During the past few months there has been a lively email forum for discussion about women who play Ultimate during pregnancy. Readers of the newsgroup rec.sport.disc may have seen the call for volunteers to serve as part of a women's division committee that was put forth by our Women's National Director, Kim Forsten. Several dozen email messages later, we realize that it is time to share the deliberations with the full UPA community.
First, the committee can be reached via the email address upa_committee_women@scilla.central.sun.com. Some of the members of the committee have UPA titles, and they are Eric Simon, Paul Socolow, Kate Coyne, Diane Pagel, Lynne Nolan, and Liz Schmidt. The committee is open to anyone interested, and several of us non-titled people have contributed. On behalf of Kim, let me extend an invitation to send mail to the committee or to join it if you have email access and time.
The discussions to date have been firmly centered on one topic, and so far it has covered three general areas and a range of opinions. The first question is whether or not women should play Ultimate during pregnancy. The second area is the worries that pregnant players may cause to others. The third issue is what, if anything, the UPA should do with regard to pregnant players. There seems to be a deep schism over the third question.
The UPA has obviously already taken the action of initiating discussions in the player community. Although the committee is composed of only about a dozen people, it is making a solid attempt at covering all the angles. The opinions expressed in the email exchanges have been thoughtful and reasoned, and it has been a good vehicle for establishing mutual understanding. Many of the committee members polled their local area players for opinions, and some contributed personal anecdotes. We learned that there are informed women who want to play Ultimate during their pregnancies (and have done so) and there are similarly informed women who choose not to play during pregnancy. General good-will and a community concern for the well-being of pregnant women seems universal, although the specifics of that concern vary widely.
There is one point of general agreement, and that is that information is an important component of the equation. The only generally available medical information about exercise and pregnancy is a short bulletin from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and this has been posted at the UPA ftp site (ftp.hacks.arizona.edu, directory pub/ultimate/Articles). Many physicians have referred us to these important generic guidelines, which do not encourage activities such as Ultimate. Beyond this, physicians and others with knowledge about pregnancy issues have repeatedly recommended that decisions should be made by pregnant women with guidance from their physicians. As a community, we strongly encourage pregnant women to get the best medical information that they possibly can; there are no absolute rules to apply because medical advice is always given with respect to an individual. Many of women who have played while pregnant did so with the blessing of their medical practitioner.
Of all the risks that Ultimate presents, the most worrisome one seems to be the consequences of an abdominal blow. As pregnancy progresses, the danger of premature labor from abdominal trauma increases, and this is the focal point for some deeply felt worries about tournament play. For example, if a pregnant woman decides to play Ultimate, can she demand special consideration? This is an important question for tournament players, and the answer is not clear. Ultimate is a non-contact sport, and we expect contact to be rare, but we acknowledge that it is an ever present risk. Could this become a factor in the outcome of a tournament game? If so, would it give an unfair advantage to one team or the other?
The possibility of causing irreparable harm to a pregnant woman or her baby weighs heavily on some players' minds, and this worry can be enough to interfere with their own enjoyment of the game. Some committee members feel this could be a serious infringement on the expectation of a reasonable playing environment, and this is one basis for some suggestions about preventing participation by pregnant players. There are also concerns about legal liabilities against individuals or organizations involved in sponsoring play.
Few definite proposals for UPA action have been put forth or discussed. The most prominent possibilities include taking no action beyond the call for discussion, tying pregnancy to whatever policy the UPA has regarding fitness for play, encouraging case-by-case decision making on a team basis, recommending against playing while pregnant, and having an official policy preventing or restricting participation in UPA events.
The possibility of informal restrictions raised concerns about eligibility decisions. Teams would like to have assurances that they can know which of their players are eligible in advance of traveling to a tournament. Some of the committee members advocate encouraging captains to raise special issues about eligibility before the start of the game or at the captain's meeting. The method for resolution of disagreements was not specified, however, and uncertainity seemed to foreshadow problems about having a team decimated after investing time and effort and money in preparation and travel.
A fundamental question concerns the appropriateness of the UPA or other players taking issue with an individual player's decision. While everyone is comfortable with excluding a player based on ability, exclusions based on vulnerability pose special problems, and the committee is far from consensus at this point.
The story about the UPA and pregnancy should be an extremely simple one, to wit: the UPA currently has no policy regarding medical fitness for play. Pregnancy is a medical condition and is covered by this lack of policy. The End.
