Recently in Motherhood Category

On the very day Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, I linked to Jill's post on the already-emerging sexist meme questioning her fitness to hold office while holding a baby at the same time. And since the news of her daughter's pregnancy, the media racket over Palin's fitness to be both VP and mother has grown even louder.

To be clear, I think the question of work/family balance is sometimes asked with regard to male politicians. (The criticism of John Edwards' decision to continue his primary campaign after his wife's cancer diagnosis springs to mind.) But far and away, the question is more likely to come up when the candidate is a woman. Especially a woman with young kids. So yeah, I think it's typically pretty sexist.

But as long as all sorts of bloggers and news outlets are asking... YES, of course Sarah Palin is capable of having a very important job and still being a good mother. Absolutely. As with all major life choices women make, it's condescending to assume that she somehow hasn't thought this through, or that she hasn't already been doing a demanding job while simultaneously being an attentive mother. Writes Monika Bauerlein at Mother Jones (who, along with another mother of a young child, is editor-in-chief of the magazine):

Too many women have been patronized out of jobs they wanted with pseudo-considerate treacle like "I thought your priority right now was your family." It's happened to friends of mine; it's happened to me; if you have ovaries, chances are pretty good it has happened or will happen to you. That's the reality of living in post-women's lib America, and that's why one part of me is heartened by the Palin pick. People may find lots of reasons why she shouldn't be in the White House--but at least, having little kids didn't put her out of the running in the first place. And for that, I have to confess, I'm grateful to John McCain.

I'll grant her that. But also it's important to note Palin's privilege here. She has a partner who is able to be a full-time caregiver for her kids. She has excellent benefits and access to health care. She has a flexible office situation (one article discussed how she had a crib next to her desk). This is way more than a lot of working women have. Awhile ago, my colleague Dana Goldstein went to a conservative women's lunch, where Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers was speaking. Like Palin, McMorris Rodgers was a new mother of a baby with Down syndrome, and had a full-time caregiving partner. Dana wrote,

It's mind-boggling, of course, how McMorris Rodgers can advocate for women's economic mobility even as she opposes programs, like S-CHIP, that help mothers pay for their kids' medical needs. On June 27, she did not vote when the Committee on Education and Labor, on which she sits, passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would overturn a May Supreme Court decision that made it almost impossible to file complaints of gender or race-based pay discrimination. No Republican Committee member supported the bill.

And this is the exact question that's not being asked about Palin. The media are clamoring to ask whether she can juggle her children and her career. But they aren't saying a peep about whether she wants to enact policies that will make it easier for women -- especially women who do not enjoy the privilege that Palin and McMorris Rodgers do -- to perform this balancing act.

Where does Palin stand on S-CHIP? On fair pay? On paid family leave? I have no idea. But her running mate, John McCain, was rated by the Children's Defense Counsil as the worst senator for children. He supports businesses who discriminate on the basis of gender. He attempted to weaken the Family and Medical Leave Act. And he supported Bush's veto of S-CHIP. (Gloria Feldt and Carol Joffe have more.)

The real story here is not how Sarah Palin chooses to balance her own life. It's about whether she (and McCain) are committed to making these choices easier for all women. And clearly, the answer is no.

So, after watching a few of the clips from the Obama and McCain appearance at an evangelist church, I am actually not sure why Obama agreed to doing this. Tactically, it appeared to be on McCain's home court and many have speculated that McCain had even heard the questions before hand while Obama was answering them. That said, I am concerned by the way that Obama answered the question on abortion (and I am not afraid to say it!).

Personally, I think he blew it. Now, I know many liberals have argued otherwise and while I hear the arguments, that Obama is more nuanced in his approach and was obviously playing with the idea of a "higher power," in his answer, I think he should have come out and said point blank, "I believe in the reproductive rights of families and women", instead of pandering to a crowd, he will never win over by trying to cater to their anti-abortion attitudes. It ain't gonna happen, at least not with the evangelists.

I know there is this fear about calling Obama out on his talking points because we don't want to give the right something to run with, but I do think we have to use the media to hold all our politicians accountable, now and after the election. It is clear that Obama's talking points on repro rights need to be fleshed out with regard to a conservative, evangelist audience, since most of us (on the supposed left) know where Obama stands on most issues of reproductive rights. As my coworker Karlos and I discussed on the train ride home from work yesterday, we understand why he couldn't explicitly say, "pro-choice" on the onset. I may not agree with that, but as a frame it is very difficult to push on this crowd. However if he had pushed reproductive rights as a human rights issue within the frame of reproductive justice and the responsibility of the state to protect and provide reproductive health services for everyone, mothers, babies, families, etc and then discussed how abstinence-only sex education has done absolutely nothing for the number of abortions in the last 4 years, it might have positioned him better on this issue.

