Kate Middleton’s Pregnancy is Having Happy Effects

For instance, Gawker inadvertantly spoke the awkward truth to a great big huge audience of Chattering Class folk by tweeting:


Yes.  Yes there is.

Meanwhile, Dawn Eden writes:

Glory, hallelujah–the Washington Post’s “On Faith” just published a beautiful op-ed by my friend Ashli McCall, author of Beyond Morning Sickness , who is leading the effort to help pregnant women to survive hyperemesis gravidarum–the disease that is currently afflicting Kate Middleton.

Please send this article to all your contacts and promote it through social media. Spreading awareness of treatment for hyperemesis gravidarum saves lives of women and their unborn children.

God bless Mum and child and bring them both to a safe delibery through Christ our Lord. Amen. Mother Mary, pray for them.

"From Jonathan Liedl's piece:Hittinger defines malignant technology as “the systematic application of tools to culture, ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Hmmm... I'm having a difficult time deciding the right way to reply because I think ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Lewandowski, another sociopath Catholic who flaunts his faith - like Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"Comment keeps getting deleted. Will try one last time...See Russell Hittinger's essay "Christopher Dawson on ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    H.R.H. The Duchess of Cambridge (formerly, Kate Middleton) . . .

    The baby will be an H.R.H., as well, as soon as he or she is born. “H.R.H. Baby Cambridge.”

    • Will

      Wrong. The style of Prince/Princess and Royal Highness, by the rules issued by George V, apply to “the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the above Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales”. Son. Not daughter, and not younger sons.

  • I am 16 weeks along with my second child and I have hyperemesis. Thankfully, it is now well under control with medication (normally intended for cancer patients to help them recover after chemotherapy) and I am functioning again, but it is really awful. I had zero sickness with my first pregnancy so I was not expecting to get sick at all this time. I actually delayed getting treatment for a while because I thought the problem had to be me just not being “tough enough.” When I finally admitted I needed help, I found that I was severely dehydrated and had lost almost 15 pounds in six weeks – I thank God that my baby survived and is healthy. From what I understand, there’s still not much understanding why hyperemesis occurs, although there is a much higher chance that Mom is carrying a girl or multiples if she has it (at the peak time for hyperemesis symptoms, late first trimester to early second trimester, baby undergoes a lot of reproductive organ development, so it’s theorized that in addition to Mom’s elevated hormone levels, those same hormone levels are also high in baby – and those hormones affect digestion.) But obviously not every woman carrying a girl (or even every time she carries a girl) or multiples will develop HG.

    Although I’m not happy that there are women out there suffering, the fact that someone so high profile is will probably be a good thing overall. I have been surprised by how many people (even medical professionals) who insist that HG is somehow a ploy for attention or a sign of some kind of “weakness” in the mom.

  • Liz

    Sadly, Mark, I’m going to have to disagree with you about this one. People/the media are perfectly happy to refer to a wanted baby as well, a baby. It’s only when the child is unwanted that it becomes a fetus / lump of cells / whatever the PC term is these days. The language is part of the attempt to dehumanize and in that way, legitimize abortion.

    According to the media, we never abort babies, just as nobody would throw a fetus shower.