However, for a variety of reasons, the UPA leadership chose not apply this simple reasoning. While the resulting discussion has been interesting, it has had the improper effect of appearing to stigmatize a small number of players, and it has done so unfairly. These exceptional women deserve more respect from the Ultimate community.
In conversing with several women players and a physician player about pregnancy and Ultimate, I've encountered two overwhelming commonalities: the belief that there are additional risks faced by pregnant players and the conviction the UPA should not establish rules that would restrict pregnant women from playing. As with any personal situation, the optimal decision can only be made by an informed individual, and it is important for us to respect her decision.
This respect for the pregnant player is not given out of ignorance or callousness. Everyone I spoke to was obviously concerned about the risks posed by collisions or falls, and more than one person felt it would be only responsible to ask a pregnant player if she were aware of the risks or would consider sitting out. However, when asked what the UPA policy should be, everyone I was able to speak to felt that this was not an area where the UPA should intrude. This is consistent with UPA policy on medical conditions in general and seems to be a popular policy.
Pregnant players experience positive benefits from Ultimate that are important to their health and well-being. They are able to control their weight, they remain active, and they continue activities that are, in many cases, central to their lives. Dropping out of their player community for periods of several months can be a be depressing sacrifice.
Some people argue that any sacrifice is worthwhile if it increases the chances of a successful pregnancy. However, few would require pregnant women to give up riding in cars or working in post offices. The evaluation of the actual risk in playing Ultimate is fairly subjective, and I can testify that I personally have never been involved in any on-field incident that would have harmed a pregnant woman. If a woman feels that her own style of play and choice of competitive environments is of an acceptably low risk, it is difficult to argue the point. At the same time, of course, we should give equal respect to women who make a personal decision to stay sidelined during pregnancy.
What of people who feel that they cannot take the field against a pregnant player? What of their rights to play? Difficult as it is, we must apply the same rules here that we do in many other situations in society: contingent rights are lesser rights. That is to say, the worry about a possible bad outcome is not grounds for immediately causing a wrong (barring a playing from participation). The UPA must be concerned primarily with supporting those who want to play. There will be those who suffer because they must act according to their best judgment, and if that includes sitting out the game, then they must do so. They also deserve respect for the courage of their convictions, especially because they derive from altruistic concern for others.
Some have asked if pregnant players would have an unfair advantage because no one would challenge their space. Would not this ruin high-level games? Personally, I feel that this is silly, because pregnant women are at such a physical disadvantage that they could not possibly be an important factor at high levels of play. Their own teammates are more likely to be concerned about this than their opponents. And at any level, I believe that we, as Ultimate sisters, should aspire to a higher goal of supporting all women players, even if we find their individual decisions strange or worrisome. Pregnant players have as much right as anyone else to demand that the no contact rules be honored, but they cannot ask for special consideration beyond that of normal play.
Players who favor restrictions must carefully consider how far they want to go in setting policy about Ultimate and medical conditions. One of the arguments on the side of establishing restrictions is that the feelings of non-pregnant players who worry about their own culpability in possible injury to a pregnant player must be considered. If such worries are more important than the individual player's right to make her own decisions, I cannot see a logical end to the subsequent policies. Will an anonymous letter about people over 40, handicapped players, short players, retarded players, brittle-boned players, ACL deficient players, or women players in open games result in additional policy committees, deliberations, and rules? While there are legitimate concerns about all these classes of people, it is considered insulting and possibly illegal to restrict their participation. Why is pregnancy so very different? Because some people feel very strongly about it? This is not good enough.
It is already the case that some players choose not to divulge their pregnancies in the early stages to their teammates for fear of being excluded from play. Formal rules would only exacerbate this secrecy and would not be helpful.
It is also a non-trivial observation that there have been no reported problems with pregnancy and Ultimate, and this may well indicate that this will never be a serious problem. The anonymous and hysterical letter writer asks "must we wait until a woman has a miscarriage on the field?" and to her I would have no qualms in saying, yes, the appropriate time for this discussion is after we know that there is a problem. In the meantime, the appearance of insult to the fine athletes and good mothers of our organization should be dispelled.
Despite its good intentions, the UPA would be stepping far outside its capabilities and best interests if it were to pursue restrictions against pregnant players. Education and information insofar as the time and energy are available are worthy objectives, but a definite decision to back off from anything further would be a well-appreciated outcome.