Recently in reproductive health Category

I'm not sure why it is, but the topic of teen pregnancy tends to just set people off. Maybe it's that the tricky minefields of politics and religious beliefs are always a part of the mix ... or the fear that we'll have to deal with this with our own sons and daughters? Every time we've covered a story relating to teen moms, it definitely creates a frenzy ... remember the posts on high school maternity leave, middle school birth control and the teen pregnancy pact story? We've asked this before, but as we roar into the election season with a young mom-to-be polarizing an already charged political atmosphere everyone seems to be wondering: does abstinence-only sex ed really work? This is a topic we often see on our debate boards, but also from our playgroups as parents struggle to balance what's appropriate to share and when with their children as they grow. A sampling of opinion from around our community on this issue:

"I think it's important for schools to have sex ed because not all parents are involved and some kids won't get it any other way. Having said that, I think sex ed in schools should offer specific information about all of the risks of having sex, specific information about all of the various methods of contraception, and specific information about the failure rates of each method and what will make them fail... Abstinence-only sex ed is a waste of time and resources as far as I'm concerned. I will take it upon myself to arm my children with good info because I will want to be sure that they know what I want them to know even if school won't teach it to them. That's my job as a parent." -- white.wave7

"I would rather do the sex education myself apart from the basic biology. There are a lot of moral and emotional judgment calls there and I want an open conversation with my daughters." -- momranhan

"Abstinence only, to me, is just a way to set kids up for failure. Abstinence only seems to makes it the forbidden fruit problem and kids always want what they can't have or what they are told they can't have, for the most part. " -- crunchydoula

It's been a while since I've seen a topic overtake so many of our boards with such intensity, but the news that newly selected Vice Presidential pick Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant has set off a firestorm of shock and opinionated discussion in our community. The reactions are mixed and range from that of simply curious onlookers to others who feel that this latest news is a death sentence to McCain's campaign. Some supporters think this news actually boosts Palin's viability as VP and shows her as a normal person while upholding pro-life beliefs; others consider it proof that she's out of touch with reality and that the teen pregnancy underscores the need for laws and initiatives she does not support.

On the Politics Today board, the reactions are just as all over the map.  Some are outraged at what they feel is hypocrisy on the side of the Republican ticket:

"Don't you find it interesting that a Christian and a proponent of abstinence only, had a 1) a daughter who has committed the sin of sex outside of marriage and b) didn't have enough sense or maybe enough EDUCATION on how to prevent a pregnancy?" -- eilatan68

The news has even attracted some supporters:

"Wow, I'm glad to see we have a normal American running for VP who realizes that her family is not immune to what other American families deal with. She and her family have earned my respect and admiration for dealing with this unfortunate timing in a humane way." -- lighteningcrashes

Some are even sympathetic to the Palin's crisis:

"Oh, Gosh, this is such a hard path for a young couple.  I hope they and their baby will be well and they will be able to finish school!" -- galanie

Others are, well, a little less so:

"Doesn't this party have anyone who will run with McCain without having to choose a mother who is neglecting her children? The Palin's may be waving the Christian flag, but this is surely not a Christian family I want running my country. How very sad for the party and this young girl. She needed her mother months ago. Go home, Sarah, and care for you children!" -- justthefacts08

And a few think that this whole issue is a distraction we should avoid:

"I think we all need to step back and take a deep breath.  It is really none of OUR business." -- ohearto

Concern (and debate) over sex education is still alive and well in the country—and on the iVillage boards—especially in light of a recent government study which revealed that one in four teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease. But further fueling the sex-ed debate is a U.S. survey that revealed comprehensive sex education that includes discussion of birth control may help reduce teen pregnancies, while abstinence-only programs seem to fall short.

Even before the results of the sex education study were released, some iVillagers already have objections to abstinence-only programs, which receive $176 million in government funds annually. Member beaches59 on the Parenting Issues Debate board says, "My objection to abstinence-only health education is that I'd much rather have my children get the scientific information and [be able to] make knowledgeable choices."

