Every day, women in Texas, Idaho, and other restrictive states face the same nightmare: a wanted pregnancy goes wrong, doctors hesitate, and by the time they are allowed to act, infection or hemorrhage has already taken hold. These women are not dying because medicine has failed them. They are dying because the law forbids doctors from doing what they know is right.

And while this happens, the very medical societies that claim to represent these physicians hold their conferences, fundraisers, and board meetings in those same states. Some even keep their headquarters there. The symbolism is impossible to ignore: our institutions are thriving in the same places where their patients are suffering.

The Ethics of Geography

Texas is a case study. Its abortion ban has already driven obstetricians out, closed maternity wards, and caused preventable deaths. Yet major national medical organizations continue to meet there, dine there, and thank local officials for hosting them. They talk about “advocacy,” but their physical presence lends legitimacy to a system that endangers women and criminalizes doctors.

A headquarters is not neutral. It is a statement of alignment. When a society rooted in evidence-based medicine plants itself in a state that outlaws that same evidence, it undermines its credibility. It tells its members: we’ll defend your ethics from afar, but we’ll enjoy the hospitality of those who deny them.

Share

The Quietness

Many societies say they “stand with patients” while issuing cautious, lawyer-reviewed statements that offend no one and protect nothing. They call for “further study” of laws that have already caused deaths. They avoid using the word “abortion” in official publications, replacing it with phrases like “pregnancy termination.”

This is not diplomacy.

History will not remember the tone of their statements. It will remember the women who died while their professional defenders stayed comfortable.

What Leadership Looks Like

Real leadership in medicine means taking risks for patients, not for public relations. It means refusing to hold meetings in states where the law criminalizes standard care. It means relocating headquarters if necessary, the way organizations once boycotted states that violated civil rights. It means turning polite support into visible solidarity.

Some will say this is “too political.” But so was washing your hands in Semmelweis’s time. So was fighting for contraception and racial equality in hospitals. Ethics becomes political whenever law turns unjust.

What Our Societies Could—and Must—Do

They could publish and maintain a public list of women harmed or killed by abortion bans, with verified cases drawn from public health data and investigations. Not as propaganda, but as remembrance and accountability. Every woman lost should have a name, a face, and a date. Numbers move minds, but names move consciences.

They could maintain a companion list of hospitals where physicians have been disciplined or threatened for providing standard care.
They could establish legal-defense funds for clinicians prosecuted under abortion bans.
They could commit to hosting conferences only in states where reproductive care is lawful.
They could move their headquarters out of states that criminalize their own members.
And most of all, they could name—not hint at—the laws that kill.

Subscribe now

The Moral Math

Every time a society chooses Texas or Florida or Idaho as a venue, it sends money, visibility, and legitimacy to states that have chosen ideology over women’s lives. Each banquet, photo-op, and ribbon-cutting takes place under laws that force doctors to wait until a woman is near death before acting.

That is not neutrality. That is endorsement by silence.

Reflection / Closing

Physicians across the country are showing moral courage—treating when the law says wait, speaking out when silence feels safer. Our societies owe them the same.

Ethical leadership is not measured by how carefully one avoids controversy. It is measured by how clearly one names harm and how boldly one refuses to stand on its soil.

If our medical institutions truly believe that abortion is health care, then they must stop holding meetings—and their moral ground—in states where medicine itself is under attack. And they must bear public witness to every woman who suffered because they didn’t speak loudly enough, soon enough, or often enough.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly claimed in mid-2025 that antidepressant use in pregnancy causes autism, he wasn’t just spreading misinformation. He was undermining one of medicine’s most important principles: that risk must be measured, not imagined. His statements ignored decades of data and contradicted the consensus of ACOG and others—that the benefits of treating moderate to severe depression during pregnancy often outweigh the potential risks. The challenge is not choosing sides between fear and overconfidence. It’s learning how to balance them.

What SSRIs and SNRIs Actually Are

SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and SNRIs (serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) are the most studied psychiatric medications in pregnancy. Introduced in the 1980s with fluoxetine (Prozac), these agents increase neurotransmitters that regulate mood. Common SSRIs include fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine. SNRIs like venlafaxine and duloxetine affect both serotonin and norepinephrine.

Over 30 years of research, including large registry studies from the U.S., Denmark, and the U.K., have shown that most SSRIs are not linked to major congenital malformations. Some small associations—like paroxetine and certain cardiac defects—exist, but absolute risks remain low. The most common neonatal effect, transient adaptation syndrome, resolves spontaneously within days. These findings have placed SSRIs among the most evidence-supported medications used in pregnancy.

But data are not the whole story. The question is not only whether SSRIs are “safe,” but whether ObGyns should be the ones to initiate them.

Share

The Evidence and the Risks

Untreated maternal depression and anxiety carry well-established dangers: increased risk of suicide, preterm birth, preeclampsia, low birth weight, and postpartum depression. Yet medications also have potential downsides—neonatal adaptation symptoms in about 25–30% of late-exposed infants, a very small possible association with persistent pulmonary hypertension, and a modestly higher cardiac-defect risk with paroxetine.

ACOG’s 2023 guideline emphasizes balance:

“The use of SSRIs or SNRIs during pregnancy should be individualized, weighing the benefits of treatment for the mother against potential risks for the fetus. Untreated maternal depression carries significant risk to both.”

That is not a license to prescribe freely. It is a reminder to evaluate deliberately.

When Obstetricians May Consider Initiating SSRIs

In some cases, obstetricians may appropriately initiate SSRI treatment for mild to moderate depression or anxiety, particularly when psychiatric access is limited. However, this decision should always involve collaboration with a mental health specialist and shared decision-making with the patient.

Factors supporting obstetrician-initiated SSRI treatment:

• Frontline access: OB-GYNs are often the first—and sometimes the only—healthcare providers to screen pregnant women for depression or anxiety. Early treatment can prevent worsening illness.

• Established standard of care: ACOG supports the role of ObGyns in initiating treatment when needed, provided systems exist for referral and follow-up.

• Continuity of stable therapy: If a woman is already well controlled on an SSRI before pregnancy, continuing the same medication is usually preferred over switching or stopping.

• Safety profile: Most SSRIs, especially sertraline, have reassuring safety data when used appropriately.

  Subscribe now

Even so, “can” does not always mean “should.” Obstetricians occupy a crucial but limited role: we recognize illness, initiate temporary care if necessary, and connect patients to psychiatric management for ongoing treatment.

When to Refer to a Mental Health Specialist

Referral or co-management with a psychiatrist or psychologist is strongly advised in these situations:

• Severe or complex illness: Major depressive episodes with suicidality, bipolar disorder, psychosis, or OCD.

