Chelsea Kaplan’s Musings About Life... After Birth

I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican - if you’re a parent and are anything but disgusted by President Bush and the Republicans, you’re not paying attention. Here’s the deal:

In today’s Washington Post, there’s an article about how yesterday, Congressional negotiators agreed to a ban on a family of toxins found in children’s products. This ban will include three types of phthalates, which are found in plastics (they make plastic softer and more durable) commonly used in children’s toys, and to outlaw three other phthalates pending a study of their health effects in children and pregnant women. Why? Well, phthalates act as hormones and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys. Federally funded research found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited low sperm count, undescended testicles and other reproductive problems. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer. For purposes of global comparison, the European Union banned the six phthalates in question from children’s products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same.

In a mind-blowing response, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes this ban. I’m going to repeat this and make it bold, because I want to make sure everyone gets this: President Bush opposes banning plastics that are harmful to children and pregnant women.

This makes me so angry that I am shaking. Shaking. Do I even need to explain why?

Joining President Bush on the deplorably disgusting list: (no shocker here) Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers the phthalate most frequently found in children’s toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent this ban and try to get people to believe that banning phthalates may inadvertently expose children to greater risks, because manufacturers will be forced to use substitute chemicals that may be even more hazardous. Let me get this straight, Exxon Mobil: the U.S. should so allow toxic chemicals to be placed in kids’ toys because there’s a chance that whatever we decide to replace them with might end up being toxic too? Um, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and recommend we just go right on ahead and get rid of the stuff we know is highly toxic, mmmkay? I have faith that on he next go-’round we’ll make sure that sperm and kidney-destroying chemicals aren’t allowed into rubber duckies. Seriously, how do these people sleep at night?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the ban, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market. Now seriously, doesn’t that make sense? Perhaps some prelim research prior to a chemical additive’s approval (as opposed to waiting until children suffer health consequences and THEN taking action) is a wise plan, no? Sadly, only the Democrats agree with her. Senate and House Republicans all voted against the ban, and you know why. Of course, the jerks at Exxon Mobil, etc. poured all kinds of obscene money into the Republicans’ re-election campaigns (check their campaign finance records - it’s publicly available info) in exchange for promises that they’d vote to oppose this ban. Really, how can we not be disgusted by the fact that our governmental representatives can and are willing to be bought at the expense of our safety - ESPECIALLY that of our kids?

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that do not hide the fact that I am a liberal. To me, however, this shouldn’t a partisan issue; liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, parent or not, you should support a ban on using toxic ingredients when making kids’ toys. The record is clear, though: the lawmakers against this ban are Republicans, and the ones supporting the ban are Democrats.

We must keep this in mind when we vote this November.

I am so sick of seeing stories about how celebrities lost their baby weight that if I read one more, I think I’ll puke until I lose all of mine. It’s neither original nor all that funny anymore to complain about how unrealistic the rates as which celebrities lose their baby weight are. Obviously, it’s their job to do so, and because they’re multi-millionaires whose job is to look amazing, they literally spend all day and millions of dollars ensuring that within 4 or so months after popping out their kids, they’re lean and mean again.  Certainly, if you and I had Jennifer Lopez’s money, we’d have nannies caring for our kids (b.s. to her and Skeletor’s claims that they don’t employ nannies, by the way) while our personal chef, trainer and nutritionist (according to this week’s US Weekly) literally worked our butts off. And then, of course, we’d be rocking bikinis four months after having twins, just as she was recently seen doing.

Okay, so not totally perfect, but well on her way. I hate you, Jennifer.

For us real gals, the real way to lose weight is the un-fancy “eat less and exercise” program. I’m no health expert, but I know (and, naturally, hate) the simple truth that when you burn more calories than you consume, weight comes off. When I finally decided to lose my weight after Big Bro was born, I lived on BALANCE Bar Bare Sweet & Salty bars. They come in Chocolate Almond and Peanut Butter flavors, but my favorite was Yogurt Nut. What I like about these bars is that unlike other nutrition bars, they actually taste good and not all artificial and cardboard-y. They’re the perfect combo of salty and sweet, and they really do keep you satisfied for hours (note to Weight Watchers devotees: they’re four points each).

$14.49 for 15 bars, drugstore.com. Yum.