As feminists we can't be afraid to demand what we want to hear from our politicians regarding abortion. There has been an assault on pro-choice and the language has been co-opted to make it look as though the pro-choice camp doesn't care about families, babies or mommies. And that couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. It is the transparent and documented truth that access to reproductive health for women creates a healthier and happier society, is what motivates us to continue fighting for pro-choice legislation.

Check out this piece I co-wrote with the amazing Elaine Tyler May on the Gloucester teens. We felt like two things were really missing from the coverage last month: 1) a race analysis and 2) a historical perspective. We tried to provide both and would love to hear your thoughts. An excerpt:

Americans seem to have collective amnesia about the long history of white, "respectable" girls getting pregnant. Black, brown, immigrant and working class girls have long been the public face of teen pregnancy, thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan's racist invocation of the "welfare queen." When these young women get pregnant, it is often framed as an economic problem: who will support these babies? When young white women get pregnant, however, it is the moral question -- not the bottom line -- that fuels the debate: Who will marry these girls?

It turns out that the only thing truly unprecedented about the Gloucester girls is the way they are answering -- or more accurately, not answering -- that very question. They don't seem to want to get married.

Babies have been sold on the black market for a long time and in highly impoverished areas it often seems like a good idea when you stand to gain thousands of dollars. But inevitably, when you are selling not only the product (a baby) but also hijacking the means of production (a woman's body), illegally, gender based human rights violations are pretty much inevitable.

Call it bizarre business, but the fact is that it is booming. It could be described as a baby factory where women who suffer disability in child bearing source babies. The proprietors are clever enough, as the homes are registered as non governmental organizations(NGOs). In the homes, the operators simply source teenage girls who are pregnant and not interested in keeping the babies. In some cases, some who are desperate to make money are lured into the business. They are taken into the homes where there are men ready to make sure that the girls become pregnant.

I find this last line particularly disturbing. How exactly do they make sure the girls become pregnant? How exactly does one "become" pregnant? Are they forced into having sex perhaps?

And to ascertain that the girls are healthy, HIV and AIDs tests are conducted on the girls before being admitted. The girls stay there until they give birth. Once they are through with this assignment, they are allowed sometime before they leave the homes. Depending on their ability to negotiate, the NGOs, according to our source, pay about N50,000 for the baby. In most cases, the girls do not see the babies they carried for nine months, as there is a ready market for them.

Wow, just wow. The police have been raiding homes and arresting the girls, such as this example where neighbors were complaining that the young women were being held hostage against their will. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me-arrest the girls. Also, Nigeria doesn't have the best track record in taking care of their mother's to be.

New research out on postpartum mental illness is making it clear that there may be more serious conditions for new mothers than just postpartum depression.

Post Tramautic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is most commonly associated with combat veterans and victims of violent crime, but medical experts say it also can be brought on by a very painful or complicated labor and delivery in which a woman believes she or her baby might die. Symptoms can include anxiety, flashbacks and a numbness to daily life. Even as medical advances have resulted in many more lives saved during high-risk births, extreme medical interventions can leave a mother severely stressed -- especially if she feels powerless or mistreated by health providers (emphasis mine).

I'm happy that the piece highlights the connection to increased interventions and powerlessness during childbirth. Both of these are seeing a higher incidence as our c-section rate soars and medical interventions become the norm. This isn't just going to have an impact on the babies being born, but the mothers as well.

Cheryl Beck, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Nursing who researches birth trauma and was an adviser on the Childbirth Connection survey, says the mothers who reported signs of PTSD in the survey appeared to have a higher rate of medical interventions and describe feeling powerless in a threatening environment.

Dozens of breast-feeding women packed themselves into a Vancouver H&M last week to protest the store, where employees recently told a mom that breastfeeding was against H&M policy because it might offend other customers.

Just after noon the trendy clothing store in a downtown mall was filled with a sea of nursing moms, strollers, toddlers, dads and others who turned out to make a political point.

"It is normal. It is not obscene. It is every baby's need to have food and be nourished and nurtured," said Veronika Polanska as she rallied the moms to publicly feed their babies.

..."I don't want to live a world or city where that's acceptable to shun women for breastfeeding," said nursing mum Sonia Tilley-Strobel.