Many iVillagers, such as member lyn0905 from the June 2006 Playgroup, feel schools should have a comprehensive sex ed program: "While I think teaching abstinence is so important... we also need to help protect those that don't choose abstinence. I'm not sure how I feel about schools handing out condoms but I do think it's important for parents and sex ed programs to not only teach abstinence as a form of protection... but also how to use condoms correctly!"

Some, however, such as member momathome91041, feel abstinence-only sex education is effective because it disregards what may be confusing information: "I favor abstinence-only because it is the only thing that is both safe and effective. I believe that [sex] education that includes birth control teaching can only confuse some kids and lull them into believing that birth control equals 'safe sex' equals infallible--which it's not. It's not 100% fool-proof, it's not 100% safe, either."

Member susananderek has an opposing view, and believes it's important to give as much information as possible: "The fact is, teenagers are making the decision to either have sex or to not have sex. I know that any decision I make is best made with all the available information. And this is such an important decision. So I think that yes, let's teach them about abstinence—give them the tools they need to say no, if that is what their choice is going to be. But lets also give them the birth control and STD information. Demystify it, teach it, and hopefully the kids will learn enough to make good decisions."

Another member, thatyank, agrees and also thinks that teaching responsibly means teaching a comprehensive sex education: "Teaching ONLY abstinence is, at best, negligent,and at worst, criminal as this generation appears to be sadly ignorant of how [sexually transmitted] diseases are transmitted, of how vulnerable they are, and of what to do when symptoms are noticed..."

Share your thoughts. Are you in favor of abstinence-only sex education? Do you think it's effective? Leave your comments below.

Over the last few weeks the iVillage community has been buzzing quite a bit about teen pregnancy and it's not too surprising that this topic is on the minds of iVillagers, as teen pregnancy rates are on the rise. News of teen star Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy is also sparking fears that there will only be more teens following in her footsteps, as is the film Juno, which some fear portrays the idea of a pregnant teen as cool.

In several of our message board communities moms are talking about a recent move in Denver high schools that would allow up to four weeks of maternity leave for new teen moms. This coming after many teen mothers were forced to return to school immediately after being discharged from the hospital or face truancy violations. Moms and medical professionals alike agree that new mom aftercare is critical to not only the health of the mother and child, but key in forming the relationship of the new family -- in whatever form that emerges. Shouldn't we give the same consideration to teen moms or is this only condoning teen pregnancy altogether?

On the Feminism Today board, deutche_mama recently posted "I can't see anything negative with schools helping out young mothers.  By securing their education these girls are making huge advances for their future.  How can that be bad???

By allowing these girls time off to heal, mentally and physically from birth, is a step in the right direction.  They can then return to school and truly concentrate on their studies." 

However, ginnyinnc countered with her opinion: "The fact is teenage mothers consciously make the decision to become parents. I believe we need to show them that it's not the BEST idea for them or for the child. We should not encourage it or pat them on the head when it happens. It's a bad idea that will forever alter their lives."

In a discussion on the Parents of Ten- to Fourteen-Year Olds message board janetis40 isn't on board with this plan just yet, either: "The cold hard facts are ... schools are not put into place to work around teenage Mothers ... they are there to educate children." There does seem to be some fear that giving teen moms more opportunity to settle in to their new roles may make teen pregnancy less off-putting. Others would argue that not helping these young moms adjust only increases their likelihood of dropping out of school. 

Member bradleyteach offers her thoughts: "I believe that these young women should be able to have a doctors note excusing them for an appropriate period of time postpartum.  Or, they can be excused from school the rest of the school year and re=enroll for the next school year but treating them as truancy cases is inappropriate.  They've got enough going against them to be a teenager and have a baby, but to make it so that they must choose between abandoning their baby to the care of someone else before their milk even comes in and then come home to HS level homework - it is the baby who will suffer - and dropping out so that their chances of making a decent living for themselves and their babies is just not in anyone's best interest."

tamtamm agrees, saying, "Childbirth is a major medical event. I can't imagine anyone going back to work/school 2 days after giving birth. I agree that a doctor's note should be sufficient in excusing the child from school for a period of time."

A school's involvement in what happens well before teens give birth is also stirring up controversy. A Howard County Maryland school board has approved a written policy that requires staff to inform parents of their pregnant daughter's status. This news has fueled a discussion over privacy, parental rights and more.  thefeministbreeder says, "I don't think a teenager has any right to privacy in this way.  I'm glad they make cell phones with GPS in them now so when my kids are teenagers, I'll be able to track their every movement.  Kids have poor judgment, and do stupid things.  Even kids raised in the best environments."

iblondie2004 doesn't see this as a completely black and white topic: "I'm torn on this issue. The right thing to do wars with my personal beliefs. Unfortunately, I just don't think its practical to require that parents will be notified. It will deter teenagers from receiving the services they so desperately need. Although I do have a HUGE problem with minors receiving medical services of any kind without parents approval and knowledge."

While everyone seems to feel it would be best if more parents had better relationships with their teens that would result in them coming forward on their own or help to avoid the situation altogether, many fear that this policy will only result in more teens in trouble not getting any help or support at all. Looking at this debate from the perspective of a mom, you can't help but feel anything that would connect the parent to what is really happening would only help, but as acacia_verain points out, no matter how difficult it might be, we have to also look at this from the view of the teen: "I think there are many instances where it is better for the parent not to know.  If I had become pregnant when I was a minor, I would have done anything to keep that from my parents to the point of risking or sacrificing my own life.  Teenagers filled with desperation and recklessness are capable of many terrible things.  I remember what that felt like....having no freedom....that feelings of helplessness. You couldn't pay me to go through that again.  This is part of the reason I feel it is vitally important for a teenager to have access the confidential medical treatment."

What do you think about these issues? Should teens have access to a school-approved maternity leave? Are schools obligated to notify a parent about a teen's pregnancy? Share your thoughts on these stories and let us know how you feel. 

Researchers now say that a safe and effective male contraceptive could be available in the next 3-5 years. Options that may soon arrive in the market include a pill to be taken orally, a patch or gel applied to the skin, and an injection given every three months.

What’s that we hear? A chorus of hallelujahs spreading through the iVillage boards?

Many iVillagers, like member sandybryant, say it's about time there was a male option for birth control: “A male birth control method that is more effective than condoms, and less permanent than a vasectomy is LONG overdue. [Men should be able to] take more proactive measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies.” Member cl-clabk agrees, adding that it presents more options to both single men and women: “This will have a big impact on the younger generation. I hear so many women say that they don’t use condoms because their partners don’t like them. This would be an alternative to the condom for contraception purposes, but still put some responsibility on the man instead of only on the woman.”

Even our iVillage guy members, such as martinisnsushi, say they would love the option of a male contraceptive: “Had such a thing been available when I was single, I would have been all over it, as would most of my friends. We all knew horror stories about casual relationships unexpectedly requiring the marriage/abortion/paternity suit/fatherhood decision, and would have loved to have been one step closer to avoiding that in case she forgot to take her pill, had a complication, or the condom broke.”

There's a strong consensus among married couples as well. Member tina_n_madison says that with a male birth control pill, husbands will be finally able to "do their part": “Men should be able to protect themselves and not have to rely on the woman. I don't want to take a pill everyday. I went through two pregnancies, all the doctors visits, 2 C-sections, and the recovery. It's time my husband took care of the prevention part.”

But can women really trust their partners to take a birth control pill regularly?

Members, like apaprikao, think their husbands' “forgetfulness” can be a problem: “Personally I wouldn't be able to trust my husband to remember to take it every day. I still have to remind him to take his vitamin, take out the overflowing trash can, and fold the overwhelming pile of dirty laundry.” Member danid also questions men’s commitment to taking on such a responsibility, especially because they’re not the ones who actually get pregnant: “The real test will be to see how many men will take the initiative to (1) make and keep the regular doctor’s appointments in order to get the contraceptive (2) keep the medication refilled and paid for and (3) live with any negative side effects that occur. We'll have to see who the real men are when/if this type of product become available."