• Lack of response: Failure to improve after an adequate trial or presence of side effects requiring dose adjustments or medication changes.

• Need for psychotherapy: Cognitive behavioral or interpersonal therapy is first-line for many mild and moderate cases and should complement pharmacologic care.

• Diagnostic uncertainty: Overlapping or unclear psychiatric presentations.

• Consultation model: In collaborative care, the ObGyn serves as the primary contact while a psychiatrist provides oversight and treatment guidance.

This model keeps obstetricians within professional scope while ensuring patients receive expert mental health care.

Why Boundaries Matter

Starting an SSRI seems simple: write a prescription and follow up. But that simplicity is deceptive. Psychiatric diagnosis requires nuance—distinguishing major depression from bipolar disorder, anxiety from trauma, despair from adjustment. Missteps can cause harm, including medication-induced mania or undertreatment of serious psychiatric disease.

Obstetricians receive limited psychiatric training. We manage hypertension, diabetes, and hemorrhage expertly, but not complex psychopharmacology.

Professionalism means knowing when our reach should stop. Continuing a patient’s pre-existing SSRI? Yes. Managing her therapy in consultation with a psychiatrist? Appropriate. But initiating long-term antidepressant therapy without collaboration crosses a professional boundary.

Weighing Risks and Benefits

Every decision must be individualized:

Risks of untreated depression:

• Suicide and self-harm

• Preterm birth and low birth weight

• Preeclampsia

• Impaired bonding and increased postpartum depression

Potential risks of SSRI use:

• Neonatal adaptation syndrome (NAS): 25–30% of late-exposed infants, mild and transient

• Persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN): Rare, <1%, likely multifactorial

• Paroxetine: Slightly higher risk of cardiac defects; sertraline preferred

The risk-benefit discussion should be explicit, documented, and revisited as pregnancy progresses.

The Ethical Core

The debate about SSRIs is ultimately a debate about trust. Patients trust us to tell them the truth, not to minimize risk or exaggerate it. Kennedy’s falsehoods exploit public fear; uncritical prescribing exploits clinical shortcuts. Both betray that trust.

Ethical practice lies between the two extremes: recognize illness early, provide accurate information, initiate only when appropriate, and partner with psychiatry whenever possible.

Reflection / Closing:
Obstetricians should remain the first eyes, not the final hands, in managing perinatal mental illness. The pen that writes the prescription carries both power and responsibility. Using it wisely means knowing when to put it down—and when to call for help.

A woman goes into labor in a rural county.

The nearest hospital that still delivers babies is 90 minutes away, because the one in her town closed its maternity ward two years ago.

She makes the drive. Most times it ends fine.

Sometimes it does not. This is no longer a rare story. It is the map of American maternity care.

In 2023, 669 women died from causes tied to pregnancy in the United States. That is a rate of 18.6 deaths for every 100,000 births. It is better than the year before, and still worse than almost every other wealthy country. Most of them sit between 3 and 7 deaths per 100,000. We are two to five times higher — and we spend more per person on health care than anyone on earth.

The deaths are not spread evenly. For Black women the rate was 50.3 per 100,000. For white women it was 14.5. Same country, same year, a gap of more than three to one.

Subscribe now

The easy explanation is racism. Racism is real. But it is not the main lever here, and treating it as the only cause lets the real problem hide. The real problem is money. Medicaid pays hospitals and doctors about half what private insurance pays for the same birth. When a service loses money, hospitals stop offering it — and maternity is usually first to go. So the women with public insurance, who are more likely to be Black and more likely to be rural, lose access first. In countries with universal coverage, where that payment gap does not exist, the racial gap in maternal deaths largely disappears. That tells you what is actually driving it.

Maternity care deserts continue to expand across the United States, leaving many pregnant patients to travel long distances or deliver without timely access to obstetric services. Hospital closures disproportionately affect rural communities, where loss of local labor and delivery units can delay emergency care and worsen maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The closures are speeding up. Since the end of 2020, 139 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies — about two a month. More than a third of all US counties are now maternity care deserts: 1,104 counties with no hospital, no birth center, and no obstetric provider. About 2.3 million women of childbearing age live in them.

Hospitals do not close maternity wards out of cruelty. A labor and delivery unit runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, whether it delivers 400 babies a year or 40. At low volume, the payments do not cover the cost of simply being ready. So the doors close.

Here is the part that should make you angry. Keeping every financially at-risk rural hospital in America open — all services, maternity included — costs about $6 billion a year. That is one-tenth of one percent of what the country spends on health care. We are choosing not to spend it.

Now look at what we did choose.

Read that last line again. Spread over 20 years, $150 billion is $7.5 billion a year, or if invested in Treasuries at 4% it’s $6 Billion a year.

More than enough to keep every at-risk rural hospital open the entire time, reopen the maternity wards that already closed, and still have money left over to start closing the payment gap that drives the deaths in the first place.

For a woman in a rural county, this is not abstract. It is the difference between a 10-minute drive and a 90-minute one when her labor goes wrong. In obstetrics, distance kills. The math above is measured in minutes on a dark highway.

Share

My Take

We are not a poor country that cannot afford to keep mothers alive.

We are a rich country that decided mothers are not the priority.

When we want $150 billion for a war or for enforcement, we find it in weeks.

When mothers need $6 billion a year to keep the lights on in the hospital where they deliver, we are told it is not in the budget.

That is not an economics problem.

It is a values problem.

A budget is not a spreadshee, it is a moral document. It is where a country writes down, in numbers, who it is willing to protect.

Fixing this does not take a miracle. Pay for maternity care the way we pay for a fire department: you fund it to be ready, not per fire. Close the Medicaid payment gap so a hospital is not punished for taking a woman with public insurance. Both are affordable. Both are choices we keep refusing to make.

The next time someone tells you the country cannot afford to keep mothers safe, ask them to explain the $150 billion. The money exists. The will does not.

If this made you think, subscribe. It is free, and the evidence here is better than what you will get from the people who found the money for everything except mothers.

