Strollerderby : pregnancy

One School, 19 Sets of Twins

JeanneSager — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:27:00 GMT

They're seeing double at Armstrong Elementary School in Garland, Texas. And double. And double.

The small Texas school has just five hundred thirty-nine students - and thirty-eight of them are twins. There are nine sets in the second grade alone.

It's surely a sign of the trend toward twins - spurred on by fertility interventions. These days, one out of every thirty-three kids is a twin (compared to one in eighty back in the day). In 2004, there were more than one hundred thirty two thousand twin births recorded in the U.S. - more than any year prior (that was the latest year data is available on, no word on whether it's risen in the past five years).

There's no question there are more of them, but I'd hazard a guess they're more spread out too. And they're bringing more attention. Perhaps because because the hot button fertility drug issue (hello Octomom) make these parents an easy mark? The years have also been marked by advancements in medical technologies that keep twin pregnancies going and keep premie duos alive.

And perhaps I'm the anomaly that proves the rule, but I never thought twins were rare. I grew up in the eighties in an even smaller school than Armstrong (there were thirty-four kids in my graduating class). And there was one set of twins in my class, plus half of a set of a twins (his brother failed a year and ended up behind us). My next door neighbors had identical twin boys, I have a set of twin uncles (born in the sixties) plus a set of twin cousins. None of these kids were born with fertility interventions.

Twins make up seven percent of the population at Armstrong. But they made up eight percent of the population in my third grade class.

Did you know a lot of twins growing up or are you meeting your first multiples as parents?

Image: MSNBC

Creepy Old Japanese Pregnant Dolls (with Attached Creepy Fetus Dolls!)

Cole Gamble — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:00:00 GMT

Apparently used to teach 19th century Japanese midwives, these pregnant dolls not only included placenta and stretch marks, but also interchangeable fetuses of different stages. At least, I hope that's what they were used for. It's kind of weird for a novelty item.

Crocheted Doll Gives Birth

More Good Stuff:

8 "PG" Movies Way Too Scary for Kids

6 Reasons Why it Sucks to Be a Kid Today

Disturbing Baby-Swinging PSA

Eating Your Baby's Placenta

10 Great Books For (Traumatizing) Children

They Say: Pregnant Women with the Flu Should Take Antivirals

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Given that pregnant women are among those considered at high risk for severe cases of swine flu, and there has been at least one death, concerned doctors have experimented with giving them antiviral medications early, to apparently good results.

The numbers are small (20 women tracked by the CDC so far), and drugs like Tamiflu are usually not recommended during pregnancy, but the CDC has decided that the known risks to mother and baby from flu outweigh the unknown possible dangers of the drug to the fetus, and is recommending the drug to all pregnant women with flu symptoms and "a history of likely contact with someone else with swine flu" (whatever that means). Because timing matters, they don't even want to wait for tests to come back.

Meanwhile, if this is making you feel like a hypochondriac again, check out this detailed description of when to worry—it's not just a head cold.

Photo by kannon, via Flickr.

Related Posts:

More by this author:

Melissa Joan Hart Drops the Ball on Being a Role Model

JeanneSager — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:26:00 GMT

So Melissa Joan Hart packed on the pounds during her pregnancy. That makes her different from any other pregnant woman in America, how?

The former Sabrina the Teenage Witch star showed off her bikini-worthy bod in People last week, but it was her words that cut deep into the psyches of moms everywhere.

A picture of her post-partum at one hundred fifty-five pounds, snapped on the beach, was "horrifying," Hart told People. That's why she lost weight. Not because she felt physically bad at her weight. Because she cared what everyone else thought of her.

Wow, how, SHALLOW of her. Yeah, yeah, I know, she lives in Hollywood - she's supposed to care what the public thinks about her. She points out that living in Hollywood puts huge pressure on you, and I'd bet it would. But if you're going to use that as your excuse, you can just as easily use it as your soapbox. Because Hart is one of those women who can make a statement to the world that sets the world afire and lets other women know it is OK to walk outside of their houses with their heads held high in the days after they give birth.

But where she had the chance to be a wonderful anti-dote to the thousands of celebrity women who practically prance out of the hospital with their twiggy forms back and make the rest of us feel even worse about ourselves, Hart chose the wrong route. Showing off her hard fourteen months of work was a great example to women that you can do it, maybe. But the words "horrifying" about her post-partum body undid much of that positive message.

What happened to being honest about what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy? To facing up to the fact that the weeks after having a baby are hardly the time to focus on weight loss/gain because you're focused on a new life?

Image: People

Kelly Ripa Beats Obamas for Your Family Vacation

Post Partum Hilarity in Book Form

They Say: Just Get the Epidural Already

JeanneSager — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:01:00 GMT

Oh no they didn't!

A bunch of Swedish medical researchers have come out with a study that calls BS on the natural birth community. Basically, they say, get the epidural.

Full disclosure here - after hours of saying, "no, no, I can do this," I got the epidural. But before you call this one a victory for those of us who love us some painkillers, I don't see what was so scientific and exacting about this study.

They took one thousand moms-to-be and split them in half. One set went though classes on natural birth, learning breathing exercises and other natural methods to get them through the pain of labor. The other half got the "drugs are good" talk from their instructors. But once they got to the hospital, the numbers of women who said "get me drugs" was about even out of the two groups.

The scientists say this means the drugs work better.

I agree. For SOME people. Because if you ask any mom who made it through natural childbirth drug-free by choice, she didn't NEED the drugs. Ask a mom who chose the epidural (hello, over here, raising my hand)? She's going to tell you she DID NEED the drugs.

Can you tell either one she's wrong about her own body? Didn't think so.

Because it's totally subjective folks. We all have different pain thresholds. My brother broke his arm when we were kids and all he said was "ow," a few times. I broke my foot (well, he broke my foot), and I was whining about it for weeks. Walk into a pre-school, and you'll see the same thing. Two kids collide face first, and one bursts into tears. The other brushes herself off and runs off to play.

I'm also not ready to write off all breathing techniques for the reduction of/help with pain. Because as most pregnant women know, you don't get an epidural the moment your first contraction starts, and they don't last through the entire process (yes, folks, we do feel it when we're giving birth - they are not the wonder drug those who haven't had one think they are, or at least mine wasn't). Ever gotten a massage where the therapist told you to take long, deep breaths while they worked on a particularly tight knot? Or even just banged your knee particularly hard and had to breathe through it?

Unless this study is going to encourage health insurance companies not to play games over the rights of a woman to have an epidural (which, believe me, they will challenge - when the only anesthesiologist on call doesn't take your insurance, they don't have to pay the doctor, despite your NEED for that needle), what purpose does this serve?

Image: BBCNews

School Makes Teen Reveal Pregnancy

JeanneSager — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:01:00 GMT

How far should a school go to get help for a pregnant teen?

A mom in Texas says her daughter's school crossed a line when they forced the girl to reveal her pregnancy to staff, then sent her for medical testing and counseling.

Considering it's a Christian school, it's not surprising the First Choice Pregnancy Center, where they sent the teen, just so happens to be one of those abstinence-only, pro-life organizations. But then the Trinity Christian School allegedly expelled the girl in May of 2008, two weeks shy of the end of school.

The girls mom is suing the school, church and specific staffers at the school. But it sounds like her biggest problems are with the center, which the lawsuit says, "The pregnancy center interviewed, counseled and tested Jane Doe without the consent or knowledge of her mother and disseminated her private medical information to [school Bible teacher Shannan] Morgan and [school counselor Brad] Watson without consent or authorization."

So there was a violation of HIPAA here on behalf of the center. Her health info should not have been given to school staff based on federal guidelines regarding the privacy of health information. Period.

It's inappropriate too that the school ordered any form of medical testing, and that the girl was forced to reveal her pregnancy. Again, that's private health information. Her pregnancy was not swine flu. It was not going to affect public health. It's where the school clearly crossed a line. As they did by kicking out a student for her pregnancy.

But is the counseling part out of line? Even counseling at a place where they make it their mission "to give women and teens in crisis pregnancies and opportunity to examine their lives, think through their options, and gain vital information regarding positive alternatives to pregnancy termination"?

Remember, this isn't a public school. As a religious private school, the separation of church and state is null and void. So while parents with kids in public school could (should) throw up their arms for having their kid brought to a faith-based counseling service, that doesn't necessarily apply here. And counseling of some form is often put into place by school districts, some of which have a psychologist on staff for kids to consult. And that can be at the suggestion of a teacher or simply a student's own request. If a student or teacher dies, a trauma team full of counselors is called upon, and parents are not asked if that's OK.

I'd imagine counseling for a pregnant teen is appropriate. Even in a public school setting - although there I'd again call for something non-faith based, with no particular focus on whether or not she'll keep the baby.

What do you think, parents?

Image: supernannyrules.com (not the girl described)

Lose a Game, Gain a Son

JeanneSager — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:01:00 GMT

The day your child is born may not be THE best day of your life (because, really, what does that say about every day after that). But, hey, doesn't the birth of your child tend to overshadow everything else that happened around that time?

