Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that the government wants to classify pregnancy as a disease. It’s the logical consequence of the way our culture externalizes responsibility for sex.
When I was a teenager, I was not yet a Christian but I was very pro-life. Among several formative influences, I recall with particular clarity one televised head-to-head on abortion in which a spokeswoman for a pro-abortion group, in place of offering any kind of argument, simply told her life story. “I was sixteen,” she began, “and I found myself pregnant.”
That’s odd, I thought. You just woke up pregnant one morning? Just like that? No cause? Wow. Maybe the Christians are right about virgin birth; they just don’t know that it’s still happening!
Having not yet come to faith, I did not yet know that it’s a duty to maintain a charitable disposition. I would not, today, strike such a snide attitude (or at least I pray that I wouldn’t). But I think that I wasn’t wrong to react negatively to the externalization of responsibility.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think this convenient locution “found herself pregnant” (FHP) is becoming more common. I just ran a Google search for FHP and got 948,000 hits. Is that a lot? I don’t know. I’m not sure what would be a good, non-externalizing alternative phrase to use for comparison. “Got pregnant” gets six million hits, but I’m not confident “got pregnant” is all that much better than FHP as a marker of responsibility.
But isn’t it noteworthy that so many people would bend over backwards so far as to use a phrase like FHP at all?
The Atlantic ran a fantastic article recently about the U.S. manufacturing sector and the challenges facing those whose livelihoods and communities are dependent upon it. The one really glaring flaw in the article is its FHP problem. Maddie, the line worker who serves as the focus of the piece, is a person who made all the right choices: she studied hard, avoided delinquency, applied to college. She was on her way to a college education and a middle class job. But then she couldn’t go to college and ended up in unskilled labor because one day she “found out she was pregnant.” Nobody’s fault, nothing caused it, nobody’s responsible, it’s just one of those random things that happen to people. Maddie is a person who made all the right choices! From that point on, her economic situation is attributed solely to fluctuations in the availability of unskilled jobs due to national and local economic trends. In other words, to the extent that anything is to blame for her situation, society is to blame for failing to make more unskilled jobs available.
Here’s the kicker: Only at the end of the article do we find out that Maddie herself doesn’t see it this way. She blames her own “bad choices” in getting pregnant for her life situation. But the author of the article quickly bats that away and reassures us that “teen pregnancy” is one of those big social issues for which other people are responsible.
That New York Times article on unwed pregnancy that everyone’s talking about? FHP alert:
Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant.
And how has her pregnancy affected her life outcomes?
A former nursing student who now tends bar…
All that’s missing is the argument that we need more subsidies for dropout prevention in nursing schools.
But in addition to driving ever-greater government annexation of the economy (and thus arbitrary power over all aspects of human life), this attitude also obviously plays into the treatment of pregnancy as a disease. Like disease, pregnancy is an unexpected disruption of normal bodily functioning that can derail your whole life and for which you are not responsible.
February 21st, 2012 | 4:16 pm
I think this is extremely relevant to young American men. But which ones? Are a majority of American men leaving a significant minority of women pregnant?
Do 99% of young American men engage in coitus, or 1%?
February 21st, 2012 | 4:25 pm
Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that the government wants to classify pregnancy as a disease.
The government does not want to classify pregnancy as a disease.
February 21st, 2012 | 4:59 pm
I worked with a pregnancy help center, and I have been shocked by how many women say things like “we weren’t even sexually active,” or I am not promiscuous – how could this have happened.
By this they meant that they only had sex every once in a while, not all the time. Somehow, they actually believed that only people who have sex all the time are likely to get pregnant. The other emotion that is very common is that it is an injustice that they are pregnant – it’s not fair. As if a pregnancy should only result when one has a specific intention to become pregnant. It’s a very strange mindset, but I found it very common. I think maybe it is a symptom of shock or a defense mechanism.
February 21st, 2012 | 5:11 pm
David, not in so many words, no. It would be more precise to say that it wants to classify contraception, sterilization, and abortion as “preventive health services.”
In almost all cases, “preventive health services” refer to services which promote health by preventing disease or other types of illness, disorder, or morbidity. For example, a doctor might prescribe medication that lowers blood pressure in order to prevent heart attacks, or a psychologist might help a patient drink in moderation in order to prevent cirrhosis. In these cases we can see that almost all preventive health services are “preventive” in that they prevent disease, and thereby ensure the correct and natural functioning of the body.
Classifying contraception, sterilization, and abortion as “preventive health services,” although it does not explicitly state, does strongly imply that pregnancy is a condition that should be grouped with heart attacks and cirrhosis.
February 21st, 2012 | 5:39 pm
To David Nickol:
Referring to his Daughters, the President is on the record as stating: “But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
You would be right to point out that he does not use the term “disease,” but at some point you’re just splitting hairs.
February 21st, 2012 | 8:02 pm
In almost all cases, “preventive health services” refer to services which promote health by preventing disease or other types of illness, disorder, or morbidity.
Patrick,
Contraception has been “bundled with,” or even classified as, preventive care for decades. For example:
Also, the full recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, which include the “contraceptive mandate, are as follows:
It all fits together (at least in my opinion), and certain most of it is preventive even if, strictly speaking, you don’t want to call contraception preventive care.
There are basically three classifications of medical care—curative, preventive, and palliative. Contraception is definitely not curative or palliative, so it pretty much has to fall under the heading of preventive.
If you read the Institute of Medicine’s report, you will find numerous reasons why unplanned pregnancies are associated with health problems (less prenatal care, more smoking and drinking on the pregnant woman’s part, lower birthweight babies, etc.). I think it is a mistake, at best, and a distortion, at worst, to make an argument like the following: “Preventive care prevents diseases, and they are calling contraception preventive care, so that means they think pregnancy is a disease.” No, they don’t think pregnancy is a disease. But they do think unplanned pregnancies tend to bring with them health problems both for the mothers and the babies.
Childbirth is definitely not a disease, so would you argue that insurance should not pay for hospital delivery? What other perfectly natural, good, even joyous event do people routinely get rushed to the hospital for? And pregnancy is elective, too, particularly in the eyes of people who are critical of the phrase “found herself pregnant.” Yet nobody that I know of argues against insurance coverage of hospital delivery, or claims that childbirth is a disease.
February 21st, 2012 | 9:23 pm
“Unplanned pregnancies” — are you arguing that men and women don’t understand the connection between sex and pregnancy? Or that men and women are incapable of controlling their urges — somewhat on par with baboons? Or simply that individuals are incapable of making responsible choices and therefore need assistance from an all-providing government? What a constricted and demeaning view of human beings….
February 22nd, 2012 | 12:28 am
I have heard the phrase “fall pregnant,” as though it were an avalance or some other unstoppable force outside the woman’s realm of choice.
February 22nd, 2012 | 1:21 am
i vote edward cullen for president!
February 22nd, 2012 | 9:27 am
David,
We are kind of missing the point. The greater point here is that we have a generation of young men and women tricked into believing that we would all be happier and better off if only the possibility making babies could be separated from making love, as if anything but unrestricted self-donation could be adequate to real love.
Sure, there is real suffering whenever people who do not intend to become pregnant do become pregnant, but the solution is not more of the hair of the dog that bit you to begin with (i.e. separating of love from self-gift). None of the problems of unplanned pregnancies can be fixed unless we encourage selflessness in love (and yes, if you are having sex with someone you are not ready to give yourself entirely to, there is some amount of selfishness there). If we cannot do that, then unplanned pregnancies will become the least of our problems.
February 22nd, 2012 | 9:32 am
• Screening for gestational diabetes
• HPV DNA testing as part of cervical cancer screening for women over 30
• Counseling on sexually transmitted infections
• Counseling and screening for HIV
• Contraceptive methods and counseling to prevent unintended pregnancies
• Lactation counseling and equipment to promote breast feeding
• Screening and counseling to detect and prevent domestic violence
• Yearly preventive care visits
Now except for two items: “visits” and promoting breast feeding, which are promotions and not preventions, and the anomalous “domestic violence,” what do the highlighted preventions prevent? I thought you were arguing that the govt is not de facto classifying pregnancy as a disease?
And how on earth did my mother and her friends ever manage to breast feed their kids without a federal program of “lactation counseling” and equipment?
February 22nd, 2012 | 9:50 am
What a constricted and demeaning view of human beings….
Publius,
Well, some people might invoke the idea of Original Sin, the Fall, and mankind having a “wounded nature” and note that even for those who encountered Jesus face to face, the spirit might have been willing, but the flesh was weak. I know that I don’t even live up to my own standards, let alone external ones, a great deal of the time.
February 22nd, 2012 | 10:30 am
. . . . what do the highlighted preventions prevent? I thought you were arguing that the govt is not de facto classifying pregnancy as a disease?
Statistician,
Screening for diabetes, cancer, and HIV does not prevent diabetes, cancer, and HIV. I think you are being overly literal about what preventive care means. Also, you forgot to boldface unintended before pregnancy. Surely you see a difference between unintended pregnancy and intended pregnancy. What is Natural Family Planning for if not to prevent unintended pregnancy? Does the promotion of NFP by the Catholic Church imply that the Church thinks pregnancy is a bad thing? Of course not. It is an acknowledgment that people have a right to limit the number of children they will have and to space those children adequately.
If there anyone who really objects to “family planning” per se? Does anyone say that good Catholics must have sex whenever they feel like it and have the 7 or 8 children that would result?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with preventing unwanted pregnancy. It is only some methods that the Catholic Church objects to, not taking control of fertility and limiting the number of pregnancies.
February 22nd, 2012 | 11:24 am
If you go through the left wing political wish list, you find that pretty much the entire “culture wars” is based on issues where “progressives” define “progress” as breaking the link between freedoms or rights & the responsibilities that naturally come with those freedoms or rights.
I want to have sex but I do not want the consequences. I want to have a family but I do not want the obligations that normally come with accepting the commitment of a family. I want to be treated like a male except when it is more advantageous to be treated like a female. I want to smoke recreational marijuana, but the state owes it to me to keep my health in good shape.
February 22nd, 2012 | 11:49 am
Mark,
I appreciate what you are saying, but it seems to me to fall into the category of “if men were angels.” If everyone obeyed the teachings of the Catholic Church, there would be no sexually transmitted diseases (or very few), no unwanted pregnancies, no crimes, no need for locks on doors, no terrorism, and so on. But people are not angels, never were, and never will be. And, of course, there are also fine, sincere, knowledgeable people who simply don’t believe the teachings of the Catholic Church.
February 22nd, 2012 | 2:08 pm
Now except for two items: “visits” and promoting breast feeding, which are promotions and not preventions, and the anomalous “domestic violence,” what do the highlighted preventions prevent? I thought you were arguing that the govt is not de facto classifying pregnancy as a disease?
They are trying to change the definition of health away from a bodily integrity definition, toward a definition that describes health (sometimes called “wellness” or “well-being”) as a condition.
Anything that contributes to this condition thus qualifies as “health”.
Notice that there is nothing – literally nothing on this Earth – that does not affect your “well-being”. Under the new definition, any and every aspect of one’s life (including choices, control issues, morality, values, and lifestyle) is covered by the new definition of “caring for” one’s “health”.
February 22nd, 2012 | 2:19 pm
I appreciate what you are saying, but it seems to me to fall into the category of “if men were angels.” If everyone obeyed the teachings of the Catholic Church, there would be no sexually transmitted diseases (or very few), no unwanted pregnancies, no crimes, no need for locks on doors, no terrorism, and so on. But people are not angels, never were, and never will be.