This go-’round, I’m still on the bars, but I’ve added Momtourage member Alicia’s not-so secret secret: drink lots of water. Because I find drinking loads of plain water rather boring and therefore somewhat painful to actually do, I’ve been guzzling this new water beverage called twist. I’m freaked out by most things artificial in my drinks (my food, not so much - see above), so this stuff has none of it. Essentially, it’s an organic, low-calorie (less than 10 per serving), preservative-free water flavored with juice and organic agave nectar for just a touch of sweetness. They come in six fruity flavors: Lemon, Mandarin White Tea, Mango Acai, Pomegranate Blueberry, West Indies Lime and Peach (my favorite, because I’m from Georgia like that).

I kinda bet these would be good with a little vodka, but that would defeat the purpose. Sigh.

Seriously - these drinks are awesome. If you need inspiration to drink yourself come water - you must try them. You can get these waters for around $1.29 for 19-ounces at specialty grocery stores (like Whole Foods) around the country. If you’d like to try them, I’ve got a set of all six flavors to give away to 10 winners each. To be eligible to win, you must be registered for The Momtourage’s mailing list, so if you’re not, click on the green “Join Our Mailing List” box at the top, right-hand corner of this page to register. 

15 (okay, 20) pounds to go......

On July 4, the New York Times ran an editorial imploring the FDA to update its safety data on sunscreen. In a nutshell, here’s why: Despite the fact that the F.D.A. proposed creating new safety standards and a new ratings system for sunscreens last August, they’ve done nothing in terms of actually creating them. In the meantime, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington research organization, looked into the safety and effectiveness of the sunscreens currently available to consumers (nearly 1,000 products). After collecting all their data and testing the sunscreens, the group found that it could recommend only 15 percent of those on the market with S.P.F. ratings of 15 or higher. The ones they could not recommend - 85 percent of what’s out there - either did not protect skin enough from some radiation that can cause skin cancer or included ingredients linked to possible health hazards.

Yikes, right?

Here are the top 10 products, in terms of effectiveness, as determined by the research conducted by the Environmental Working Group:

1. Keys Soap Solar Rx Therapeutic Sunblock, SPF 30
2. Trukid Sunny Days Facestick Mineral Sunscreen UVA/UVB Broad Spectrum, SPF 30+
3. California Baby Sunblock Stick No Fragrance, SPF 30+
4. Badger Sunscreen, SPF 30
5. Marie Veronique Skin Therapy Sun Serum
6. Lavera Sunscreen Neutral, SPF 40
7. Vanicream Sunscreen, SPF 35
8. UV Natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+
9. Sun Science Sport Formula, SPF 30
10.  Soleo Organics Sunscreen all natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+

Basically, it seems the products that received the lowest marks all had a few things in common: non-lotion formulas (sprays, even a few powders), the ingredient oxybenzone, fragrance and a low SPF number. I was shocked to see that among the lowest-rated sunscreens were products from some of the most distributed brands: Neutrogena, Hawaiian Tropic, Banana Boat and Coppertone. And I’m not even referencing SPF 2 oil - it’s products like Hawaiian Tropic Ozone Sunblock, SPF 70, Neutrogena UVA/UVB Sunblock Lotion, SPF 45 and Banana Boat Ultra Defense Broad Spectrum Sunblock, SPF 80. The bottom line: Just because a product has a high SPF and comes from a recognized brand doesn’t mean that it’s one you should slather on yourself or your kids. To search their findings by brand, product or formula, click here.

To help you make there best choices, here are the common brands the Environmental Working Group most recommends, based on the products’ effectiveness:

1. Blue Lizard (anything without oxybenzone)
2. California Baby (anything with SPF 30+)
3. CVS (with zinc oxide)
4. Jason Natural Cosmetics Sunbrellas Mineral Based Sunblock
5. Kiss My Face ("Paraben Free” series)
6. Neutrogena (Sensitive Skin Sunblock)
7. Olay Defense (Daily UV Moisturizer with zinc)
8. SkinCeuticals (Physical UV Defense)
9. Solar Sense (Clear Zinc for Face)
10. Walgreens (Zinc Oxide for Face, Nose, & Ears)

More than a million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. every year, yet it seems no one at the F.D.A. feels it necessary to set the sunscreen safety standards the agency 30 years ago that it would. Meanwhile, companies are free to claim but not provide broad spectrum protection. Until FDA requires that all sunscreens be safe and effective, I advise using the Environmental Working Group’s comprehensive sunscreen guide—including a list of 143 products that offer very good sun protection—to fill in the gaps. If you’re fed up with the F.D.A.’s negligence, click here to sign a petition being sent to Dr. Jeff Shuren, who heads up the F.D.A.’s sunscreen standard process, telling him you want safe sunscreen--and you don’t want to wait another 30 years.

