Not sure how I feel about this article yet..
The colorful evolution of newswomen’s attire
By Katherine Boyle, Nov 27, 2012 02:11 AM EST
The Washington Post Published: November 26
Dresses dangled on the racks at Neiman’s and Saks and all Norah O’Donnell needed was a suit.
Earlier this year, when the veteran news anchor was scouring stores for a suit jacket to wear for her “CBS This Morning” publicity photo, she discovered what her viewers have known for years: The women’s blazer is disappearing — from department stores and network news broadcasts.
I couldn’t find a nice suit jacket that wasn’t black,” O’Donnell said. “You used to find all kinds in blues and hot pinks. They stopped making them. That’s when I thought, what’s changed?”
For her head shot, O’Donnell, 38, ended up choosing a six-year-old navy Giorgio Armani blazer out of her closet, one she rarely wears except when interviewing presidents or heads of state. Like so many working women in the news media and other professions, O’Donnell hasn’t bought a suit in years, a surprising admission given that the newswoman spent her 20s wearing suits so she “could be taken seriously.” The same can be said of seasoned anchors such as Diane Sawyer and Andrea Mitchell, who rarely graced the screen in the 1980s and ’90s without lapels shielding their chests.
For decades, the suit jacket transformed women into workers. With jackets required for entrance at male-dominated clubs and boardrooms, women bundled up their breasts to blend into a professional culture that predated their arrival. But in recent years, even as men continued to assume corporate uniforms of suits and ties, newswomen — one of the last vestiges of female suit wearers — have resoundingly dismissed them from their closets. They now flank themselves in bright sleeveless sheath dresses and stiletto heels, renouncing the once hard-and-fast edicts of television news: no bare legs, no long hair, no feminine distractions from the news. The revision of the female anchor’s dress code happened swiftly and broadly on network and cable television. And if newswomen are the most visible barometers of workplace fashion, the women’s suit may one day go the way of the petticoat.
“Ten years ago, professional dress meant a Talbots suit for women,” said Dave Smith, president of SmithGeiger, a market research firm that consults with news networks. “What’s appropriate for female talent on television has evolved because of familiarity. The audience has equal regard for female and male anchors. It’s given women far more liberty to be feminine.”
O’Donnell agrees: “There has been an evolution of women’s wear on television. Part of that is the changing times, but it’s also because there are more women in media who feel comfortable about what they want to wear.”
That theory of empowerment rings true for many newswomen. They’ve finally laid claim to the anchor’s chair and can let their hair down or, at least, grow it past their shoulders. Even Sawyer and Mitchell have adopted subtle changes in wardrobe. Sawyer sometimes wears crisp black blouses sans jacket while anchoring the evening news. Mitchell often prefers pastel, cap-sleeved shells for her afternoon show on MSNBC.
Continue reading here
11/28/12
11/16/12
Did Irish abortion laws kill a young Indian woman?
When Pro-Life Means Death
Nov 16, 2012 6:00 AM EST
Did Irish abortion laws kill a young Indian woman?
This week, thousands of people gathered outside the Irish Parliament to protest the death of a young pregnant woman who died in a hospital from blood poisoning after doctors refused to perform a life-saving abortion, reportedly on the grounds that “this is a Catholic country.”
Since the death of Savita Halappanavar on Oct. 28, outrage in Ireland and the rest of the world has steadily gathered force, and on Wednesday, demonstrators outside Parliament held candles as a minute’s silence was observed to commemorate the 31-year-old. Some wept while others expressed anger. “I have a heartbeat too!” one sign read.
On Oct. 21, the Indian-born woman went to Galway University Hospital with a back pain. She was 17 weeks pregnant. At the hospital, doctors told her that she was miscarrying but that the ordeal would be over in a few hours. Instead, according to her husband Praveen, Savita went on to endure four days of “agony” during which time she asked repeatedly that the pregnancy be terminated.
Doctors, however, told her that because there was still a fetal heartbeat, Irish law would not permit the termination of the pregnancy, he said, and that, “this is a Catholic country.” Savita protested, telling doctors, according to her husband, that “I am neither Irish nor Catholic.” But was told again that there was nothing medical staff could do while the fetal heartbeat remained.
