The Wall Street Journal Chimes in on Fertility
In a good way.
I was so pleased to see this appear in the online version of today’s Wall Street Journal. The post was in response to this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine which discusses the decline of birth rates and its implications. I LOVE the title of the WSJ post:
One Way to Higher Fertility Rates: Support Working Mothers
Word!
John J. Edwards III makes this assessment:
Among the many possible reasons for the baby bust, particularly interesting is a combination of differences in government support for working mothers and social mores about motherhood. In short, the more juggle-friendly the country, the higher the birthrate tends to be.
Arnstein Aassve, a Norwegian sociologist quoted in the article, sums up the situation this way: “You might say that in order to promote fertility, your society needs to be generous or flexible. The U.S. isn’t very generous, but it is flexible. Italy is not generous in terms of social services and it’s not flexible. There is also a social stigma in countries like Italy, where it is seen as less socially accepted for women with children to work. In the U.S., that is very accepted.”
This is a great conversation to be having. Now, I would like to see it move to the next level - one that takes into account access and affordability of women’s health care.
Back in February 2008, Cheryl Miller, author of the “Blogging Infertility” article in the New Atlantis that appeared earlier this year, used me as an example of when insurance that covers fertility treatments might be acceptable. I responded by saying that insurance coverage and who gets what is just a simplified piece of a much larger discussion:
While defining biological issues could be one way to achieve insurance coverage, the last thing I want to do is encourage a divide between those that are “functionally” and “biologically” infertile. Insurance is simply one issue.
Many barriers that we found in our own quest for treatments that were obviously constructed to limit access to those functionally infertile (i.e. “you have to be married before you can make an appointment here.”) were simply Barriers to medical information.
A 62-yr old woman seeking motherhood would most likely be used as an example for legislators and other opponents of coverage, but a more likely scenario would be an older (but still young) woman in her 30s who felt that she could not adequately support a family until she reached a certain point in her career. That speaks to other societal issues beyond insurance, including but not limited to equitable wages and affordable child care.
Perhaps focusing on insurance coverage and who it should and shouldn’t cover is too narrow a focus. Perhaps we need to broaden the discussion to include the adequacy of research and resources around women’s health. Period.
Your thoughts?
Tags: , birth rates, blogging inferility, Cheryl Miller, child care, equitable wages, fertility, fertility rates, inferility insurance, John J Edwards, motherhood, New york Times, societal norms, Wall Street Journal, women's health care, womens rights, working mothersRelated Stories
POSTED IN: advocacy, babies, feminism, fertility boosts?, finances, infertility treatments, insurance, legislation, living with infertility, motherhood
0 opinions for The Wall Street Journal Chimes in on Fertility
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: