Policing Pregnant Bodies: From Ancient Greece to Post-Roe America

by Kathleen M. Crowther

Explores the historical roots of controversies over abortion, fetal personhood, miscarriage, and maternal mortality. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, asserting that the Constitution did not confer the right to abortion. This ruling, in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case, was the culmination of a half-century of pro-life activism promoting the idea that fetuses are people and therefore entitled to the rights and protections that the Constitution guarantees. But it was also the product of a much longer history of archaic ideas about the relationship between pregnant people and the fetuses they carry. In Policing Pregnant From Ancient Greece to Post-Roe America, historian Kathleen M. Crowther discusses the deeply rooted medical and philosophical ideas that continue to reverberate in the politics of women's health and reproductive autonomy. From the idea that a detectable heartbeat is a sign of moral personhood to why infant and maternal mortality rates in the United States have risen as abortion restrictions have gained strength, this is a historically informed discussion of the politics of women's reproductive rights. Crowther explains why pro-life concern for fetuses has led not just to laws restricting or banning abortion but also to delaying or denying treatment to women for miscarriages as well as police investigations of miscarriages. She details the failure to implement policies that would actually improve the quality of infant life, such as guaranteed access to medical care, healthy food, safe housing, and paid maternity leave. We must understand the historical roots of these archaic ideas in order to critically engage with the current legal and political debates involving fetal life.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Politics, Feminism, Womens, Audiobook, Society

288 pages, Hardcover

First published October 31, 2023

Reviews

[Kaitlin Lewis-Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book not only contains an excellent overview of historical attitudes toward women, fetuses, and lady parts, but it also tells you how to make a basilisk! (Pg 93)

[Elizabeth Chadsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was so good. I think everyone should read it regardless of whether or not they have a uterus; odds are they know someone with one and this book was sooo interesting. I learned new things and I thought about concepts I’ve never really examined before. This is about history and culture and gender and society structure and medical misinformation and so much more. I couldn’t put it down.

[Bethany Novotny · Rating 4 out of 5]

She has a "guest in her house," she does not have "a bun in the oven."

This book was incredibly informative on the misinformation that surrounds the topic of abortion and pregnancy in the western world. It challenges the misconceptions by observing history, science, religion, and culture in a way that is inevitably pro-choice because when faced with the facts it is hard to draw a different conclusion.

It also made me so mad to hear these things that for every 10 pages I read, I had to take 20 minutes to think.

Humankind has always been fickle on the topic of abortion. If you think any group (religious, cultural, racial, etc...) has ever been firm in their stance, this book demonstrates otherwise. The only thing that has remained consistent is the deference to non-uterus containing bodies to decide acceptability.

In one century, we consider abortion to be a sin, in the next Irish Catholic Saints are delivering unconsented miracle abortions to women. In one century, the fetus is a human life with civil rights from conception, in the next male scientists are preserving fetuses in jars to create museum exhibits and for their own personal collections. The pregnant body is needed for reproduction and yet is inherently harmful to the fetus and therefore the woman should be punished. Abortion is wrong unless a man decides that it is right.

The flippancy this book highlights only goes to show that the only real opinion on pregnancy and abortion throughout time has been that a white man ought to control it.

[Val · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting premise, however the title is a bit misleading. This book explores the BELIEFS regarding women and pregnancy throughout history, not so much laws or policing.

While easily digestible, the writing style was not my favourite. It felt like I was reading a school essay. Multiple points were repeated throughout the book and many times, I thought I was mistakenly re-reading a paragraph (I was not).

While I enjoyed the sections covering ancient history, the contemporary sections left me a bit put-off. There were some anti-doctor undertones as well as some inconsistent facts and figures.

Despite the misleading title and the writing style, this would’ve gotten an 3.5 stars. However, I just could not get over my misgivings with the modern medicine sections.

[Molly · Rating 1 out of 5]

Trying to get out of my book comfort zone! Read a nonfiction book!
I learned a lot but couldn’t get over how anti-doctor & anti-medicine the author is. She only only ever included the perspectives of modern historians, ancient philosophers, or ancient physicians — never a modern physician! Absolutely infuriating. This anti-physician bias is strong in her language too bc the words she uses are so negative.
There was an entire section on how medical ppl are nefariously calling the cops on women who are miscarrying due to drug use or physical fights or whatever. If the author talked to just ONE medical person she would learn that we are MANDATORY REPORTERS! Duh!
Lots of other annoying things she got wrong medically. But I’m too angry to get into it.
Bye!

[Dasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Please make Charlie Kirk and other right wing nut jobs read this pleaseee

[EGM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whew. Girl (me) who has little understanding of the history of abortion gets schooled af.

[Joanna]

this was a truly fascinating and excellent read - thoroughly researched, thoughtfully worded and gendered (and deeply appreciated for its care and carefulness in this regard). i very much enjoyed the close readings into medical texts and scripture and doctrine and legal proceedings - i will be dwelling on the divide created between the physical heart and the metaphorical heart for a while. will be recommending to my medical historian sister and my mom who is a nurse and my friends who are abortion care providers. great book!!!

[Meredith · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book explores the medically inaccurate beliefs from antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Persia) and medieval Western Europe about reproduction (conception, pregnancy, embryology, and fetal development), the role of women therein, and the attitude towards and behavior of women related to reproduction and describes how these have influenced and continue to influence modern-day beliefs, laws, and policies.

This book is divided into five sections:
1. The Tell-Tale Heart
2. The Fetus in the Bottle
3. The Dangerous Womb
4. The Secrets of Women
5. Abortion and the Fetus

The chapter "The Tell-Tale Heart" explores the ancient of idea of one's heart being the seat of the soul, the center of life, and the most important human organ as well as having profound symbolic and metaphorical significance extending into modern day in the context of U.S. legislation banning abortion after embryonic or fetal cardiac activity can be detected.

The chapter "The Fetus in the Bottle" describes the history of the study of embryology by almost exclusively male physicians and philosophers and explains how the study of embryonic and fetal development completely removed from pregnancy and the female body is detrimental to women and people who can become pregnant.

The chapter "The Dangerous Womb" explains the extensive history of the belief that the uterus and a woman's body are a threat to the life of the fetus, stemming from humoral theory that women are cold and wet (compared to men who are warm and dry) and that menses, while required for pregnancy, are a poisonous waste product.

The chapter "The Secrets of Women" discusses the secrecy surrounding miscarriage, which is actually extremely common (an estimated 25% of all pregnancies), and the belief spanning millennium that women are privy to secret knowledge about conception, pregnancy, contraception, and abortion that they withhold from men and the male suspicions that women are usually such information to act without the knowledge or permission of men.

The final chapter "Abortion and the Fetus" explores the history of abortion from antiquity to the present day, emphasizing that the source material is the primarily male and lacks "a uterus carrying perspective." Interestingly, the main argument against abortion in previous centuries is that the fetus belonged to the man (either the husband or slave owner), and the woman did not have the right to dispose of his property without his permission.

The title is misleading. This book mostly describes the beliefs extending back hundreds or thousands of years that continue to influence contemporary beliefs about pregnancy and abortion. There is very little discussion of the criminal prosecution of women for abortion, suspected self-induced abortion, and pregnancy loss, which is, as someone living in a post-Roe United States, of the most interest to me. It contains a lot of good information about historic beliefs regarding conception, pregnancy, and embryonic and fetal development and about ancient to modern attitudes about women and pregnant women.

I found the influence of the erroneous belief with roots in the ancient world that women immediately know when they become pregnant -- sometimes even minutes after sex -- on six week abortion bans to be particularly illuminating. Male politicians argue that six weeks is enough time to terminate an unwanted pregnancy while advocates argue that most women do not know they are pregnant at six weeks gestation, which equates to a menstrual period that is two weeks late. For reference, home pregnancy tests may not be able to detect a pregnancy at four weeks (the expected date of menstruation) and are considered more accurate beginning at six weeks (two weeks after the expected date of menstruation).

