Lots of odds & ends!

• The nightly CBC television newscast, "The National," had a lengthy feature report on Feb. 27th about IVF in Canada and the barriers some people face in getting treatment (financial, geographic, etc.). It focused on one woman, currently on her 7th cycle, who has already spent more than $100,000 (Canadian) and regularly drives four hours (one way) from Sudbury to a clinic in Markham, outside of Toronto (and then another four hours back home again). (I remember chatting with a woman from Sudbury in the waiting room at my own RE's office when I was going through fertility treatments, 20+ years ago!)  
• I don't know if the video is available to view outside of Canada, but here's the link! 
• The province of British Columbia recently announced it will join several other Canadian provinces by funding one cycle of IVF, beginning in April 2025. The Globe & Mail featured a B.C. couple who estimate they spent $80,000 on 16 cycles of IUI and IVF, four of which ended in miscarriage, before their son was finally born in 2018. (Gift link.) Quote: 

Ms. Santos called B.C.’s announcement “incredible news,” and said it would have made a world of difference to her family had their first IVF cycle been covered.

“If we had had funding, that would have taken so much stress off at a time when everyone says all you should focus on is not stressing,” she said. Her husband could have come home [from working a higher-paying job in northern Alberta], she added. “We would have had more opportunity to work on our mental health, to not feel so guilty to take a day off if we needed it. It would have been invaluable to have that peace of mind.”

• On Medium, this post made me want to stand up and cheer: "We Must Stop Telling Women They Should Conceive and Give Birth 'Naturally.' ” (Subhead: "Medical interventions aren’t just for men, y’know".)  It may be behind a paywall :p  but here's an excerpt:  

According to some delightful people out there, women who can’t conceive need to just accept that it’s “God’s will” they remain child-free.

In their words, IVF isn’t natural, so we shouldn’t be doing it.

OK Steve, let’s see how well you fare without medical intervention the next time you need an operation. No anesthetic or scrubbed-up surgeon for you, my friend....

We’re happy to accept modern comforts, science and medicine in almost every other part of our lives. No one thinks it’s weird to live with electricity or a car or to receive anesthesia during a vasectomy.

Which leads to just one conclusion.

The rhetoric about “natural” childbirth and conception isn’t pro-nature.

It’s anti-women.

I found this bit somewhat shocking (and depressing): 

...whilst the perception of IVF has improved in recent years, there are still devastating stats about what some people think of IVF babies.

A recent study revealed that 41% of people think IVF babies are “normal but not natural.”

Twenty-two percent do not think IVF babies are legitimate.

And even more shocking, 13.5% of respondents do not think IVF babies should be welcomed by society.

The Vatican (which represents 1.3 billion Catholics across the world) doesn’t accept assisted reproduction, and now — whether this was their intention or not — neither does the state of Alabama.

And there's this: 

I don’t need people to tell me I’m an infertile failure

I already think that myself.

And it’s not just online trolls or Republican politicians that make me — and women like me — feel like this.

It’s society as a whole.

Not only do we live in a pronatalist world, we live in a pronatalist world where we are expected to a) quickly get pregnant, b) love pregnancy and c) have a natural birth.

And as someone struggling with fertility, I’m told I’m not natural. Because if you’re natural, you’re fertile, right?

This messaging comes from everywhere.... 

One comment read: "'Have more babies.'  'No not like that.' "  Touchez!   

• I only just heard about this book -- I have not read it (yet?) -- but the Washington Post just gave it a glowing review (and there are also some great reviews on Goodreads):  "Relinquished: The Politics of Adoption and the Privilege of American Motherhood" by Gretchen Sisson. The Post says it presents "a troubling picture of a lopsided adoption industry, in which aspiring parents spend thousands looking for adoptable infants while people in crisis pregnancies struggle to pay rent." 

Sisson’s analysis gently coaxes the scales from our eyes. If adoption is a heartwarming practice, why are birth mothers wracked with feelings of grief and betrayal that do not abate over time? If every aspiring parent deserves a baby to love, who are we willing to exploit to meet that demand?

...This book may be a tough read, especially for current or aspiring adoptive parents. It feels much better to rescue an unwanted baby than to take one from a mother who would parent if she could only afford a car seat. But, as Sisson writes, if adoption is intended to meet the needs of children and not the “dreams of would-be parents,” then adoptive parents’ feelings can’t drive the future of adoption. 

• Also on the topic of adoption: a great article (with a first-person perspective) from the Atlantic:  "No One's Children: America’s long history of secret adoption."  (Gift link, accessible for 14 days.)  
• Related:  a fabulous, must-read post from Mali at No Kidding in NZ:  "No Kidding Voices Count" -- when it comes to adoption, as well as other aspects of the adoption/loss/infertility experience. Excerpt (and key message): 

Why should we feel that our comments on a process that did not work for us should be disparaged as “bitter” or “sour grapes” compared to those who are considered the “success” stories? Answer = we shouldn’t. Our views are just as valid, and perhaps more so, because we are evidence that the processes are not infallible, that they don’t work for everyone, and in many cases, they don’t work for the majority. Everyone needs to understand why that is. Our voices count, and should be heard. 

• Mali's post didn't specifically mention the recent court ruling in Alabama that has virtually shut down IVF treatments in that state, but I was thinking about Alabama when she said: 

It’s not a contradiction to both be pleased that there are paths to parenthood for the infertile, and to want to ensure these paths take care of those prospective parents during and after this process, as well as act in the best interests of the children who may emerge from this. That’s not sour grapes. It is in fact much more holistic. 

• Also re: the Alabama ruling:  Pamela's Silent Sorority blog/website is currently under renovation, but she's still advocating for fertility industry reform and patient rights, including recent opinion pieces in the Boston Globe and Newsweek specifically related to the events in Alabama. 
• Jess recently posted about how the Alabama case has resulted in increased interest in/media coverage of IVF. Unfortunately, the coverage demonstrates that people (still!!) aren't using the correct terminology when discussing the process. (No wonder there are so many misconceptions....!) 
• Mel highlighted Jess's post on today's Friday Blog Roundup, pointing out that she wrote the New York Times about "implant" vs "transfer" ....back in 2009!  The NYT responded that they understood, BUT "we made the conscious decision to use the word implant. The average reader doesn’t understand what a ‘transfer’ is.”  "...[So] frustrating that I was writing the NYT in 2009 about this, and it’s now 2024, and nothing has changed,"  she says.  :(   Grrrrrrr indeed. 
• In her Substack "The Antidote," Helen Davenport-Peace ponders "The anatomy of an announcement:  Pregnancies that aren't ours, but theirs."  
• Henri Copeland eloquently reflects on the very different reactions she and her family are getting after the loss of her father, versus the lack of support she's had for her grief as a childless woman.  
• At "In Pursuit of Clean Countertops," Sara Petersen spoke with Lyz Lenz of "Men Yell At Me" about her new book (about divorce), "This American Ex-Wife."  Unfortunately, it's behind a subscriber paywall, but I wanted to share a couple of particularly brilliant passages that I thought had some application to women without children (even though both Lyz & Sara are mothers)(boldfaced emphasis the author's):  

...even if you're not going to get divorced, we have to stop thinking of parenting as this all-encompassing thing because children will leave you one day! You being okay can’t be predicated on them being okay. At some point, they won’t be okay. And you have to find a way to be a person in the midst of all of that....

...if our senses of selves and wellbeing is no longer dependent on relationships like motherhood and wifehood (because life is long and complicated and full of tragedy, we could live happier lives. 

• There was some great commentary on the recent State of the Union address in the U.S. -- and, in particular, on the Republican response provided by Senator Katie Britt. Lyz Lenz dubbed her "Dingus of the Week,"  lol. I also liked Monica Hesse's take in the Washington Post -- although I do wish she had taken her rhetoric one step further and made the leap from "moms aren't a monolith" to "not all women are moms" -- sigh....
• I particularly wanted to note Jill Filipovic's take on her Substack, titled "The Two Americas of the State of Union."   Unfortunately, I think it's behind a subscriber paywall... fortunately, I am a subscriber ;)  and I can share this especially relevant excerpt with you:  

The word “mom,” by the way, shows up in Britt’s speech more times than the word “women.” This is despite the fact that more than half of American women do not have children, and roughly one in six reach the end of their childbearing years without having them. Many women who are mothers also do not see motherhood as their sole defining characteristic. “Woman” and “mother” are not identical categories. And yet the Republican Party talks to us as if they are — or as if they should be...

 

The message from Britt and the GOP was clear: All women are or should be mothers; women and mothers should be fearful of the big scary world around them; and they should probably stay in the kitchen.