patrick.ainge.com

Over at aboyandhiscomputer.com Mermaid posted on Dan Savage’s “Savage Loveâ€? column on City Pages. Dan voiced concern about a washington post story by January Payne about new federal guidelines asking females capable of conception to treat themselves as “pre-pregnantâ€? regardless of whether or not they plan to get pregnant.

From the post article:

“…[T]his 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…[I]t’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.â€?

I think Dan states his concern very clearly:

Color me paranoid, but ordering American women to regard themselves as “pre-pregnantâ€? because they may harm a fetus they don’t know they’re carrying opens the door to prosecuting women who harm their fetuses by failing to regard themselves as “pre-pregnant.â€? How long until “women should…refrain from smoking [and] maintain a healthy body weightâ€? becomes “women must…â€? Does that sound paranoid? Well, so did a war on contraception once.

Oddly enough, Bush’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t urge straight men to regard themselves as existing in a perpetual state of “pre-fatherhood.â€? Smoking, obesity, asthma, and diabetes could seriously hamper a man’s ability to do the heavy lifting that comes with fatherhood. But Bush’s CDC doesn’t seem that interested in regulating the behavior of all those fat, smoking pre-fathers out there.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for people living a more healthy lifestyle. But why not everyone?