I was surprised to learn the origins of the belief that a woman's body is a threat to her unborn child. The belief that the womb is a dangerous place also impacts industrial-medical childbirth practices as many US obstetricians ascribe to the "rescued by birth" ideology and believe that elective, i.e. non-medically indicated, inductions should be offered to all women at 37 weeks gestation even though the research shows that the risk of still birth does not significantly increase until 41 weeks 5 days gestation. The idea that pregnancy should not be continued beyond the very beginning of full-term gestation (37 weeks to 42 weeks) in order to avoid potential complications that may never occur because remaining in utero until the onset of spontaneous labor is seen as a threat to the health of fetus pressures women into labor inductions, which increase the risk of cesarean sections, which have life-long consequences for a woman's health and can negatively affect all future pregnancies. As Ob-Gyns often phrase it, "Why wait for something to go wrong?" The idea that a baby should be delivered as soon as possible for its own protection from its mother's body obscures the health benefits, such as fetal brain and lung development, of waiting until 39 weeks as well as ignores the unreliability of due date predictions and of ultrasound estimated fetal weights. Playing the dead baby card is a powerful way to manipulate women into doing what is easiest for the obstetrician and ignores maternal preferences for non-medicalized births, low intervention births, and physiological births. As in the abortion arena, the wants, needs, well-being of the actual existing human beings are considered secondary to any potential risks to the health of fetuses.

This book does have some downsides, however. As someone who has devoted the past decade and a half to evidence-based information about pregnancy and childbirth, I felt that the author was disingenuous multiple times in order to make the point she wanted to make. To be fair, perhaps as a historian, her sizable knowledge about pregnancy and abortion is confined to social history, but her actual medical knowledge is extremely limited. Or, this may be the result of the author employing an either-or way of thinking instead of a yes-and way of thinking. I can understand why she took an either-or perspective rather than a yes-and one because a yes-and perspective creates muddier waters, and the discussion can get bogged down in nuance. On the other hand, either-or thinking can create false dichotomies.

For example, the author counts the estimated number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant (an estimated 30% of all fertilized eggs) as miscarriages to inflate the rate of miscarriage (an estimated 25% of all pregnancies). This is medically inaccurate. Fertilized eggs that fail to implant are not pregnancies; fertilized eggs that fail to implant are fertilized eggs that fail to implant. In order to have a pregnancy, a fertilized egg must implant. Fertilized egg + implantation = pregnancy.

As another example, in the discussion of miscarriage, she tries to have it both ways. Her premise is that there is very little pregnant women can do -- short of taking proven abortion inducing medications -- that will induce a miscarriage/premature labor or cause embryonic/fetal demise, so women are entirely blameless if they have a miscarriage or still birth. It is 100% medically accurate that the majority of non-viable pregnancies are due to genetic abnormalities present at conception. That being said, it is also true that women can take measures to reduce their chance of miscarriage such as through good nutrition, maintaining good overall health and managing medical conditions, avoiding chemical exposure, not taking certain prescription medications, and not using tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs. This will not prevent miscarriage, but it lowers the risk by improving egg health, embryonic health, and maternal health. In the book's poster child example of a woman prosecuted for causing her own miscarriage, which is brought up several times in different contexts, the woman admitted to methamphetamine use during pregnancy, and the fetus tested positive for methamphetamine. As the medical examiner testified, there is no definitive proof that this caused the pregnancy loss. However, methamphetamine use does lower one's odds of having a healthy full-term pregnancy, so this is a bad example. This is a case of yes/and rather than either/or.

The author did not seem to know that healthcare workers are mandatory reporters, and because parental substance use is considered child abuse, they are required to report it whether they want to or not. Some states even require mandatory reporters to report suspected substance use by pregnant women. So, nurses and doctors aren't just overly moralistic busybodies tattle-telling to the cops as is implied by the various accounts mentioned in this book.

While I completely agree that this woman should not have been prosecuted for her pregnancy loss, it is untrue to say that she did nothing that contributed to it. There is a difference between saying there is no clear evidence that certain things will cause a miscarriage and saying that nothing a woman does can contribute to a miscarriage. Did this woman cause her miscarriage with illicit drug use? No. Did her illicit drug use negatively impact her pregnancy? Yes, as did living in a food desert, being exposed to pollution, and having limited access to medical care. As the author correctly states, forces outside her control -- poverty and minority status -- put her at a higher risk for miscarriage, pregnancy complications, and preterm birth.

The author states that there is no proof that drug use during pregnancy negatively effects pregnancy or child development. This is not true. There is a lot of research that shows a connection between illicit drug use during pregnancy and premature birth, developmental delays, cognitive disabilities, and behavioral problems. The fact that the role of the environmental is much more influential does not negate the negative impact of substance use during pregnancy. And when discussing the effect of substance use during pregnancy, the author completely omits Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), e.g. the neonate's experience of drug withdrawal after birth, and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). These cause real suffering in infants, and the children start life with one adverse childhood experience (ACE). Having three ACEs predisposes a person for mental health disorders and substance use disorders in adulthood, so children who experienced NAS or have FAS are beginning at a disadvantage. This does not mean that women who use substances should be prosecuted or jailed. But one should not be dismissive about the potential negative consequences of substance use during pregnancy. This is another example of either-or being used instead of yes-and. Yes, substance use during pregnancy won't cause a miscarriage, and it can be harmful to the developing fetus and have long-term consequences.

My last criticism is a semantic one. Personally, I disliked how the author used the term "pregnant persons" instead of "pregnant women" or "pregnant women and pregnant people" or "pregnant women, pregnant teenage girls, and pregnant people." I understand that she did so in order to be inclusive and politically correct as well as to play to the book's intended liberal audience. Medical care should be individualized, and the terminology used therein should also be individualized, so the term "pregnant person(s)" should be used when appropriate to the situation.

The problem with saying "pregnant persons" instead of "pregnant women" is that it completely erases the element of sexism. Question: Why are pregnant people treated so badly? Answer: Because they are women, and women even in Western developed countries are not valued as autonomous individuals with equal rights to men. Since the author traced contemporary beliefs back thousands of years, she should be aware that as late as the 20th Century, women (and intersex individuals assigned female at birth) were viewed as the property of their husband or closest male relative (if unmarried or widowed), believed to have less intelligence, and devalued by society as a whole. Because she is an American historian, the author should know that the Equal Rights Amendment was passed in 1972 but never ratified by the states, so it never became part of the US Constitution. This prevents the right to contraception and abortion from being legalized on the grounds of "equality" instead of on the grounds of "privacy," which is principle on which the Roe v. Wade decision was based. As the author went to lengths to illustrate how the term "fetal heartbeat" obscures the more accurate term "fetal (or embryonic) cardiac electrical activity" and, thus, has different implications, she knows the power that words can have. She also knows the stakes.

Readers interested in the topic of physician instructions given to pregnant women to prevent them from harming their fetuses may enjoy the book Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom is Wrong - and What You Really Need to Know by Emily Oster explores how the majority of pregnancy advice given by healthcare providers in the United States is not actually evidence-based and discusses what the research actually says.

[Erin Ahern · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was phenomenal. I would recommend every single person I meet to read this book. Very academic style writing. Incredibly well researched and each chapter was so cohesive. Thank you Madeline for the rec

[DaniPhantom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a good and informal read about women & AFABs bodies and how they have been restricted when pregnant, I liked how the author not only brought up recent events but also related it to her unique experiences as well. Not too info-dumpy for such a dense topic, but still got the points across.

[Cheng Bogdani · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a vitally important book for our times. The author draws a straight line from the Aristotilean concept that women are merely incubators that grow men's children despite the inhospitable environment of the womb to the current anti-choice, forced-birth argument that fetuses are people per the natural rights of a citizen. The author sticks to the typical Greece -> Rome -> Europe -> United States tangent of history, but as the intended audience are clearly activists in the US, this reductionism makes sense.

Along the way, she shows how pregnancy has been used by men to remove agency from women - and the definition of pregnancy has changed over time. Most cultures didn't consider a women pregnant until 'the quickening' - the first time the mother felt the child move. Most abrahamaic religions don't condemn abortion - the only mention in the Torah is a recipe for arbotificants. However, as more sections of society became more reliant on property rights, it became more important for more men to control women's reproduction. There is a clear line from the greek idea that the womb is a dangerous place (it's so dangerous it expels blood every month!) to the idea that a pregnant woman needs to reshape her entire life around the fetus to avoid the condemnation of "bad mother". It's a slippery slope between a miscarriage and an abortion when nobody trusts women to know their bodies and care for them.

She spends a tangent explaining why the beating heart has traditionally been the litmus test for life - it's easy to measure without any specialized tools. This laid the historical groundwork for the idea of the 'heartbeat' laws we're plagued with today. She also clearly explains how the heartbeat heard in a mass of undistinguised cells after a few weeks is an artifact of the sonogram, and is artificially enhanced and clarified by the signal processors inside the sonogram machine.

This book is required reading for anyone concerned about the erosion of women's rights in the US.

I listened to the audiobook via Overdrive from my local library.

Bechdel test? N/A
Mako Mori test? N/A
Vito Russo test? N/A
Latif test? N/A

Reading Level: adult, assumes some western cultural literacy when referencing history
Romance: N/A
Smut: N/A
Violence: N/A
TW: abortion, violence against women

[Alexis · Rating 4 out of 5]

The history was very interesting, and the analysis of politics and gender was on target.

The medicine... was like reading mothering.com when my oldest was a baby. In fact, it's partly because of reading there that I know Crowther made some howlers. 3 examples:

1) "Many obstetricians are not trained to recognize and treat serious complications like preeclampsia and infection." No. They are trained. They don't always do it, but it's not because they're not trained. (And I say this as someone whose preeclampsia with #1, in the UK by the way, was not picked up until I was hyperreflexic, and I required a Caesarean delivery.)

2) "Sonograms have little medical justification." This one I remember. The value of routine sonograms is questioned, though I'd love to see data for newer ones, since the quality has been improved. You can't therefore extrapolate to all sonograms.

3) Complaining about the reduction in breech and forceps vaginal deliveries because "vaginal delivery is safer than Caesarean." You can't say that, because that statement, as written, refers to all deliveries. It doesn't prove that CS isn't safer for breech, for example. Again, very sloppy.

All her research on Caesareans appears to come from a single source, as well. I checked citations.

She also shows the limitations of inclusive language when discussing historical and political context. This may seem like a nitpick (or politically motivated) but I think it's more significant, given the title and argument. The policing of pregnancy isn't simply about the policing of pregnant bodies, but the policing of women. It's fundamentally tied to misogyny, and it's impossible to discuss without gendered language. Crowther herself switches regularly (and unpredictably) between inclusive language (either referring to "pregnant people" or "pregnant bodies" -- the latter in particular somewhat jarring given her accurate complaints about discarding women from the narrative and treating pregnancy as disembodied from the person doing the carrying) and gendered language.

It's a bit of a shame because the actual history and politics is very interesting and turning it into the same tired natural birth arguments when reality is much more complicated does it no service.

[Amelia Poq · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed the history discussed in this book and she touches on a lot of important historical views on pregnancy, abortion, and the restrictions that have affected women's health today.

However, the two stars are really the many gross generalizations made about obstetricians and gynecologists- which I happen to be. She suggested that my colleagues and I are not well trained (ie suggesting we are not trained to to recognize post partum preeclampsia- one of the most common complications of pregnancy and the postpartum period and we extensively monitor and follow up for), blame women for their spontaneous miscarriages (quite the contrary- I and every obgyn I know counsels patients that the most common cause of miscarriage is genetic abnormalities), and are more concerned with the fetus over the mother. We became obgyns not pediatricians for a reason. These are only some of my misgivings towards the arrogance she displayed toward those in my profession. While I do practice in the largest city in California, I am fortunate enough to be surrounded by a generally liberal mentality, I have many friends and colleagues in this profession throughout the country who would wholeheartedly disagree her sentiments.

I am a proud abortion provider and physician who takes care of women- in pregnancy and at all other times in their lives. I am also an integral part of the training of future obgyns as the apd of our residency program (where all are trained and provide abortion care)
It would be nice if she could recognize the providers out there in a positive light who do the work to take care of women in all facets of their reproductive health.

[Deb Urbano · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars maybe. This is not what I was looking for. I just wanted facts. Maybe the history is just too scant on them. Even in the last chapter, there was quick reference to the different historical references cited by some justices in the Roe and Dobbs decisions. That's a place where I'd like to hear more. Instead there were repeatedly isolated cases referenced as proof of a point.