Let's hope so for Casey Jennings.

The pro volleyball player had a horrendous day in the sand on Saturday, finishing in seventh place with partner Matt Fuerbringer at the AVP Crocs Tour Huntington Beach Open. But Jennings walked off a pretty happy guy - it was less than twenty-four hours since wife Kerri Walsh (the Olympic gold medalist) had given birth to a little boy.

Jennings played in matches (and won them) on Friday, but he made it home in time to escort Walsh to the hospital and be present at the birth of Joseph Michael. But he said his finish on Saturday was most disappointing because it doesn't carry with it the story he'd hoped to tell Joey down the road.

"I wanted to win and be able to tell him, 'The day after you were born I kicked some butt, and that 'The day you were born I kicked some butt!'" Jennings told the LA Times.

Otherwise, Jennings was on top of the world. And a seventh place finish wasn't going to change that.

Can you blame him? Did you have something really crappy happen around the birth of your child that you were able to power through because this was just SO much better?

Image: LA Times

They Say: You're More Likely to Smoke if Your Mother Did While Pregnant

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:00:00 GMT

In case we needed yet another reason not to smoke--and to harass people who do--here's a new study that shows a four-fold increase in the likelihood of being a smoker at age 22 if your mother smoked during pregnancy and/or your early childhood.

Researchers are suggesting that exposure to cigarettes in utero may lead to changes in the brain that put the baby at risk for future nicotine dependence. But the study was not careful enough to rule out social factors, like an increased likelihood that a smoking mother perhaps will have smoking friends, will accept smoking in her home, will be less alarmed if her teen takes up smoking, etc.

Then again, we are already pretty conclusively sure that smoking is nothing but bad for a developing fetus, leading to premature birth and low birth weights among other things. Whether it's nature, nurture or a combination that leads the children of smokers to smoke, it's fair to say quit.

I'm not one to pounce on pregnant women for what they eat or drink, and I wouldn't pounce on anyone individually for this either. Smoking is a dreadful addiction, very difficult to quit as we all know. But it's helpful to have clear evidence about something for a change, rather than murky warnings about soft cheese, or inconsistent recommendations about how much--if any--alcohol is okay while pregnant.

The take away here is: If you can at all manage it, don't smoke when you're pregnant. Do everything you can to quit. And for those of us who aren't pregnant, the message is: don't smoke around pregnant women and be supportive and helpful to pregnant women you may know who are trying to quit.

Creepiest Pregnant Belly Art Ever

JeanneSager — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:26:00 GMT

I have never been a big fan of the pregnant belly as art to hang on the wall. Got your stomach cast? Good for you. I'm still not buying it.

But this isn't just one of those ultra personal pieces of art. It's plain old groooosss.

Are you thinking alien baby too? I'm thinking that Star Trek movie where the bug crawled into the guy's ear and took over.

Part of the soap line over at Bloomin' Bellies on Etsy it was brought to my attention via Craftastrophe, but they were just looking at this as an average woman's torso. Check out Bloomin' Bellies, and sure enough, these are moms a bloomin' in soap form. And you can get them as twins - with the baby from the black lagoon paired with the baby who has afflicted mom with leprosy!

So here's to mom, whose body couldn't have taken pregnancy any worse.

Image: Bloomin' Bellies

Twins Have One Mom, Two Different Dads

JeanneSager — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:33:00 GMT

Anyone who has operated on the premise that you can't get any MORE pregnant listen up.

A Texas mom has given birth to two babies at the same time, with two different dads. Technically, the little boys are twins, but their features were so dissimilar their mom became suspicious and went to lab to check the boys' paternity.

The tests showed a .001 chance that the boys shared a father. Which medical experts means mom Mia Washington had sex with two different guys within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of each other. And unprotected sex we'd imagine.

There is a happy ending for Washington and her twins - she's apparently made up with partner James Harrison, he's forgiven her infidelity and agreed to raise both boys as his own. They're now expecting their third child (well, his second) together.

And the experts weighing in on this case are all pointing to the statistical impossibility of this happening - one doc told the NY Daily News that without fertility drugs, the chances are one in one hundred of a double pregnancy in this manner.

Still, one in one hundred? With the amount of baby making sex some couples have when they're desperately trying, I wonder how many fraternal twins out there were conceived in a similar manner, only with the same father. Without that major difference in features, and without the difference in paternity, I guess there's no way we'll ever know.

Image: Daily Mail

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

Brett Singer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:56:00 GMT

It's official -- Alfie Patten is not the father of baby Maisie. Biologically, at least.