The other day I was in a department store restroom, changing the diaper of my two and a half-year old. He’s big for his age, so he was sprawled out on the table, and we were chatting away, my strategy for keeping him from flailing around. A woman, most likely in her mid-60s, comes up next to me and in an exceptionally disapproving tone goes, “That boy looks old enough to be going to the bathroom on the potty!”.

Um, excuse me?

A few responses immediately came to mind:

1) “Are you (expletive deleted) kidding me? Who the (expletive deleted) do you think you are, you (expletive deleted expletive deleted)? Mind your own (expletive deleted) business!”

2) “Gee, thanks lady! I never considered that at two and a half, potty training may be something I should consider doing with my son. Thank God you suggested that to me, the reigning Dumbass Mom of the Year! I will forever be in your debt. Because of you, my child will go to college knowing how to defecate on a toilet! What would I have done if I had never met you?”

3) “Wow, I had no idea that someone who’s never met my child has a more keen awareness of his potty training readiness than I, his very own mother! Since you do, here you go! (Hands child to obnoxious lady) I’ll pick him up from you in a month once’s he’s all trained. Thanks so much - you rule!”

It’s a good thing I was in the middle of wiping his butt, because I would have loved to have said one of the above. Instead I ignored her and went about my business cleaning up my son’s business. I was, however, fuming.

No matter who they come from, unsolicited advice and/or obnoxious comments - especially when they have to do with your parenting, can be pretty infuriating. Perhaps some people are able to let it roll of their backs, but I am not one of them. Parenting is hard, and when someone questions your choices or fitness...well, that’s what we Jews call “chutzpah”: nerve. Don’t. Go. There.

So I’m asking in hopes that I can find comfort in your similar experiences....what are your worst obnoxious/unsolicited comment experiences? 

Momtourage member Amy recently sent me this article from the New York Times, which once again makes me thank God that I have two boys. Here’s the deal:

Jamie Lynn Spears, the TV actress and sister of the singer Britney Spears, sent the celebrity gossip machinery into a lather last December when, at the age of 16, she confirmed to the world that “I’m pregnant.” Today, she’s rocketing to the top of Google’s search charts with the arrival, reported initially by People magazine, of Maddie Briann, weighing in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces. (The child presumably has a surname, but it isn’t mentioned in the report.)

In the intervening months, Ms. Spears has tried to chip away at what seemed like a scandal to most people. While avoiding the paparazzi, she passed a few important milestones to adulthood: she got engaged to the young man who is reportedly the baby’s father, she passed her G.E.D. exams, she bought a home in Liberty, Miss., and she turned 17, the legal age of consent in Louisiana, where she and her family had been living.

Just when it was starting to look safe to embrace that all’s-well-that-ends-well feeling, though, a disturbing new blast of teenage pregnancy news has surfaced: a sudden baby boom among students at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts, which Time Magazine says is apparently no coincidence:

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies — more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. […] All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. “We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” the principal says, shaking his head.

Once again, the news has touched off a round of soul-searching and finger-pointing. According to the Time article, adults in Gloucester variously blame a depressed local economy, broken families, adrift children, difficult access to birth control and hit movies like “Juno” and “Knocked Up” that they say glamorize pregnancy to young audiences. Bad examples set by celebrities off-screen did not come up, though, and no one Time talked to in Gloucester seems to have mentioned the most famous teen mother of the moment.

Oh. My. God. Kinda makes me yearn for the days that the most idiotic thing American teens were doing was getting Botox and facelifts. 

As a journalist who writes “lifestyle” articles (think fashion, beauty, home, parenting, etc.), I am routinely sent information and new products from press agents and publicists, all in the hopes that I’ll report on said products, thus gaining exposure for them. This info comes through many channels - email and even snail mail sometimes, but most comes courtesy of the UPS and FedEx guys, both of whom visit me so often that we call each other by first names, trade stories about our kids, etc. I really rely on the proactive communication from publicists and press agents; without them, I would have to spend nearly every waking moment shopping and reading stuff online. Okay, so I pretty much do that anyway (when I’m not being the world’s most awesome mother, of course), but there are fantastic things and important news that I sometimes miss, and these men and women keep me from doing that.