H&M corporate spokesperson Laura Shankland came to the protest to smooth things over: "We apologize. And it seems to be a miscommunication and a misunderstanding. Our policy is to allow breastfeeding nursing mothers to breastfeed or express milk freely in our stores."

Related Posts: Lactivists protest Applebee's, Alabama women can breast-feed in public. So they do., Kansas gives out breastfeeding cards

Picture via.

In the category of shameless self-promotion, check out my feature over at RH Reality Check on the myth of the elective c-section.

When the media covers the rising rate of c-section, it's often ready to lay the blame at the feet of a woman we've come to know well over the last few years -- the busy career mom scheduling her delivery between important business deals, penciling in labor and delivery the way she pencils in a client meeting. As criticism of surgical birth mounts, the idea that mother-initiated c-sections are spurring an overall increase in the practice has only become more popular.

Colorlines reports:

BEHIND THE THICK GLASS THAT RUNS THE LENGTH of the Yuba County Jail's visitation corridor, Tatyana Mitrohina's eyes glisten, and then fill with tears as she recounts the last time she saw her son. "During the visit, he climbed into my arms and fell asleep with his head on my shoulder while I walked around with him," she remembers.

Two months after that visit, Mitrohina was sent to the Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California, hours away from her 2-year-old son, who is in foster care. She was convicted on charges that she had hit him. While she does not deny the charges, she does say she had expected to be released from jail and to get counseling and start to rebuild her life with her child. But with the increasing collaboration between local authorities and federal immigration officials, Mitrohina found that she would not get that second chance. The government had slated her to be deported to Russia, the country she left as a teenager.

Read the rest here.

Madeline Holler at Babble tells the story of her illegal home birth. Check it out and feel free to share any home birthing stories in comments!

Ricki Lake, Jennifer Block and Abby Epstein respond to the AMA decision in the Huffington Post. Check it out.

The other trouble with the American MDs is that they seem to have lost all respect for women's civil rights, indeed for the U.S. Constitution -- the right to privacy, to bodily integrity, and the right of every adult to determine her own health care. The "father knows best" legislation they are promoting could indeed be used to criminally prosecute women who choose home birth, say, by equating it with child abuse.

Research evidence be damned, the doctors want to mandate you to go to the hospital. They don't want you to have a choice.

Time magazine has a story about a Massachusetts high school that has apparently started a trend among their girls – to be mommies:

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies—more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year.

After some digging, school officials found that almost half of the pregnant students had actually made a pact to get pregnant and raise their kids together. But the school still isn’t willing to offer contraception to their students. And Time implies that meeting teen mothers’ needs in the school may be the problem:

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.(Emphasis mine)

So is that the solution? Stigmatizing teen mothers and denying them an education? Blaming the prevalence of teen pregnancy in a school on sex ed and family-friendly school policies and denying birth control to sexually active students is definitely not going to help this situation.

The school’s nurse practitioner Kim Daly and the school’s clinic medical director Dr. Brian Orr actually attempted to get permission to offer birth control to the students, but were shut down with what seems like a "How dare you??" response. Mayor Carolyn Kirk said, "Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children." What the mayor doesn’t seem to understand is that it wouldn’t be their decision at all, but the students’. Both Daly and Orr resigned in protest.

There’s obviously a lot to address at this school and in the community, but the focus of blame is in the wrong direction.

Thanks to all the readers who alerted us to this story!

Via RH Reality Check and the Big Push for Midwives:

Steff Hedenkamp, Communications Coordinator for The Big Push for Midwives says, "Maternity care is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States. So it's no surprise to see the AMA join the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in its ongoing fight to corner the market and ensure that the only midwives able to practice legally are hospital-based midwives forced to practice under physician control. I will say, though, that I'm shocked to learn that the AMA is taking this turf battle to the next level by setting the stage for outlawing home birth itself-a direct attack on those families who choose home birth, who could be subject to criminal prosecution if the AMA has its way."

Apparently Ricki Lake and her new hit documentary the Business of Being Born might be partially to blame. With the soaring costs of maternity care, the further increasing c-section rate and our not-so-great maternal mortality rate, it's no surprise that birth activists and mothers are up in arms about this.

UPDATE: You can read the text of the resolution here.

I am so deeply saddened by Rebecca Walker's recent expose on her childhood as Alice Walker's allegedly neglected daughter and the ways in which it scarred her. The two have been publicly nipping at one another for years, but this seems like the nail in the coffin of their doomed relationship.