Members also foresee other problems with male birth control. Says martinsushi: “The one thing I would worry about is the possibility that people would forget about STDs and forego condoms for casual sex.”

Have your say. What do you think about a male contraceptive? Would your partner use it?

Is there anyone who really loves getting her period? I mean, I don't know any women who jump up and down with joy, yelling "Menstruation is AWESOME!" Well, unless you had a little pregnancy scare, but that's another post for another day. All in all, while the miracle of life is great and being a woman is totally fantastic, sometimes I think we'd all like to tell PMS, cramps, tampons, heavy bleeding and bloating to take a hike. Well -- now you have one more option for possibly doing just that. This week the FDA approved the birth control pill Lybrel for continuous use, the first time a birth control pill has been given the all clear for indefinite daily dosage. You can find a little bit more about the back story here on iVillage Total Health, but there's a clear divide between those who would jump at the chance of bidding periods adieu and those who are a bit wary of the possible ramifications of stopping the monthly cycle. What about you?

This dilemma is being considered from all sides on the In the News message board:

"I am on depo provera, which is a shot i get every 3 months. I have completely lost my period with this drug and I love it. I don't understand why anyone would complain!?"

"I haven't read any data that indicates what the long term effects are from taking this med. I would be concerned about a simulation of menopause to the body or some sort of side effect that would mimic that long term. But, the thought of not having a monthly period would be lovely."

"Between 1950 and 1990, breast cancer incidence rates increased 52.3 percent before leveling off in the 1990s. (National Institute of Health). I've always wondered if bc pills played a part in this increase. I wonder what further "advancements" in bc will do to our daughters in 30 or 40 years."

The ladies on the Birth Control message board are a bit more welcoming of the idea. Here's what they're saying:

"As soon as it's generic, I'll be on it. I'm on generic Seasonale right now. I'm trying to take it non-stop."

"Women have been extending their cycles on conventional 21/7 dosing regimen pills for years with no problems. As far as I know it is completely safe."

So would you opt to put a full stop on periods? Or is this a case of fooling around a bit too much with Mother Nature? Let me know what you think! Meanwhile, I have to figure out what I'm going to do with all my stockpiles of Midol.

The wonders of modern medicine can often be a blessing, but sometimes our advances seem too close to sci-fi for comfort. When these advancements get down on the embryonic level, it's both exciting and concerning. Maybe you wouldn't pick and choose your child's gender or eye color -- but would you use embryonic screening to prevent passing on genetic indicators for disease such as cancer? On the Hot Topic: Designer Babies message board there are no shortage of opinions on this news story that details two couples who are set to be the first to screen embryos for a deadly breast cancer gene.

"I think the ONLY time I would even consider this sort of selection process ethical is if we're talking about screening for a condition that offers absolutely zero chance of a productive, viable life."

"I'm absolutely opposed to this. I can see the thinking and in some respects understand where it comes from, but we're traveling down a slippery slope, IMO. It's just way too close to playing God to me. Of course, people used to say this about IVF, too."

"People die - and while it's not an overly happy thing to think about, it happens. If we keep on developing more and more ways to stop this, or at least prolong it, what will happen to us as a civilization? I know that's looking a lot further ahead than most people do, but my point is this...at some point in the future, are humans going to live to be in their hundreds?"

Would you take advantage of this screening if it were available to you? Do you think the benefits outweigh the potential for abuse? Or is this just pushing the ethical boundaries of where our reach should go? Jump in and share your opinions on this very delicate debate.

On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling that bans a procedure popularly called "partial birth abortion". The 5-4 decision marked the first time that the court has ruled on a specific procedure rather than the question of abortion overall. While most abortions performed would not be affected by this ban, the ruling has obviously added fuel to an already volatile long-running debate between pro-life and pro-choice activists. While abortion opponents see it as a major victory for their beliefs, abortion rights groups feel it's a major setback. Likely echoing their concerns, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held a dissenting opinion and stated that this ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court." She went on to say that the decision flies in the face of previous decisions and procedures deemed necessary by medical organizations. I'm paraphrasing a bit there, but Ruth's not the only one with a dissenting opinion around here; this news has sparked a lot of conversation on our boards as well. From the Abortion Debate board:

"I do not wish for abortion to become illegal but I can't say I was upset to hear this procedure will no longer be performed."

"I don't know about you, but if I need medical help, it's the doctor I'm turning to, not a politician trying to look "moral."

This ban is posturing and potentially dangerous."

Of course they're also discussing this ruling -- and the politics associated with it -- on the Politics Today board:

"No surprise. I fully expected *this* court to put it's layman opinion ahead of the medical experience and knowledge of licensed OB's and gynocologists on the issue before it.

It's called arrogance."

"I believe there has been so much objection due to the fact that it is a slippery slope. Once you start limiting abortion or banning certain procedures, it is only a matter of time until they ban the entire procedure."

What do you think about this ruling? Do you feel that this is a major development in the abortion debate? Does the decision set the stage for what issues are going to be in the spotlight for the 2008 presidential race? Share your thoughts and reactions here.

I’ve noticed that when you tell men you work at a women’s website, they get this vaguely glazed-over expression and start acting a little shifty, as if they’re afraid you’re about to sit them down and start telling them all about vibrators and breastfeeding and – worst of all – menstruation.

And I gotta say…they are right to be scared. Around here we talk a lot about, well, vibrators. And breastfeeding. And worst of all, menstruation. Hey, we’re girls, we can’t help it. And why should we pretend that there’s not a week (at least) out of every month where we act, completely against our wills, like total raving maniacs? That’s why I am LOVING this new monthly online magazine I just came across. It’s customizable, people. There is a section for every week of your cycle -- from the “must curl up on couch” stage to the “would kill my own granny for a buffalo wing” stage.

Which is a good thing because really, PMS (or PMT or PMDD) is no laughing matter.

As momto2cuties2006 well knows. “About six months after the baby was born, I woke in the night ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS with my husband…Sorry for TMI (too much information) but 2 days later my period came back for the first time since the baby was conceived. So what I was going through was pre menstrual tension… It only took me a month or two to realize that all those emotions were now coming on me like clockwork every month. It didn't mean I could stop them. Just that I knew to wait them out, like a bad flight or a miserable visit from the in-laws. Just to shut up and put up. Of course I didn't always manage it to stay quiet, but I learned to try.”

Exactly -- I think this is what's so hard for the menfolk to understand, right? That even when you know it's just hormonal, you can help the evil moods. You can eat chocolate till the cows come home, but it's not going away.

This very interesting thread is mostly about perimenopause, and how poor coachduke is supposed to survive his wife’s menopausal mood swings AND his teenage daughters’ PMS! (Get this poor man a beer, at least. Yikes!) But I think we can all relate to the weird, totally involuntary mood swings our hormones unleash into our lives. What do you do when the Fury strikes you? How should coachduke deal with his raging women?

And why are you being such a JERK to me?! (Dissolves into weeping fit.)

Oh wait, sorry.

Edited to add: Or maybe PMS is a laughing matter after all! lissap4552 writes, "In my city, the local radio station has something call PMS confessional where women who have done outrageous things because of PMS can call and tell what they did...Was there anything you did that you wouldn't have done if you hadn't been PMS-ing?" And what follows are confessions that you'll have to read to believe. Thanks, Zanna, for the link!

Yesterday the FDA approved the morning-after contraception pill, or Plan B. An AP report says, "Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription -- but only with proof they're 18 or older, federal health officials ruled Thursday, capping a contentious 3-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive." On the In the News thread, shalom-steph notes, "It is projected that this will reduce unintended pregnancies by up to 80%, which will also reduce abortions. It is a good first step."

Of course the first question that comes up is, well, won't there be pharmacies (ahem, Wal-Marts in the south, mayhaps?) who will refuse to carry the pill?