Buying More Time as a Woman:
The Cost of Motherhood
Thanks to the rapid growth of modern technology, women who have missed their window of opportunity may still have a shot at being a mother, but it comes with a price—an unbelievably high one, too. The reproductive technology industry has developed into a million dollar industry filled with desperate mothers and couples pouring in their life earnings to buy their way into parenting. In particular, procedures like IVFs and IUIs are not only highly unaffordable but come with many unknown risks for both the mother and the child. Fertility doctors, eager to claim their share of the revenue, are also encouraging of these procedures and are not always the most informative about their complications and potential risks. Moreover, as we have learned from Hewlett thus far, women’s biological limitations force them to choose between motherhood, marriage, and a career. If these women really want to be mothers, reproductive technology seems to be the only alternative in sight.
In both Saul’s articles, she highlights the downside to these sorts of alternatives to childbearing. The first article begins with the case of the Mastera family, one of many that started with couples trying to conceive for years and finally resorting to reproductive technology to up their chances. The Masteras were no different; they had been trying for two years and attempted four intrauterine insemination procedures—exhausting 23 percent of their income in that year. Then, they turned to IVF, which was very successful in impregnating the couple. When they ended up with a set of twin boys, however, the Masteras did not anticipate the even larger medical bills that followed. From birth, the boys had to be kept in neonatal intensive care until they were ready to be sent home. All the treatments, procedures, and hospital bills exceeded $1.2 million by the time the twins were healthy enough to join the couple at home. The experience of the Masteras thus demonstrates that high success and a high price come hand in hand. Moreover, upon further investigating the fertility industry Saul found that IVF has proven to be one of the more successful procedures, but a remaining issue is that an increasing number of newborns today are twins. Newborn twins carry a special set of risks that are often overlooked due to couples’ desire to be parents, as Saul discovered that 60 percent of newborn twins are born prematurely. Premature newborns face an increased chance of death in their first living days and could experience other problems like “mental retardation, eye and ear impairments and learning disabilities” (Saul).
Additionally, women bearing twins are also more prone to pregnancy complications, not to mention premature care for infants is its own set of expenses. More importantly, fertility doctors often “ignore their industry’s own guidelines” by gambling their chances with patients to use two rather than one embryo in their procedures. Without being aware of the exact risks and driven by the overwhelming desire to have children, couples also overlook the potential risks of procedures like IVF. More often than not, couples’ financial constraints impair their judgment; they will want to increase their chances by implanting two embryos. It turns out most aspiring parents are likely to combine several methods to increase the women’s fertility. Saul’s second piece explores these procedures and their risks of multiple births more in-depth. Typically, a fertility doctor will try prescribing fertility pills first, then IUIs with hormone injections, and finally IVFs as a last attempt. Compared to IVF, IUI procedures are used more frequently because it is cheaper, less invasive and more likely to be covered by insurance plans. However, the rate of success is also much lower. Most importantly, IUIs result in more multiple births than IVFs, and we know that more babies mean greater risks.
Similarly, Hewlett builds on the topic of infertility in this week’s chapters focusing on the empty promise of various reproductive technologies. From the accounts of the women in the study, many suffered pregnancy complications and gave birth to children with increased chances of Down’s syndrome, autism, and asthma, to name a few. In the end, Hewlett combines a “wish list” compiled from her research surveys and what she advocates into a list of policy options that would make motherhood more feasible for women pursuing a career. Finally, Hewlett leaves us with a compiled list of advice and tips that every high-achieving woman should bear in mind if they aspire to be mothers someday.
In another light, Seabrook’s article about international adoption, otherwise referred to as “babylifts,” examines another aspect of motherhood. When women really have run out of options (and money), adopting across borders might be their last shot at starting a family. Seabrook starts by tracing the history of babylifts during wartimes when orphan rescue missions gained momentum in the wake of military conflicts. Holt International was one of the first established agencies to bring Korean babies to the U.S. for adoption. International adoption industries have since grown into a multi-billion dollar industry pairing children with eager parents. Seabrook also noted that a few sending nations have cut back in the 2000s because of the ongoing debate of what constitutes an ethical adoption.
Ultimately, I think this evidence and findings bring us back to our original question: How can high-achieving women manage it all? Modern reproductive technology offers a glimpse of hope for so many women today, especially women who are increasingly likely to delay their adulthoods. Yet, maybe it is as Hewlett puts it. Perhaps these alternatives to motherhood are in fact “empty promises”. The unfortunate reality is that a woman’s small window of opportunity in their lifetime to have children is going remain the same. She’s going to be born with a limited number of eggs, but if she’s run out because she chose to pursue a career—maybe someone else can have her children for her. The focus here then shifts to seeking out male sperm donors or surrogate mothers, others that have a greater chance, to have the children they want. The idea of surrogacy as an emerging industry is absolutely and will forever remain to me a bizarre concept. It is a strange form of reproduction to me, but that does not mean I am against or unsupportive of it at all. Of course, I agree surrogate mothers are commendable for doing other women a great favor, and it’s practically a win-win situation for both ends. What is there to lose when there is a baby on one end of the deal and money on the other?
More importantly, I continue to find it such an unnatural concept of childbearing, which it is, that something larger stands out to me: a widening inequality gap. We’ve discussed a great deal about the rising trends of teenage pregnancies and motherhood and that lower SES individuals make up these general statistics. This has led me to question why that may be and consider that perhaps having children at a young age may be the only time they can (literally) afford to. Middle class families usually featured in the news with their success stories of a new family struggle to cover the expenses of various treatments, procedures, follow-up care, and payment for surrogates. One case in point is the million-dollar medical bills for the Mastera twins Saul investigated. The lower class, therefore, could never stand a chance in even coming close to making an offer for, say, a pretty, intelligent surrogate mother ideal for their child. One agency, Surrogate Mothers, Inc., estimates that the average total cost is somewhere around $50,000-60,000 plus another $35,000 for other miscellaneous expenses. Pocket change. And what if your insurance doesn’t cover it? Regardless, this is clearly not a feasible alternative to childbearing for poor mothers, which further reflects the urgent need for social policy that aids women wanting to be mothers in conditions of poverty.