Alfie thought that he had impregnated 15-year-old Chantelle Stedman when he was just 12 years old. Although I admit that science is not my strong suit, that didn't seem possible to me. I guess I was right. (Take THAT Mr. Knauer! He was my bio teacher a long time ago. But I digress.)

This news isn't completely new, but it has just now been released after a ban on the info by a British court was overturned. A judge had previously ruled that "the rights of the teenagers took precedence over the Press's right to report the case." Well, I guess not.

This is an interesting point, one that I've thought of a few times over the past few years. Maybe minors' names should never be released to the public. What possible reason is there for us to know their full names? Does it really enhance our ability to understand a story? I don't see how it could. In my opinion the idea the "the press has a right to know" or report or whatever is very suspect when it comes to matters like this. Why does the press have more rights than a kid?

Source: Daily Mail

FEMA Coloring Book Features 9/11 Image

10 Year Old Author Alec Greven Is Back

12 Year Old Knocks Em Dead On Britain's Got Talent

Australian Kiddie Show Star Appears In Laddie Mag

New Mom-to-be Is 66 Years Old

JeanneSager — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:27:00 GMT

I'm sorry if any of the older mom readers who frequent our pages will take this as an insult, but news that a mom-to-be setting a new record in England for her age really made me want to go to take a nap.

Elizabeth Adeney is expecting her first child at the ripe old age of sixty-six, making her the oldest pregnant woman in English history.

And making me really, really exhausted on her behalf.

Adeney, who works in a factory, is reportedly single and spent ten thousand pounds on in vitro treatments at a clinic in the Ukraine to get pregnant. Now eight months along, she's apparently been hiding her pregnancy - perhaps because of the world-wide scrutiny the news has naturally elicited.

I'm all for single women having babies if they can support them. Same goes for older women bringing children into this world. But let's face it, Adeney is single. Whether she can financially support her baby or not, whether she's got the amazing health of women half her age or not, she IS taking a huge risk here of leaving her teenager completely alone in the world.

Because good health or not, does she know she'll live to eighty-four? That's how long she'll have to make it to see her child graduate from high school and reach the age of majority. What about eighty-eight to see them graduate from college? She can likely forget ever seeing her own grandchildren.

This could all be discounted if there were additional people in Adeney's life to provide for this child not only in a financial sense but an emotional one. But Adeney is not only divorced with no partner but has no brothers or sisters to step in for this kid should something happen.

She's said this whole pregnancy is her business alone. But is it? It may not be fair that people are asking her questions not asked of other single parents or even other mothers of "advanced maternal age," but with her decision to pursue IVF, she brought the questions on herself. She is not in the same situation as a forty-year-old single parent, hence she can't be expected to be treated the same way.

What do you think, Babble readers? Does Adeney's age matter more in light of her marital status?

Image: Sky News

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Brett Singer — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:08:00 GMT

Well, now I'm depressed.

According to Baltimore TV station WJZ, "Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women."

The story mentions a number of murders, and makes the following even more depressing statement: "In each case, police say the killer was the unborn baby's father. Ending the pregnancy was the motive."

At least I'm not the only one to be surprised. Isabelle Horon of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, "We were completely shocked to find that homicide was the leading cause of death."

The WJZ story says that "Thirteen years ago, Maryland passed a law allowing prosecutors to charge a pregnant woman's killer with two murders." Prosecutors want to use the law in the case of Valicia Demery, a pregnant woman who was murdered. However, "Of the 36 states with similar laws, Maryland is one of the few that requires proof that the unborn child could have survived outside of the womb." California, by contrast, does not require such proof to charge a killer with a double murder.

Here's where it gets tricky. Clearly killing a pregnant woman is a horrible crime. And doing so beacuse you want to end her pregnancy is even more horrible. But is it a double murder? If it is, doesn't that open a door to equating abortion with murder?

No matter what, this is a very depressing statistic.

Source: WJZ.com

Boy Accidentally Shoots Self With Forgotten Gun

Fox News Hates Kids In Political Videos Except When They Don't

Mom Puts 9 Year Old Girl On Craigs List For Revenge

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

Telling Pregnant Women to Abstain from Alcohol "Unethical?"

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:07:00 GMT

A new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics suggests that given the lack of conclusive evidence that light to moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy poses any harm to a fetus, telling expectant women to completely abstain from drinking is unethical behavior on the part of doctors.

I thought the label of "unethical" was intriguing. The brief summary of the article I read didn't say in great detail why, but that such advice to women is "paternalistic." I suppose it could well be, especially if women are not given the full information about drinking during pregnancy and what it does and doesn't do to a fetus.

