnancy or not, they were put in a position that their male counterparts never encounter.

Both women took a great deal of public criticism for their pregnancies.  British hurdler Alan Pascoe publicly called Danvers-Smith stupid for getting pregnant, and her competitors doubted she would return to the sport.  She won bronze in Beijing in 2008.

When Delobel announced her pregnancy and her intention to still compete in the Olympics, people wondered about the safety of the choice, and the realism of competing four months after delivery.  The general tone of message board comments about her announcement focused on Delobel’s arrogance in thinking she would be back in shape, or the danger of risking miscarriage (which is lower than TV melodramas would have you believe). Pregnant women often carry the heavy load of society scrutinizing and opining about every choice they make, and we have an extreme example with Delobel.

The coverage of Danvers-Smith and Delobel has greatly focused on how their pregnancies affect the men in their life. Danvers-Smith, is married to her coach :

“Darrell was in even more shock,” she said. “He had a complete conflict of interests because his wife is pregnant, which is nice. But then his athlete is pregnant, one of the star athletes in his group, which is difficult.”

The Telegraph article ends with her telling her dad to not buy tickets to Athens.  “I have good news and bad news,” she says, “The good news is I’m pregnant. The bad news is I’m pregnant.” His response: “Yeah. That is good and bad news.”

With Delobel, her skating partner’s Olympic chances were also on the line, as they had skated together for years.  Schoenfelder told the NYT: “I congratulated her, of course, but it’s true that afterward, it was a shock and quite difficult for me for a while.” In the same article, another ice dancer mentions that if she was in the same situation, her partner would react badly.  Delobel initially even said her due date was earlier to make the news easier on Schoenfelder.  While everybody in the article seems nice enough, this is an unfriendly little turn, and highlights what women deal with in the office, revealing their pregnancies. The idea seems to be that women’s pregnancies are something being done to the institutions they work in and men they work with, a selfish act instead of a common thing that humans do. If the workplace could adapt to the idea that women, as half the population, are not anomalies to general order, but part of the pattern itself, then the complexity of the situation could exist without the discomfort.

One commenter on an ice dancing message board said that the pregnancy should be considered as an injury, nothing more, nothing less. Among all of the judgment and disappointment on the boards, this seemed like the sanest response. Delobel was recovering from a shoulder injury when she found out she was pregnant, and in both cases, she would need to take time off from practice, and then rebuild her strength.  Yet, we treat an injury as an unfortunate random event that affects several people, whereas a pregnancy is a focus of bad timing, irresponsibility, and a choice without choice.

There are other pregnant athletes, including a curler on Team Canada that is 51/2 months along. Over at Broadsheet, Tracy Clark-Flory calls the pregnant Olympian “an awesome embodiment of both nurturer and competitor, mother and warrior.”  And both Delobel and Danvers-Smith, neither actually pregnant at the Olympics, are this as well.

Us Weekly ran the story alongside before and after photo’s of celebrity post-baby bodies with Delobel’s quote “Losing the 20 pounds of baby weight “was the most work, the hardest work I did all my life.”  Of course, if we look at the original source for the quote, the Washington Post, Delobel isn’t referencing her weight loss, she’s talking about getting ready for the Olympics.

Yours, with a glowing heart,


Why Don’t Fetuses Get Free Health Care?

It’s a curious feature of the Republican approach to reproduction that the fetus has the right to life but not to medical care*. The life belongs to the fetus, so the money required to bring that fetus to term—including the cost of the birth—should be calculated not as part of the “expense” of being a woman in the health care system but rather as a Fetal Birthday Gift From America.

Women are more costly, the prevailing Republican wisdom goes, because of their child-bearing years. Pete Sessions will be greatly relieved to learn that this has all been a mistake over in in Accounting. The cost of an entire pregnancy (and any in vitro treatments that led to the conception) redounds on the fetus’ unborn head.  Luckily insurance rates will be low—no preexisting conditions as it is not yet technically a smoker, an adolescent male driver or a woman. America’s gift will be both moral and cost-effective.

Back in the day, England introduced the idea of a “window tax” which amounted to a tax that was (it was felt) roughly proportionate to income. Wikipedia informs me that “it was designed to impose tax relative to the prosperity of the taxpayer, but without the controversy that then surrounded the idea of income tax.”

Replace “income tax” with “abortion” and “window tax” with “health care reform” and you’ll get a window into the way reproduction gets mentioned and evaded during the depressing dance that is US health care reform. Uteruses are the new windows. It’s the having them that matters, and it’s a luxury for which women have to pay.

Republicans: Being a Woman is a Preexisting Condition. Pregnancies Cost Money. So Does Birth Control. No You Cannot Abort.

First, thanks to the Stupak Amendment (which has led apolitical me to write not only my representatives but those in Georgia as well), insurers are to be instructed that the plans the vast majority of the population will be using Shall Not include abortion. Abortion is already seldom taught in medical schools—a change from the time my own father received his training.  Now there will be a stranglehold on market demand. Abortion will become a subspecialty, an “elective procedure” that has, in many discussions raging on this issue, been lumped in with breast augmentations. (That is a subject for another time.) It seems a foolish comparison until one realizes that as abortion becomes more and more divorced from the standard repertoire of obstetrics and gynecology, it may be priced accordingly.

It’s popular to talk about Republican stupidity, but I want to take a moment to applaud the tacticians behind this move. It was nothing short of brilliant for the Republicans, coming from a position of numerical weakness, to pen the Democratic party so that they squabble over whether to sacrifice one major issue in order to achieve nominal victory in another.

They are, however, in need of some additional help which I am in a position to provide.

I learned, courtesy of Politico and Courthouse News, that Pete Sessions believes women to be in the same class as smokers, and that both groups should pay more (or nothing) accordingly:

In promoting the House health bill, New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone made reference to discrimination by insurance companies, citing their reluctance to insure people with preexisting conditions and differences in costs based on gender. “But that’s not against the law,” Texas Republican Pete Sessions said.

Pallone replied, “No, but we would make it against the law. Why do you have a problem with that?” he asked. “Why should a woman pay more than a man?”

“Well, we’re all different,” Sessions explained. “Why should a smoker pay more,” he said before getting interrupted by a burst of chatter throughout the room.

Why indeed? It’s an interesting parallel: smokers weigh the system down by jeopardizing their own health through the voluntary ingestion of known carcinogens. Women weigh down the system by having the potential to reproduce. Being a woman is a preexisting condition. Like having diabetes. In fact, being a woman is functionally identical to a disease.

(How smokers should be treated by our health-care system is an important subject for another time; what interests me here is the rhetorical move of equating the two.)

“Oh please,” a commenter on Glenn Thrush’s post on this in Politico writes, “young men have to pay more for car insurance than young women, it’s the way the world works…no need to cry about it.”

In this argument (which crops up more than you might expect) the logic goes thusly: women are statistically more expensive than men, just as young male drivers are statistically more expensive than female drivers. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for women to pay more for basic medical care. Q.E.D.

I nod. This makes excellent sense. But there’s a tickle somewhere around my left uterine syllogism-maker that suggests that something important is being missed. Ah! I have it. It is this: I don’t necessarily have to drive.

Yes, that’s it. I can opt out of the unequal pricing of car insurance by not owning a car.  The higher cost of which exists, incidentally, because of patterns of irresponsible behavior, not irresponsible uterus ownership. My uterus is harder to opt out of, as it was not of my choosing. It is (at least in principle) a harder thing to reject.

My fallopian fallacy-feeler tells me something else about this is not 100% absolutely accurate. Here it is. Health insurance is arguably more important than car insurance in that the latter deals mainly with what happens to a chunk of metal in case of an accident, whereas the former addresses whether you will live or whether you will die.

In both cases, though, the analogies correlate irresponsible behaviors with actually being a particular sex.

My cervix has some questions as it contemplates possible methods of payment:

Does infertility earn you a tax break?

(Oh good! But wait—might taxing women for their reproductive function not be the best way to solve the problem of the declining birth rate in the US?)

(Never mind—someone will support us when we get old and Social Security is bankrupt.)

All this is luckily only a problem for pro-choice people. The pro-life champions can sleep easy. Stupak will take Sessions gently by the hand tonight and explain to him that while he agrees In Principle that women are just like smokers (and like bad teenage drivers too), fetuses have done nothing wrong and deserve to have the cost of their arrival fall squarely on the nation’s shoulders. It’s an unfortunate side effect that the smoker-driver carrying the fetus will receive care too, but that is one of those biological injustices to which we need pay no mind.

God Bless America. May we all someday be rich enough to have luxury windows and convertible uteruses of our very own.

*This is in some ways the opposite of the fungibility argument, which Aimai addresses nicely here.

Another Charmer, Mr. Mitchell

And then there’s David Mitchell’s thoughtful essay on men and going to the doctor. I tend to get irate (secretly) at Mr. Carla Fran when a head cold becomes world-stop drama, and Mitchell is helping me navigate some of that. I’m interested in your thoughts here…do you think his argument is too simple, and leaves too much up to hard wiring, or do you think he is spot on? Also, how odd that the below is part of an advertisement for a line of bodycare products. (Unfortunately, I can’t quite get the video to show up here, so here’s the link while I figure it out).
David Mitchell’s SoapBox: Going to the Doctor


Lady Times

Dearest Millicent,

Sorry to have been away so long.  I have spent the last few days grumbling to and fro, sometimes happy and productive, other times head-achy and dedicated to the art of pajama-wearing.  Part of the reason here is that it is that glorious time of the month.  I think I get angry every time I am dealing with my body’s revolutions, because of the fact that an entire half of the world’s population doesn’t have a clue what it feels like to have copious amounts of fluid (in fact, one of the visually scariest fluids we have (people are known to faint at the sight of it)) coming of out of your body, and that the entire event is supposed to be covertly handled.  If my elbow was spontaneously bleeding, I wouldn’t be expected to run and put on long sleeves, insist that every thing was very fine, and that in fact, tennis sounds wonderful after all.

I have heard women talk about how their partners are absolutely on good terms with their blood, and even mine insists that he is in no way bothered by it.  But still, when you wake up in the middle of the night and think you are leaking, it is a personal crisis akin to wetting the bed.  Witnesses do not help.  And, while I can get fussy about cramps and the craziness that we have to function normally when there is a migraine in our abdomen going on, I think the real absurdity is managing such a flow.  Today it strikes me as hilarious that I can have a heavy flow– –me as a little bio-hazardous fountain– –and I am supposed to contain all of that and not announce to the world what an awesome job of systems management is going on–no leaks, no grimacing, and all the proper acts of cleanliness and subterfuge taken.  I’m not saying ladies need to have responsibilities taken away from them when in the throes of menstruation.  I’m saying that we are all cold-blooded super spies, Les Femmes Nikitas, who can handle our shit. And that maybe I would just like a “Good job!” or a “You really took care of all that stuff coming out of your body! Way to go!” every once in awhile.

Ah, the joys of being reproductively mature,

How are you?