
The world often judges disabled parents. What if it listened to them?
When she was younger, before she became disabled, Jessica Slice would occasionally wonder what parenthood might look like someday — how a child (or two, or three) would fit within her familiar routines, her regular morning runs, her work, her social outings with friends.
But by the time she became a parent eight years ago — when she and her husband brought home their foster daughter as a newborn, a child they would later adopt — everything about Slice's reality had been transformed. At 30, she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS, which affects the body's ability to regulate heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and digestion; a year later, Slice would learn that her POTS was caused by an underlying genetic condition called Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which affects connective tissues in the joints, tendons, skin, blood vessels and organs.
What this means for Slice, an author and speaker based in Toronto, is that she can stand or walk for only a minute at a time. She can sit upright, unsupported, for very brief periods; most of her day must be spent reclined. Her joints dislocate easily, and she experiences nerve and motor issues in her hands. Her muscles ache constantly. At temperatures above 73 degrees, she will quickly develop dangerous heat exhaustion. Within these physical limitations, she is a devoted and determined parent to her 8-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son.
Slice's forthcoming memoir, 'Unfit Parent: A Disabled Mother Challenges an Inaccessible World,' interweaves her personal experience with a deeper, researched examination of what it means to be a disabled parent in a culture that prizes individualism and fears disability. But the book also offers an illuminating perspective that applies to all parents. Disabled people have no choice but to learn how to be adaptable, and how to reject the impossible expectations of modern parenting; freed of those constraints, Slice says, their wisdom offers a hopeful new framing of what it means to be a parent.
Slice spoke with The Washington Post about her forthcoming book and her thoughts on disabled (and nondisabled) parenting. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Can you talk about what parenting looks like for you, how you've learned to accommodate the physical limits of your disability?
So one thing is that I don't yet live in an accessible home, which is a real goal of mine, so when I'm home, I'm mostly in bed because my wheelchair can't get most places in my house. So we do more in bed than I think most parents would want to admit, and I think it's okay! I feed my kids in bed. They eat chicken nuggets in bed, my youngest has bottles in bed, I change diapers in bed. My eldest has curly hair, and her hair takes a few hours to do, and we do that in bed. As soon as they wake up, they both get in bed with me. Maybe it's my own insecurity, but there is this sense that doing things in bed is lazy or halfway — but I think my kids feel really safe and cozy in bed with me. I just have to wash the quilt a lot more often.
How have your kids adapted to this?
I'm noticing with my 8-year-old, she's really willing to mention when something doesn't work with her. And I think that's because there is a sense in our family that it's okay if you can't do something. And often her limitations are more emotional limitations, but I'd like to think that I've set an example of it being okay to be limited. I think she's learning really important skills about empathy. When we go out the door, the three of us, she puts him in my lap, she opens the door, she turns around and locks it behind us. She is part of the team getting us out of the house. Oh — and she does Legos all the time, and whenever she builds anything, it always has a ramp. Even if the thing is, like, a dinosaur spaceship, it will have a ramp going up.
You write about the ways that parenthood — starting from the very first weeks parenting a newborn — are perceived very differently between disabled and nondisabled parents. Can you talk about that?
I had planned on just writing about the difference in experience between the two groups, but then I did a few interviews, and I was so surprised that nondisabled people had a much harder time adjusting to parenthood. At this point, I've interviewed about two dozen disabled parents and two dozen nondisabled parents. Nondisabled parents described those first weeks as profoundly destabilizing, one of the most harrowing times of their lives; it made them wonder if they could handle it. And all but one disabled parent said, 'It was okay! It was fine!' There were wild stories, too. [One woman,] Jessie Owen, had twins, and she's quadriplegic, she had high blood pressure giving birth, and she kept having to go back to the hospital after the delivery — but she was completely unfazed by it. She was like, 'It wasn't bad!' So I was like, what is happening here? It can't be that the only answer is that you need to be disabled in order to adjust to parenthood.
So what do you think is at the root of that difference of experience?
I do think that disability has a lot of overlapping skill sets with caring for a newborn. The familiarity with a very precarious and fragile body, and the need to put physical demands right at the top of the priority list — that's often part of disability. Plus, a lot of problem-solving.