Occasionally, however, I get a press release that’s just plane insanity, and not in a good way. Today was such an instance, when I received an email touting “The Tween Plastic Surgery Craze”.

What? The tween plastic surgery craze? Like, kids ages 8-12? For the love of God......

Here’s what it said (cut and pasted from the email I received):

Hi Chelsea,

What is the appropriate age to have plastic surgery? Why are so many teens coming in requesting procedures? Are they being teased at school? Is it peer pressure? More and more teens are having plastic surgery at a younger age to achieve that perfect nose, those perfect boobs, or that idea(sic) chin.

With rumors flying that celebs like Ashley Tisdale and Ashley(sic) Simpson have gotten facial plastic surgery makeovers, many teen girls see transformation and want similar results. According to the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, cosmetic ear surgery or otoplasty was the most popular cosmetic procedure among teens in 2007.

“I generally won’t operate on a patient under age 18 unless there is an obvious deformity needing correction. One that if I didn’t fix, may leave psychological scars on the patient,” says Dr. Garth Fisher, board certified Beverly Hills plastic and reconstructive surgeon.

According to Dr. Fisher, the top 10 procedures requested by teens include:

1. Otoplasty
2. Rhinoplasty
3. Breast Augmentation
4. Breast Reduction
5. Liposuction
6. Facelifts
7. Cheek Inplants(sic)
8. Chin Augmentation
9. Botox
10. Laser Application

So, in the release, “teens” and not “tweens” are referenced, so I’m not totally getting the release’s title, but whatever - it’s still nuts. OK, I get nose jobs and otoplasty (getting your ears pinned back), but there are teens/tweens getting facelifts and Botox? What? Have any of you heard of this ridiculousness actually happening?

There are far too many examples I’ve been receiving lately that make me seriously question the mental fitness of my countrypeople. I wanna feel proud of this beautiful land, but damn, when I read things like the fact that 13% of registered voters believe Barack Obama is Muslim (even in the wake of this Reverend Wright silliness? Who are these people?) or witness talentless, perpetually stoned warbler Jason Castro propel to the #3 spot on “American Idol”, I get very sad. And angry.

Nothing, however, perplexes me quite like the emails I receive when I have an article up on MSN.com. As most of you who read this blog know, I am a freelance writer, and often, I pen dating and relationships-oriented articles for MSN.com’s “dating and personals” section. Most of these articles focus on a particular dating topic like “dating after divorce” or “how to get over your fear of first dates”, and are written in a question and answer style, with my interviewing an author or professional who lends his or her thoughts/professional advice on the topic.

It is ABUNDANTLY clear - if you actually read the articles, that is - that the opinions expressed in said articles are those of the experts, and that I’m merely the interviewer/transcriber. However, there are lots of folks out there who don’t quite comprehend that, and this baffles me, much in the way Paris Hilton’s celebrity or the popularity of the WWF does.

Each time one of my articles goes up, I get countless emails from nutjobs across the country who have found fault with what “I” have to say on each subject. I won’t even get into how frightening I find people who actually take the dating and relationships pieces I write MSN.com seriously enough to track down my email address, much less write me with their thoughts, but what really strikes me is how it seems most people don’t understand how a question and answer exchange works, and the difference between one who “questions” and one who “answers”. I mean, am I the idiot here, or is this a concept one learns in elementary school?

For the past couple of days, I have had a piece up on the site called “How to win over a bad boy”. For this piece, I interviewed and quoted Lauren Frances, celebrity love coach and author of Dating, Mating and Manhandling: The Ornithological Guide to Men. While your average 4th grader could figure out after reading the article’s intro that the opinions listed next to each “A:” section are her answers, all sorts of wackos don’t, and email me their irate comments.

Here’s a sampling of some I have received today (some of which were actually posted to the blog, as it’s listed in my byline):

“Just read the stupid Bad Boy article on MSN. God you’re an idiot. Why the f**k are you wasting space like you are? I hope you’re kids are smarter than you - we don’t need any more dips**ts sucking down what clean air is left.”

I love how that person called me an idiot, yet is unaware of how to correctly use “your” and “you’re”.  And such rage over a dating article on MSN.com. And I’m the dips**t sucking down what clean air is left? Discuss.

“I have been a frequent reader of your articles that appear on the front page of msn.com. I hope you are able to handle constructive criticism because I have plenty of it for you. Just when I think you were incapable of writing something more moranic than the day before, you do. You suprise me once again with your article about winning over a bad boy. What do you hope to accomplish by these articles? If you are trying to come across as a secularist, libretarian, atheist, pagan, individualistist, hedonist pig, then you more than surpass that title. You seem to be encouraging women and men to have fun at all cost. Do you believe that hopping from bed to bed will somehow make things better for people and not worse? In any relationship emotions are invloved. No matter how hard you try to keep things “fun”, you are really leading people down a road of misery and heartache with your senseless babbling articles which will have an adverse effect on many of your readers. Your endless attempts at comedic humor are an insult to people with a brain. As a Catholic, I am offended by your writing and I insist you stop encouraging sexual promiscuity in your articles. The lives you damage by your articles will be on your conscience and you will be called to account for it. Perhaps if you yourself were on the recieving end of one of these “relationships” that ended with heatache and pain, you would learn sooner or later that its not all about “fun.” Perhaps you should investigate the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality and the sacredness of the human body. Specifically the Theology of the Body written by Pope John Paul II. Here you will find the true value of the human person instead of making people sexual toys. In closing, I believe your writing needs to change. You need to find ways of focusing on helping people instead of focusing on perverted desires.”

I’m not even sure where to begin with that one, but that spelling-challenged gentleman writes me all the time, calling me a pervert, moron and, my personal favorite, “hedonist pig”. How very “Catholic” of him! Uh, dude...the last time I checked, Jesus wasn’t so into name-calling...

“Chelsea-

You know really nothing of bad boys...

I’m a bad boy and you have us figured out only just a little bit, But nice try kid!!

If I caught you, I bet I could make you love me & do everything I want,even something you said you never would do. But I’ve got what I want, cause that what every smart bad boy is doing , working on finding what he really wants and then when he get that he makes the right moves to get & keep it...So anyway...keep taken those lessons wherever you are getting them, but get some more tutoring from a bad bay, before you talk about them. Cause there are women out there who are gonna take your advice and end up getting hurt emotionally. cause a bad boy is still a bad boy for life.He just always play it smarter than the average male,cause to him it’s strategy,from beginning to end,for life.”

Abundant grammar and spelling mistakes aside, what I like most about that one is his “knowledge” of me.  And the bold text added nice emphasis - thanks!

“I normally don’t comment on anything that I read, but I felt compelled to do so from this article that was written from extreme arrogance and ignorance, obviously from a woman who is bitter and inexperienced...I have slept with many (beautiful) women who were absolutely drop dead gorgeous and never 1 time even complimented them on their looks and treated them like dirt. In fact, I found out later that the reason I ended up with them was because I never did compliment them or treat them well at all and they wanted to ‘conquer’ me to change that. It never worked and I saw them again...until I became bored and broke it off.”

I love how this gentleman boasts of his “many (beautiful)” conquests and demeaning treatment of them, yet bashes “my” take on bad boys. He also goes on to list his MySpace page - seriously, who has a MySpace page anymore ? It’s hilarious - check out his identifying photo. Classy.

I’m all for spirited discourse and even criticism of my work, but seriously, people, if you’re gonna write to me about my articles, try reading them first, ok?

Labels: in the news, interesting articles, rants

One more reason to love the city of Philadelphia:

As reported in today’s New York times, for the past three years, the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America has resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people.  The city threatened that if the Philly Scouts Council did not change their policies, the city would evict the group from a municipal (read: taxpayer dollar-funded) building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928.

Philly officials said they have a duty to defend civil rights and an obligation to abide by a local law that bars taxpayer support for any group that discriminates. The Boy Scouts argued with this, saying they had a right to preserve their culture and deserved the protection of the right of private organizations to remain exclusive and have traditions like requiring members to swear an oath of duty to God and prohibiting membership by anyone who is openly homosexual.

This week, the Philly city council made the decision to boot the Scouts out.

Here’s why I think Philadelphia rules: Under federal law, various forms of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nation origin and sex are illegal.  Sadly, however, according to federal law, sexual orientation is not a basis of discrimination that is illegal. In the city ordinances of Philadelphia, however, it is. Just like it should be nationwide.

Because the Boy Scouts are a private institution, they absolutely have every right in the world to have the policies they do - like ‘em or not. I’ll go ahead and register my opinion on said policies, however: Their (essentially Christian) religious leanings don’t bother me - if you are cool with pledging and oath to God, by all means, join. If you’re an atheist, don’t. I think their policies regarding homosexuality, however, are nauseating. Whether you believe homosexuality is fine or reprehensible, discrimination is discrimination, and in my opinion, discrimination is flat-out wrong (and, if I remember correctly, the last time I read passages from the New Testament, Jesus preached love and acceptance of all people).