I've been skeptical for a long time about the not-a-single-drop-while-pregnant alcohol policy our culture seems to take for granted. I had heard about the skewed studies that discovered fetal alcohol syndrome, and how huge amounts of alcohol, consumed in addictive binges, were studied, and their effects universalized to include any alcohol consumption at all. I had known women who drank lightly during pregnancy whose babies were just fine.

But calling the advice downright unethical? I think most doctors, in the absence of better information, are most probably just advising women to avoid drinking to stay on the safe side of the mystery. I doubt many of them genuinely think their patients are incapable of finding the line between light-to-moderate drinking and alcoholic bingeing on moonshine. (Those early FAS studies were done on poor women in Appalachia.)

But I've never been pregnant, on the receiving end of the doctor's advice. What do you think? Did your OB/Gyn mention drinking during pregnancy? If so what did s/he tell you and how did you feel about it? Was it any more a problem than any of the other advice you were given? Does it seem unethical?

image: adrants.com

Dream It/Do It: Maternity Wear

editors — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:30:00 GMT

Today on Babble:

"Dream It/Do It: Maternity Wear"

by Tracy Chait

Discover an enviable pregnancy wardrobe on any budget.

Read it here.

They Say: Work Stress Makes For Skinny Babies

Madeline Holler — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:29:00 GMT

I would hope that the results of the following study won't be a reason to discriminate against women in stressful or physically demanding jobs. Researchers at the University College Dublin and a French health research organization found that a baby is five times more likely to be born premature if the mother worked at a job under two or more of the following conditions:

Long hours

Shifts

Temporary jobs

Physically demanding positions

Just one of those factors made the baby four times more likely to be small or born early.

Just because a mom-to-be works long hours or in shifts wasn't enough to show a statistically significant increased risk, but combined with any of the other factors, it was.

So what does this mean for working moms? Should we go back to the olden days when you would announce you're pregnant and immediately resign? Um, no. But how about, for example, giving this cop desk duty until she returns from her maternity leave? And maybe doing the math that it would cost less in the long run to make these accommodations, considering the extra expense of caring for an increased number of premature and low-weight babies.

From the Telegraph:

Dr Isabelle Niedhammer, one of the co-authors of the study, said: "This study underlines that more attention should be given to women's working conditions during pregnancy, and effort should be intensified towards reducing exposure to physical work demands, shift work, and long working hours for pregnant women.

"Special attention should also be given to pregnant women working on temporary contracts," she added.

Do you think work stress or a physically demanding job affected the size and health of your baby?

Nursing Mom Calls for Breastpump Ban

Boy Births More Complicated

Womb Simulator Now Available in U.S.

Photo: Telegraph.co.uk

YouTube Helps Man Deliver Baby

Jen Chaney — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:06:00 GMT

YouTube: It sucks hours away from our lives by allowing us to watch complete episodes of "T.J. Hooker" and annoying videos about a kid named Fred. But evidently it also is (indrectly) responsible for bringing new life into the world.

After watching some how-to videos on YouTube, a British engineer named Marc Stephens delivered his son last month when his wife quickly went into labor. As the BBC reports, Stephens's wife, Jo, reported some discomfort one evening, which prompted her husband to Google "how to deliver a baby." He watched a few videos, just in case. When Jo woke up in the middle of the night already in labor and found that no midwives were available to perform the home birth the couple had planned, Stephens was able to put his recently acquired medical expertise to use. He calmly delivered a healthy 5 lb., 5 oz. baby boy named Gabriel, the fourth addition to the Stephens family.

This is obviously a very happy story (and, possibly, awesome fodder for a future YouTube ad campaign). But a few of the stories that reported this news actually made me laugh out loud, simply because some of the quotes from the Stephens family are so hilarious. Some highlights:

From the BBC: "I Googled how to deliver a baby, watched a few videos and basically swotted up."

Also from the BBC: "This is our fourth child now and while for our first I spent most of the time at my wife's head, now I'm not afraid to go down to the business end."

Then there's this punchline, delivered by Jo Stephens to The Guardian: "I was quite relaxed. I have to say, out of all my four labours, that was the one I enjoyed the most. Marc is one of those people who can put his hand to anything."

Put his hand to anything? You got that right, sister.

Anyway, we here at Strollerderby wish the Stephens family congratulations. And we also offer this link to a YouTube video as a public service to anyone who thinks he or she may have to deliver a baby sometime in the near future. The video delivery takes place in a taxi cab. And (obviously) it involves a fake mommy and a doll baby. But if it worked for Stephens, maybe it can work for you, too.

Don't Ask If We're Trying to Have a Boy . . . or a Girl

JeanneSager — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:28:00 GMT

My friend cried hysterically when she found out her first baby was going to be a boy. Now, two boys later, she says she'd likely only get pregnant again if she could guarantee another boy.

So what's the most common question she's asked about the possibility of number three? "So, are you going to try for your girl?"

Writer Amy Wilson has written a compelling piece for Parenting Magazine about why that question comes so often for mothers of little boys . . . and why it's just so darn inappropriate.

"It bothers me that people assume I feel incomplete without a daughter, let alone that it's my motivation for being pregnant with a third child in the first place," she says.

I actually have a daughter, my one and only, and I get the opposite question: "when are you going to give her a little brother?" Or, maybe worse "when are you going to make your husband a little boy?"

Just as Wilson is disturbed by the notion that her life would be considered incomplete without a little girl, I wonder why a little boy is so necessary to round out a family. And why should I be putting the burden of being one or the other on this little fetus who really has no control.

Gender preferences are somewhat natural, don't get me wrong. There's the idea, as Wilson had, that you better understand the gender you have (with her, the boys) or the gender you are (why many women say they want a girl, many men say they're shooting for a boy). But those preferences will go away when a child comes along. They did for my friend. They did for Wilson, whose third baby, it turned out, was a little girl.

So why does the rest of the world seem to think we can't turn it off? Or assume it's there to begin with? I can honestly say I didn't know which (or I should say who) I wanted. I was equally excited and terrified by each gender. I'd changed boy diapers before, but never girls. But then again, I am a girl, I know how that works . . . and so forth. I worried about the still tenuous mother-daughter relationship I have with my mother. I worried about the father-son relationship my husband has with his dad. I thought about reading Anne of Green Gables with a little girl, about my friend's cuddly little ball of love of a boy.

And, in the end, I got a girl. A beautiful, sweet, sometimes drives me a little bonkers, girl. I wouldn't trade her in for a boy. I wouldn't replace her with a boy. And if I had it to do over, I might even find myself saying "yes, if we could guarantee another girl."

For those of us with one gender of children (be it one, two, three, etc.), it's really not the end of the world. Really. If anything, it's just the beginning.

Iowa Mulling Same Sex Birth Certificates?

Also on Babble:

One is the Awesomest Number

Pick a Sex, Any Sex

Partly Private: The Long Journey to a Short Cut

editors — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Photo: Philip Touitou

Reviewed by Emily Frost

In Partly Private: The Long Journey to a Short Cut, we join what quickly becomes Director Danae Elon’s personal quest to convince her husband not to circumcise their second son. In one scene, the couple lies together, sandwiching their already circumcised one-year-old, when Danae, pregnant again, begins to weep over their impending decision: whether to do the same thing again.

In the course of her documentary, Elon finds the very first circumcision knives in Israel (sharp stone shards!) and applies an anti-wrinkle cream whose main ingredient is foreskin(!). She travels to Turkey, where circumcision is done at kindergarten-age. In a decorated banquet hall, we see flocks of dressed-up families celebrating — with clowns — a communal ceremony. The little boys, dressed in expensive white bedazzled princely outfits, ride together on a toy caboose while their parents cheer, and when their name is called rush center stage to the circumcision chair.

These fascinating moments feel ancillary to the director’s main mission, to portray the ways culture and family history map onto her family’s circumcision decision. But, spending too little time fully exploring the issue and too much time in a domestic tussle means Elon has to rely heavily on narration, telling us what’s happening, instead of letting life unfold. The high stakes and intense emotion of the family’s decision are eclipsed by the over-scripted plot’s continually calling attention to itself. Nonetheless, the film succeeds in challenging us to take another look (literally) at this American norm.
Trailer courtesy of Filmoption International

Partly Private is part of the Tribeca Film Festival and will be screened on Friday, May 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM at AMC Village VII 2 in New York City.

Find more information here.

Why Hide Miscarriage?

editors — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:14:00 GMT

Today on Babble:

"Why Hide Miscarriage?"

by Christine Chitnis.

I told everyone about my pregnancy in the first trimester -- and when we lost the baby, I was glad everyone knew.

Read it here.

Egg Donation: Which Comes First?

JeanneSager — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:29:00 GMT

I was surprised at the very clinical approach to the egg donation issue over at The Frisky last week.

Breaking down the medical steps a woman has to go through if she opts to donate her eggs to another family for procreation, it was a well-informed article. It just seemed to skip right over stage one.

I may be stereotyping here (OK, yes, I am stereotyping here), but when it comes to donating eggs vs. donating sperm, the donor seems more likely to have a mental and emotional hurdle to leap before they get to the point where they show up at a clinic and start filling out paperwork and rolling up their sleeves for shots.

Egg donation is a wonderful thing for the recipients who gain a chance to have the baby they would otherwise be unable to make (whether it be infertile females, gay men, what have you). It can also be quite lucrative for the women who do so. Women report anywhere from $5 to at least $20,000 for the process (which, if you read The Frisky article, is in-depth . . . much more so than that of the sperm donor).

Many women can separate the egg being removed from their body from the idea that somewhere out there, a child will exist. To them, it is not their child. It's the child of the person who received their egg. End of story. Still, many can't - and those are the women who would not make a good potential donor.

Maybe it's because I could hardly see myself being a donor (a personal choice, not a judgment call) that I think that part stands above the medical concerns when you're debating "is egg donation worth the money?" The exact question asked in the article is, "Is the money worth the headache and time it takes to be accepted as a donor?" I have no qualms about letting a woman do it just for the money (plenty of men do it, why can't we?), but again, the headache and time it takes to be accepted seem to be secondary hurdles.

Because until you can decide that you have no emotional connection to that egg, you shouldn't even think of facing all of those medical issues.

Do you think this is an issue best approached clinically or emotionally?

Image: FirstScience

Pregnant Cop Denied Light Duty Sues Department

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:22:00 GMT

If you're getting pregnant on your own time, is it up to your employer to provide lighter duties during your pregnancy?

In general, I think most of America (especially us mothers) would say "absolutely." But a case in a Long Island court puts a unique twist on the age-old "is pregnancy really a disability" argument between moms and their employers.

The Suffolk County Parks Police do not provide light duty to any officer who is "injured" while off duty (in other words, limited duty is provided only for officers injured on the job). The department says that extends to female officers who get pregnant - it's either work your regular duties or take leave during the pregnancy.They're claiming that means they treat the sexes exactly the same.

But Tara Germain will be in court this week, claiming her civil rights were violated. As a woman, getting pregnant, she could not apply for any form of disability payments like her male counterparts, leaving her to face her pregnancy with no income coming in unless she decided to remain on full duty with the department.

Germain's lawyers contend that the grueling duties required by her job were not appropriate for a pregnant woman, and although I'm not a police officer, I can see how running down a perp is not easily done with an eight-months-along belly. I worked up until the evening before I was induced - more than a week after my due date - and I can tell you that while being a reporter is different from being a cop, it's another non-desk job which requires a lot of flexibility (try lying on the ground to get a good shot with a camera when you're nine months along) and is hardly cushy. I speak from that experience when I say light duty of some sort is in order for pregnant women.

But I can't totally blame the police department here. I blame the federal government. What do businesses do in a country where they have to keep running with the staff they have, but the government is doing nothing to provide their employees relief? The fix to problems like Germain's doesn't seem to be in suing the employers but in making the family medical leave act stronger - providing PAID leave for mothers, providing a funding source other than disability insurance (which not every employer carries) because pregnancy is not a disability. Employers need to play a role too; jobs should be protected (which they currently are - to a point) and pregnancy should be respected as something women do not to anger their employer but to enhance the world in general.

What do you think Babble readers? In the Germain case, who is in the right?

Image: NJ Blog

Sick in the Morning? Your Kids Will Thank You

JeanneSager — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:32:00 GMT

Who knew one day I'd do a happy dance over seven months of throwing up and two trips to the emergency room? According to a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics, moms should be embracing morning sickness - it means we're bound to pop out smarter babies.

Take that Ms. "Oh, I loved pregnancy, I never threw up, never even had an upset tummy."

The study was commissioned to look at the affects - if any - of anti-nausea drugs in pregnancy, and there's good news there too. Scientists found that mothers who took diclectin during their pregnancy to fight their morning sickness were not endangering their kids' mental acuity. That in and of itself is important news for doctors, who find that mothers who are suffering from morning sickness are loathe to take anything for fear of hurting their fetus.

But as Dr. Gideon Koren, director of the Motherisk Program, at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and one of the study's authors, points out, morning sickness can have debilatating affects on a mother. See above - two trips to the ER and seven months of loafing about miserably sick (see also - why I'm only having one child!).

Whether parents took the drugs or not, the researchers found the kids coming out of cranky sick moms were scoring higher on tests of IQ (yes, I know, a very imperfect system) and mental acuity. This goes along with the good news that women who suffer morning sickness are less likely to miscarry and less likely to have babies with cardiovascular problems.

So moms, carry that barf bag proudly. You're baking a little genius in your oven.

