Before we get into the actual, you know, issue, a brief note: how annoying is the portrayal of childbirth in rom-coms? You know the drill: Knocked Up, Nine Months, She's Having A Baby, Father if the Bride 2: hilarious antics ensue! Particularly annoying is when the crazed mom-to-be starts screeching about how much she hates the guy for knocking her up! LOL! Here's an egregious and typical example of the genre, from the classic Fools Rush In. Start at 6:20.

Anyhoo. Many of said films feature a 'natural birth plan' which then leaves the woman screaming for drugs midway through. And a new Swedish study claims to give the lie to "natural is better" - or, at any rate, claims that natural childbirth classes are fairly useless. Says the Beeb,

More than 1,000 mothers-to-be took part in the Swedish trial, thought to be the first major analysis of the efficacy of such preparation for childbirth....They attended one of two classes: the first taught natural coping methods, the other emphasised pain relief. but the BJOG study found no difference in the use of epidurals between the women when they went into labour. Just over half the women in each group ultimately opted for the spinal analgesia which reduces or eliminates the pain of contractions.

While one natural-birth advocate claims this is no argument against antenatal education - which, at the very least, fosters partner cooperation and can lead to a sense of relaxation and control, a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says, rather smugly, that "this research may temper the statements of the more pro-natural people."

It was our general impression that women who opted for natural childbirth - or indeed took prenatal classses - did so not because they were under the impression that lamaze could simulate the numbing effects of an epidural, but rather because they wanted to experience the birth sans drugs, or didn't wish to expose the infant to them. If a woman went into natural childbirth expecting a pain-free cakewalk, well, sure, that would be a pretty rude awakening. Doesn't everyone know that childbirth in the post-infant-mortality modern west is a warm-hearted farce in which the mother is temporarily transformed into a pain-crazed clown prior to the father's transformation upon holding his child for the first time? Clearly the "pro-natural people" need a dose of Matthew Perry-style reality (with amusing paramedics, of course!), stat.
Natural Birth Classes Questions [BBC]
Fools Rush In [YouTube]

According to researchers at the Australian National University in Canberra, women do not suddenly become "fuzz-heads" the minute they get knocked up. In fact, scientists found that having babies may actually improve brain function. Over a period of several years, professor Helen Christensen conducted a series of interviews with 2,500 women ages 20-24. She had them preform various logic and memory tests, and found that the women who were pregnant during the second or third batch of interviews performed just as well a they did before. There was also no significant difference between the pregnant women and the control group.

Christensen's findings go against previous research, which found that pregnant women consistently performed worse on verbal and memory tests than their peers. However, Christensen argues that her decade-long study is the most comprehensive in the field and effectively disproves the "preg head" myth. Similar research from the Richmond University in Virgina backs up Christensen's findings, and indicates that pregnancy may increase life-long mental ability and protect against diseases in old age. Furthermore, Christensen mentions a study performed on rats in Singapore which found that pregnant rats had improved multitasking ability: "The rat data suggests that mother rats navigate mazes more efficiently, have less anxiety and fear and excel at multi-skilling. That sounds to me like almost every mother I know."

Pregnant Women's Brains Are Not Mush, Says Study [Telegraph]
Having Babies Can Sharpen Women's Minds [Guardian]

Related: Are Pregnant Women Dulled By "Fuzz-Head" Hormones?

The research shows that the vast majority of pregnant teens do not have the financial and familial advantages of Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears. According to Saul Hoffman, a University of Delaware economist who has just written a book, Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, "The children are more likely to be in foster care, less likely to graduate from high school…The daughters are more likely to have teen births themselves, the sons are more likely to be incarcerated." In addition, Hoffman calculations show that teen motherhood costs American tax payers $7.6 billion a year. He also notes that the dire effects of teen motherhood drop a great deal if a woman delays childbirth by just a few years.

As previously reported, only 40% of teen moms graduate from high school, and a recent event in Nebraska is a stark reminder that not all teen pregnancies are wrapped up neatly like an episode of Zoey 101. A 16-year-old teen mom took advantage of Nebraska's "Safe Haven" law, which t allows parents to abandon their children without repercussions. But here's the twist: she was using the Safe Haven law "not to abandon her baby, but to get help for herself and her son. The girl, who was escorted by an aunt last week to Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, told a social worker that she was kicked out of her mother's home," the AP reports. "She also said that she had been emotionally abused and suffered physical harm."

Sarah Brown, director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, tells the AP, "We are, as a society, uncomfortable with sitting down and having conversations about what we expect…When is the last time we said, as a culture, 'Babies need adult parents?'"

Teen Motherhood: Celebrity Buzz Belies Its Cost [AP via CBS News]
Neb. Teen Mom Seeks Safe Haven For Baby, Herself [AP via Brattleboro Reformer]

Earlier: Ask Not What Bristol Palin Can Do For You, Ask What Sarah Palin Can Do For Your Pregnant Daughter

It's very Maude Lebowski. Obviously the men are agreeing to have unprotected sex, but for these women wouldn't it just be easier to go to a sperm bank if they don't want the father involved?

The title of the article is misleading anyway, as many of the women discussed, like Elizabeth Hurley and Scary Spice Mel B. had unplanned pregnancies and it's just public conjecture that their pregnancies were "accidentally on purpose." It also seems like a bit of a sexist urban legend, the idea of aggressive, baby hungry young professionals. But then there are women like Sarah, a 35-year-old editor, who told the Times:

In the past, with other boyfriends, I had been much more careful, but I was in my early thirties and my biological clock was in overdrive. I really, really wanted a baby, and I didn’t have any time to waste. My daughter’s father was clever and good-looking, and I suppose it seemed safer to have an affair with him than a one-night stand. And it was cheaper and a lot more fun than doing it in a clinic…He put pressure on me not to have the baby, but for me, it wasn’t an accident.

Is this morally suspect or is it ok because the men involved agreed to have condom-free sex? I'm leaning towards the former but would like to hear arguments to the contrary.

Women Who Conceive Accidentally On Purpose [Times of London]

The WaPo is reporting that, as Governor of Alaska, Palin slashed funding for a program that benefited teen moms.According to the WaPo, "Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers…[where, according to Passage House's website] 'young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives.'"

And since we're all on board with not prying into the circumstance of Bristol as an individual, let's take a look at the fate that lies ahead for most other teen mothers, shall we? Linda Hirshman, writing on Slate's XX Factor blog, runs through what the average American teen mom experiences, and honestly, it's bleak. "Even controlling for social and economic backgrounds, only 40 percent of teenage girls who bear children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared with the 75 percent of teens who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21" Hirshman notes. "Overall, teenage mothers—and their children—are also far more likely to live in poverty than females who don't give birth until after age 20. Two-thirds of the families begun by a young unmarried mother are poor. These families are more likely to be on welfare and to require publicly provided health care." And we know what Palin thinks about publicly provided health care: She thinks it shouldn't exist!

Even Seventeen editor Ann Shoket has something to say about Bristol's pregnancy and what it means for the American teen. "No matter how you feel about her politics, Sarah Palin is a shining example of the potential and power of women," Shoket notes in the Huffington Post today. "And in one hot moment with her boyfriend, her daughter gave away her power to make the decisions about how she wanted her future to play out."

Pretty harsh words coming from the editor of a usually soft and fluffy teen mag. And here's the thing. Individually, Bristol Palin will be fine. But despite what her mother's campaign would have you believe, the Palins are not regular folk. They are a gubernatorial family with the resources and the connections to help support a teen pregnancy. Obviously, a teen pregnancy is not the end of the world, nor is it anything to be ashamed of. However, it is something that should be prevented as much as possible, and considering Palin's stance on abortion, it seems she's only concerned about the individual pregnancy of her daughter and not the pregnancies of our nation's daughters. Linda Hirshman says it better than I can: "For the millions of women each year who do not want to make that choice, and for the parents who do not want that fate for their daughters, the cruelty of the Republican position on abortion rights is now graphically laid bare."

UPDATE: Despite some Republicans' request for privacy with regards to Bristol, the Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that many conservatives are already using this unborn child like "a political football." Coates quotes the following passage from the WSJ to illustrate his point: "Gov. Palin and her husband 'have embraced the grandchild about to be born,' Gary Bauer, a social conservative activist and onetime presidential candidate, told the Texas delegation. 'They already are teaching America a lesson about the sanctity of life,' he added, as the delegates jumped to their feet in applause.'"

The Candidate's Daughter Could Use Our Sympathy And A Lot More Privacy [Washington Post]
Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms [Washington Post]
Do As We Do [Slate]
What Was Bristol's Plan A? [Huffington Post]
And Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Program [The Atlantic]

Related: The Numbers on Teen Pregnancy [Freakonomcs/NYT]

Of course, I agree that Bristol should not be shamed for having sex, nor should she be judged for her choice to keep her baby. However, how can any pundit worth his or her salt not mention this pregnancy when talking about John McCain's abysmal record with sex education? As CBS News notes, "In 2006, McCain joined fellow Republicans in voting against a Senate Democratic proposal to send $100 million to communities for teen-pregnancy prevention programs that would have included sex education about contraceptives."

One of the few things we know Palin's stance on is abortion, and as has been noted before, Palin wants to eliminate reproductive choice in this country. Which makes it curious, then, that as Rebecca Traister over on Salon notices, the language of choice still pervades the party's public statements about Bristol. "According to the New York Times story, 'Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.' That's just peachy in its presumption that Bristol had a choice about whether or not to continue her pregnancy," Traister writes. "It's true that in 2008, she certainly does have a legal choice. But she wouldn't under the proposed administration of her mother and John McCain, both of whom oppose abortion rights and tell us they would work to overturn Roe."

Like it or not, especially in this election, the personal is political: the fact that Palin had a baby with Down syndrome is already being used as a Republican talking point. Timothy Shriver notes in Newsweek, "Trig could be a high-profile example of how wonderful it can be to choose life, even in adversity, even when the conditions aren't perfect. After all, the conditions are never perfect, but the promise of a newborn baby is that God's love is. Somehow, despite everything, love is triumphant. The message: Love life. Choose life." And you can be sure as hell that Palin and the Republicans would be happy to use Trig's existence to push their anti-choice message. How does the logic work then, that while 17-year-old Bristol should be protected, a four-month-old baby boy is fair game?

Also. There is evidence that McCain did not thoroughly vet Palin before offering her the VP spot, and that "top aides were vague on Monday about how and when [McCain] had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom." If Palin was trying to hide Bristol's pregnancy, who knows what other shady business she has hiding in the bushes. In addition, McCain's mere cursory vetting of Palin shows that his decision-making on important things is incredibly rash. Do we really want a man in charge of our military who is prone to making such knee jerk choices?

It seems that Obama has already started using this pregnancy to his advantage without explicitly naming Bristol. According to Politico, Obama is already running radio ads hitting McCain on abortion rights. But! At the end of the day, I think Democrats should not use Bristol Palin directly in any way, shape or form, and not because they should be above it, but because it detracts from the real issue at hand: the fact that Palin is entirely inexperienced and has barely any defined stances on any issue. Bristol and baby Trig are just smokescreens. At the end of the day, it will be far more satisfying and fruitful to attack Palin on her entirely wobbly platform than the productiveness of her womb.

America: Meet Sarah Palin [YouTube]
McCain Opposed Funds For Teen Moms-To-Be [CBS News]
Palin, Pregnancy And The Presidency [Salon]
Palin's Choice: Pro Trig [Newsweek/WaPo]
Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions On Vetting Process [NYT]
Raising Abortion [Politico]

Earlier: Bristol Palin Is Pregnant, Let The Opprobrium Begin
Sarah Palin: When Choosing A Woman Might Not Be Choosing For Women

Anyway, Dargis takes issue, not only with the smug step brothers of the title, but also with the portrayal of the women they love. "So, once again, there is the spectacle and pathos of the sexually stunted immature male, here times two: Brennan (Mr. Ferrell) and Dale (Mr. Reilly)," Dargis writes. "Mary Steenburgen, as Brennan’s mother, Nancy, takes the fantasy parent role: she’s saintly, sexy — her relaxed, ready smile telegraphs satisfaction — and endlessly patient. She looks good for a woman who would have had her youngest at about 14."

Dargis goes on to skewer the film further for its semi-insulting portrayal of both men and women, but really, it seems like the cardinal sin in this comedy is that it's not especially funny. I don't really mind so much if comedies don't show women in the best light or elevate the adolescent male psyche, so long as they're entertaining. But Dargis' description of Ferrell and Reilly — "They’re losers that only a mother, an entertainment manager or a gang of self-satisfied comedy insiders could love" — makes me think this movie is both vaguely insulting and entirely unfunny. Come on Apatow and Co., we've seen Freaks and Geeks, and even the actual adolescents in that show were more mature than these dingbats. You can do better. Whatever, I'll probably see it anyway. (You're talking to a woman who saw Let's Go To Prison in theaters. I have no standards.)

Once More To The Well Of Goofball Comedy [NYT]

Earlier: What To Expect When You're Expecting Too Much From A Movie
Now That Her Paycheck Has Cleared, Katherine Heigl Calls Knocked Up Sexist

Asked about the attractiveness gap between men and women in Apatow movies, Rogen responds, "I love that. Like, there's so little chance that a girl would like me, it's sexist to assume that one would."

He takes it personally — and good for him. Is the idea that male attractiveness goes beyond traditional good looks really something we want to stamp out? In Marie Claire, Lucy Kaylin writes:

When funny women carry a comedy, it's expected that they'll be shaggable too — see Tina Fey's gleaming gams and cleavage in Baby Mama. Look, we know we've always said that a sense of humor is the most important thing. But a few crunches wouldn't hurt either.

But Kaylin's going the wrong way here. Rather than demanding that funny, weird-looking guys become more conventionally handsome, can't we acknowledge that attractiveness in both sexes can be a fungible thing? Men like weird-looking women sometimes too, and if we saw this play out more often on screen, maybe we'd be more accepting of our own quirks. I know I'm sick of ladymags telling me how to look better all the time, and rather than holding men up the same exacting standards, I'd like to quit worrying about camouflaging my flaws.

Now, if only Ms. Grigoriadis had addressed the responsibility gap between the sexes in Apatow movies. I'd like to see what Rogen would say to that one.

Elle

Though in the CDC report from November, government statistician Stephanie Ventura said, “It's way too early to know if this is the start of a new trend…But given the long-term progress we've witnessed, this change is notable," Fox News found a fear mongering doctor to make far more definitive statements about the slight upswing. Said Dr. Keith Ablow: “It’s not pretty and we really need a public health response that’s very vigorous to counteract this."

While the rise in teen pregnancy after a 14 year drop is certainly something to monitor, using nine-month old statistics to drum up hysteria is disingenuous. Or you know, you could just follow Fox News and start panicking immediately. Break out those chastity belts moms of America!

Report: Teen Pregnancies Up For First Time In 15 Years [CNN]
Teen Pregnancy Rate Hits 15-Year High [Fox News]
Teenage Mothers Rose In 2006, Reversing A 15-Year U.S. Decline [Bloomberg]
Teen Birth Rate Rises For First Time In 14 Years [CDC]

Earlier: Teen Pregnancy Rates Are Declining — Or Not

"For fertilization to take place, sperm must be able to reach the egg and then penetrate its outer layer," the L.A. Times notes. "Sperm that don't move well...may be unable to do so." As "lifestyle"
can be a a factor when "sperm that don't move well," I'm forced to surmise that too much weed renders one's junk unable to do anything but lie on the proverbial couch of one's innards.

Anyway! When couples are having fertility problems, 67% of women seek treatment before their male partners do, and almost half of women surveyed by the IntegraMed company reported that their partners only sought help when pressured. "Both the male and female partner should be worked up simultaneously," Dr. Walsh says. "Men are just as deserving of a comprehensive evaluation." Walsh adds that part of the issue is that women can just go to their gynecologist when facing reproductive problems, whereas men don't have the same kind of go-to doctor with whom they feel comfortable. All the same: if you're having issues with babymaking, make sure to get everyone involved a full medical workup.

Male
Biological Clock 'Ticks Too' [BBC]
Men
Can Be Infertile Too [LAT]

And I suppose, from a purely statistical standpoint, Caldwell can make his argument. But being a good parent isn't exclusively about finances. I find it hard to believe that these young women would not make better mothers with a few more years of life experience, added maturity and potential earning power. "Baby-boom feminists did not replace a superstitious attitude towards teen sexuality with a rational one. They replaced one set of priorities with another. Their careerism prevented teen motherhood as reliably as did their mothers’ moralism," Caldwell writes. "The Gloucester girls appear equally unimpressed with both logics. If the old 'pregnancy pact' that went by the name of marriage is no longer so readily available, they are not fools to look for a substitute." Caldwell is making a host of assumptions and relying on many stereotypes of the American lower classes, and both his sweeping generalizations and the fact that he needs to bash second wave feminism to make them are distasteful.

Also distasteful: Brenda Hampton, the creator of The Secret Life of an American Teenager, tells Reuters, "I don't have anything to say about the issue of teen pregnancy…I'm just telling a story about a girl who happens to get pregnant." That's the most patently idiotic thing I've heard all week. Especially since the New York Times review of the show points out that when the heroine of Secret Life discovers that she is pregnant, "Her friends tell her she has options, but abortion is apparently not one of them; that choice is dismissed right away in horrified tones." (Sound familiar?) I think Hampton was missing a word in her quote. She meant to say, "I don't have anything intelligent to say about the issue of teen pregnancy."

The Ideology Of Teen Pregnancy [Financial Times]
TV's "Baby" And "Secret Life" Explore Teen Taboo [Reuters]
A Teenage Pregnancy, Packaged as a Prime-Time Cautionary Tale [NYT]

Earlier: Teen Pregnancy Rates Are Declining — Or Not

There was even an entire New York Times article from a few years back where dudes talked about how freaked out they were watching their wives give birth. And so I ask you, kind Jezemoms and Dads: what happens to your sex life after you pop out a wee one? Please don't spare any gruesome details. We're big girls, we can take it.

From the Delivery Room to the Bedroom [Psychology Today]

Related: A Perilous Journey From Delivery Room to Bedroom [NYT]

The Ring Of Fire [Elle]

Earlier: What Should Jezebels Really Expect When They're Expecting
So, About That Harrowing Ring Of Fire Story

Louisa Bradshaw Jessop gave birth to a son — her third child — in Austin, Texas. Jessop says that she is 22, though state authorities believe her to be 17. Jessop's husband, Rulan Danial Jessop, 24, "filed a habeas corpus petition in Austin last Wednesday that argues his wife is being improperly detained by the state," according to the Salt Lake Tribune. For now, a Texas judge has allowed a temporary restraining order against the Department of Family and Protective services to prevent them from moving Louisa and her baby to San Antonio.

We don't know how big Louisa's baby is, but if it is a super wee one, the boy has a greater chance of growing into an angry young man. According to research from the University of Helsinki, low birth rate and slow growth in childhood lead to "increased levels of hostility in adults," and this hostility is a harbinger of health troubles like heart issues and type 2 diabetes. Maybe that woman who's still breastfeeding her eight-year-old is just doing it to prevent her child's ire!

28 Million Women At Risk Of Unwanted Pregnancy [Reuters]
Second FLDS Mother Gives Birth While In Texas Custody [Salt Lake Tribune]
Smaller Babies Become Hostile Adults: Study [Newser]

Earlier: At What Age Is A Kid Too Old To Breastfeed?