And then I think another huge part of it is that, as a society, we're taught to fear disability. And labor and delivery is sort of an automatic relationship with temporary disability, and often people aren't expecting that. They have a baby, and they're temporarily disabled, and they're taking care of a baby, and in many ways a baby is like a disabled person. There's disability everywhere, and society has been telling you for decades that this is a terrible way to live. So for nondisabled people, there is this fear. A lot of people I spoke to described that there was this feeling of their bodies being weak and unpredictable that hit at something primal and core in them.
You talk a lot in this book about capitalism and consumerism-driven parenting, and how that can be 'suffocating' for all parents — how does this look different from the perspective of disabled parents?
I was cautious to talk too much about capitalism, but there was no avoiding it because the fact is that consumerism and parenting are pretty bound up together. But what can be freeing about disability is that so much of the product choices are not available to disabled people. Our crib choice is what we can get our child in and out of. Whatever car seat is light enough to carry on top of your wheelchair. In my case, I don't use a stroller at all, I have a $30 Velcro strap that a friend added additional fabric onto, so that I can have my infant on my wheelchair. The disability mindset is to take a step back and say: Actually what do I need? What is the reality of my body or my life? If I can admit that no product can insulate us from discomfort or pain, what is the best way forward? That is the disabled wisdom.
What you shared about being a disabled parent in public was really striking. Can you explain why that experience can feel so scary and vulnerable?
Parenting in public as a disabled person is hard because people often have opinions — and I think all parents are used to people in public having opinions, but when you're disabled, there is the added threat that a disproportionate number of disabled parents lose custody of their kids, so that commentary has an added weight. I think when a nondisabled person sees a disabled person parenting in a way that feels unfamiliar, it's like — 'That doesn't seem safe,' and that's because we want so badly to know what safe is. In an ableist society, you can say, 'Well, if that is wrong, then I don't have to worry about my own safety because at least I'm not doing that.' But it's just a distraction from this thing we all share, which is that we're doing our best, in public, and everything is a choice.
What can nondisabled people do to better be aware of that dynamic, or to offer support?
Thinking about access on a disabled person's behalf can feel so nice. When one of my kids' friends' parents says, 'Oh, I looked into the access and there is a ramp, but the bathroom's down some stairs, what can I do to make it more accessible?' or 'I called ahead and this one hallway might be too narrow for your wheelchair' — I'm just constantly doing that work, so when anyone takes some of that work on, it feels really loving.
Circling back to this looming threat of losing custody, can you talk about the relationship between Child Protective Services and disabled parents?
I really thought the concerns about CPS were overstated. But then when I started to research and interview, I was like, oh, these are understated. Because disabled people are often poor, they have a lot of interaction with government services, with Social Security, with Medicaid, and in each of those contexts, the person they're interacting with is a mandated reporter. And most mandated reporters are not disabled. And so you have a nondisabled person in the position of judging the fitness of a disabled parent. And also, the reliance on services and the need for help is itself considered a red flag. Even though every parent needs so much help — it's just that people with money can pay for that help. But the result of all of that is that disabled people lose custody of their kids a lot. But it isn't possible to get a good statistic because, for all sorts of complicated reasons, parents' disabilities aren't tracked in a national database of child removals.
There is a really profound idea at the heart of this book — that ableism is born of a fear of need, and a fear of death. How do we begin to rewire that way of thinking?
I think about the fear of mortality a lot because I really think the way I lived before becoming disabled was just this manic attempt to ignore my own fragility and my own mortality. And when I became disabled, everything I was working for was no longer possible. I went from being a business owner and a runner and out with friends most nights of the week, and within a few months I was in a one-bedroom apartment watching Lifetime shows with my sister, with no income. I grieved, and then I accepted my body. And then I found other people who are also disabled. I started reading a lot more poetry. I think what I found is that, actually, all it took for me was telling the truth. What it took was having to sit still and admit: I am afraid of losing people I love, and I'm afraid of no longer being alive. But the miracle of life is that we want to be here, and we want to be with the people we love, and we know it will always end. And we cannot eat or exercise or cold plunge or work ourselves away from that reality.
