I’d like to vote for defining the human life as beginning at conception.  Pregnancy is predictable and the intended consequence of copulation.

To refuse to agree on a basic definition of human life makes hollow shelled arguments of these discussions.  Some of your arguments leave me going,“HUH?”  I can’t even tell what you are talking about.  The word “civilized” gets thrown around a lot in these discussions. 

Eventually there won’t be any civilization if we don’t honor and value human life.  Many of the comments about the insignificance of human fetuses seem misanthropic to me.  Comments and quotes from people who promote the reduction of populations or that the world would be better without people I know are misanthropic.

This topic is not so complicated as the guilty want to make it.  Justification runs rampant especially among the men and women who have taken the life of their own children.  No amount of talking or writing about the rights of people will relieve one sleepless night when one knows what they have done.

I guess I should be grateful I live in Canada. I read through the CDC report and wondered if it’d mention antidepressants. I was half-expecting that the CDC, or any members of the US Senate advocate that “pre-pregnant” women shouldn’t take antidepressants or even antipsychotics as they are classified as a “category C” (Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks).
Paxil (paroxetine) is considered to be category D.
(There is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience or studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.)
I guess what’s next is, forcing so-called “pre-pregnant” women to suffer severe and debilitating illnesses such as depression, schizoprenia or bipolar disorder for the sake of possible conception.
By the way, I’m 37, and I’m infertile.

Why is it said that religionists “impose” their worldview and everyone else just suggests???

Anyone who disagrees with another is “imposing” their view. LAW is the imposition of somebody’s view—even if you are atheistic. Get used to it and learn to play well with others…even if you don’t like their rules.

birth control may be dangerous, that is why proper knowledge of this aspect is very necessary.

Its nice to know I am not the only one capable of seeing what lies at the bottom of this sleigh-ride to hell.

Its really *nifty how these political-Bible-Salesmen hide their true intent in the most innocent of places: prenatal health.

And the comparison to the Handmaid’s Tale is RIGHT ON.

Anyone who hasnt, should read that book.

Or you may find yourself classified as an un-woman and sent to clean up hazardous waste or sent to brothel to work til you knock the bottom out.

After all, rebellious women get what they deserve. {read sarcasm}

The need for feminism didn’t end with the distribution of condoms and pills. I wish that could be communicated to the current species of party-grrrl.

Stanley, I’m pro-choice to the point that I think even late-term abortion should be legal. I believe that regardless of a fetus’s viability or other characteristics, a woman retains the right to choose what happens with her body.  That right trumps a fetus’s rights (if any). 

As a biologist and person interested in public health, I get very upset when people are inappropriately alarmist.  I’ve read the entire report, and I’ve read other such reports.  It’s clear to me, as I’m sure it is to the report’s target audience (doctors and public health professionals) that the CDC’s goal is to improve the outcomes of pregnancies carried to term using preventive strategies—not to advocate viewing all women as babymaking machines. 

I highly advise people to read the CDC’s webpage on preconception care (particularly FAQs 4 &6), which is intended for the general public.  Prevention is one of the major tenets of public health.  It’s more effective and more efficient than dealing with health and medical problems after they occur.  Birth control is (by almost anyone’s yardstick) far better than abortion; taking folic acid is far better than dealing with a baby who has a neural tube defect.  That’s what the CDC is about. 

Maybe people who complain about this academic report are (ironically) too far removed from the real world.  I once had a coworker who became pregnant because she didn’t take her birth control pills correctly—she missed a pill or two and didn’t use backup methods that month.  She’d had two abortions before and didn’t want to have a third, so she decided to have the baby (who would be her fifth child). She stopped drinking, smoking, and taking drugs when she found out she was pregnant—several weeks into the pregnancy.  This sort of thing is not rare—and it’s exactly what the report is aimed at preventing.

“Nowhere does the CDC report use the term ‘pre-pregnant.’ It is a term coined by the Washington Post to scare people and to sell more papers.”

But the term does show up, according to Google, 9 times on the CDC website.

(Google search string: ‘pre-pregnant site:cdc.gov’)

The report is about improving preconception health. Abortion is not a way to improve preconception health, so it means nothing that abortion was not mentioned.  They’re *connected*—both involve reproductive health—but abortion is not germane to this particular topic.

That’s debatable but you answered Sunsara’s point about the CDC report never mentioning abortion or birth control with the statement that “it mentions family planning”.

Your own words:

From the the first item under recommendations: Similarly, a lifespan approach can be used to focus individual attention on reproductive health to reduce unintended pregnancies, age-related infertility, fetal exposures to teratogens, and to improve women’s health and pregnancy outcomes.