The next day, Savita became visibly ill, shivering and vomiting, and the fetal heartbeat stopped during the following afternoon. Doctors then removed the fetus and Savita was taken to intensive care where she deteriorated rapidly, suffering multi-organ failure a few days later, dying in the early hours of Oct. 28. She had contracted a form of blood poisoning as well as an E. coli infection, a pathologist found.
Speaking from Karnataka in southwest India, where he had taken the body of his young wife to be cremated, Praveen was adamant that if Savita’s pleas for a termination had been listened to, she would have survived.
“How could they leave the womb open for days? It was all in their hands and they let her go,” Praveen said. “How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyway? Savita could have had more babies.”
The appalling events, first revealed in The Irish Times on Nov. 14, have led Irish news bulletins and have been reported across the world, catapulting the most divisive issue of Irish life—abortion—right to the top of the public and political agenda, exactly where the Irish government doesn’t want it.
Ireland has among the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. It remains illegal under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, though referendums in 1983 and 1992 have allowed for protections for pregnant women seeking information about abortion services abroad and wishing to travel for abortions. A High Court ruling in 1992 also stated that abortion was legal in cases where there was a threat to the life of the mother—and not simply the health.
The fussy legal language complicates what is sometimes a life-or-death situation. In Savita’s case, the fetus had a heartbeat, though it would clearly not live. At the same time, the mother’s health was clearly at risk but the doctors ran the risk of prosecution if they intervened and terminated the pregnancy.
Coincidentally, a report commissioned last year about how the government should respond to a European Court of Human Rights ruling obliging Ireland to provide abortions in situations when a woman’s life is threatened, was submitted the evening before news of Savita's death broke.
The larger of the two government parties, Fine Gael, has said it will not countenance legal abortion in Ireland. The smaller, the Labour Party, is avowedly pro-choice.
Solving what has become a political and, more significantly, a moral morass will be paramount for the government in the coming days. Both domestically and internationally, pressure has been mounting. Expressing its concern over the case, the Indian government has said it will closely monitor the two investigations into Savita’s death, which were announced this week by the Irish authorities.
In solidarity with the Halappanavar family, a demonstration calling for improved legislation is planned to take place this weekend in Dublin. It is expected to be one of the largest demonstrations on the streets of the Irish capital in decades.
Nov 16, 2012 6:00 AM EST
Did Irish abortion laws kill a young Indian woman?
This week, thousands of people gathered outside the Irish Parliament to protest the death of a young pregnant woman who died in a hospital from blood poisoning after doctors refused to perform a life-saving abortion, reportedly on the grounds that “this is a Catholic country.”
Since the death of Savita Halappanavar on Oct. 28, outrage in Ireland and the rest of the world has steadily gathered force, and on Wednesday, demonstrators outside Parliament held candles as a minute’s silence was observed to commemorate the 31-year-old. Some wept while others expressed anger. “I have a heartbeat too!” one sign read.
On Oct. 21, the Indian-born woman went to Galway University Hospital with a back pain. She was 17 weeks pregnant. At the hospital, doctors told her that she was miscarrying but that the ordeal would be over in a few hours. Instead, according to her husband Praveen, Savita went on to endure four days of “agony” during which time she asked repeatedly that the pregnancy be terminated.
Doctors, however, told her that because there was still a fetal heartbeat, Irish law would not permit the termination of the pregnancy, he said, and that, “this is a Catholic country.” Savita protested, telling doctors, according to her husband, that “I am neither Irish nor Catholic.” But was told again that there was nothing medical staff could do while the fetal heartbeat remained.
The next day, Savita became visibly ill, shivering and vomiting, and the fetal heartbeat stopped during the following afternoon. Doctors then removed the fetus and Savita was taken to intensive care where she deteriorated rapidly, suffering multi-organ failure a few days later, dying in the early hours of Oct. 28. She had contracted a form of blood poisoning as well as an E. coli infection, a pathologist found.
Speaking from Karnataka in southwest India, where he had taken the body of his young wife to be cremated, Praveen was adamant that if Savita’s pleas for a termination had been listened to, she would have survived.
“How could they leave the womb open for days? It was all in their hands and they let her go,” Praveen said. “How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyway? Savita could have had more babies.”
The appalling events, first revealed in The Irish Times on Nov. 14, have led Irish news bulletins and have been reported across the world, catapulting the most divisive issue of Irish life—abortion—right to the top of the public and political agenda, exactly where the Irish government doesn’t want it.
Ireland has among the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. It remains illegal under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, though referendums in 1983 and 1992 have allowed for protections for pregnant women seeking information about abortion services abroad and wishing to travel for abortions. A High Court ruling in 1992 also stated that abortion was legal in cases where there was a threat to the life of the mother—and not simply the health.
The fussy legal language complicates what is sometimes a life-or-death situation. In Savita’s case, the fetus had a heartbeat, though it would clearly not live. At the same time, the mother’s health was clearly at risk but the doctors ran the risk of prosecution if they intervened and terminated the pregnancy.
Coincidentally, a report commissioned last year about how the government should respond to a European Court of Human Rights ruling obliging Ireland to provide abortions in situations when a woman’s life is threatened, was submitted the evening before news of Savita's death broke.
The larger of the two government parties, Fine Gael, has said it will not countenance legal abortion in Ireland. The smaller, the Labour Party, is avowedly pro-choice.
Solving what has become a political and, more significantly, a moral morass will be paramount for the government in the coming days. Both domestically and internationally, pressure has been mounting. Expressing its concern over the case, the Indian government has said it will closely monitor the two investigations into Savita’s death, which were announced this week by the Irish authorities.
In solidarity with the Halappanavar family, a demonstration calling for improved legislation is planned to take place this weekend in Dublin. It is expected to be one of the largest demonstrations on the streets of the Irish capital in decades.
11/4/12
Nicholas Kristof: Romney + Women
How Romney Would Treat Women
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published November 3, 2012
In this year’s campaign furor over a supposed “war on women,” involving birth control and abortion, the assumption is that the audience worrying about these issues is just women.
Give us a little credit. We men aren’t mercenaries caring only for Y chromosomes. We have wives and daughters, mothers and sisters, and we have a pretty intimate stake in contraception as well.
This isn’t like a tampon commercial on television, leaving men awkwardly examining their fingernails. When it comes to women’s health, men as well as women need to pay attention. Just as civil rights wasn’t just a “black issue,” women’s rights and reproductive health shouldn’t be reduced to a “women’s issue.”
To me, actually, talk about a “war on women” in the United States seems a bit hyperbolic: in Congo or Darfur or Afghanistan, I’ve seen brutal wars on women, involving policies of rape or denial of girls’ education. But whatever we call it, something real is going on here at home that would mark a major setback for American women — and the men who love them.
On these issues, Mitt Romney is no moderate. On the contrary, he is considerably more extreme than President George W. Bush was. He insists, for example, on cutting off money for cancer screenings conducted by Planned Parenthood.
The most toxic issue is abortion, and what matters most for that is Supreme Court appointments. The oldest justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a 79-year-old liberal, and if she were replaced by a younger Antonin Scalia, the balance might shift on many issues, including abortion.
One result might be the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which for nearly four decades has guaranteed abortion rights. If it is overturned, abortion will be left to the states — and in Mississippi or Kansas, women might end up being arrested for obtaining abortions.
Frankly, I respect politicians like Paul Ryan who are consistently anti-abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. I disagree with them, but their position is unpopular and will cost them votes, so it’s probably heartfelt as well as courageous. I have less respect for Romney, whose positions seem based only on political calculations.
Romney’s campaign Web site takes a hard line. It says that life begins at conception, and it gives no hint of exceptions in which he would permit abortion. The Republican Party platform likewise offers no exceptions. Romney says now that his policy is to oppose abortion with three exceptions: rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at stake.
If you can figure out Romney’s position on abortion with confidence, tell him: at times it seems he can’t remember it. In August, he abruptly added an exception for the health of the mother as well as her life, and then he backed away again.
Romney has also endorsed a “personhood” initiative treating a fertilized egg as a legal person. That could lead to murder charges for an abortion, even to save the life of a mother.
In effect, Romney seems to have jumped on board a Republican bandwagon to tighten access to abortion across the board. States passed a record number of restrictions on abortion in the last two years. In four states, even a woman who is seeking an abortion after a rape may be legally required to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound.
If politicians want to reduce the number of abortions, they should promote family planning and comprehensive sex education. After all, about half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which conducts research on reproductive health.
Yet Romney seems determined to curb access to contraceptives. His campaign Web site says he would “eliminate Title X family planning funding,” a program created in large part by two Republicans, George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon.
Romney has boasted that he would cut off all money for Planned Parenthood — even though federal assistance for the organization has nothing to do with abortions. It pays for such things as screenings to reduce breast cancer and cervical cancer.
Romney’s suspicion of contraception goes way back. As governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill that would have given women who were raped access to emergency contraception.
Romney also wants to reinstate the “global gag rule,” which barred family planning money from going to aid organizations that even provided information about abortion. He would cut off money for the United Nations Population Fund, whose work I’ve seen in many countries — supporting contraception, repairing obstetric fistulas, and fighting to save the lives of women dying in childbirth.
So when you hear people scoff that there’s no real difference between Obama and Romney, don’t believe them.
And it’s not just women who should be offended at the prospect of a major step backward. It’s all of us.
10/31/12
Interesting Opinion Piece: Why I Am Pro-Life
Why I Am Pro-Life
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 27, 2012
HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. “Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason,” Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of “legitimate rape” is rare because “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.”
These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans — Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary — but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well.
But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion.
In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet.
You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”
“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax.
The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.
Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.
Now that is what I call “pro-life.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 28, 2012
A phrase in this version of the article has been changed to “every fertilized egg in a woman’s body” from “in a woman’s ovary.”
10/24/12
WTF?
WTF?!
Mourdock: ‘God Intended’ Pregnancy
Richard Mourdock recently had an epiphany. During a debate Tuesday, the Indiana Republican running for Senate explained, “I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” Naturally this didn’t sit well with everyone, and Mitt Romney, who’s trying to win a presidential election for God’s sake, was quick to disassociate himself from his fellow Republican, his campaign issuing a statement confirming that the former Massachusetts governor “disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views.” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, however, is more focused on a GOP takeover of the Senate and was happy to jump to Mourdock’s defense. “To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief [that life is a gift from God] is irresponsible and ridiculous,” Cornyn said.
--from The Daily Beast, 10/24/12
Mourdock: ‘God Intended’ Pregnancy
Richard Mourdock recently had an epiphany. During a debate Tuesday, the Indiana Republican running for Senate explained, “I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” Naturally this didn’t sit well with everyone, and Mitt Romney, who’s trying to win a presidential election for God’s sake, was quick to disassociate himself from his fellow Republican, his campaign issuing a statement confirming that the former Massachusetts governor “disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views.” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, however, is more focused on a GOP takeover of the Senate and was happy to jump to Mourdock’s defense. “To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief [that life is a gift from God] is irresponsible and ridiculous,” Cornyn said.
--from The Daily Beast, 10/24/12
10/23/12
Scary: One in Three Women Have No Retirement Plans
LIMRA Research: One In Three Women Have Not Planned For Retirement
By MSturdevant
On October 22, 2012
One in three women have not planned for retirement, according to study results released Monday by Windsor-based LIMRA, an insurance research firm.
The study found that women are less involved in retirement and investment than men with one-third of women saying they are monitoring or managing their retirement savings compared with 46 percent of men. Two-thirds of women said they were not confident they would be able to live in the retirement lifestyle of their choosing.
The survey of 3,763 U.S. adults who are not retired was conducted in May.
Women, on average, have 40 percent less than men in their retirement savings, according to LIMRA research.
“Engaging and educating women should be a top priority of our industry,” said Alison Salka, LIMRA’s director of Retirement Research. “There are approximately 16.6 million women within 10 years of retirement, (age 55 to 70 and not yet retired). Our research reveals that many of them are financially unprepared for retirement and because of their lack of knowledge and understanding of our products and services, are not taking the steps to reduce the risk that they run out of money in retirement.”
-- from Courant.com
By MSturdevant
On October 22, 2012
One in three women have not planned for retirement, according to study results released Monday by Windsor-based LIMRA, an insurance research firm.
The study found that women are less involved in retirement and investment than men with one-third of women saying they are monitoring or managing their retirement savings compared with 46 percent of men. Two-thirds of women said they were not confident they would be able to live in the retirement lifestyle of their choosing.
The survey of 3,763 U.S. adults who are not retired was conducted in May.
Women, on average, have 40 percent less than men in their retirement savings, according to LIMRA research.
“Engaging and educating women should be a top priority of our industry,” said Alison Salka, LIMRA’s director of Retirement Research. “There are approximately 16.6 million women within 10 years of retirement, (age 55 to 70 and not yet retired). Our research reveals that many of them are financially unprepared for retirement and because of their lack of knowledge and understanding of our products and services, are not taking the steps to reduce the risk that they run out of money in retirement.”
-- from Courant.com
Let's Talk about Eggs.
We Need to Talk About Our Eggs
By SARAH ELIZABETH RICHARDS
Published: October 22, 2012
WHEN I recently mentioned to a pregnant acquaintance that I was writing a book about egg freezing (and had frozen my own eggs in hopes of preserving my ability to have children well into my 40s), she replied, “You’re so lucky. I wish I had known to freeze my eggs.”
She was 40 years old and wanted two children, so she and her husband were planning to start trying to conceive a second child shortly after the birth of their first. “Now everything is a rush,” she said. Married at 38, she didn’t think to talk to her obstetrician-gynecologist about fertility before then. If her doctor had brought up the subject, she said, she might have put away some eggs when she was younger.
In our fertility-obsessed society, women can’t escape the message that it’s harder to get pregnant after 35. And yet, it’s not a conversation patients are having with the doctors they talk to about their most intimate issues — their OB-GYNs — unless they bring up the topic first. OB-GYNs routinely ask patients during their annual exams about their sexual histories and need for contraception, but often missing from the list is, “Do you plan to have a family?”
OB-GYNs are divided on whether it’s their responsibility to broach the topic with patients. Those who take an “ask me first” approach understandably don’t want to offend women who don’t want children, or frighten those who do. It doesn’t take much for an informational briefing to spiral into a teary heart-to-heart about dating woes. Do you reassure a distraught 38-year-old that she’s still got time; encourage her to seriously consider having a baby on her own; or freak her out so she settles for a lackluster relationship? And considering that fertility figures are averages (while one woman may need fertility treatment at age 36, another can get pregnant naturally at 42), when is the right age to sound the alarm?
But the biggest impediment to bringing the issue up was that doctors didn’t have many good recommendations for a single woman: she could either use an anonymous donor’s sperm to have a baby today, or she could fertilize her eggs with it and freeze the resulting embryos for future use.
Now, a better option is gaining credibility. Egg freezing (a technique that allows women to store their unfertilized eggs to use with a future partner when they are older) has been available in the United States since the early 2000s, but success rates at first were low and doctors have been hesitant to push it. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine said the technique shouldn’t be “offered or marketed as a means to defer reproductive aging,” and deemed it “experimental.”
Last week, the doctors’ society announced that it was removing the experimental label (though it stopped short of endorsing widespread use of egg freezing to put off having children). After reviewing four randomized controlled trials, it found little difference in the effectiveness of using fresh or frozen eggs in in-vitro fertilization, and said that babies conceived from frozen eggs faced no increased risk of birth defects or developmental problems.
The procedure isn’t a panacea. It’s terribly expensive — often $10,000 to $15,000 — and is not usually covered by insurance. In addition, there’s a worrisome lack of data regarding the success rates of eggs frozen by the women at the end of their baby-making days. The majority of the women in the four studies reviewed by the society were under 35, and it warned against giving women who want to delay childbearing “false hope” that their frozen eggs will work when they are ready to get pregnant years later. Although estimates of the number of American women who have frozen their eggs for nonmedical reasons are in the thousands, very few have yet returned to thaw them — there are only a couple of thousand babies born from frozen eggs in the world.
Women should be allowed to come to their own conclusions and take their own risks — there’s a fine line between doctors’ “mentioning” and “suggesting” the procedure — but this is an option they should be hearing about from their OB-GYNs. To standardize the message, professional groups like the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists should create pamphlets that doctors can give to patients. OB-GYN residents also can learn suggested scripts that present the information in a nonbiased, nonalarmist way.
I first learned about egg freezing from a friend who had talked to her OB-GYN about whether she should freeze, given her family’s history of premature menopause. When I asked my doctor about the procedure, she said she had heard that the success rates had recently improved and gave me the name of a respected fertility doctor. As a result, I stashed away several batches of eggs between the ages of 36 and 38 — just before the cutoff at which many doctors no longer consider eggs worthwhile to save.
I was fortunate, because I knew to ask. We must go one step further and expect OB-GYNs to bring up family planning at every annual visit, so that women have the information they need to choose to take charge of their fertility. Perhaps more women will think about freezing in their early to mid-30s, when their chances of success are greater. Or maybe, after being asked about their plans from their very first visit, more will decide to start families when their eggs are at their prime, and won’t even need to freeze.
Sarah Elizabeth Richards is the author of the forthcoming book “Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It.”
By SARAH ELIZABETH RICHARDS
Published: October 22, 2012
WHEN I recently mentioned to a pregnant acquaintance that I was writing a book about egg freezing (and had frozen my own eggs in hopes of preserving my ability to have children well into my 40s), she replied, “You’re so lucky. I wish I had known to freeze my eggs.”
She was 40 years old and wanted two children, so she and her husband were planning to start trying to conceive a second child shortly after the birth of their first. “Now everything is a rush,” she said. Married at 38, she didn’t think to talk to her obstetrician-gynecologist about fertility before then. If her doctor had brought up the subject, she said, she might have put away some eggs when she was younger.
In our fertility-obsessed society, women can’t escape the message that it’s harder to get pregnant after 35. And yet, it’s not a conversation patients are having with the doctors they talk to about their most intimate issues — their OB-GYNs — unless they bring up the topic first. OB-GYNs routinely ask patients during their annual exams about their sexual histories and need for contraception, but often missing from the list is, “Do you plan to have a family?”
OB-GYNs are divided on whether it’s their responsibility to broach the topic with patients. Those who take an “ask me first” approach understandably don’t want to offend women who don’t want children, or frighten those who do. It doesn’t take much for an informational briefing to spiral into a teary heart-to-heart about dating woes. Do you reassure a distraught 38-year-old that she’s still got time; encourage her to seriously consider having a baby on her own; or freak her out so she settles for a lackluster relationship? And considering that fertility figures are averages (while one woman may need fertility treatment at age 36, another can get pregnant naturally at 42), when is the right age to sound the alarm?
But the biggest impediment to bringing the issue up was that doctors didn’t have many good recommendations for a single woman: she could either use an anonymous donor’s sperm to have a baby today, or she could fertilize her eggs with it and freeze the resulting embryos for future use.
Now, a better option is gaining credibility. Egg freezing (a technique that allows women to store their unfertilized eggs to use with a future partner when they are older) has been available in the United States since the early 2000s, but success rates at first were low and doctors have been hesitant to push it. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine said the technique shouldn’t be “offered or marketed as a means to defer reproductive aging,” and deemed it “experimental.”
Last week, the doctors’ society announced that it was removing the experimental label (though it stopped short of endorsing widespread use of egg freezing to put off having children). After reviewing four randomized controlled trials, it found little difference in the effectiveness of using fresh or frozen eggs in in-vitro fertilization, and said that babies conceived from frozen eggs faced no increased risk of birth defects or developmental problems.
The procedure isn’t a panacea. It’s terribly expensive — often $10,000 to $15,000 — and is not usually covered by insurance. In addition, there’s a worrisome lack of data regarding the success rates of eggs frozen by the women at the end of their baby-making days. The majority of the women in the four studies reviewed by the society were under 35, and it warned against giving women who want to delay childbearing “false hope” that their frozen eggs will work when they are ready to get pregnant years later. Although estimates of the number of American women who have frozen their eggs for nonmedical reasons are in the thousands, very few have yet returned to thaw them — there are only a couple of thousand babies born from frozen eggs in the world.
Women should be allowed to come to their own conclusions and take their own risks — there’s a fine line between doctors’ “mentioning” and “suggesting” the procedure — but this is an option they should be hearing about from their OB-GYNs. To standardize the message, professional groups like the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists should create pamphlets that doctors can give to patients. OB-GYN residents also can learn suggested scripts that present the information in a nonbiased, nonalarmist way.
I first learned about egg freezing from a friend who had talked to her OB-GYN about whether she should freeze, given her family’s history of premature menopause. When I asked my doctor about the procedure, she said she had heard that the success rates had recently improved and gave me the name of a respected fertility doctor. As a result, I stashed away several batches of eggs between the ages of 36 and 38 — just before the cutoff at which many doctors no longer consider eggs worthwhile to save.
I was fortunate, because I knew to ask. We must go one step further and expect OB-GYNs to bring up family planning at every annual visit, so that women have the information they need to choose to take charge of their fertility. Perhaps more women will think about freezing in their early to mid-30s, when their chances of success are greater. Or maybe, after being asked about their plans from their very first visit, more will decide to start families when their eggs are at their prime, and won’t even need to freeze.
Sarah Elizabeth Richards is the author of the forthcoming book “Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)