I'm sad, first and foremost, for Rebecca--a third wave icon and clearly reflective and evolving leader of the movement. Whether everything she alleges (that her mother never went to her school functions, didn't spend time with her or money on her necessities etc.) is true or not, it is the emotional truth of what she experienced.

But I'm sad, on a larger scale, that she would (1) equate feminism with this experience and (2) not see the gray areas in between her mother's relationship to mothering and her own.

In terms of the former, she acts like our feminist legacy is explicitly anti-mothering. She writes: "Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating." This is so NOT my experience in the world or at home, where I was raised by a prototypical feminist mother (though not a famous one). Many, many of the second-wavers that I know and love are passionate about being mothers, while they recognize that there are dangers in it and many issues that arise from its all-consuming nature. Any biological confusion that women have is not a direct product of feminism; it's a complicated biproduct of the time we are living in, feminist successes included.

In terms of the latter, Rebecca seems to have swung the pendulum so violently in the other direction that she won't even acknowledge the ways in which mothering is problematic for independent women in a sexist world. She writes, "I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters - a happy family. "I, for one, am freaked out to be a mom (though I know I want to), not because I think it is impossible not to lose myself, but because I think it is easy to. I want to find a middle ground between helicopter parent and can't be bothered, between stay-at-home and workaholic, between mother as identity and mother as irrelevant role.

Isn't that what so many of us are striving for? Isn't that what Amy Richards' new book is about? Why isn't this acknowledged in Rebecca's vicious take down of her own mother?

Your thoughts?

Regina McKnight - the South Carolina woman who was who was convicted of homicide after she gave birth to a stillborn baby - has had her conviction overturned.

McKnight was the first woman in South Carolina to be convicted of homicide by child abuse due to a stillbirth. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), says that McKnight "was convicted on junk science and was not fairly represented at trial."

NAPW, who has been instrumental in bringing attention to cases like McKnight's (of which there are far too many), has the full story.

Feministe, the Oklahoma Women's Network Blog, RH Reality Check and the ACLU also have more.

Judy Norsigian is co-founder of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective and co-author of the ground breaking Our Bodies, Ourselves published in 1970. Since its publication, women's groups around the world have developed cultural adaptations of, or other publications inspired by, Our Bodies, Ourselves. Most recently, women's groups in Albania, Russia, South Korea, and Tibet have produced new publications in book and other formats. Judy is also the co-author of Our Bodies, Ourselves: Menopause and most recently, Our Bodies, Ourselves: Pregnancy and Birth. Check out the Our Bodies, Ourselves blog when you can: http://ourbodiesourblog.org/

Judy speaks and writes frequently on a wide range of women's health concerns, including abortion and contraception, sexually transmitted infections, genetics and reproductive technologies, tobacco and women, women and health care reform, and midwifery advocacy.

Here's Judy...

Bloomberg LP, the news and financial data corporation founded by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is being charged with 58 cases of pregnancy discrimination. So far.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the charges in September when they had 3 cases, in which they now have 58 women who say their duties were reduced, or that they had been excluded from employment opportunities because they were pregnant:

The EEOC lawsuit claims the company discriminated against pregnant employees by cutting their pay and demoting them. It also claims the women were paid less when they returned from maternity leave and were demoted and replaced by 'junior' male employees.

The sad part is that I'm not surprised. At all.

A UK-wide survey finds that 76 percent of employers said that they would not hire a woman if they knew she were going to become pregnant within six months of starting her employment. More findings:

52 per cent will weigh up the chances of a candidate getting pregnant, taking into account age and whether they have just got married (although asking that direct question to an interviewee is not allowed).

68 per cent of employers would like more rights to quiz candidates about their plans for a family.

Depressing and infuriating. Check out NAPW's Guide to Pregnancy Discrimination in Employment for more information on pregnancy discrimination at work.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complaints of pregnancy discrimination hiked up by 14% between 2006 and 2007. There has been a 40% increase over the last decade, reports the National Partnership for Women and Families.

The Wall Street Journal suggests that this is party because women are increasingly working later into their pregnancies, including new advocacy being created for pregnant women and women with children.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act can't straight up protect women from being fired or not hired, but if they're singled out based on their pregnancy, they're liable to take action. And unfortunately, the Family and Medical Leave Act poses a problem: while unpaid maternity leave is required, it doesn't doesn't require paid maternity leave. (California and Washington are exceptions.)