The policies of the Boy Scouts bother me so much that unless they change them, I refuse to let my son ever be a Boy Scout. It’s sad, actually, because I’m sure the Boy Scouts stand for and teach all sorts of cool values and skills - ones I am sure my son would benefit from learning.  I feel the organization’s ridiculously small-minded beliefs trump all its good ones, however, and I don’t want my son or family to be affiliated with such an unapologetically prejudiced institution. How is banning membership to all openly gay people different than banning membership to all openly Jewish people, or people of any faith? In my opinion, sending my son to join the Boy Scouts is not too different than sending him to join the KKK or some Neo-Nazi group. When you boil it down, they all preach a form of hate. Though some clearly do it more overtly than others, preaching hate is preaching hate.

Boo Boy Scouts and bravo, Philadelphia. The City of Brotherly Love, indeed.

Mothers of boys (or mothers in general): In light of these policies, would you let you son join the Boy Scouts? Why or why not?

I’m not sure what is up with the latest trend in celebrity pregnancy denial. What I am sure about, however, is that it annoys the crap out of me.

First there was Christina Aguilera, who despite an ever-expanding belly (and even more significantly ever-expanding boobs - have you SEEN those things lately?) and a public “outing” by the loathsome Paris Hilton, did not confirm until Sunday that she was pregnant. She looks about 6 months along.

The latest in those denying bun in the oven is Jennifer Lopez. Once she began rocking all sorts of empire-waisted ensembles that covered not only her belly but also the motor in the back of her Honda, people started suspecting something was up. Once photos of an obvious belly bump surfaced, and Roberto Cavalli, the designer responsible for her tour costumes confirmed her pregnancy, one would have assumed she’d come out with it.  Even after Us Weekly ran a cover screaming “Yes, she’s pregnant!”, inside which the corresponding article suggested her own mother was roaming around town telling everyone it’s twins, no revelation occurred.

I totally get that deciding when to reveal your pregnancy is a very personal decision. Some come right out with it the minute they get 2 pink lines on their pregnancy test stick. Others wait until they’re past a certain gestation timeline before revealing to others that they’re pregnant. Either way is cool with me. Do what you (and your partner) gotta do.

What I don’t get, however, is the intelligence-insulting denial of the utterly, ridiculously obvious - especially when it seems everyone pretty much knows the truth. The argument that these ladies wish for a little privacy is downright hilarious to me. Are people honestly suggesting that Aguilera and Lopez, “vocalists” who dressed their barely legal selves up in leather assless chaps and writhed to a song called ”Dirrrty” and wore a see-through Versace scarf dress cut down to her hoo-hoo to an awards show, respectively, want privacy? “No, no,” some have said, “that is their job, this is their life." Really? If these two women hold the “intimate” details of their personal lives sacred, why then, did both make hugely public affairs of their engagements and weddings? Honestly, when it comes to publicity-seeking starlets, these two chicks are some of Hollywood’s prime examples. It just doesn’t compute.

The best hypothesis I can come up as to why these ladies kept and/or are keeping their mouths shut is that it’s yet another way to stay in the headlines. Even that’s not a good explanation, though, because the media is eagerly trailing the heels of Halle Berry, who has been more than public about her pregnancy. In fact, she’s getting more press than ever before.

Therefore, I’ve decided that what must be going on is that these women are total morons who think the American public - or anyone interested enough in what’s going on with them - are total morons. Who’s the biggest moron of all, however? Me, for writing about them.

Sucker.

OK, I am just going to come out and say it: Nicole Richie’s pregnancy makes me livid.

LIVID.

As someone who struggled with fertility challenges before getting pregnant (thanks to the help of all sorts of drugs, needles, doctors and, ultimately, IVF), I take getting pregnant very seriously. It’s a terrible feeling, wanting a baby when you’re a healthy, financially secure adult who loves your husband and is ready to create a loving family. All of these reasons, combined with the reality that as a woman, you aren’t able to do the one thing you were placed on this planet to do, make for a gut-wrenching sadness. And seeing others around you who get pregnant in a snap - especially those who aren’t in what you would consider similarly “appropriate” situations? It’s infuriating, frustrating and depressing. Because the first time took me a lot of work, and it’s pretty certain that following time(s) will too, I will always envy people who are fortunate enough to get pregnant the old-fashioned way. They really don’t know how lucky they are, and I can’t even begin to tell you how much it hurts when they take it for granted, especially around those of us for whom it will never be that easy. Granted, while I hope this is the worst thing I will ever have to endure in my life, I don’t wish it on anyone.