The number of people having sex irresponsibly is not a fixed number. It is a variable.
Birth control was supposed to eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Instead, we see more, not fewer, unintended pregnancies.
The number of unintended pregnancies can be described as a ratio: a percentage of the total number of sex acts.
What we have seen is that the total percentage of unwanted births has decreased “per sex act”, but the total number of sex acts has grown to the point where it is almost out of control.
But since it is a widely observed act that subsidizing a behavior tends to encourage the behavior, is it really logical for us to assume that the sudden increase in sex acts is “out of control”? There is no logic justifying this assumption – there is only wishful thinking, on the part of those of you who want us to accept promiscuity as not only desirable but inevitable.
Logic leads to the conclusion that birth control does lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, but subsidizing birth control offsets (more than offsets) the advantages of birth control – by promoting irresponsible sex.
Logically, birth control should remain legal – but should be unsubsidized, because there is no way to subsidize birth control that does not promote irresponsible sex (and another, related but not identical factor as well contributes to the problem: the act of taking responsibility for providing contraceptives shifts responsibility for unwanted pregnancies away from the people with the bodies, and toward the people providing the birth control).
February 22nd, 2012 | 3:51 pm
Birth control was supposed to eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Instead, we see more, not fewer, unintended pregnancies.
Actually, the overall rate of unintended pregnancies (and abortions) has been going down for decades. Teen pregnancy is at approximately a 40-year-low. It is true that the rate of out-of-wedlock births has been increasing for some time, but that is not the same as unintended pregnancies. This is a worldwide trend, not just something happening in the United States.
The number of unintended pregnancies can be described as a ratio: a percentage of the total number of sex acts.
What we have seen is that the total percentage of unwanted births has decreased “per sex act”, but the total number of sex acts has grown to the point where it is almost out of control.
I would be interested in seeing the statistics for this. What is your source for the total number of sex acts? Who compiles these statistics?
February 22nd, 2012 | 5:36 pm
If there anyone who really objects to “family planning” per se?
Of course not. What is at issue is tampering with an entirely natural process in such a way that human intellect is subtracted from the act. This is consistent with the triumph of the will, by which no appetite goes unslaked, but not with the proper subordination of the will to right reason.
February 22nd, 2012 | 10:00 pm
Birth control was supposed to eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Instead, we see more, not fewer, unintended pregnancies.
Actually, the overall rate of unintended pregnancies (and abortions) has been going down for decades
The total number of unintended pregnancies in any year prior to the introduction of the Pill is higher than the total number of unintended pregnancies in any year subsequent to the introduction of the Pill.
So it’s not real clear what you think you’ve proven, other than that there are other variables at play – a point that supports my point more than it does yours, since your argument is the one that relies on the ridiculous idea that somehow “increasing ease of access to birth control equals reducing the number of unintended pregnancies”.
February 22nd, 2012 | 10:03 pm
The total number of unintended pregnancies in any year prior to the introduction of the Pill is higher than the total number of unintended pregnancies in any year subsequent to the introduction of the Pill.
Reverse that. (Ooops).
Unintended pregnancies became more common, not more uncommon, after the introduction of effective birth control.
If contraceptives prevented unintended pregnancy, then it would be the reverse: the high numbers would be prior to the year of the Pill’s introduction, and there would be a sharp drop in the number of pregnancies after the introduction of the Pill.
But that’s not what happened, is it?
February 23rd, 2012 | 7:40 am
But that’s not what happened, is it?
Blake,
Where are your statistics? How can you compare the number of unplanned pregnancies before and after the introduction of the pill when you present no numbers at all?
February 23rd, 2012 | 6:18 pm
Where are your statistics? How can you compare the number of unplanned pregnancies before and after the introduction of the pill when you present no numbers at all?
If you feel statistics are necessary, then please provide them.
I look forward to seeing what you can produce to show that there were more unplanned pregnancies in 1965 than there were last year.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact