Could you be pre-pregnant?

I was reading the Guardian on Monday, and came across a most disturbing article. Within it was this story:

"When Regina McKnight, of South Carolina, went to her local hospital to give birth in May 1999, she prayed that the baby would be healthy. She had good reason to worry. Since her mother had been killed by a hit-and-run driver the previous year McKnight had begun smoking crack. She was naturally devastated when the baby was stillborn - and shocked, five months later, to be charged with homicide. Prosecutors argued that smoking crack had caused the stillbirth and that McKnight should therefore be classed as a murderer.

Despite medically disputed evidence about the role cocaine had played in the tragedy, McKnight went on to become the first woman in US history to be convicted of foetal homicide by child abuse. An appeal to the US Supreme Court failed and she is serving a 12-year jail term."

This, and other foetal protection laws, is a symptom of yet another bizarre thign to emerge from the minds of the US right-wing. That all women should think of themselves as "pre-pregnant" all the time between their first period and their menopause. Last time I checked, that was quite a while. They are to do the following things:

take folic acid supplements,

stop smoking,

stop drinking regularly,

maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

This is not for their own health, you understand, but for the health of their unborn, sorry, as yet non-existant, baby. Now, this is all a good idea if you are pregnant. In fact, it's a great idea if you're not pregnant, even if you're a man it's a great idea, it'll improve your health and make you live longer. Indeed, this would not be a problem, but for the motivation and the hypocrisy of it.

The motivation, it would seem, is to protect a child that does not exist and may never exist. Now, I can appreciate poeple being advised, even forced, to follow the above guidelines if they actually are pregnant, but what about people who don't want to get pregnant. America may end up with a situation where women are punished for indulgant behaviour (drinking or smoking, both perfectly legal, if unhealthy, last time I checked) earlier in life, before even thinking about having a child.

The USA is, in fact, in danger of creating a system where women are incubators first and people second. They are in danger of creating a culture where people think that the sole purpose of women is to have children.

Now, the hypocrisy.

This only applies to women. Despite evidence that male alcoholism can lead to them becoming impotent, there are no guidelines for men to follow. No, men are free to drink, smoke and do whatever, while women have to be always prepared for pregnancy from the moment of their first period. I'm sure there's a word for this... ah yes, sexism.

Also, while it is a bad thing to be on drugs, and particularly so to do so while pregnant, women in America, in fact, all drug users in America, are just locked up. They don't recieve treatment for their addiction (which, by the way, is a medical condition, and should be treated as such). Even a Labour MSP has suggested female drug-users (not male, note) be paid to use long-term contraception. It would appear that the Governments of the world are more keen on demonising these people and locking them up than actually helping them. But that would be vastly out of character for Governemnts, or the right-wing in general.

In fact, the current climate in the uSa makes it lessl ikely for these women to seek the treatment they so desperately need. Who would, given the options? A long prison sentence and having your child removed from your care? I wouldn't take those odds. If these people are going ot helped, the US needs to drop its punitive attitude towards drug users and actually do somethign good for a change.

Oh, and by the way, it's interesting to note the American right-wing's obsession with the unborn (or, in this case, non-existant) child. It seems that the Republicans et al., while spending a lot of time shouting about this subject, forget the children that actually, you know, exist. Social Security? Education? Housing? Free (or even cheap) healthcare? A faimly that loves them, as opposed to a foster family(who have been shown to be nowhere near as beneficial for a child as their real family, in most cases)? No, it would seem that the American right-wing stops caring for children at about the moment they're born.