ProWomanProLife

Seriously: I haven’t watched five minutes of Olympics coverage (one, I don’t have television, two, I don’t have time these days to watch anything, and three, the limited time I get for athleticism I spend in my dojo). But I’m enjoying stories like this, and this:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Even after nearly 20 years of skating and traveling the world with his ice dance partner Isabelle Delobel, Olivier Schoenfelder was never expecting the phone call he received from her last winter.

The good news: Delobel was pregnant. The bad news: Delobel was pregnant and the Winter Olympics were in little more than a year.

[...]

The petite, dark-haired Delobel and the tall, blond Schoenfelder, both from France, were world champions in 2008 and were looking like favorites for the gold medal in Vancouver after climbing the ranks for many years, an ice dance prerequisite, and finishing fourth in the 2006 Olympics in Turin, Italy.

But a shoulder injury that Delobel sustained in December 2008 during an exhibition interrupted their season, and it was during her injury layoff that she became pregnant.

“I was still convinced we’d make it to the Olympics,” said Delobel, 31, in an interview after the compulsory dance Friday night in Vancouver.

The reaction from their rivals is a blend of admiration for Delobel’s ability to return so quickly and of sympathy for Schoenfelder.

[...]

Though Delobel continued to train and skate deep into her pregnancy, even suffering the occasional fall in practice, she left the ice in late July, giving birth on Oct. 1 to a son, Loïs, and then returning to practice in late October at their longtime training base in Lyon, France. She began three-a-day sessions and intense physical training in November.

“You better believe it was tough,” said Delobel, who had gained close to 20 pounds during pregnancy. “It was really a physical challenge, but I’m proud to have managed it.”

And she has every right to be. Well done!

Missed this Globe column on Ignatieff’s mistake in bringing up abortion as part of maternal care. Also missed this column on Valentine’s Day! This may be because I forgot to do a Happy Valentine’s Day post. Guess I was busy watching the Olympics, but since I quite enjoy the opportunity to bake heart shaped cookies with pink icing, I’ll wish our readers a Happy Valentine’s Day today!

I find this surprising, to say the least:

The mortality rate of Californian women who die from causes directly related to pregnancy has nearly tripled in the past decade, reports California Watch. The investigative reporting website interviewed the authors of a not-yet-public Department of Public Health study identifying the most significant spike in pregnancy-related deaths since the 1930s. Although the total number of deaths remains relatively small, the report affirms that it’s now more dangerous to give birth in California than it is in Kuwait or Bosnia. Possible reasons behind the spike include an uptick in morbid obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes, along with hemorrhaging from the growing numbers of C-sections. And the trend could be nationwide. An alert issued last week to hospitals by the Joint Commission, the leading health care accreditation and standards group in the country, warned: “Unfortunately, current trends and evidence suggest that maternal mortality rates may be increasing in the U.S.”

Whatever you do, don’t ask Michael Ignatieff to comment.

Apparently, “baby brain” is a myth. Govern yourselves accordingly. (That means, fine, whatever, blame it on the hormones and the lack of sleep.)

And that’s probably because, all else being equal, it’s a better way to deliver your children – that’s sort of what women’s bodies are designed for. Certainly better for everyone, mom and baby, than a medically unnecessary C-section. Yet the rates of births by C-section around the world are so high they’re called “epidemic”. Why?

Reasons for elective C-sections vary globally, but increasing rates in many developing countries coincide with a rise in patients’ wealth and improved medical facilities.

In Asia, some women opt for the surgery to choose their delivery day after consulting fortune tellers for “lucky” birthdays or times. Others fear painful natural births or worry their vaginas may be stretched or damaged by a normal delivery. Some women also prefer the operation because they mistakenly believe it is less risky.

Others want to make sure the birth of their baby fits into their schedule. In other cases it appears doctors and hospitals push for them (pardon the pun), either because they make more money that way or to avoid malpractice suits. I’m trying to decide which reason is craziest: Worrying about what a baby (roughly the size of a small elephant, at least if you ask women in their ninth month of pregnancy) will do to a woman’s inner plumbing, or making sure the child’s birth won’t interfere with a busy work and social schedule, or ensure a happy future for the child based on a fortune teller’s say-so?

I gather that when you need one in a hurry, a C-section is like a gift from heaven. And it’s great that we live in a world where such life-saving surgeries are readily available. I feel the same way about open-heart surgery or radiation therapy, yet I wouldn’t want to have any of those procedures performed on me unless it was absolutely necessary.

My goodness, what a horrible mistake to make.

After hearing a joint submission in favour of Sherry Sherrett-Robinson by the Crown and defence, the court told the 34-year-old woman it was “profoundly regrettable” that she was wrongly convicted based on errors by Charles Smith, who was once the toast of the pathology community.

“The tragedy of this four-month-old child’s death is compounded by the fact that his mother was wrongly convicted of infanticide, served a year in jail, and she lost her other child,” Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg said.

Ms. Sherrett-Robinson was convicted in 1999 after Dr. Smith testified that he found signs consistent with homicide on the body of her four-month-old son, Joshua Sherrett.

James Lockyer, a lawyer for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, told the court Monday that all four of Dr. Smith’s suspicious findings – a skull fracture, swelling of the brain, burst blood vessels and small, unexpected lacerations – were either normal in accidental asphyxiation cases or caused by Dr. Smith’s autopsy techniques.

[...]

Judge Rosenberg said that, based on a review by two prominent pathologists, it is quite possible that Joshua suffocated in his crib after becoming entangled in bedclothes.

Ms. Sherrett-Robinson’s eldest son, Austin, was seized and put up for adoption after she was charged. She is not permitted to seek him out until he is 18.

“I still get pictures and letters twice a year from him,” she said. “I’d give anything to get him back, but it’s my responsibility as a mother to leave him where he is most comfortable at this point. He is well taken care of.”

Say, this is my second bus-related post in two days. I’m on a roll! And so are these mothers, who successfully lobbied for strollers to be allowed on Ottawa’s busses.

Honestly, I think if you are a mother taking your kids on the public bus system, you should get all the help you can. I can move my single self travelling elegantly with one small purse either off the bus, or to the back, or what have you. It’s tough enough as a mom to ensure you have everything (extra diapers, change of clothes for baby, snacks, games, books, wetnaps, what else?) forget about being told your child has to be removed and the stroller folded up. That’s the same as telling a mother with a child not to take the bus, in my opinion; a policy put forward by someone who has not hung out with a small child in a very long time.

So good on these moms for making a stand.

_________________________

Véronique adds: I was going to write a post about why strollers need to be so big these days when I realized that not only had Andrea beat me to the post but I was even behind our commenter Suzanne.

So Suzanne, since you ask, let me tell you why strollers have to be so big nowadays. It’s both simple and complicated, obvious and convoluted. While things have been getting better since I had my first child 13 years ago, we do not live in a child-friendly world yet. And so when going places with young children, one must be as self-sufficient as possible, carrying diapers, wipes, change of clothes, snacks, baby seat for the restaurant, toys, beverages, bottle warmer and so on. Not only that but once you have packed all these essentials, you still need to have room for the stuff you are purchasing, e.g. groceries etc. Because no matter how much you struggle, you will be lucky if you get more than disapproving glances from passerbys. Finally, the big swivel wheels are necessary not only to navigate through rough terrain such as sidewalks and steps, but also for one-hand manoeuverability. Because when you struggle to get two kids, a stroller and the groceries through a narrow door, you will be lucky if your fellow citizens don’t bodycheck you to get ahead, let alone holding the door for you. As for helping you, they didn’t slam the door in your face, what are you complaining about? In these circumstances, the stroller becomes an extension of your home where you can safely change, feed and rest the baby without expecting help from anyone.

Interestingly enough, shopping malls and restaurants in the suburbs — where people are largely dependant on cars to eat, sleep and breathe — are relatively child friendly. But when you venture downtown, as I often do, and try to eat in non-chain restaurants while shopping in boutiques, you need to be self-sufficient. I was shopping on Bank street in Old Ottawa South a month ago and couldn’t even get in the breastfeeding clothing store with the stroller because of the steps. Then I went to eat at the Thai restaurant where not only didn’t they have a children’s menu or a high chair, but they couldn’t even accommodate my 3 year-old son when I asked for a small bowl of rice with some chicken. “You’re a thai restaurant, you have rice?” “Yes.” “You have chicken?” “Yes.” “Can you bring rice with chicken?” “No.” So next time, I’ll be shopping with my baby carrier — in case I need to leave the stroller at the door; my collapsible booster seat — in case they don’t have a high chair; my baby and toddler’s meals — in case there is nothing on the menu for them. And so on. I’m carrying all my gear in a gas-guzzler but the requirement for self-sufficiency wouldn’t change if I had to take the bus.

_____________________

Andrea adds: For proof that Véronique is absolutely correct, see the comments on the CBC story I linked to. (The CBC! These are ostensibly the compassionate lefties!) The vast majority are crusty childless folks complaining about how now that these mothers have won this battle their sense of entitlement will only grow. Excuse me? I was actually alarmed as I scrolled through those comments. Do I truly live in a city where people complain because some young mom is struggling to get somewhere on the bus? Don’t you think if she could possibly afford it she’d prefer to take a car? I find the comments absolutely, mind numbingly callous.

There are some pro-choice articles that just have a way of making one more…pro-life. This is one of them.

Not sure how I feel about that theme. But I still wouldn’t mind seeing Motherhood, starring Uma Thurman. (Knowing me, I’ll wait until it’s on the shelf at Blockbuster.)

One thing I can get on board with: “Motherhood is about accepting things that you cannot control.”