I did learn a lot about ancient views on conception and women's roles in pregnancy from the male perspective. I see the influence now, but there is so much else going on that felt ignored. I also learned a lot about heartbeat development.

Many stats lacked adequate context for me to evaluate how significant they realy were. " In Britain... there were two preclampsia deaths between 2012 and 2014. In the US, 50-70 women die of preclampsia each year." Actual 2016 statistics I found on maternal mortality on my own: UK 9.6 per 100,000 vs. US 23.8 per 100,000 (US adjusted up for underreporting) Without reference to population size differences in the two countries, the stats sound wayyy different.

Also, the author came across biased against US physicians. Are our doctors not trained as well as other countries as Crowther maintained? She did not prove that point to me at all. There are so many other reasons for higher rates of maternal mortality that were left unexplored - whether or not our medical system is too focused on billing, for instance.

[H. LaRee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crowther's analysis allows the reader to reflect on questions like the following:

Why are we more inclined to politically support a fetus, whose personhood is widely debated, than a pregnant person whose personhood is undebated?

Why do we blame women for poor pregnancy outcomes when we know, scientifically, it's more often than not up to biologic chance?

What are the medical implications of thinking of fetuses as babies? Does a medical focus on the fetus as a patient (and therefore a person) exacerbate a tendency to neglect pregnant people?

How does a the presented cultural history result in the downplay of the significance of the female body in fetal development?

Crowther's interpretation of the saying 'bun in the oven' in the Introduction and Conclusion alone make this read worth it. I personally enjoyed the chapters on heartbeat legislations (1) and miscarriage's(3) due to their compelling and streamlined narratives. Her synthesis, overall, is repetitive and digressive at times, however, her general points are convicting enough to make up for it. Would highly recommend to anyone looking to expand their understanding of abortion (and therefore pregnancy) discourse in the US; especially, with the historical context of pervasive opinions.

[thenightingalereads · Rating 4 out of 5]

Policing Pregnant Bodies was a highly informative read about the history of the women's fight for bodily autonomy throughout history. It was so haunting to discover that throughout history, men and women have thought of pregnant women and their fetuses as separate entities, often putting the fetus' life above the expectant mother. The studies and references shared were extensive, and provided a clear picture of what being a woman like in medieval times was like.

The only qualms I had about listening this Audiobook was the awkward pronunciations of Arabic and Eastern European scholar's names. So, if you're thinking of starting this audiobook just keep that in mind!

I highly recommend this audiobook to avid fans of feminist literature and activitists for women's rights.

[Jessi Shirley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't sum up my thoughts in a review right now because it's a heavy and nuanced topic but this is well worth the read. Several quotes stuck out and I was screaming in my head "exactly!" There were some tidbits I had nuanced opinions on but this book is so relevant right now. Hard to stomach all the examples of misogyny it highlights but does a good job dis-arming them

[Elly · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting overview of the history of humankind’s perception toward pregnant people and fetuses. It provides a lot of history and context to the recent uptick in U.S. legislation towards pregnancy.

[Layla Platt · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 freaking stars. How is it possible that there is still so much we don’t know? Realizing that we’ve been lied to for just so long about so much is horrifying. It’s so frustrating. And if I never wanted to move to America before? Reading this book solidified it tenfold.

[Shawna Radder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the history of women’s reproductive health. Gets to the roots of male societal control. It really makes you question societal norms and the meddling with women’s bodies.

[Natalie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book highlights just how NOT far we've come regarding our treatment of women and reproductive rights, and how recent history really is evidence of society moving backward.

[Emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting and several points to ponder and think upon, but repetitive and written in a very 'high school English paper' formulaic kind of way.

[Abbie Hughes]

Such an important read

[Lykke Stjernholm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Øjenåbner!!!

[Kendall Olsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written, well researched, and well put.

[Katelyn Burklow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super insightful into the history of pregnancy and ways in which pregnant women have been treated. I learned so much and will now be ditching the saying “bun in the oven”

[Shayna Hauser · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes! Yes! Yes! After reading this book, I could not stfu. Always saying, "Did you know?" and " You wouldn't even believe." This book was punch filled, and I loved it. I learned so much, and I appreciate the advanced insight I got from reading this book.