Monday, June 05, 2006

Dan Savage Weighs in on "Forever Pregnant" article

Dan Savage writes about the afore-mentioned pre-pregnancy article in the Washington Post.


As usual, an awesome take on the issue:

STRAIGHT-RIGHTS UPDATE: After tossing nearly half of last week's column away on a straight-rights update, it was my intention to give it a rest. In fact, every time I write one of these, I think, "This is the last one. Banning abortion, evicting unmarried straight couples and their children, moving to ban birth control—things can't get any worse, can they?"

Oh, but they can: Not satisfied with meddling in the lives of the relatively small percentage of women who are pregnant, the American Taliban is moving to regulate the lives of all American women.

"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," reports The Washington Post. "[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."

Color me paranoid, but ordering American women to regard themselves as "pre-pregnant" 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." How long until "women should… refrain from smoking [and] maintain a healthy body weight" becomes "women must…" Does that sound paranoid? Well, so did a war on contraception once.

Oddly enough, Bush's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don't urge straight men to regard themselves as existing in a perpetual state of "pre-fatherhood." 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.

Gee. Isn't. That. Weird.

There is a bright side in the CDC's announcement: If we're going to regard all females as pre-pregnant, then we can, as my friend Gomez points out, regard all virgins as merely pre-fucked.

2 comments:

Arthur Vandaley said...

that guy is funny. i wonder what they would classify older women past menopause with no children as...probably anti-pregnant, in-fuckable, or maybe pre-deceased. in fact i like the idea of pre-deceased so much i think everyone should smoke cigarettes. you could call it studying for the post-deceased part of life. but seriously, this sounds exactly like 1984. any orwell fans out there? this is the finest form of double-speak there is.

Connie said...

I think to myself - THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING - but it is. What must we do to stop this nonsense? This could have terrible reprocussions. Women could be arrested for smoking, drinking, etc. I am going to work on a letter to the editor, people must hear about this. Starting now. . .