Regardless, it's good to see women taking more action on pregnancy discrimination; we're getting closer to accurate numbers on how prevalent it really is in the U.S. and maybe, just maybe, our family-friendly policies will someday get friendlier. Check out MomsRising and the National Advocates for Pregnant Women has a great list of more resources about pregnant women and mother's rights at work.

A Republican California assemblyman proposed a bill that would deem pregnant women "temporarily disabled" in the third trimester of their pregnancy and allow them access to handicapped parking. The bill failed, but I think this is really interesting.

The classification of differently-abled people is usually pretty stigmatizing. Disability rights activists have talked about the problem with being overly protective of differently-abled people while overlooking systemic problems in the care of people with disabilities and the lack of appropriate legislation to protect their individual rights.

People with disabilities are constantly fighting against a misinformed public, discrimination and the often erroneous belief that differently-abled people are helpless and can't make decisions for themselves. It is not OK, but we can agree that these assumptions are prevalent. So if that is the case, and we have politicians that want to classify pregnant women as "disabled" these same misconceptions apply on some level. There is then the belief that pregnant women are unable to take care of themselves, make choices for themselves, etc. Is the answer for society's mistreatment of both differently-abled people and pregnant women legislation that will classify women as "temporarily disabled?"

I don't think so. But then you think about what is possible, given the current laws with regard to differently-abled people and it is true that pregnant women sometimes have special needs and those needs should be protected by the government.

I just have a problem with calling people "disabled" and to extend that category to pregnant women. It is infantilizing, something the legal system loves to do to "vulnerable" populations through demoralizing and poorly phrased legislation. Isn't there a way to protect people's rights and allow them fair access depending on their abilities without saying they are disabled? And I am not overly concerned with the terms alone-but the meanings and assumptions that are attached to them.

A survey released yesterday revealed that nearly half of maternity wards in the UK turned away women in labor last year:

Of the 147 NHS Trusts that provide maternity services, 103 provided figures. Of these, 42 percent reported having closed or having been forced to divert women to another site at least once last year because of capacity problems.

A Department of Health spokesperson responded:

"It is difficult precisely to predict when a mother will go into labour and sometimes, at times of peak demand, maternity units do temporarily divert women to nearby facilities. When this does happen, it is often only for a few hours and to ensure mother and baby can receive the best care possible."

Okay, but can't a few hours be critical in some cases? Deputy general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives Louise Silverton said: "The key issue here is what the women want. Women want to know and develop a relationship with their midwife and not feel as if they are on a production line. Midwives want to be able to deliver the best possible individualised care and not feel like they are working in a baby factory."

This seems pretty crazy to me. Has anyone had this happen to them or someone they know?

Reason magazine topped its article on the "we need more white babies!" movement (and its accompanying film, Demographic Winter) with this great headline:

Best EVER! But seriously, the article also makes the excellent point that people don't choose to remain childless for some weird or nefarious reason. Some of us, uh, just don't want kids, and have decided our lives will be just as happy or happier without them.

When I think about my happiness and my lack of desire to have babies, I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Marge starts a crusade against "Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays," and she has the following exchange with childless activist Lindsey Naegle:

Bart: Mom, I locked your keys in the car.
Marge: Then wait in the shadows!
Bart: Also, Maggie puked in your purse again.
Lindsey Naegle: Poor me… all my purse is full of is disposable income.

Of course, you should feel free to have lots of babies if you like them and they make you happy!

For midwives that is.

The good news: Missouri just passed a law that would decriminalize midwifery and allow for the licensing and regulation of Certified Professional Midwives. From today's press release:

Midwives advocates across Missouri and the nation today celebrated the passage of Senator John Loudon’s (R, Chesterfield) midwifery licensure bill, SB 1021, from the Missouri Senate Committee on Pensions, General Laws and Veteran’s Affairs. The long-anticipated legislation would decriminalize the practice of midwifery in Missouri and establish a board to license and regulate Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs).

Awesome.

The bad news: last week the American College of Obstretics and Gynecology came out against home birth once again.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) reiterates its long-standing opposition to home births. While childbirth is a normal physiologic process that most women experience without problems, monitoring of both the woman and the fetus during labor and delivery in a hospital or accredited birthing center is essential because complications can arise with little or no warning even among women with low-risk pregnancies.

They also came out against the type of midwives (certified professional midwives) the MO bill supports. I still think this is very much about childbirth as a business, and a fear that OBs will lose the current monopoly they have on the practice. The history of the move from midwives to obstetricians is connected to this same logic.