Image: growinstyle

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Weight Watcher

One is the Awesomest Number

Mom or Winning Division I Basketball Coach? You Decide

JeanneSager — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Two guesses how I figured out the the coach of Arizona State University had to be a mother.

Something about the word "poop" just gave it away.

A video of Charli Turner Thorne screaming at her players in the locker room at half-time has gone viral in the past few days. Not because it's strange for a coach to yell or even because this is a female coach.

Her strong words for her players? "You played like poop!" Check it out:

Sorry Coach, even at top volume, it just sounds so, well, eight-year-old.

Which would make sense, as Thorne's son Liam IS eight years old. She also has a ten-year-old and a five-year-old, all boys. And I give her full credit - Thorne coached throughout all three pregnancies. She is also a well-respected coach who brought her team to the elite eight during March Madness this year. By the way, it was the team that ended the ASU run to the championship that had Thorne all riled up - the women were losing (and did lose) to UConn.

Because, apparently, they played like poop!

Hey parents, ever find yourself using your potty mouth outside of the house?

Image: TalkingProud

Home Birth: A Right or a Must?

JeanneSager — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:38:00 GMT

I wasn't surprised to read Melanie Reid's assumption that home birthing moms are all sandal-wearing hippie freaks (OK, I added that last part). It's the way a lot of people look at women who decided to deliver a baby at home. That's not to say I agreed with her.

But even with her narrow description of the type of woman who decides to give birth at home, Reid's piece in the Times of London this week hit upon some pretty shocking numbers: home birthing is on the rise after decades of decline, but so too are the numbers of people pushing to make home birth THE way to give birth.

And that, I have to admit, I'm not kosher with.

Because for all the wonderful things that home birth offers, and all the reasons I think it should be available to any mother who wants to try it, the one thing I have heard from most moms who have actually given birth at home is that what empowered them to do it was knowing the hospital was just a phone call - and an ambulance ride - away should they need it.

I'm not sure if Reid has met your average home birther, to be honest. She calls the countries where home birthing rates are low as the "sensible" ones, and calls hospitals"the only intelligent, progressive, logical place to give birth." Ask your average home birthing advocate, and she will actually tell you hospitals ARE progressive, intelligent, logical places to give birth - if you need them. The truly sensible home birthers decided to make the choice based on medical assessments, which you very well might call progressive - considering back in the day there was no doctor checking for fetal distress before a woman on the prairie gave birth in her house. If the hospital becomes necessary, the sensible homebirthers say OK, and get there . . . pronto.

As our own home birthing Strollerderby writer Madeline Holler pointed out in her Babble essay on the topic, when she asked her midwife all the what ifs, the dangerous ones pointed to a trip to the hospital - no matter what:

What if the cord slips out before the baby? (We go straight to the hospital.) Bleeding? (Hospital.) Premature labor? (Hospital.)

But, as Reid explains, there's a difference between helping women to realize their dreams of a homebirth and actively advocating we all head in that direction. Wales actually put out a target of having at least ten percent of women give birth at home (this was in 2002, and their target year was 2007 - they're two years past and nowhere near it).

Why?

Because for all its advantages (and there are plenty - read Madeline's essay, she's been there, done that, and can explain them much better than a hospital birther like me), the hospital birth remains its back up because it has something a home can't have: the means to deal with complications. Midwives have modern medical training and are fantastic for your average birth, but outside of a hospital setting, if something DOES go wrong, where do they send you? You got it.

Which means pushing women to have a homebirth, rather than simply accommodating those who want to give it a go, does indeed put us back toward the dark ages. It means putting more women at risk, more babies at risk. The reason a select few women give birth at home in countries like the U.K. and the U.S. is not only because, as Reid claims "We're squeamish. We are hardwired to go to hospital and have our babies there. It's what we do. It's in our modern DNA."

It's because that's a better option for a lot of women. Not all. But a lot. Women like me who had to have pitocin adminstered because my daughter just WOULD NOT come out. Or women like my friend whose son had been improperly measured by her midwife and came out with shoulder distortion because he was just too darn big for her tiny frame. It's better for women with pre-existing conditions, babies with elevated heart rates.

Pushing for the opposite, pushing women to return to their homes, to take away their access to the modern advances of technology heightens the risks for women, gives insurance companies the excuse NOT to cover services and demeans the needs many women experience during labor and delivery. So some women can do just fine in a birthing pool at home. So some women make it through balancing on a ball in their bedroom. Not all of us can.

Very simply: it's one thing to chose a home birth. It's another to get the most out of home birth.

Image: TrueBirth