Pregnancy and Childbirth

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares119 Views

    Don’t Cut an Agency So Vital to Our Health

    by

    More from our inbox:Needed: More Maternity WardsRacial Inequities in the Overdose CrisisVet the Presidential CandidatesTech Tycoons in ChargeA building on the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md. The agency comprises 27 institutes and has a budget of $48 billion.Hailey Sadler for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Long Government’s ‘Crown Jewel,’ Health Institute Is Becoming a Target” (news article, Dec. 3):Your article describes the National Institutes of Health as a “crown jewel” of the federal government based on its track record of success in driving medical and health research and innovation. The article also captures the longstanding bipartisan support for the agency and its work.When asked in a national survey we commissioned this year, Americans of all political persuasions expressed their support for federally funded research:Eighty-eight percent of Americans agree that basic scientific research is necessary and should be supported by the federal government.Some 62 percent would be willing to pay $1 per week more in taxes to support additional medical and health research.And 89 percent say it is important that the U.S. is a global leader in research to improve health.Continuing to treat the N.I.H. as a top national priority is a strategy that will spur new treatments and cures for the health threats facing our population. It will also drive U.S. business and job growth across the life science, technology, manufacturing and service sectors that in the end will keep us globally competitive.Mary WoolleyNew YorkThe writer is the president and C.E.O. of Research!America.To the Editor:The suggestion to cut infectious disease funding displays dangerous historical amnesia. Just as the 1918-20 flu pandemic killed millions of people globally, Covid-19’s emergence in 2020 demonstrated how quickly a novel pathogen can upend society. While vaccines helped curb Covid-19’s impact, we face an equally urgent crisis: antibiotic resistance.Currently, drug-resistant bacteria infect over two million Americans annually, causing more than 20,000 deaths. Without sustained funding and research, projections show antimicrobial resistance could cause 10 million annual deaths globally by 2050.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Unnecessary Suffering of Women With Obstetric Fistulas

      by

      One of the most dangerous things a woman can do in much of the world is become pregnant, and the risks caught up with a Kenyan named Alice Wanjiru a decade ago.Then 20 years old and pregnant for the first time, she suffered a childbirth injury called an obstetric fistula, caused by prolonged labor without access to a C-section to end it. This left her with a hole in the tissue between her rectum and her vagina, and for 10 years she endured the humiliation of continually leaking stool through her genital tract.“I could never get fully clean, for there was always some stool left,” she told me. “The other women would say, ‘She is the woman who stinks.’ I would ask God, ‘Why me? Why can’t I be like other women?’”Wanjiru bathed herself several times a day, fasted from morning until evening so there wouldn’t be much in her digestive tract during the day, and always wore a sanitary pad. Doctors misdiagnosed her, sex was a nightmare and her husband abandoned her after harshly accusing her of having poor hygiene.Shamed by the continuous odor, she withdrew from friends and stayed home from church and other gatherings. She endured her shame in solitude, year after year.Perhaps one million or two million women worldwide are enduring fistulas and leak stool or, more commonly, urine through their vaginas. These are typically impoverished women in poor countries where home births are the norm, who couldn’t get to a doctor in time for a needed C-section.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Witches’ Review: Redeeming the Wicked Witch

      by

      The director Elizabeth Sankey’s experience with postpartum depression anchors this documentary about the pop-cultural representation of witches.The arrival of “Witches,” a documentary streaming on Mubi, seems strategically timed. The director Elizabeth Sankey’s contribution is part essay film, part personal testimony, though like Jon M. Chu’s musical blockbuster “Wicked” she, too, starts in the land of Oz.As a child, Sankey explains in a voice-over, she wanted to be Glinda the good witch. But her experiences dealing with mental illness made her see an unsettling correlation between the wicked witches of the world and the women who, like her, have had trouble performing traditional domestic roles.The first part of Sankey’s documentary plays like a cultural history of the witch onscreen, weaving together clips from TV shows and movies across the decades to illustrate a somewhat stale point: that stigmas around women’s health have informed the characterization of witches. When Sankey shares her personal story — weaving in interviews with other women and experts who also have firsthand experience of postpartum psychosis — the details of her illness take on an eerie new light next to pop-cultural images of madwomen, like Mia Farrow in “Rosemary’s Baby” and Isabelle Adjani in “Possession.” Based on the real women’s accounts, the fictional renderings don’t seem outlandish — the satanic underpinnings of witchcraft, clearly a superstitious, and deeply misogynistic, justification.“Witches” eventually explores other parallels — for instance, the demonization of midwives and natural healers with the advent of modern medicine — but the maternal madness framework dominates the bulk of the run time to diminishing effect. The clips also veer from the occult and take on a more generalized creepiness that feels bleary and arbitrary. If all women behaving badly can be summed up as witchy, then Sankey’s documentary too often works like a game of associations.WitchesNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes. Watch on Mubi. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Does Pregnancy Change the Brain? Clues Are Emerging.

      by

      As hormones surge, some brain areas shrink in what scientists say may be a fine-tuning that helps mothers bond with and care for their babies.Research is revealing intriguing clues about how pregnancy changes the brain. Studies scanning women’s brains before and after pregnancy have found that certain brain networks, especially those involved in social and emotional processing, shrink during pregnancy, possibly undergoing a fine-tuning process in preparation for parenting. Such changes correspond with surges in pregnancy hormones, especially estrogen, and some last at least two years after childbirth, researchers have found.A new study, published Monday in the journal Nature Neuroscience, adds to the picture by documenting with M.R.I.s brain changes throughout one woman’s pregnancy. It confirms previous results and adds detail, including that white matter fibers showed greater ability to efficiently transmit signals between brain cells, a change that evaporated once the baby was born.“What’s very interesting about this current study is that it provides such a detailed mapping,” said Elseline Hoekzema, a neuroscientist who heads the Pregnancy and the Brain Lab at Amsterdam University Medical Center and has helped lead studies analyzing brain scans of more than 100 women before and after pregnancy.Dr. Hoekzema, who was not involved in the new study, said it showed that along with previously documented “longer-lasting changes in brain structure and function, more subtle, transient changes also occur.”Dr. Ronald Dahl, director of the Institute of Human Development at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the new study, said the emerging research reflected the key role of hormones in transitions like puberty and pregnancy, guiding neurological shifts in priorities and motivations.“There is that sense that it’s affecting so many of these systems,” he said. The study participant, Elizabeth Chrastil, is a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine. She became pregnant in 2019, at 38, after in vitro fertilization. That allowed precise tracking of her pregnancy from the start.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Boar’s Head Listeria Outbreak Survivors Describe Harrowing Illnesses

      by

      The outbreak, linked to Boar’s Head products, has been especially devastating for high-risk groups like pregnant women and older adults.Ashley Solberg wasn’t worried about the risk to her pregnancy when she bought Boar’s Head sliced ham from a Florida supermarket in May. Her doctor had told her the risk was negligible, Ms. Solberg said, and she’d eaten deli meat without any issues in her last pregnancy. So she used it to make a poolside lunch for her parents and toddler.It was only when she returned home to Coon Rapids, Minn., that she started to feel ill. When her fever persisted for a third day, she went to a hospital, where a blood test revealed she had been infected with the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes. A doctor told Ms. Solberg, who was 36 weeks pregnant, that she might need an emergency C-section, or worse.“The doctor came in and said there’s a possibility that your baby won’t make it, and said over and over how serious a listeria infection is,” she said. “I was terrified.”Ms. Solberg, 33, is one of 57 people across 18 states who have been hospitalized in an ongoing listeria outbreak tied to Boar’s Head deli meats. The bacteria thrive in cold temperatures, which is why listeria is more commonly found in processed meats, fruit and dairy products. Contaminated food can also deposit the bacteria on counters, deli-meat slicers and other places where food is processed.Most people don’t get very sick from listeria. But for older adults, immunocompromised people and pregnant women, an infection can cause serious health issues or even death. All nine deaths linked to the outbreak have been of people older than 70, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Ms. Solberg and others sickened in the outbreak described their shock at falling seriously ill after eating cold cuts or liverwurst they had enjoyed without issues for years. One patient had to pause her chemotherapy treatments for leukemia to battle the infection. Some became so ill they had to spend weeks receiving IV antibiotics, and are still trying to regain their strength.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transfers and Pay Cuts: Pregnant Officers Accuse Border Agency of Discrimination

      by

      Under a $45 million settlement, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust its policy around pregnancy. Some women say the agency has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation.When Roberta Gabaldon was ready to share news of her pregnancy with her colleagues at Customs and Border Protection in 2015, she brought in pink and blue doughnuts with a sign that read: “Pink and blue. Pink and blue. Somebody’s pregnant, guess who?”But her palpable excitement, particularly after a miscarriage months earlier, quickly dissipated.“My boss came into my office and he’s like: ‘You have to leave. You have to get a note about your pregnancy, and you have to go on light duty,’” Ms. Gabaldon, an agriculture specialist in the El Paso office, recalled, describing how she was told she needed to be reassigned to a post with fewer responsibilities regardless of whether she or her doctor believed it was necessary.Her experience reflects that of hundreds of female employees at the agency who have filed suit against Customs and Border Protection, saying that since at least 2016, they were denied equal treatment once they disclosed they were expecting. No matter the physical demands of their jobs, many were transferred to another post, typically centered on administrative or secretarial work and usually unrelated to what skills they had developed in their existing roles. The policy, they say, hurt their opportunities for advancement, and others add that they weathered pay cuts because light duty meant no more overtime.But under a $45 million settlement reached on Monday, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust a practice that some employees say has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation as women try to hide their pregnancies at work for as long as possible.The agreement, which is not final until the end of September, requires C.B.P. to draft a new policy for pregnant women, and lawyers representing the women will monitor the agency’s compliance for three years. C.B.P. will also be required to train all managers and supervisors about the rights of pregnant employees.C.B.P. declined to answer questions about its policy toward pregnant women as described in the lawsuit and in interviews, citing its practice of not commenting on pending litigation. The terms of the settlement agreement state that the agency does not admit wrongdoing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fewer U.S. Adults Say They Will Have Children, Study Finds

      by

      A new study breaks down the reasons more U.S. adults say they are unlikely to have children.When Jurnee McKay, 25, imagines having children, a series of scary scenarios pop into her mind: the “horrors” of childbirth, risks associated with pregnancy, a flighty potential partner, exorbitant child care costs.Abortion care restrictions are also on her list of fears. So Ms. McKay, a nursing student in Orlando, decided to eliminate the possibility of an accidental pregnancy. But the first doctor she consulted refused to remove her fallopian tubes, she said, insisting that she might change her mind after meeting her “soul mate.”“For some reason,” she said, “society looks at women who choose not to make life harder for themselves as crazy.”Next week, she will speak with another doctor about sterilization.Like Ms. McKay, a growing number of U.S. adults say they are unlikely to raise children, according to a study released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center. When the survey was conducted in 2023, 47 percent of those younger than 50 without children said they were unlikely ever to have children, an increase of 10 percentage points since 2018.When asked why kids were not in their future, 57 percent said they simply didn’t want to have them. Women were more likely to respond this way than men (64 percent vs. 50 percent). Further reasons included the desire to focus on other things, like their career or interests; concerns about the state of the world; worries about the costs involved in raising a child; concerns about the environment, including climate change; and not having found the right partner.The results echo a 2023 Pew study that found that only 26 percent of adults said having children was extremely or very important to live a fulfilling life. The U.S. fertility rate has been falling over the last decade, dipping to about 1.6 births per woman in 2023. This is the lowest number on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it is less than what would be required for the population to replace itself from one generation to the next.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Brittney Griner Announces Birth of Son

      by

      Less than two years after her release from a Russian penal colony, the W.N.B.A. center and two-time Olympic gold medal winner said that her son was born on July 8.Brittney Griner, the W.N.B.A. center and two-time Olympic gold medal winner, announced on Friday that she and her wife, Cherelle Griner, have welcomed their first child, less than two years after the basketball star was released from a penal colony in Russia and made her return to the sport for the Phoenix Mercury.Griner, 33, discussed the birth of her son during an interview on “We Need To Talk,” a CBS Sports show, saying that he was born on July 8, weighing 7 pounds, 8 ounces. Earlier this year, the couple said that they planned to name their son Bash.On social media, Griner and her wife had posted about their excitement about the pregnancy. After the “We Need To Talk” host asked what Griner was looking forward to about parenting, she revealed that her son had already arrived.“They say as soon as you see him, everything that you thought mattered just goes out the window,” Griner said. “And that’s literally what happens.”Griner will head to Paris for the 2024 Olympics to play for the U.S. women’s basketball team, with the first game scheduled for July 29 against Japan. She said that she was disappointed that she had to leave her newborn but that “he’ll understand.”Last month, Griner wrote on social media that she and Cherelle were celebrating their sixth anniversary.The birth announcement comes two months after the release of Griner’s memoir, “Coming Home,” which details the 10 months she spent in a Russian penal colony after being detained in an airport for possession of 0.7 grams of medicinal marijuana oil she had forgotten to take out of her luggage.At the prison, she sewed uniforms for the Russian military and survived on spoiled food.Griner was released in a December 2022 prisoner swap negotiated by the Biden administration. She had been sentenced to nine years in the penal colony.“My life became a blur of sweeping and dusting, cleaning and praying, hoping I could somehow get home,” Griner wrote in her memoir.In her first game back in the W.N.B.A. in 2023, Griner scored a team high of 18 points. This year, she returns to the United States women’s national roster. Griner won Olympic gold medals with the team in 2016 and 2021. More