I remember right before I got pregnant with my son, Britney Spears got pregnant with her first kid. I had been through 6 months of unsuccessful fertility treatments, which isn’t really that long in the grand scheme of all things infertility-oriented, yet it had taken its toll on me; I was nearly at the end of my emotional rope. It was bad enough that I was surrounded by pregnant gals at work - one of whom was in a totally weirdo relationship - but Britney? All of 22 and married to Vanilla Ice 2.0? What the fuck?????? Was the world just playing some horrible cruel “gotcha” joke on me?

When you go through crap like this, all sorts of other fertility-challenged gals come out of the woodwork, and you all become friends. Perhaps it’s because you’re all united in your struggle, but it’s more likely that it’s because no one - no matter how wonderful or empathetic a friend or family member - can understand why the idea of Britney pregnant - or anyone else, for that matter - is enough to make you run down the street screaming. I remember my friend S., who had a baby girl after her 2nd IVF, said that she used to hate seeing pregnant girls or women with babies stroll their kids down the street where she lived in New York. It made her want to scream, cry and ball up in a fetal position right in the middle of 3rd Ave. After she got pregnant, she wanted to make a shirt she could wear that said “Really, I had IVF to get pregnant”, just to give moms who were once in her situation some hope. “You only see the pregnant women,” she said. “You never see the ones trying.” It’s so true.

You would think that once you have a child, or even two or three, those feelings would go away. Well, they don’t, and it’s not just me. Now that a lot of my fertility-challenged friends and I are thinking about or even engaged in round 2, each one has confessed to me that to some degree, those old feelings come creeping back. I guess it was silly for me to think that they wouldn’t. Emotions are never rational, and they’re always powerful.

So, for me to have another kid, I’m probably going to have to go through a frozen egg transfer. Essentially, this means I will have to contact the NYC fertility clinic I last visited and arrange for a bodily-tissue courier service (oh yes, those exist) to transport the 3 frozen embryos I have left over from my previous IVF cycle to the DC-area where I now reside.  After they arrive (and let me tell you, the legal paperwork involved in said transfer is serious), I’ll have to begin a 6-week uterus-readying cycle of injections and pills. Assuming the embryos survive the thaw, which is in no way certain, they’ll implant two or so back inside me, and hopefully, they’ll “take” (actually, hopefully only one will, because the thought of twins is truly scary). Assuming one does, and there’s actually only like a 30% chance of that happening, which isn’t terrific, I have to receive progesterone shots for like 10 weeks following. Not sure if you’re familiar with that protocol, but it involves getting a foot-long needle loaded with a thick, oily substance jammed in your upper hip/ass daily. Nice. And if it doesn’t work? You have to start fresh again, which is about another 8 week period filled with much of the same, adding in a surgery. Not exactly a romantic dinner, wine and sex with your beloved, huh?

Needless to say, as much as I know I want another baby at some point, the thought of going through this again is depressing, to say the least. I guess it’s been on my mind a lot more recently, as my son will be 2 in October, and it seems sort of “time”. Because it is, this Nicole thing is really throwing me for a loop. Here’s a barely 85 pound former (?) heroin addict who is due in court on July 11 to answer DUI charges stemming from her December 2006 arrest. If found guilty, she faces 90 days to one year in jail because of a previous DUI conviction in 2003. This woman, one whose career involves starring on a television show celebrating her overprivileged brattiness and rudeness, and who has hopped from bed to bed of Hollywood’s lamest and baddest boys, has been awarded with seamless conception? SHE gets pregnant? In a snap? And I have to arrange for a frozen tissue courier service to transport the frozen popsicle babies that may or may not survive the unfreezing process, stick to my uterus and stay with me for 9 months? Are you there God, it’s me, Chelsea, and I need to know, are you f’ing kidding me???

It’s hard enough when dear friends of mine get pregnant. I am happy for them, but I gotta tell you, with the exception of the ones who had to go through fertility treatments (they earned it!), it stings. People like Nicole Richie, though....it’s enough to send me through the roof.

I’m done now.