There is so much happening politically right now — the Americans With Disabilities Act is under threat, there are cuts to medical research and the Department of Education, and so many other imperiled programs and services that are vital to disabled parents and families. What do you hope that people might take away from your book especially in that context?
I think that a tendency we all have with politics is to think of ways that whatever is happening has nothing to do with us. To think that it could never be our loved one who was sent to El Salvador, or that I would never be caught at a border crossing, or that we wouldn't lose our Social Security income. To feel like there's some distance between us and current events. That's the same distance of thinking there's an immovable line between us and disability, between us and fragility. So I think that the first step is the same as when we're thinking about disability — that this is actually happening to all of us, and there is nothing special about me that will insulate me from injustice or pain or suffering. I have no idea how to change everything. But at the very least, you have to tell the truth, and go from there.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Scientists studying axolotls in hopes of learning how to regrow limbs
With their goofy grins and feathery gills, axolotls have become stars of the pet world and video games like Minecraft. But these small, smiling salamanders are also helping scientists explore a medical mystery: Can people someday regrow arms or legs? Axolotls are special because they can regrow body parts no matter the age. Lose a leg? They'll grow it back. Damage to their heart, lungs or even brain? They can also repair that! 'This species is special,' lead researcher James Monaghan, a biologist at Northeastern University in Boston, told The Washington Post. They have 'really become the champion of some extreme abilities that animals have.' In a new study -- published Tuesday in Nature Communications -- Monaghan's team used genetically engineered axolotls that glow in the dark to learn how this amazing process works. One mystery in limb regrowth is how cells 'know' which part of the limb to rebuild. If an axolotl loses its upper arm, it grows back the entire arm. But if the injury is farther down, only the lower arm and hand regrow. 'Salamanders have been famous for their ability to regenerate arms for centuries,' Monaghan said. 'One of the outstanding questions that has really plagued the field is how a salamander knows what to grow back.' The answer may be a small molecule called retinoic acid. It's related to vitamin A and often used in skin-care products under the name retinol. The molecule acts like a GPS, helping cells know where they are on the body and what part to rebuild. Monaghan's team worked with axolotls that were genetically engineered to glow when retinoic acid was active. Then, they amputated limbs -- after giving the animals anesthesia -- and tracked their health, The Post reported. Monaghan said researchers monitored their health closely. 'They don't show signs of pain or distress after limb amputation the way mammals might, and they regenerate fully within weeks,' he said. When axolotls were given a drug that blocked the breakdown of retinoic acid, their limbs didn't regrow right -- an upper arm would form where a lower arm should be. Axolotls not given the drug regrew their limbs normally. This suggests that retinoic acid tells cells where they are and what part to grow. Higher levels of the acid seem to signal a spot closer to the body's center, according to The Post. 'While we are still far from regenerating human limbs, this study is a step in that direction,' said Prayag Murawala, a researcher at MDI Biological Laboratory in Maine, who helped make the glowing axolotls used in the study. Monaghan thinks this could help humans someday. 'We all have the same genes,' he said. 'We've all made these limbs when we were embryos.' The challenge is figuring out how to turn those same genetic blueprints back on later in life -- something axolotls can do but humans can't yet. 'It's one of the oldest questions in biology, but it's also the most futuristic-looking,' he said. Thanks to a growing interest in axolotls, especially among kids, this unique animal is helping to drive cutting-edge science. 'It's a little surreal,' Monaghan added. 'You just see axolotls at the airport, axolotls at the mall. My kids are coming home with axolotl toys all the time, because people know what I do.' More information The San Diego Zoo has more on axolotls. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Scientists studying axolotls in hopes of learning how to regrow limbs
With their goofy grins and feathery gills, axolotls have become stars of the pet world and video games like Minecraft. But these small, smiling salamanders are also helping scientists explore a medical mystery: Can people someday regrow arms or legs? Axolotls are special because they can regrow body parts no matter the age. Lose a leg? They'll grow it back. Damage to their heart, lungs or even brain? They can also repair that! "This species is special," lead researcher James Monaghan, a biologist at Northeastern University in Boston, told The Washington Post. They have "really become the champion of some extreme abilities that animals have." In a new study -- published Tuesday in Nature Communications -- Monaghan's team used genetically engineered axolotls that glow in the dark to learn how this amazing process works. One mystery in limb