From a press release by the Big Push for Midwives:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a trade union representing the financial and professional interests of obstetricians, has issued the latest in a series of statements condemning families who choose home birth and calling on policy makers to deny them access to Certified Professional Midwives. The Big Push for Midwives calls on ACOG to abandon these outdated policies and work with CPMs to reduce the cesarean rate and to take meaningful steps towards reducing racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes in all regions of the United States. CPMs play a critical role in both cesarean prevention and in the reduction of low-birth weight and pre-term births, the two most preventable causes of neonatal mortality.

Want to know more about home birth? Watch the Business of Being Born.

Full disclosure: I'm a doula and a big supporter of midwives as well as out-of-hospital birth options.

So apparently Australian researchers have found more evidence showing that women can be more forgetful during pregnancy. What I want to know is where the hell "baby brain" came from and are you as perturbed by the term as I am?

Joan with Javonn, one of the many babies she helped deliver

Joan Bryson became a midwife in 1991, and between her nursing experience and midwifery practice, she's assisted in more than 1,000 births.

At her private practice in Brooklyn, NY--Community Midwifery--she provides midwifery and health care for women in their teens to post menopausal years, including regular gyn exams, breast exams, primary care screening, preconception counseling, STD screening and prevention and family planning.

She is also an active member of New York City midwives. Here's Joan...

With hospitals charging as much as $12,000 to $15,000 to deliver babies, home births cost $3,000 to $4,000. And now, New Hampshire may require insurance companies to pay for babes delivered at home by midwives.

While the federal government reimburses women for home delivery under Medicaid, a woman with health insurance that includes maternity benefits has to pay out of her own pocket if she decides to deliver at home.

On a related note, it's not news that Rick Lake recently made a documentary which argues that the medical industry has turned childbirth not only into a business, but pregnancy into a medical condition that needs to be "treated." Check out the trailer after the jump.

Has anyone seen the movie? Thoughts? Experiences?

Who said teens need role models when they can be their own? This week, high school students are our hero.

Pregnant teens at East High School in Denver are requesting maternity leave due to the school giving unexcused absences if school days are missed immediately after giving birth. Unfortunately, it's not atypical for a high school to make being pregnant or teen mother difficult to stay in high school; aside from the general struggles of being a teen parent, another Colorado school rejected the suggestion from one student that a day care center be created within the school because the principal felt it would encourage teen pregnancy.

Let's hope East High won't have a similar sentiment. (You know, because a month off and some day care makes having a kid at 16 SO appealing.) Only a third of teen moms receive their high-school diplomas and 1.5 percent get college degrees before they turn 30, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

Back east in New York City, high school students have testified before the City Council to make sex education in Bronx high schools mandatory. While the NYC Department of Ed approved sex ed curricula to be disseminated to all high schools, it's at the principal's discretion as to whether the curriculum is used or not.

But that wasn't enough for concerned teenagers from P.S. 218 in the South Bronx, who have been advocating for the right to sex education in all Bronx high schools, a borough where the rate of teen pregnancies is nearly 14% as opposed to 10% throughout all of New York City.

If that's not some serious inspiration, I don't know what is. Here's to the teen activists of Denver, New York, and beyond.

The New York Times reports today on a Mexico City policy that mandates children born in prison stay with their mothers until they're 6 years-old--rather than being raised by relatives or foster parents.

Fifty-three children under the age of 6 live inside the prison with their mothers, who are serving sentences for crimes from drug dealing to kidnapping to homicide. Mothers dressed in prison blue, many with tattoos, carry babies on their hips around the exercise yard. Others lead toddlers and kindergartners by the hand, play with them in the dust or bounce them on their knees on prison benches.

...A debate continues among Mexican academics over whether spending one’s early years in a jail causes mental problems later in life, but for the moment the law says babies must stay with their mothers. So the prison has a school with three teachers.

This is a hard one. I cringe at the idea of children being taken away from their mothers, but I also doubt that a prison is the healthiest place for a child. Women who lack the financial resources to care for their kids in prison say that their children are often sick because of the poor condition of the cells and can't afford to buy the prescriptions given to them. I'm especially wary when there are women who want their children raised elsewhere.

Ms. Rendón, however, said she sometimes wished she could give her daughter to relatives to raise. No one gives her money, so she makes a living selling snacks to visitors. Her child is delicate and gets sick frequently with chest colds, she said. She said she considered the prison food unhealthy, so she buys food for the girl from a grocery store the prison allows to operate inside its walls...“I think the best thing for my daughter would be for her to be outside with her grandmother,� [she] said.

For more information on women in prison (in the U.S.) check out the Women's Prison Association. For organizations that work with women in Mexico, look to MADRE and Amnesty International.

Jamie Lynn Spears must be so pleased that her decision to have a baby meets with the approval of a republican presidential hopeful that she's (likely) never met.

"Apparently, she's going to have the child, and I think that is the right decision, a good decision, and I respect that and appreciate it," [Mike Huckabee] told CBS News.

"I hope it is not an encouragement to other 16-year-olds who think that is the best course of action. But at the same time I'm not going to condemn her..."

You know, unless she decided to have an abortion. Then I'd call her a sinning whore. I realize that Spears herself has made her pregnancy public (though given her celebrity it seems unlikely she had any other choice), but I don't see how this means that random men she doesn't know have the right to comment freely on her situation and its moral implications. Of course, antis like Huckabee think that it's their right to judge all women and their reproductive decisions so I suppose I shouldn't be shocked.

In a way, Spears has come to represent an anti-choicers dream--the universal American teen they can wax misogyist about. She's a pretty white teen who is being "responsible" by keeping her baby. But she had premarital sex, which makes her ripe for chastising. And the anti-choicers swoon! (I wonder how giddy they'd be if it was a young woman of color who was in the spotlight....just saying.)

The point is, Spears is a person--difficult to fathom, I know--and perhaps people should treat her with a little dignity, rather than as a political argument.

Nancy Northup is the President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a global human rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women's reproductive freedom. The Center has won groundbreaking cases before federal and state courts, U.N. committees, and regional human rights bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. Working at the state, national, and international levels, the Center has built the legal capacity of women's rights advocates around the world, working in over 45 countries.

Nancy is an attorney with extensive experience in constitutional impact litigation, criminal law, and reproductive rights advocacy. Here's Nancy....

Contributed by Miriam Pérez

The NYTimes Style section had an article yesterday about "baby mama gifts," "baby baubles" and so-called "push presents." These refer to gifts given to women shortly after giving birth, as a reward for enduring pregnancy and childbirth. The author makes it seem like this is a trend sweeping the nation, in addition to it being a throw back "from the time cavemen brought trinkets to their wives." The article starts with out with a story of a woman presented diamond earrings by her husband in the delivery room after 17 hours of labor. It continues through the stories of women who received any number of gifts: rings, watches, bracelets, even a hot tub.

"It's more and more an expectation of moms these days that they deserve something for bearing the burden for nine months, getting sick, ruining their body," said Linda Murray, executive editor of BabyCenter.com.

The articles about women's issues from the NYTimes never cease to amaze me. Not only is there no mention of how these types of "baby mama gifts" can only really be a phenomenon of the upper middle class (who else, upon the arrival of a new baby and the impending medical bills of a delivery, could afford to buy diamond earrings), it continues to play into gender stereotypes about women and what kind of gifts will make them happy (diamonds are a girl's best friend right?). Also, pregnancy and childbirth is not a "burden" for all women--for many it's a really exciting and joyful time.

The interesting thing about this trend is its connection to the concept of valuing women's work. If pregnancy and childbirth has value, should women be compensated for the time and effort that they are putting into childbearing? If so, what kind of compensation would be fair? Conversations about paying women to serve as surrogate mothers have stirred up these conversations, and some states want to make it illegal to compensate women for more than their medical expenses during surrogacy arrangements. Placing value on women's work (in the home, rearing children, etc) is a feminist dialogue that has been going on for decades, but this kind of materialistic compensation definitely doesn't sit well with me. How about we think of more creative and beneficial ways honor the work of motherhood.

"This isn't the time to give a $200 piece of jewelry," said Rhonda Grote, president of ThinkThoughtful.com, an online gift consulting company in Bradenton, Fla. "I do not think that because a woman has had a baby she requires a Tiffany & Company item. She requires help, love and emotional support."

Gee, I wonder why. Via the New York Times:

The birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, according to a report issued Wednesday, the first such increase since 1991. The finding surprised scholars and fueled a debate about whether the Bush administration’s abstinence-only sexual education efforts are working.

The federal government spends $176 million annually on such programs. But a landmark study recently failed to demonstrate that they have any effect on delaying sexual activity among teenagers, and some studies suggest that they may actually increase pregnancy rates.

And as reader Sara points out, it's sort of hilarious to see the Heritage Foundation's comeback:

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, said that blaming abstinence-only programs was “stupid.� Mr. Rector said that most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies.