References

1. National Center for Health Statistics. Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 2023 [Internet]. Hyattsville (MD): NCHS; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2023/maternal-mortality-rates-2023.htm

2. March of Dimes. Nowhere to go: maternity care deserts across the US (2024 report) [Internet]. Arlington (VA): March of Dimes; 2024 [cited 2026 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.marchofdimes.org/maternity-care-deserts-report

3. Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. Stopping the loss of rural maternity care [Internet]. CHQPR; [cited 2026 Jul 22]. Available from: https://ruralhospitals.chqpr.org/Maternity_Care.html

4. Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. Rural hospitals at risk of closing [Internet]. CHQPR; [cited 2026 Jul 22]. Available from: https://chqpr.org/downloads/Rural_Hospitals_at_Risk_of_Closing.pdf

5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditure data: historical [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): CMS; [cited 2026 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/historical

6. Hegseth says Iran war has cost $37.5 billion. Bloomberg. 2026 Jul 21 [cited 2026 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-21/hegseth-says-iran-war-has-cost-37-5-billion

7. What’s in the $70 billion bill funding immigration enforcement. Time. 2026 Jun 10 [cited 2026 Jul 22]. Available from: https://time.com/article/2026/06/10/house-passes-secure-america-act-senate-reconciliation-bill-funding-immigration-enforcement-trump/

Peptides in Women’s Health · Bonus Part

The patient-facing close: what an ObGyn wants every woman to understand about peptides, including the parts a general explainer leaves out.

When a major medical group recently published a patient guide to injectable peptides, the physician answering the questions was a sports medicine doctor.¹

His advice was sound.

But he is not the doctor a pregnant woman, a woman trying to conceive, or a woman in menopause needs to hear from.

That is my chair, and the reproductive lens changes the math.

Subscribe now

Most of what you read treats peptides as a fitness and recovery topic. For women of reproductive age, they are also a pregnancy topic, a contraception topic, a fertility topic, and a menopause topic.

The same injection that is a gamble for a healthy adult becomes a gamble with a second person’s development the moment a pregnancy is possible.

So here is the conversation the way I would have it with you.

The single most useful thing you can do is stop thinking of peptides as supplements and start treating them as medications, including the weight-loss shot, the recovery peptide, and the tanning injection.

Almost every problem I see starts the same way: a peptide nobody asked about, and a patient who did not think it counted.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

Peptides in Women’s Health · Part 7 of 7

The finale: a stage-by-stage action plan, and the single question that sorts tested peptides from untested ones.

This series has walked the spectrum of peptides in women’s health, from the oxytocin in the delivery room to the wellness injection sold online.

This next to last post turns all of it into something you can use: a plan for each stage of reproductive life, and one question to ask at every visit.

The organizing idea is simple.

There are peptides that have been tested in women like you, and peptides that have not.

The tested ones have labels, trials, and known risks.

The untested ones have marketing.

Your job is not to memorize the science.

It is to know which side of that line a given product sits on, and to act accordingly.

The single most useful change a woman can make is to treat every injectable, including weight-loss shots and peptide therapy, as a medication that belongs on her history. The gaps in care this series has described almost all start the same way: a peptide the clinician never asked about, and the patient never thought to mention.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

The least-proven end of the spectrum: the compounded and research-peptide market, and why the absence of a rule is not evidence of safety.

In 2025 the legal pathway that built the compounded GLP-1 industry began to close, and in April 2026 the FDA moved to shut it permanently.

The wider research-peptide market is next.

The reason is not only legal.

For these products, no one can reliably tell you what is in the vial.

Peptides sold outside the approved-drug system come through two side doors. One is compounding, where pharmacies mix a version of a drug. During the GLP-1 shortages, compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide were widely available. The other is the research peptide market, where products like BPC-157 are sold labeled for research use only while being marketed for people. Both bypass the testing that approved drugs go through for safety, purity, and dose.

When a product skips that testing, the patient inherits the uncertainty. Unknown purity.

Unknown dose.

Unknown contaminants.

For a healthy adult that is a gamble.

For a woman who is pregnant, trying to conceive, or breastfeeding, it is a gamble with a second person’s development on the table.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

Menopause is the clearest split in the series: tested drugs that target the brain circuit behind hot flashes, versus an untested peptide market.

Menopause has its own peptide story, and it splits cleanly in two. On one side, two new nonhormonal drugs that quiet hot flashes by targeting the brain circuit that produces them. On the other, a peptide clinic market selling injections for menopause with almost no evidence behind them. Both use the word peptide. Only one side has trials.

Hot flashes start in the brain. A cluster of neurons that helps run the body’s thermostat uses signals including a peptide called neurokinin B. As estrogen falls in menopause, those neurons fire too easily, and the result is the sudden heat and sweat that millions of women know. The new drugs do not replace a peptide. They block the receptor that the overactive signal lands on. That is pathway pharmacology, and it went through clinical trials.

A woman who cannot or does not want to take estrogen now has real nonhormonal options that work. She also faces a market that will sell her unrelated injections labeled peptide therapy for the same symptoms. The difference between the two is the difference between a tested drug and a hopeful guess, and it is worth real money and real safety.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

The most urgent peptide issue in obstetrics now, reduced to three numbers every woman on a GLP-1 should know.

Millions of women of reproductive age now take a GLP-1 drug. That makes semaglutide and tirzepatide preconception drugs, whether obstetrics planned for it or not. And the real risks around pregnancy are not the ones that make people panic.

GLP-1 drugs are not recommended during pregnancy. Animal studies suggest possible harm, and human data are still limited. So the standard advice is to stop before trying to conceive. The drug labels build in a washout window because these medications stay in the body for weeks. The catch is that fertility can return as weight drops, sometimes before a woman expects it.

Three numbers decide how this goes, and most women never hear them: how long before conception to stop the drug, whether the drug weakens the pill, and what happens to the pregnancy if the drug is stopped abruptly at the wrong moment. Get those three right and the picture is reassuring. Miss them and the avoidable problems show up.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

Fertility medicine already runs on peptides. One of them is being oversold, and the mislabel has real consequences.

Fertility medicine already runs on peptides. The drugs that suppress or trigger ovulation in IVF, the hormones that grow the eggs, the brain signal that starts the whole cycle, all peptides. So when a weight-loss peptide starts bringing back ovulation in women who were not ovulating, it gets called a fertility drug. It is not one. And that mislabel can end in a surprise pregnancy on a medication that should be stopped before conception.

Polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS, is the most common hormonal cause of infertility. Many women with PCOS carry extra weight and insulin resistance, and that combination disrupts ovulation. GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide and liraglutide lower weight and improve insulin handling. When they do, ovulation can return. That is real, and for some women it is welcome. But improving the conditions that block ovulation is not the same as a drug designed to make you pregnant.

Here is what gets lost. A woman told her PCOS makes pregnancy hard, who then starts ovulating again on a GLP-1, can conceive without expecting to, while taking a drug not recommended in pregnancy. The fertility win and the medication risk arrive together. That is the part the marketing skips.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

The Stoics had a precise name for people who apply principles only when convenient. We should use it.

“Don’t explain your philosophy. Embody it.” -- Epictetus, Discourses

A woman is hemorrhaging. Her doctor knows exactly what she needs. The government has decided she cannot have it.

Somewhere else, a parent is told: the flu shot is a personal choice now. Between you and your doctor. Your body. Your decision. Medical freedom.

Same government. Same week. Same principle -- applied to one patient, denied to another.

The Stoics called this akrasia -- acting against one’s own stated reason. But Epictetus, who began life as a slave and understood power better than most philosophers ever would, had a harsher word. He called it moral cowardice dressed in borrowed language. You do not actually believe the principle. You use it. That is the definition of hypocrisy. And hypocrisy, to a Stoic, was not a personality flaw. It was a corruption of logos -- of reason itself -- the gravest failure a thinking person could commit.

The Words They Used

Let the record be precise, because precision is what this moment requires.

In October 2025, when the CDC moved COVID-19 vaccination from a blanket recommendation to “shared clinical decision-making,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill announced it this way: “Informed consent is back.” (1)

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. followed: “Government bureaucracies should never coerce doctors or families into accepting vaccines or penalize physicians for respecting patient choice. That practice ends now.” (2)

In December 2025, the White House ordered a restructuring of the entire childhood vaccine schedule -- from 17 recommended vaccines to 11. The stated reason: empowering families and clinicians to make individualized decisions.

Medical freedom.

Patient autonomy.

Shared decision-making.

Write those words down. We will need them.

What They Actually Did

In June 2025, this same administration rescinded the federal EMTALA guidance that had told hospitals across the country what every physician already knew: when a pregnant woman arrives in your emergency room and abortion is the medically necessary treatment to save her life, you treat her. (4)

EMTALA -- the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act -- has been federal law since 1986. The Biden guidance did not invent new rights. It clarified existing law at a moment when clarification was desperately needed, because in the wake of Dobbs, physicians in states like Idaho, Texas, Arkansas, and South Dakota were watching patients deteriorate while they calculated their legal exposure.

That guidance is now gone.

What replaced it is silence. And in medicine, when the government goes silent while state laws threaten criminal prosecution for providing standard care, silence is a decision. It is a decision against the patient.

The same officials who declared “informed consent is back” have made it a crime to exercise it.

In Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, there are no meaningful health exceptions to abortion bans. A physician can watch a patient’s blood pressure climb toward stroke. She can watch a septic uterus fail to respond to antibiotics. She knows the treatment. And in those states, the government has already made the clinical decision for her. (5)

Doctors describe it now as “waiting for the patient to get sick enough.” Waiting until she crosses whatever invisible threshold might satisfy a prosecutor who was never in the room and who has never managed a hemorrhaging patient at 2 in the morning.

This is not shared clinical decision-making. This is the government making the clinical decision -- and threatening the physician with prison if she disagrees.

Marcus Aurelius on Consistency

“If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.” -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations IV.17

Marcus Aurelius wrote that in the 2nd century. He was Emperor of Rome. He had more power than any person today, and he chose to write about the discipline of consistency -- the obligation to mean what you say and to say only what you mean.

The Stoics called the alignment between word and deed homologia -- agreement, coherence, integrity in the literal sense of the word. To live with homologia was the goal of the philosophical life. To live without it was to live against nature, against reason, against everything that made human beings distinct from animals.

Patient autonomy is a real principle. Informed consent is a real principle. A principle is only a principle if it applies universally. The moment you decide it applies to flu shots but not to ectopic pregnancies, you have revealed that it was never a principle at all. It was a political instrument. And the Stoics would say you have not merely failed the patient. You have failed yourself.

The Surgeon General Nomination Explains Everything

The administration’s nominee for Surgeon General -- the nation’s doctor -- is Dr. Casey Means. She holds a medical degree from Stanford. She left her surgical residency six months before completion. Her medical license has been inactive since January 2024. She is a wellness influencer and supplement brand collaborator whose primary professional platform is social media. (6)

This is not an attack on Dr. Means. It is a statement of what this administration believes the nation’s doctor should look like.

The Surgeon General is the most visible public health communicator in America. She issues advisories. She shapes what the public believes about medicine. And this administration chose someone who has not practiced medicine in years, whose license is inactive, and whose credentials are a bestselling book and a podcast audience.

You do not nominate a practicing clinician who might apply evidence consistently. You nominate a communicator who will deliver the message you need delivered -- even when the message contradicts itself from one medical procedure to the next.

Vaccine autonomy for parents who may choose to decline. Criminal prosecution for physicians who choose to save a pregnant woman’s life. Both positions, from the same office, in the same year.

What Epictetus Would Say

“Seek not that the things which happen should happen as you wish; but wish the things which happen to be as they are, and you will have a tranquil flow of life.” -- Epictetus, Enchiridion VIII

That is not the Epictetus I want to invoke here. I want the Epictetus of the Discourses -- the former slave who had seen what it looked like when powerful people used beautiful language to justify cruelty.

He wrote that the hypocrite is the most dangerous person in any community -- not because he does evil, but because he does evil while speaking the language of good. He confuses everyone around him. He makes it harder to name what is actually happening. He borrows the moral authority of real principles and spends it on their opposite.

“First say to yourself what you would be,” Epictetus wrote, “and then do accordingly.” This administration has said what it would be. Patient choice. Medical freedom. Informed consent. It has not done accordingly. It has done the opposite, to the patients who needed those principles most.

That is not a policy difference. That is not a values disagreement. That is a failure of logos -- of reason, of consistency, of basic human integrity.

Epictetus called it exactly what it is. We should too.

What Physicians Must Understand Right Now

If you practice obstetrics in a state with a near-total abortion ban, you are operating in deliberately manufactured legal ambiguity. The federal guidance that clarified your EMTALA obligations is gone. The federal government has no current enforcement position. Your state law may expose you to criminal prosecution for providing treatment that would be standard of care in 37 other states.

That ambiguity was not an accident. It was a choice. The administration that eliminated it had the option to clarify it in the other direction. It chose not to.

Document everything. Know your hospital’s legal counsel. Know your state’s specific exceptions, narrow as they are. And know this: the physician who hesitates while a patient hemorrhages because she is calculating her legal exposure is being asked to be something no physician should ever be asked to be -- a defendant deciding whether to treat.

What Women Must Understand Right Now

The administration using the phrase “between you and your doctor” is not applying that principle to you if you are pregnant.

If you live in a state with an abortion ban and you develop a life-threatening complication of pregnancy, the decision about your care is not between you and your doctor. It is between your doctor and a prosecutor. Your autonomy -- the autonomy this administration invokes loudly in every vaccine press release -- does not reach the emergency room when you need it most.

Know your state’s laws before you need them. Know which hospitals have the strongest legal and ethics support. Know that EMTALA still exists as federal law even without the Biden guidance -- the statute has not changed, only the enforcement posture. If you are denied emergency care you believe was medically necessary, contact the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, or your state’s medical board. Document everything. You have rights that have not been abolished, only obscured.

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations X.16

This administration has wasted considerable time telling us what a patient-centered health system should sound like. It has not been one.

Medical freedom is not a slogan. Patient autonomy is not a press release. Informed consent is not a political instrument to be deployed against vaccines and withheld from pregnant women bleeding in emergency rooms.

Either the principle applies to every patient, or it is not a principle.

Either the doctor-patient relationship is sacred, or it is not.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot invoke medical freedom at a podium and then criminalize the exercise of clinical judgment in an operating room.

The Stoics understood that a person’s character is revealed not by what they say when it is easy, but by what they do when the principle costs them something. This administration has told us exactly who it is.

We should believe it.

References

1. O’Neill J. CDC Immunization Schedule Adopts Individual-Based Decision-Making for COVID-19. HHS Press Release. October 6, 2025.

2. Kennedy RF. Post on X (formerly Twitter). December 31, 2025.

3. White House Fact Sheet. President Donald J. Trump Begins Process to Align U.S. Core Childhood Vaccine Recommendations with Best Practices from Peer, Developed Countries. December 7, 2025.

4. Center for Reproductive Rights. Trump Administration Attacks Federal Protections for Pregnant People in Emergency Rooms. June 3, 2025.

5. PBS NewsHour. White House revokes guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions. June 5, 2025.

6. Wikipedia. Casey Means. Accessed February 2026.

7. Epictetus. Discourses. Trans. Oldfather WA. Harvard University Press; 1926.

8. Aurelius M. Meditations. Trans. Hays G. Modern Library; 2002.

9. [VERIFY] -- U.S. maternal mortality comparative data vs. peer nations. CDC/WHO.

The proven end of the spectrum: the peptides that run labor and delivery, and the open questions behind each one.

Oxytocin is one of the oldest and most-used drugs in obstetrics. It starts labor, it strengthens labor, and it stops the bleeding that still kills mothers. It is also classed as a high-alert medication, a category for drugs that can cause serious harm when the dose runs ahead of the evidence.

The delivery room runs on peptides. Three matter most. Oxytocin, the workhorse. Carbetocin, a longer-acting version built for places where refrigeration fails. And atosiban, a peptide that does the opposite job, relaxing the uterus to hold off preterm labor. All three are real drugs with real trials. That does not mean the questions are settled.

Here is the part patients are rarely told. After more than 50 years of using oxytocin, obstetrics still does not agree on the dose. The longer-acting option works about as well as the original and is not a magic upgrade. And the uterus-relaxing peptide that is standard across Europe was turned down by the FDA. These are not fringe debates. They shape what happens to a laboring woman and her baby.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

Here is the problem.

Vitamin D is barely a food vitamin at all. Your body was built to make it in your skin from sunlight, not to pull it off a plate. Very few foods carry a useful amount. The richest is oily fish. A 3.5-ounce piece of wild salmon gives you somewhere around 570 to 650 units. Farmed salmon gives less, often closer to 440. Mackerel runs high, near 640. Canned sardines sit around 190, herring around 170. After that, the list falls off a cliff. An egg yolk has about 40 units. A glass of fortified milk has about 100. Most other foods have almost none.

Subscribe now

Now set that against what an adult needs each day: about 600 units under age 70, and 800 after.

To reach that with food alone, you would need oily fish on your plate nearly every single day. Most people eat fish twice a week if they are trying. And the fish itself is unreliable — wild salmon can carry three or four times the vitamin D of farmed, and you rarely know which one is on your fork. So for the average person, food does not get there. That part is not up for debate. It is arithmetic.

Sunlight is the natural answer, and for most of human history it was the only one. But modern life works against it. If you live in the northern half of the country, your skin makes almost no vitamin D from October to March. Sunscreen blocks it, which is the right trade when the other option is skin cancer. Office work blocks it. Darker skin needs more sun to make the same amount. Age cuts production too. So the natural source is real, but for most people it is not enough.

Share

This is where the story gets interesting, because the supplement world ran ahead of the evidence. For years the message was that everyone should take high doses, and that more was always better. Then the large trials arrived. VITAL, a study of more than 25,000 American adults, tested 2,000 units a day against a dummy pill. It did not lower cancer. It did not lower heart attacks or strokes. A companion study found it did not prevent broken bones either. In 2024 the Endocrine Society read all of this and made a quiet, sensible call: most healthy adults under 75 do not need to supplement beyond the basic amount, and most do not even need a blood test to check their level.

That sounds like an argument against the pill. It is not. It is an argument against the hype, and against treating a deficiency drug like a daily ritual for people who are already fine. Because the same trials, read honestly, show exactly who does benefit.

Pregnant women sit at the top of that list, and this is my field. The Endocrine Society recommends vitamin D in pregnancy because it is tied to lower rates of preeclampsia, preterm birth, babies born too small, and newborn death. Those are not small things. Children benefit too — vitamin D prevents rickets and lowers respiratory infections. Adults over 75 have a lower risk of death. And there is one finding that matters especially for women: in VITAL, vitamin D cut the rate of new autoimmune disease by about 22 percent — conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disease, and psoriasis. The protection held up over seven years of follow-up, with 156 cases on vitamin D against 198 on placebo. Women develop autoimmune disease far more often than men, so this benefit lands harder for them. Then add the simplest case of all: anyone whose level is genuinely low. In VITAL, about 1 in 8 adults started out deficient, and another third were borderline. Fixing a true deficiency is not hype. It is repletion.

So what do I tell patients now?

Diet will not carry this nutrient for most people. Eat the oily fish and the fortified foods, get safe sun when you can, but do not expect your plate to close the gap. Then match the pill to the person, and to a real number.

For a healthy adult, the baseline target is 600 IU a day up to age 70, and 800 IU after that. If you are pregnant, aim higher: the trials behind the recommendation used 600 to 5,000 IU a day and averaged about 2,500, so a daily supplement of 1,000 to 2,000 IU, on top of the vitamin D already in your prenatal, is a sound and common target.

Children aged 1 to 18 do well on about 1,200 IU a day, and a baby under one needs 400 IU. If your blood level is genuinely low, 1,000 to 2,000 IU a day will usually bring it back up. If you are a healthy 40-year-old man with a normal level, you do not need to chase a higher number, and you should stay under the adult ceiling of 4,000 IU a day, because very high doses carry their own risk of harm.

More is not better here. Enough is better.

One honest caveat, because it cuts the other way. The big no-benefit trials enrolled mostly people who already had enough vitamin D. So no extra benefit may really mean no benefit on top of enough. That is a fair criticism, and it is exactly why I aim at deficiency rather than at the supplement aisle.

My take: this is not a debate about whether vitamin D is essential. It is. The real question is how you get it and who needs help getting it.