I’m a bit clear why think “reducing unintended pregnencies” is “germane” and abortion isn’t, but I’ll leave you to sort that out in your own mind.

But one question.

Do *you* think abortion should be legal? I’m guessing you’re going to try to finesse the question but I wish you’d answer it honestly.

How do you feel about abortion?

The problem with the CDC deciding to treat all women as potential mothers is that some of us never intend to be—I’m gay. I’ve never had a consentual sexual experience with a man and never will. I don’t need to be treated as a potential mother, or to have a government agency decide for me what my health decisions should be.

In college I was raped, got pregnant, and had a miscarriage. The idea that the government could decide for me what my reproductive organs are for—I’ll pick up a gun and fight against that happening.

I too find that ‘pro-life’ attitudes are curiously devoid of concern for birth-control.  If abortion amounts to a ‘holocaust’ then shouldnt’ birth control be a viable alternative?

I cannot recall any pro-life blog or comment I have encountered which even mentions prevention as a possible benefit.  It is always described as either ‘not 100% reliable’ for the prevention of disease, or ‘liable to encourage pre-marital sex.’  To those whe are concerned with 100% protection I can only say, don’t drive automobiles and don’t eat red meat (especially B-B-Q), also stay out of the sun.

As for pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex and post-marital sex, are you kidding?  Sex needs no encouragement.  If God didn’t want us to do it, why create us with such strong drives?  Surely spore pod explosion is much less frenetic.

As for pre-pregnant women, why not classify everyone as pre-mortified patients?  Obviously anyone who does not take good care of their health is only hastening their death.  Should we all be forced to accept conseling for such obviously suicidal tendencies as reaching for a potato chip, or perhaps preventive detention for anyone more than 5lbs overweight?

Finally, every woman posesses some 4 to 5 hundred thousand viable eggs, yet only one a month is liberated down the fallopean tubes for a period of some 35-40 years.  Modern science could save these unfortunate pre-lives and easily match them with the 80 million sperm that are tragically lost with every male ejaculation.  Since this would leave some 79 million or so extra sperm, shouldn’t men be legally required to save those unused sperm for later use?  Oops, bad math.  Men have more than one ejaculation in a lifetime.  This means what, maybe a trillion sperm are destroyed by a male during his lifetime?  (figure it for yourself) The average teenage boy is therefore more murderous than the entire Third Reich and the Soviet Union combined(?)  With this kind of reasoning, laws should be passed so that every pubescent male citizen has their hands inspected every week (for hair growth of course).

But I’m wandering off topic and can’t remember what I was trying to say.  The voice of reason’s tang becomes tungled when faced with such monumentally stupid hypocrisy.  Suddenly I remember words of wisdom from Ambrose Bierce, “There is nothing wrong with this planet that a few less people wouldn’t make better.”

No one ever speaks about overpopulation and its resulting tragedy in Africa, South America and other Third World countries. Where women have no control over their God-given power of reproduction and are enslaved by men who believe their own worth lies in how many babies they can create. No matter that the babies die from starvation and disease after knowing nothing but suffering from first breath. No matter their mothers are dying from AIDs, have no power to help themselves or their children. If woman’s prerogative as life-giver was honored and she could make decisions about how many children she felt she could care for, our world would be in a much safer, healthier place.

Nowhere does the CDC report use the term “pre-pregnant.”  It is a term coined by the Washington Post to scare people and to sell more papers. 

The report is about improving preconception health.  Abortion is not a way to improve preconception health, so it means nothing that abortion was not mentioned.  They’re *connected*—both involve reproductive health—but abortion is not germane to this particular topic.

Family planning is regulating the number and spacing of children using some method of birth control. Whether Nazis or Feminists have been fans of family planning is irrelevant.  You complain that the report doesn’t mention birth control or helping women have the ability to decide whether or not to become pregnant (which it *does*, when it specifies that women should have a reproductive life plan) and then scoff at the concept of family planning.  What’s going on?

PETER ALBERTSON AGREES THAT ALL FEMALES FROM 10 TO 50 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRE-PREGNANT BECAUSE OF THE ABSENSE OF GOOD BIRTH CONTROL, THE FACT THAT ABORTION, NOT A GOOD FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL, IS UNDER ATTACK, ETC, ETC.

HOW IS THAT GOING TO PLAY OUT….THESE AT RISK WOMEN ARE NOT GOING TO GET HEALTH CARE AND GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO CARE FOR THEMSELVES, MUCH LESS A SUPPLY OF BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, CONDOMS, OR OTHER BC DEVICES, OR PRENATAL VITAMINS AND PROPER FOOD AFTER THEY ARE PREGNANT, OR ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT THE THREAT OF PUNITIVE ACTION IF THEY DO NOT FOLLOW SOME REGIMEN THEY NEITHER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND.THAT IS FREE REIN FOR THE SEX POLICE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT AND NO FEMALE WILL BE SAFE FROM ANY SET OF CHARGES ANYONE WANTS TO DREAM UP FOR WHATEVER REASON…..NOT EVEN THE WOMEN IN MR ALBERTSON´S FAMILY.

THAT IS NOT A FUTURE I WANT FOR MY GRAND DAUGHTERS.

I have no problem with the bulk of Sansara Taylor’s piece on the CDC action, although I would quibble with her total characterization of the agency as the enemy in all respects. It clearly is not, and the hyprebole is not useful to our cause. But, I do approve of thinking of women as prepregnant—in the absence of better sex education, free condoms, better birth control, and legal abortion under attack. The problem: of that 50 percent of women who conceive unknowingly or unwillingly, a high proportion are poor, and/or teenaged, and/or ghetto dwellers, and/or discriminated against, and will never get prenatal care. So it makes sense for physicians to think of women as prepregnant. It MAY help many of them to save their lives, their babies, or to decide on abortion.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/7/93051/28686

Last December, when South Dakota’s Republican-controlled state legislature established a task force to study abortion, they stacked it with anti-abortion doctors who concluded “the abortion procedure is inherently dangerous to the psychological and physical health of the pregnant mother,” and should therefore be banned in nearly all cases. 

Today, a wide-ranging network of Christian conservative “experts” are busily testifying against abortion, same-sex marriage, condom distribution in developing nations, and stem cell research, at the behest of federal, state and local officials. They’re using graphs, pie charts, and the language of scientific objectivity to make their case for creationism, abstinence-only sex education, and prohibitions against homosexuality—even if that means making up their science along the way.

Sense anything similar?

Doesn’t it stands to reason that since I am a potential “impregnator” for one of these walking test-tubes - that my little squgglies be kept in tip-top condition?

So I get to visit the doctor without mortgaging my life next week. right?

Health care for all is just around the corner. Just like in a civilized country.

Looks like Smirky wants to create a generation of little Neocons who are raised to worship him. pass the sick bag, please! Makes me glad to be 50. I pity these 20-somethings forced to have Smirky’s babies. heaven help them.

I think the issue with your quote here:

Really, I’m going to stop reading this woman’s rants.  Her over-the-top inflammatory diatribes only serve as a left-wing counterpart to a Bill O’Reilly free-for-all.  Emotive “doom is here” predictions substitute for thoughtful discourse and pander to the lowest common denominator.

Is that you don’t consider that the abortion issue affects some people personally more than others.

I can probably discuss tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike without any sense of “emotive doom” but if people were suddenly talking about “reasonably debating” doing away with the voting rights act or bringing back segregation, my level of “emotive doom” might just be a bit higher.

The pro-life movement is advocating something very similar for women, taking away a fundamental human right/freedom.

So when the government starts issuing papers like this and the government is essentially in the hands of Christian fundamentalists, what do you expect? Do you want the government in your bedroom?

I certainly don’t. And I’m not really going to accept any “thoughtful discourse” on whether or not it can. If the government goes sticking its nose under my sheets my response is not going to be “well on one hand the government’s nose under my sheets might have its advantages but on the other…” It’s going to be “get your nose the fuck out from under my sheets”.

For Ms. Sunsara Taylor, thank you for an excellent article. Some of the previous responses are indicative as to the reason such an article is necessary. Some individuals do not want to hear the very negative truth regarding women’s reproductive rights in this country. The CDC is obviously in the pocket of the religious anti-choice movement. Where is the outrage concerning pharmacists who remain employed even after they refuse to fill a woman’s prescription for birth control? Where is the outrage that Plan B is not yet available over the counter? (and never will be available if the religious nuts have their way.)When I “came of age,” none of this woman hating nonsense was going on. I have an almost five year old daughter. What choices will be available for her by the time she reaches maturity? It is past time for ALL women who care about their reproductive rights as well as their right to privacy to become very very angry and DO something about this lunacy!

I find the term “family planning” problematic.

Christian fundamentalists are very good at masking their intentions behind benign sounding language. They are very good at using charity or caring for the poor or health care to hide their power grabs.

The real problem with bureaucratic language and reports like this is that they hide more than they reveal. If you’re saying “family planning” and not “abortion” or “condoms” then they’ve won half the battle. All they have to do is get their own people inside the CDC and “family planning” starts to mean “the rhythm method” or “voluntary abstinence”.

Upton Sinclair once wrote, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”  I believe it.  I also believe that if the fundanazis get their way, that’s where we’ll be.

Well, maybe we don’t “need to rename the US the Republic of Gilead quite yet.”  But—living as I do in relatively progressive Portland, ME, it’s easy to underestimate the chilling influence the fundamentalist theocrats exert in less progressive communities.

A few days ago, I had the opportunity to talk about this subject with an educated couple in their mid-thirties who had relocated from Southern Maine to the Tulsa, OK area to pursue a career opportunity. Unlike myself (an atheist), they consider themselves liberal Christians but attend church services only on rare occasions—mostly weddings and funerals.  This was never an issue for them when they lived in New England. 

They’re shocked and amazed how different things are for them now!  In Oklahoma they’ve found they’re asked by just about everyone they meet—including coworkers and managers, “what’s their home church?” or something very similar.  When they say they don’t have one, either they are met with blank stares—or worse, an invitation to a church they wouldn’t feel comfortable in.  The woman said she felt like she was “in Gilead.”  Her words.  They’re both feeling ostracized and unwelcome.  They both feel their careers are in real jeopardy unless they fake a lot more religious conformity.  Needless to say they’re now desperate to get out of that hellhole.  I can’t blame them!

On a more relevant note, thanks for a great piece, Sunsara!

Ms. Taylor, the slippery slope scenario your article spells out may or may not be justified, but the fact that our infant mortality rate is higher than that of other western nations does indicate that something’s wrong.  I think the motives of the CDC are good (especially if they were to lead to health care reform.)  Of course when you put the maniac religious right and its minions in Congress into the mix, any mix, the potential for bad outcomes looms large.

I’m glad that others here have finally “seen” Ms. Taylor as the liberal/leftist-extremist that she seems to be.  Intelligent people don’t trust utterly one-sided articles and slipery-slope theorizations like this one.  I mentioned this about her Battle Cry articles and I got blasted by a moron blogger for criticizing her extremely on-sided reports and her use of profanity which was completely uncalled for and which only hurts her credibility as a columnist (i’m a lover of profane language but i wouldn’t use it to persuade people who i don’t know to believe what i say).  If Mr. Scheer wishes to keep ‘truth lovers’ as his audience he should have a talk w/ Ms. Taylor about the finer points of persuasive writing and the distastefulness of one-sisded reporting that smacks in the face of the same fundamentalist diatribes that the White House has become a home for.
Reading articles like these are a waste of time.  I can’t tell how true the story is b/c of so many out of context quotes which she uses to support her outlandish ideas.  What ever truth there may be in her story is lost in her extremist tone.  She sounds like the xtian fundamentalists she detests so much.
Somebody take her keyboard away until she comes back from Journalistic Reporting 101.

I don’t think people can just say this is a left wing rant and leave it at that.

Does this article stand on the truth? Please tell me where it doesn’t. I find it well researched and it’s alarming nature is very much related to the fact that these are alarming times.

Really, I’m going to stop reading this woman’s rants.  Her over-the-top inflammatory diatribes only serve as a left-wing counterpart to a Bill O’Reilly free-for-all.  Emotive “doom is here” predictions substitute for thoughtful discourse and pander to the lowest common denominator.

One cannot overestimate enough the power of arrogant and ignorant religionists who will stop at nothing to **impose** (not just express) their Dark Age-view of the world on society at large - theirs is viewed as a godly mission, the rewards for which will only be reached in some non-existent afterlife (shades of 72 virgins, anyone?). 

Given the reality of what is truly going on out there in this insane world, I wouldn’t call Ms. Taylor’s article over-the-top in any way.  Hers is not a thoughtless view in any sense of the word- she is seeking instigate the type thoughtful discourse you say she is thwarting.

Of course, we want to believe that the things she predicts will not come true.  It’s our first reaction as humans to say, “that’ll never happen to us.”  But it is exactly that type of apathy that has lead to the most horrific social atrocities throughout history. It can most certainly happen to us, and the sooner we all realize that, the sooner we can band together to prevent it.

Interesting that nobody talks about the future of every sperm as a potential child.  At least the CDC is being honest about their agenda for women.  The pro-life agenda is only to control women- and there is no better way to do that then to control women’s reproduction.  They hide this behind a smoke screen of protecting the unborn.  They don’t care a bit about babies after they’re born.  And if the religious right really wanted to prevent abortion you’d think they would be the biggest proponents of birth control.
If this is the way the country is moving I think it’s time for feminists to insist that every sperm have a name! Sorry boys, no more masturbation and somehow you’d better control your wet dreams.  Let’s not waste one single swimmer!

There are also numerous references to family planning.  Let’s not make the CDC out to be the enemy when it’s not.

“Family Planning” can mean anything from abortion and birth control to the “rhythm method”.

Are there “numerous refernces” to “abortion”?

Sunsara,  I usually enjoy your comments and think you are right on.  However I think you are over the top on this one. 
The CDC paper specifically states in its 5 goals that “women AND MEN of childbearing age have high reproductive awareness” and have health care coverage and that :women AND MEN have a reproductive life plan (e.g., whether OR WHEN they want to have children and how they will maintain their reproductive health)” and that all “pregnancies are intended and planned”. 
The report also is in favor of “family planning” medicaid wavers - that is continuing health care coverage for family planning (i.e. birth control)when a person - man or woman- of childbearing years has lost coverage.  I fail to see these goals as intrusive or onerous to anyone.  The CDC paper seems to support low income women rather than to burden them.
As an unrepentant Liberal and pro-choice provider of health care to pregnant women, I welcome any increase in awareness of the options for care available to women pregnant or not.

I don’t think the point Ms. Taylor is aiming for is that the CDC is the “enemy” - actually, I think what is compelling and insightful about this piece is her depiction of how science is not immune to the societal/political/cultural moves to the right. And this is not the first impact we have seen on the scientific community, and the CDC specifically. In the well-researched book “With God On Their Side”, author Esther Kaplan outlines how the CDC has had to censor themselves or forgo whole research projects which have potentially devastating effects (as with gays and AIDS, an example Kaplan cites) because of the influence of christian fundamentalists in government. What will be the consequences of what Sunsara is describing? I think this is a very important question, and not just to young women like me (who have never lived when abortion and contraception were illegal, and who HAVE grown up being constantly denied information about our bodies). Sunsara writes about things most of us don’t want to deeply consider or confront and she comes at them with a sincerity, seriousness, and urgency that are greatly needed. I am VERY thankful to her for writing what she writes, and to truthdig for making it available more widely.

Miriam,

Why would the fact that this report speaks of family planning mean that reclassifying all women as pre-pregnant is not ominous? 

Many people have spoken of family planning - some for good and some for very bad: Eugenicists and Nazis have done it.  Feminists and revolutionaries have also done it.

This report’s discussion of family planning has to be seen in the context of its complete lack of any mention of birth control or voluntary abortion and its sweeping recommendations to more tightly assert societal and legal control over women.

This article by the Critical Art Ensamble might be of interest to anyone who is concerned with the increasing reemergance of eugenics practices into public debate:

http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=101

It might over-speak some (what theory doesn’t?) but it does do a decent job of probing at the partially hidden edges of practices that could, under certain circumstances, become become highly problematic.

Really, I’m going to stop reading this woman’s rants.  Her over-the-top inflammatory diatribes only serve as a left-wing counterpart to a Bill O’Reilly free-for-all.  Emotive “doom is here” predictions substitute for thoughtful discourse and pander to the lowest common denominator.

Having said that the CDC is way off base on this one, though I don’t think we need to rename the US the Republic of Gilead quite yet.

It’s hard to take anything seriously written by Miss Taylor when this woman’s political ancestors have committed more genocide and torture than anyone except….abortionists.

You say: “Never mind making it easier for women to decide for themselves whether or not to become pregnant.”

From the 2nd point in the conclusion: [Implementation of the recommendations will help achieve the SPPC vision of preconception health and pregnancy outcomes in which]...women and men have a reproductive life plan (e.g., whether or when they want to have children and how they will maintain their reproductive health);

From the the first item under recommendations: Similarly, a lifespan approach can be used to focus individual attention on reproductive health to reduce unintended pregnancies, age-related infertility, fetal exposures to teratogens, and to improve women’s health and pregnancy outcomes.

There are also numerous references to family planning.  Let’s not make the CDC out to be the enemy when it’s not.

I’m glad we have this outlet to inform us of such crucial issues.

But I’m afraid it might not last!

Check out this short video explaining how the Internet may soon be much more like the medium of TV - highly structured and controlled by financial interests!!

Spread the word - use the Internet to save the Internet.

Being as old as I am, I very well remember a movie made back during the 2nd World War that was shown in theatres in Canada and now doubt in the United States.

The movie was called “Hitler’s Children” and your article is horrendously familiar to the movie.

Definitely “The Handmaids Tale” along with “Hitler’s Children”

What an obscenity in today’s advanced world. Hmm? Did I say ‘advanced’....no, rather let’s call it for what it is…..

A move back to Eugenics and a very, very dark and frightening world for women.