You know, because being a teen mom is such the craze these days. Let's take that statement, replace "educated" with "terrified" and "but wanted to" with "and therefore," and we'll be a bit more on the right path.

Andrew Lavallee at WSJ online takes on the snarky and funny podcast, turned online video show that is shaking up the world of abstinence-only education and has become widely popular. If you have not already seen the Midwest Teen Sex Show, please put some time aside and check it out. It is smart and FUNNY. I am still laughing at this episode on birth control.

Now, you know what we at Feministing think of most sex ed that is out there and it ain't cute. Most of it doesn't not apply, does not work or ignores the real ways that young people are living. Mainly it doesn't respect the choices they make or treat young adults as people that can think. But Midwest Teen Sex Show makes fun of all of it, while smartly including some tips on safe sex and other such things.

That sort of wry, pointed presentation has helped the show lure thousands of viewers since its debut this past summer. Some may have been attracted by the provocative title, but this isn't pornography. Instead, it aims to teach teenagers about sex using risqué sketches, explicit language and anecdotes that draw on the teenage experiences of its two 28-year-old creators -- host Nikol Hasler, the aforementioned woman, and Guy Clark, an aspiring filmmaker.

The two felt that existing sexual-education efforts were far too prim -- and boring -- to be useful to teens. Their podcast focuses less on birds-and-bees basics and more on real-life scenarios teens are likely to face.

Yeah, but interestingly, sex educators are not into it as much. The fear is that it is too satirical and humorous, while holding back hard truth. I don't think that is necessarily true though. Most of popular culture is snarky, sarcastic and full of inside jokes. Young people know how to decipher these messages and will still make their own conclusions. I think that if this has the ability to reach wide audiences it will still be more effective than, "save it for marriage." Let's be real. When I was young, I didn't always listen to the facts, especially when someone was forcing them down my throat. I listened to people I trusted and definitely paid attention when they made me laugh. But more importantly, I learned from watching other people and making some mistakes myself.

Midwest Teen Sex Show is using real world experiences with snark to get a point across and I think that is a lot more effective than many of the other types of snoring sex ed that is out there.

Thoughts?

Thanks to Shilpa for the heads up.

For those of you in New York, there's an awesome event tomorrow at the New School featuring the preeminent thinkers on women, work, motherhood, and the so-called "opt-out revolution":

WORKING MOTHERS: WHO'S OPTING OUT?
Tuesday, October 16, 7 p.m., $8 admission
The New School, New York City
Wollman Hall, 65 West 11th Street, 5th floor (enter at 66 West 12th Street)

You've read the articles--and gotten angry at the debate. Are vast numbers of working mothers bolting the career track--or dreaming of doing so? Are elite women betraying feminism by staying home with their children? Or do the Opt-Out stories rely too heavily on anecdotal evidence--while shoving aside actual labor statistics and working families' needs?

JOIN US as some of the KEY THINKERS and CRITICS of the "opt-out" storyline DISCUSS & DEBATE the real state of working motherhood in America today.

Moderated by E.J. Graff, senior researcher, Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, Brandeis University, collaborator on Getting Even: Why Women Don't Get Paid Like Men and What to Do About It.

The panel includes Joan Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and author of Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It; Linda Hirshman, lawyer, professor emeritus Brandeis University and author of Get to Work; Heather Boushey, senior economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research, and co-author of Hardships in America and The Real Story of Working Families; and Ellen Bravo, author of Taking On the Big Boys: Why Feminism Is Good for Families and Business and the Nation.

Seriously, it's like the all-star team of work/life issues...

Click here for more info. And if, like me, you can't make it to New York, fear not! They're going to be posting a video of the discussion online.

Today, the New York Times takes on a trend for new (and rich) mothers: postpartum plastic surgery. (With a really horrendous title, I might add: "Is the 'Mom Job' Really Necessary?")

"Mommy makeovers" are being marketed by plastic surgeons across the country in an attempt to reach out to women post-childbirth, so that they can get their, you know, "normal" bodies back:

In 1970, “Our Bodies, Ourselves,� the seminal guide to women’s health, described the cosmetic changes that can happen during and after pregnancy simply as phenomena. But now narrowing beauty norms are recasting the transformations of motherhood as stigma.

These unforgiving standards are the offspring of pop culture and technology, a union that treats biological changes as if they were as optional as hair color. Gossip magazines excoriate celebrity moms who don’t immediately lose their “baby weight.� Even Cookie, a luxury parenting magazine, recen