regrowth is how cells "know" which part of the limb to rebuild. If an axolotl loses its upper arm, it grows back the entire arm. But if the injury is farther down, only the lower arm and hand regrow. "Salamanders have been famous for their ability to regenerate arms for centuries," Monaghan said. "One of the outstanding questions that has really plagued the field is how a salamander knows what to grow back." The answer may be a small molecule called retinoic acid. It's related to vitamin A and often used in skin-care products under the name retinol. The molecule acts like a GPS, helping cells know where they are on the body and what part to rebuild. Monaghan's team worked with axolotls that were genetically engineered to glow when retinoic acid was active. Then, they amputated limbs -- after giving the animals anesthesia -- and tracked their health, The Post reported. Monaghan said researchers monitored their health closely. "They don't show signs of pain or distress after limb amputation the way mammals might, and they regenerate fully within weeks," he said. When axolotls were given a drug that blocked the breakdown of retinoic acid, their limbs didn't regrow right -- an upper arm would form where a lower arm should be. Axolotls not given the drug regrew their limbs normally. This suggests that retinoic acid tells cells where they are and what part to grow. Higher levels of the acid seem to signal a spot closer to the body's center, according to The Post. "While we are still far from regenerating human limbs, this study is a step in that direction," said Prayag Murawala, a researcher at MDI Biological Laboratory in Maine, who helped make the glowing axolotls used in the study. Monaghan thinks this could help humans someday. "We all have the same genes," he said. "We've all made these limbs when we were embryos." The challenge is figuring out how to turn those same genetic blueprints back on later in life -- something axolotls can do but humans can't yet. "It's one of the oldest questions in biology, but it's also the most futuristic-looking," he said. Thanks to a growing interest in axolotls, especially among kids, this unique animal is helping to drive cutting-edge science. "It's a little surreal," Monaghan added. "You just see axolotls at the airport, axolotls at the mall. My kids are coming home with axolotl toys all the time, because people know what I do." More information The San Diego Zoo has more on axolotls. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
‘We dissent': NIH officials issue declaration, say Trump's agenda puts public at risk
Nearly five years ago, as the pandemic continued to claim the lives of thousands of Americans every day, the public was confronted with a highly controversial joint statement called the 'Great Barrington Declaration.' While the statement endorsed protections for the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, it simultaneously argued that public health officials should pursue a radical version of 'herd immunity' by allowing Covid to spread untrammeled through the rest of the population. When Donald Trump effectively stopped trying to deal with the Covid crisis, White House officials said it was because he liked the policy indifference recommended by this 'declaration.' After the president won a second term, he tapped Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of its signatories, to serve as the next director of the National Institutes of Health. Now the 'Great Barrington Declaration' has prompted a sensible bookend called the 'Bethesda Declaration' that's worth paying attention to. The Washington Post reported: More than 90 staffers at the National Institutes of Health signed their names to a letter of dissent to Director Jay Bhattacharya in a rare sign of open resistance by career government employees. The letter warns that Trump administration policies such as terminating peer-reviewed grants, interrupting global collaborations and firing essential staff are wasting public resources, undermining the NIH's mission and harming the health of people in the United States and beyond. 'The life-and-death nature of our work demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted. We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the three-page letter says. 'Many of us have raised these concerns to NIH leadership, yet they remain unaddressed, and we are pressured to implement harmful measures.' The document is called the Bethesda Declaration, of course, because the NIH headquarters are located in Bethesda, Maryland. (Its unsettling 2020 predecessor was prepared at a gathering in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.) It argues that the administration's actions are causing 'a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' with signatories adding that 'For staff across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' In case this isn't obvious, such a statement is far from normal. On the contrary, it's unprecedented for so many current NIH officials not only to denounce their own agency's leadership and the White House's agenda publicly, but to warn the public that the administration is making decisions that put Americans at risk. As for what might happen to those who put their names on the Bethesda Declaration, Bhattacharya said during his confirmation hearings that he would remain open to those with competing ideas. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' As The Associated Press reported, 'That commitment is being put to the test.' This article was originally published on