Food alone rarely gets anyone to the target.

Sunlight is unreliable in modern life.

And a cheap daily pill closes the gap for the people the evidence actually points to — pregnant women first among them. Replete the deficient, protect the pregnant, and stop megadosing the healthy.

Bottom line: skip the megadose, not the basics. If you are pregnant, older, or low, take the small daily dose — your dinner plate cannot do this job. If this helped you think more clearly about what is on your counter, subscribe to ObGyn Intelligence. The evidence here is better than the marketing, and it stays that way.

References

1. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee IM, Christen W, Bassuk SS, Mora S, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(1):33-44. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1809944. PMID 30415629.

2. LeBoff MS, Chou SH, Ratliff KA, Cook NR, Khurana B, Kim E, et al. Supplemental vitamin D and incident fractures in midlife and older adults. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(4):299-309. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2202106.

3. Hahn J, Cook NR, Alexander EK, Friedman S, Walter J, Bubes V, et al. Vitamin D and marine omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and incident autoimmune disease: VITAL randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2022;376:e066452. doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-066452. PMID 35082139.

4. Costenbader KH, Cook NR, Lee IM, Hahn J, Walter J, Bubes V, et al. Vitamin D and marine n-3 fatty acids for autoimmune disease prevention: outcomes two years after completion of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2024;76(6):973-983. doi:10.1002/art.42811. PMID 38272846.

5. Demay MB, Pittas AG, Bikle DD, Diab DL, Kiely ME, Lazaretti-Castro M, et al. Vitamin D for the prevention of disease: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2024;109(8):1907-1947. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgae290.

The Distinction That Changes Everything

Empathy is the perception of another person’s emotional state and some resonance with it. It is cognitive and affective. It can be trained, scripted, and, as recent research confirms, convincingly simulated by a large language model. Patients shown AI responses to medical questions rated them as more empathic than physician responses. That finding has been replicated in oncology.

Subscribe now

Compassion is something else. It is empathy plus the moral commitment to act on it. The word means to suffer with. A compassionate oncologist does not just recognize her patient’s terror at a new cancer diagnosis. She is moved by it. She stays in the room with it. She follows this patient through four rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel, through the scan that shows progression, and sometimes through the death. That staying is not a communication technique. It is a moral relationship.

You can sound empathic and be compassionless. You can produce the right words and be entirely absent. Patients in cancer care know the difference. They remember it. Gynecologic cancer diagnoses are recalled with the kind of detail that marks events that have reordered a person’s life. What patients remember is not tone. It is whether someone was actually with them.

— PAYWALL BREAK — Free readers see above. Paid subscribers continue below.

ObGyn Intelligence: The Evidence of Women’s Health is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What the Empathy Scores Are Actually Measuring

Bioethicist John Lantos argues that most empathy research captures communicative empathy: warm tone, verbal acknowledgment, scripted validation. [2] An LLM trained on millions of human conversations produces exactly that output reliably. The scales were not designed to measure what Jodi Halpern calls emotional reasoning: a disciplined, medically-informed attunement to what illness means in a specific patient’s life.

Ovarian cancer has a five-year survival rate of approximately 49 percent for all stages combined, with stage III and IV disease making up the majority of diagnoses. [1] That number sits behind the question am I going to die? A patient who asks it is not asking for a warm acknowledgment that her feelings are valid. She is asking whether the person across from her can tolerate the uncertainty with her and whether she has found someone who will not flinch. An empathy scale cannot detect that.

The AI finding tells us that physicians are not giving patients enough communicative empathy. That is real and worth fixing. It tells us nothing about whether an algorithm can substitute for the gynecologic oncologist who has committed to being with this patient through whatever comes.

What AI Can Actually Do in Oncology

The contribution of AI to gynecologic oncology care is real and underappreciated in these debates. Clinical tools that synthesize trial data, flag deviations from treatment algorithms, identify patients who have not been offered germline testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants, and generate plain-language summaries of complex pathology findings are genuinely useful. They do not replace the oncologist. They make the oncologist more accurate and better prepared for the conversation that matters.

The clinician who walks into a room knowing that her patient’s BRCA status is pending, that the staging CT is equivocal at the para-aortic nodes, that this patient has a 14-year-old daughter, and that her last three portal messages were about fertility preservation, is a different clinician from one who enters without that synthesis. AI can provide that synthesis. Reducing documentation burden means more time in the room. More time in the room creates the conditions for compassion to function.

What AI cannot do is replace the moment when the oncologist says: I do not know exactly what this will look like for you, but I am going to be here for all of it. That sentence, when it is true, is not a communication strategy. It is a compassionate commitment. The machine cannot make it, and the patient knows the difference.

The Training Problem in Oncology

Lantos observes that medical training systematically erodes empathy through structural mechanisms: the hidden curriculum, evaluation systems that reward diagnostic competence over relational quality, and role models who demonstrate efficiency rather than presence. [2] In gynecologic oncology, the consequences are specific.

Fellows learn to manage technically complex surgical and chemotherapy decisions under intense time pressure, with almost no protected time for the relational skills the work requires. A fellow who can deliver a technically perfect radical hysterectomy but cannot sit in silence with a frightened patient has learned half the job. The half she has not learned is where compassion lives. It cannot be outsourced to a chatbot.

Conclusion

AI empathy scores in oncology measure communicative form. They do not measure compassion, which is the moral commitment to be present to and act on a patient’s suffering across the full arc of a cancer diagnosis and treatment. AI tools can and should improve accuracy, reduce burden, and ensure that no patient with ovarian cancer goes without genetic counseling. The relationship between a cancer patient and her clinician, built across treatment cycles and recurrences, requires a human being who has made a genuine commitment to stay. That is not a sentiment. It is a clinical standard, and it is the one worth measuring.

A seven-part series on the peptides that already shape fertility, pregnancy, and menopause, and the booming peptide market that runs years ahead of the evidence.

One word covers the oxytocin running through an IV in the delivery room and the vial of “healing peptide” your patient ordered online last month. The FDA defines a peptide as any chain of 40 amino acids or fewer.¹ The definition is honest. Most of the marketing built on top of it is not.

Peptides are short strings of amino acids. Many of the body’s own signals are peptides. The hormone that starts labor is a peptide. So is the one that drives ovulation, and the one that tells your brain you are full. That is why peptides are easy to sell. A clinic can say the body makes this naturally and be telling the truth while selling you something that has never been tested in a pregnant woman.

The honest way to understand peptides in women’s health is to sort them into three groups, because they are not one thing.

