Category: Public Health

Categories
Action Contraception Durango Herald Family Planning Medical Population Public Health Reproductive Health Women's Issues

No on Amendment 48

The article below may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

 

No on Amendment 48

© Richard Grossman MD, 2008

 

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

 

            “I am sorry, Mrs. Folk. There is nothing I can do.” I am in my office, holding ultrasound pictures. The Folks are sitting in front of me, looking dumbfounded. Two of their three children are present; the oldest is at school.

            “These pictures show a tubal pregnancy. It is very early, but we can still see the fetal heartbeat. It is clearly outside of your uterus.” Mrs. Folk is crying now.

             “In the past we used to treat ectopic pregnancies with surgery, or even just medicine. That is not possible now. Your chances of dying from this pregnancy are about fifty-fifty.”

            Approximately one pregnancy in 200 is in the wrong place. Although a woman’s uterus is wonderfully adapted to nourishing a developing fetus, her tubes are not. When a pregnancy grows in the tube, it tears the fragile tissue, causing pain and internal bleeding. Women still die of tubal pregnancies.

            Is the above scenario some sort of science fiction, set in some remote hard-hearted future? No, not if proposed Amendment 48 passes this November election. This scenario could happen right here in Colorado next year.

            Clearly 48 was drafted to stop all abortions in Colorado (even after rape or incest). It is short—and extremely deceptive. Nicknamed the “Personhood Amendment”, 48 reads: “As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of article II of the State Constitution, the terms ’person’ or ‘persons’ shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”

            Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution states: “Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” If a developing fetus (or even a newly fertilized egg) is defined as a person, then anyone who interrupts a pregnancy, no matter if it is potentially lethal to the mother, could be punished. The woman herself would be an accomplice. This would mean that anyone, including a physician who does surgery to save a woman’s life because of a tubal pregnancy, would be subject to the same penalties as a first degree murderer. Would the police have to investigate women who have miscarriages, too?

            The proposed amendment is so extreme that, if 48 were to pass, it would create legal havoc in our state. It would take years and millions of dollars to work out the legal implications.

            This amendment would not only prevent abortion, but it might also prevent many forms of contraception. Antiabortion people claim that hormonal birth control and IUDs cause abortions. Their evidence for this is weak, and is at odds with the majority of medical experts including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—my professional organization.

            The sad fact is that the amendment would probably increase the number of abortions! Making abortion illegal doesn’t stop women from trying to interrupt pregnancies—it makes them use desperate means. For instance, when abortion became legal in Norway, the abortion rate didn’t increase. Women did get better care, however. Remember that the best way to prevent abortions is with access to good contraception.

            Moreover, proposed Amendment 48 would prevent couples from taking advantage of many infertility treatments. In vitro fertilization would be banned because of the risk of losing an embryo—defined as a person.

            The people who wrote this proposed amendment (and the 131,245 people who signed petitions to put it on the ballot in November) appear to be honest, God-fearing Coloradoans. Their website lists physicians who support the amendment, but very, very few live in Colorado! In fact, they are outsiders testing the waters in our state to see how they can control women’s reproductive lives. Because of their efforts to impose their strict religious beliefs on everyone, they are the closest thing we have in the USA to the Taliban.

            This proposed amendment would punish parents and physicians who believe that all children should be planned and loved. It has been centuries since people were punished so severely for trying to help women control their fertility. There is strong evidence that the motivation to seek out and kill “witches” in Colonial times was to eradicate women who held the secrets of contraception. This was one way men could retaliate against women who knew more than they did.

            Don’t let religious zealots control women’s lives in Colorado. Vote “NO” to proposed Amendment 48. Go to www.protectfamiliesprotectchoices.org for more information.

 

Published October, 2008

Categories
Durango Herald Family Planning Public Health Women's Issues

Envision the Ideal Baby Food

Imagine a food that is ideal nutritionally, is inexpensive and prevents many diseases. Wouldn’t you expect such a product to be used universally? Guess again!

Breast milk is all of the above, and more. Sadly, only one child in seven born in the USA is given just breast milk at six months of age, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends. It is especially sad that one third of all moms never give their babies access to the best possible food.

I had the chance to visit an obstetrical clinic in Egypt. I asked one of the new mothers if she was nursing her baby. “Oh, yes, we all breastfeed for seven months!” she exclaimed. “That is what the Qur’an says we must do. Many women continue to nurse longer.”

Why don’t mothers in the USA nurse their children, since it is best for themselves and their babies? Many forces act against breastfeeding. Manufacturers market artificial formula intensely to pregnant women and new mothers. When you go down the aisles of a supermarket you see all sorts of formulas and bottles, but little or nothing for breastfeeding. Of course, one of the advantages of breastfeeding is that the new mother doesn’t need to buy anything.

Let’s face it; our society is unfriendly for breastfeeding moms. Many new mothers need to return to work six weeks or less after giving birth. Few workplaces have provision for women to pump their breasts, let alone for the baby to be nearby so he can nurse. Until society becomes nursing-friendly, many babies can only get six weeks of this ideal food. Fortunately, the first month of nursing is the most important.

Another reason that women are turning away from breastfeeding is that we view breasts as sex objects. Recently a former Durango woman was thrown off an airplane in Vermont for breastfeeding. Even though she was nursing discretely, the flight attendant insisted that she cover her nursing baby with a blanket.

Breast milk has advantages for both baby and mother. The breastfed baby is less likely to get sick from diarrhea or respiratory diseases because he receives immunity from his mother. He is less susceptible to allergic problems such as asthma and eczema. Recent research suggests that he will even be slightly more intelligent than if he had bottle-fed. Nursing lessens his chances of getting serious diseases such as diabetes, lymphoma, certain bowel diseases and one type of arthritis. He is less likely to die of sudden infant death syndrome. Finally, his chances of obesity are much less if he nurses.

A healthy baby is wonderful here, but critical in poorer countries where five million children die of infectious diseases annually. Couples will not choose to have smaller families until they can be relatively sure that their children will live until adulthood. Paradoxically, survival of children is important for slowing population growth.

Advantages to the mom are also significant. Breastfeeding diminishes her risk of anemia since nursing decreases postpartum blood loss. Women who have breastfed their babies are less likely to develop breast, ovarian and uterine cancers. Losing “baby fat” is easier for a nursing woman, making obesity less likely.

The psychological advantages of breastfeeding are very significant. Breastfeeding promotes intimacy between mother and infant. This is partly because the baby’s suckling releases oxytocin, the “hormone of love.” Oxytocin helps bond the mother to her baby.

Other hormonal effects of nursing are also important. Another hormone, prolactin, stimulates the breasts to make milk. It also allows the new mother’s ovaries to rest, making her much less fertile while nursing. This natural family planning has helped to regulate fertility for millennia. Worldwide, breastfeeding is the most widely used temporary contraceptive method.

This relative infertility has been studied extensively and found to rival the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods. Named LAM (for Lactational Amenorrhea Method), it is 98 % effective if the mom meets three requirements. The baby must be breastfed almost exclusively, be less than six months old, and the mother must not have resumed menstruation.

Breastfeeding is good for the environment, too. There are no cans or bottles to dispose of, and fossil fuels are not needed to ship artificial formula long distances. No methane-emitting cows need be milked as to make artificial formulas.

For years I have said that inferior products have supplanted two superior ones—drinking water and breast milk. Now industry is marketing water extensively. I hope that breast milk will regain its rightful place in human nutrition.

© Richard Grossman MD, 2007

[The article above may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.]