The first group is established peptide drugs. Oxytocin, to start labor and to stop bleeding after birth. Carbetocin, a longer-lasting version that the World Health Organization added to its essential medicines list partly because it does not need refrigeration.³ The GnRH-based drugs that run IVF cycles and treat endometriosis. GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide. These have known mechanisms, regulated manufacturing, and clinical trials behind them.

The second group is the body’s own peptides. GnRH and kisspeptin in the brain, oxytocin, insulin, the peptides the placenta makes in pregnancy. These run the female reproductive system. Some have become drug targets. Most are simply how the body works.

The third group is the commercial market. BPC-157, ipamorelin, CJC-1295, thymosin alpha-1, and a long list of others. They are sold for healing, anti-aging, fat loss, and hormone balance. For fertility, pregnancy, and menopause, this group has little or no human safety data. The FDA has flagged several of these ingredients as compounds that may carry significant safety risks.²

Here is what is at stake. Peptides are not fringe medicine. They already sit at the center of women’s health. But the peptide clinic market has run years ahead of the evidence, and the gap is widest exactly where the danger is greatest: in women who are pregnant, trying to conceive, or moving through menopause.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

What BMI Predicts

Body mass index is an imperfect measure. It does not distinguish muscle from fat. An athletic woman at BMI 27 is metabolically different from a sedentary woman at BMI 27. That is a legitimate criticism. But at the population level, BMI remains the best available screening tool for predicting pregnancy complications, because the data behind it is massive and consistent.

Here is what the numbers show. For gestational diabetes, the risk at a normal BMI (18.5-24.9) is about 2-4%. At BMI 30-34.9 (obesity class I), the risk is 6-10%. At BMI 40 or above (obesity class III), the risk exceeds 12-15%. A similar gradient applies to preeclampsia: roughly 3-4% at normal BMI, rising to 8-12% at BMI above 35. Cesarean delivery rates follow the same pattern (1).

ObGyn Intelligence: Safety analysis, the evidence critique, and the verdict are below -- for subscribers who want the full picture.

Read more

A 7-part series on the peptides that already shape fertility, pregnancy, and menopause, and the booming peptide market that runs years ahead of the evidence.

One word covers the oxytocin in the delivery room and the vial of healing peptide sold online.

The FDA defines a peptide as any chain of 40 amino acids or fewer.¹

That single word now stretches across the most trusted drugs in obstetrics and a booming wellness market with almost no evidence behind it. Over the next few weeks, ObGyn Intelligence is running a 7-part series that walks the entire distance between those two ends.

Peptides are not a side topic in women’s health.

They are its backbone, from the brain signal that starts puberty, to the hormone that drives labor, to the new drugs that quiet hot flashes. The problem is that the peptide market has run years ahead of the evidence, and the gap is widest where the stakes are highest: in women who are pregnant, trying to conceive, or moving through menopause. The series sorts the tested from the untested, one stage of life at a time.

What is coming

Part 1. From Oxytocin to Ozempic. The three kinds of peptides in women’s health, established drugs, the body’s own signals, and the gray-market wellness market, and why one word hides all three.

Part 2. The Delivery-Room Peptides We Still Argue About. Oxytocin, carbetocin, and atosiban. After 50 years, we still debate the oxytocin dose, where higher doses raise uterine overstimulation by about a third.²

Part 3. GLP-1 Can Restart Ovulation. That Does Not Make It a Fertility Drug. Why these drugs bring back ovulation in PCOS, what the evidence actually supports, and the surprise pregnancy risk nobody warns about.

Part 4. When to Stop Ozempic Before You Try to Conceive. The three numbers that matter: the 2-month washout,³ the pill interaction, and the 53 percent higher gestational diabetes rate from stopping the drug abruptly.⁴

Part 5. Real Menopause Peptides vs the Peptide Clinic. The new nonhormonal drugs cut hot flashes by about 73 percent versus 47 percent on placebo,⁵ and one carries a boxed warning.⁶ The peptide clinic offers neither the evidence nor a label.

Part 6. The Side Door: BPC-157, Research Peptides, and Compounded GLP-1. The compounding market is closing,⁷ and litigation has alleged impurities as high as 86 percent.⁸ What is actually in the vial.

Part 7. The Peptide Playbook. One question to ask at every visit, and a stage-by-stage action plan from trying to conceive through menopause.

How the series works

The series publishes over the coming weeks, one part at a time. In each post, the hook, the topic explainer, and the key stakes are free. The analysis, the specific numbers and doses, the honest limits, and the conclusion are for paid subscribers. The goal is the same every time: give you the numbers your doctor sees, not a watered-down version.

Conclusion

Peptides are quietly running women’s health, and the marketing is louder than the evidence. You do not need to resolve the science to protect yourself. You need to know which peptides have been tested. That is what these seven posts are for. Part 1 starts this week.

Subscribe to get every part as it publishes, including the paid analysis. Share this with someone who is pregnant, planning to conceive, or being sold peptide therapy. The evidence should travel.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Peptide Drug Products. Draft guidance for industry. December 2023. Docket FDA-2023-D-3391.

2. Logue TC, Zullo F, van Biema F, et al. High- vs low-dose oxytocin regimens for labor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2025;7(2):101604. doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2025.101604. PMID 39788427.

3. WEGOVY (semaglutide) injection prescribing information. Plainsboro, NJ: Novo Nordisk. (Discontinue at least 2 months before a planned pregnancy.)

4. Banerjee M, Dutta S, Dasgupta S. Pre-pregnancy GLP-1 receptor agonist or tirzepatide use and gestational diabetes risk. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2026. doi:10.1111/dom.70853. PMID 42098901.

5. LYNKUET (elinzanetant) prescribing information. Whippany, NJ: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; 2025.

6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA adds warning about rare occurrence of serious liver injury with use of Veozah (fezolinetant) for hot flashes due to menopause. Drug Safety Communication. September 12, 2024; boxed warning added December 16, 2024.

7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA proposes to exclude semaglutide, tirzepatide, and liraglutide on the 503B bulks list. News release. April 30, 2026.

8. FDA proposes to exclude GLP-1s from 503B bulk list. Drug Topics. 2026.

Amos Grünebaum, MD / ObGyn Intelligence | obmd.com

I have spent 50 years inside obstetrics and gynecology. I trust the WPSI Well-Woman Chart.

I created an interactive tool for it.

I wrote about it glowingly.

It is a careful, evidence-based summary of what women should be screened for at every age. So when we built an interactive version of it for our readers, I expected to find a clean chart and nothing to argue about.

Then I ran a deep research pass on it with Claude Fable 5 which was just released yesterday.

What it surfaced changed how I think about these charts.

What a deep research pass actually does

People hear “AI” and picture a chatbot guessing. That is not what happened here. I gave the model the chart and one instruction: compare it, line by line, against the published source — the WPSI 2026 PDF, the USPSTF recommendation statements behind it, the Bright Futures schedule it cites, and the ACOG and CDC guidance that sits next to it. Then tell me, for every single item, whether the tool is faithful to the chart, and where the chart itself goes quiet.

It did this without fatigue, without skimming, and without the thing every human reviewer brings to the table after the tenth page: the assumption that the chart is probably fine. It applied the same standard to row one and row forty. That consistency is the whole point. It is also why I have argued for some time that machine review is more even-handed than human review — not smarter, more even-handed.

Here is what it found.

One real error — and it was the one that mattered most

Intimate partner and domestic violence screening is on the WPSI chart for every age band, 13 to over 75, under General Health. Our tool had it only in the pregnancy and postpartum sections.

A non-pregnant 45-year-old would have moved through the entire tool and never seen it.

This is not a small thing. Asking a woman whether she is safe is not a checkbox. It is sometimes the only moment in a year when the question gets asked at all. The research pass caught it in seconds. We fixed it the same afternoon.

And created a tool HERE.

The gaps that were not errors — they were silences

The more interesting finding was not the mistake. It was the pattern of what the chart simply does not say.

The chart references Bright Futures for adolescents — and then buries five real recommendations in a footnote. Suicide-risk screening for teens 13 to 21 is one of them. A teenager using a preventive-care tool should see that on her list, not in fine print. We pulled all five out — suicide risk, vision and hearing, anemia, cardiac risk, fluoride — and put them where a 16-year-old can find them.

Oral health is absent entirely. Not on the chart for adults, barely implied for pregnancy. Yet roughly 40 percent of pregnant women have some form of gum disease, and dental care — including X-rays with shielding and local anesthesia — is safe in pregnancy. Here the research pass earned its keep: it surfaced the association between periodontal disease and preterm birth and the randomized trials showing that treating gum disease does not reduce preterm birth. So we said exactly that. Treat for oral health. Not as a preterm-birth intervention. The honest version, not the hopeful one.

And the prenatal panel was missing items no obstetrician would skip: hepatitis C screening in every pregnancy, and a real maternal-immunization entry — Tdap, influenza, COVID, and the maternal RSV vaccine at 32 to 36 weeks. These are among the highest-value preventive actions in all of obstetrics. The official chart leaves them implied. Implied is not good enough for a patient reading on her phone at night.

The absences worth defending

Some things are left off a chart on purpose, and the silence gets misread. A patient asks for a CA-125 to catch ovarian cancer early. It sounds responsible. It is not — for average-risk women, screening for ovarian cancer does not save lives and leads to unnecessary surgery. The chart’s silence there is correct. But silence teaches nothing.

So we added the deliberate absences as their own entries, each one explaining why it is not recommended: ovarian cancer screening, the routine pelvic exam, hormone therapy for disease prevention — kept carefully separate from hormone therapy to treat symptoms, which is a different and legitimate decision — and daily aspirin, whose guidance reversed while half my older patients kept taking it.

A preventive tool that stays quiet on aspirin leaves them on a regimen the evidence walked away from.

Why I am signing these additions

Every item we added beyond the official chart carries a visible mark: Add-On — AI and Dr. Amos, with a plain note explaining why it is there and where the evidence comes from. Nothing is smuggled in. The reader always knows what is WPSI and what is ours. That is not a disclaimer. It is informed consent applied to a chart.

I did not write this tool by hand and I am not pretending I caught all of this alone. A deep research pass found the gaps; I decided which ones to close and how to word them. That division of labor is the future of clinical content. The machine handles the memory — millions of pages, every footnote, the same scrutiny on every line. The physician handles the judgment — what matters for this patient, what to say, what to leave out, what to stand behind.

The chart was good. It is better now. And it took an afternoon, because the research was deep and the standard never slipped.

The tool is live

You can use the updated Well-Woman tool on ObGyn Intelligence.

Pick patient or clinician detail, choose an age, and watch the Add-Ons appear with their reasons attached. Link in the comments.

Why Timing Matters More Than Anything

The neural tube is the structure that becomes the brain and spinal cord. It closes between days 21 and 28 after conception. That is about one week after a missed period, and often before a woman even takes a pregnancy test. If the neural tube does not close properly, the result is spina bifida or anencephaly. These are among the most devastating birth defects, and they are among the most preventable.

Folic acid supplementation before conception reduces the risk of neural tube defects by 50-70%. This is one of the most robust findings in all of preventive medicine. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gives it an A recommendation, their highest level (1). But the supplement must be in your system before the neural tube closes. Starting folic acid after a positive pregnancy test is better than nothing, but it misses the critical window.

The Standard Dose

For women at average risk, the recommended dose is 400 micrograms (mcg) daily. Start at least one month before conception. Three months is better, because it takes time for folate levels in red blood cells to reach the concentration needed for maximum protection. Most prenatal vitamins contain 800-1000 mcg, which covers the standard recommendation. If you are already taking a prenatal vitamin, check the label and confirm it contains at least 400 mcg of folic acid.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

Reddit is where patients go at 2 a.m. when scared. I monitor dozens of communities for clinically meaningful posts: dangerous myths, gaps between belief and evidence, stories guidelines cannot capture. This series -- ObGyn Intelligence on Reddit -- dissects them against the literature, because ObGyns who ignore social media ignore the most unfiltered window into what patients think, fear, and do between appointments.

In 1983 I was among the first to report on and show an image of a HPV, Human Papilloma Virus, and show the asociation with cervical pre-cancer. I spend 3 months in an electromicroscopy lab to get good HPV images.

Summary

A woman 22 weeks pregnant posts to r/pregnant after her doctor confirms she has three genital warts. She reports being in a monogamous relationship; her partner had known finger warts. When she told him, he accused her of cheating. She is scared, ashamed, and confused. She is looking for anyone who has been through the same thing. What she gets instead is 136 comments — most of them telling her, with near-total certainty, that her partner cheated on her. A handful correct the virology. A few share their own experience of warts appearing during pregnancy and resolving after delivery. The thread captures something I see constantly in obstetric social media: a real clinical phenomenon — HPV dormancy and immune suppression in pregnancy — drowned out by a compelling but poorly supported narrative. The human stakes are high. This woman is pregnant, frightened, and now being told her relationship is a lie based on incomplete virology.

ObGyn Intelligence: Safety analysis, the evidence critique, and the verdict are below -- for subscribers who want the full picture.

Read more

Over the next three weeks, you will learn more about preparing for pregnancy than most people get in a standard office visit. Every email in this course is built on published evidence. Every number comes from a real study. Nothing is vague, nothing is filler, and nothing is based on what “most doctors recommend” without showing you the dat…

Read more