Why the backlash to Meghan Markle sharing her postpartum health scare is so ominous
After sharing her experience, waves of misinformation and disinformation quickly followed, spreading across social media and tabloids. Some questioned the legitimacy of her condition; others accused her of exaggeration or seeking attention.
This backlash is not only harmful; it's dangerous. It undermines medical realities, discourages women from speaking up, and perpetuates a culture where maternal health is dismissed and politicized. Just last week, the Trump administration made cuts that gutted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Reproductive Health, which in part monitors data on maternal mortality. The dehumanization of women, and especially women of color, in these conversations reinforces a system that already fails to listen and protect. When lived experiences are met with doubt instead of empathy, lives are at risk.
I developed postpartum pre-eclampsia six days after giving birth to my son — the same condition Meghan mentioned. To be clear, this is not the same as pre-eclampsia (pre-eclampsia develops when the baby is still in utero and comes with various other complications). It is imperative to distinguish the two because the context in which a woman is cared for within our medical system differs enormously during pregnancy and post-pregnancy. This distinction easily gets lost in the tabloid and social media noise.
Postpartum pre-eclampsia is a very serious and sometimes fatal condition, characterized by high blood pressure and protein in the urine in the days or weeks after giving birth. It can lead to seizing, a stroke, blood clots, excess fluid in the lungs, organ failure, brain damage and death (this is when it progresses to eclampsia). A reported 75% of maternal deaths are connected to postpartum pre-eclampsia, making it an especially dangerous condition, according to the Preeclampsia Foundation, the nation's leading nonprofit on the issue. This is partly because the first postpartum checkup isn't until week six — the exact cutoff point before which data suggests a woman is still at risk of developing the condition. By that time, women have long been discharged, and the attention has shifted to the new baby. The condition can come on fast and often with little warning.
When I was diagnosed, I had no prior history of high blood pressure, diabetes or obesity, nor was my son born via IVF — all of which are risk factors that data suggests might increase the likelihood of developing the condition. Due to massive gaps in the research, it's safe to assume any woman, regardless of her medical history, is at some risk.
The night I was hospitalized, I noticed my ankles were swelling significantly. I developed a thundering headache and shortness of breath, so I asked my husband to take my blood pressure with a blood pressure cuff we happened to have lying around at home. The numbers were so alarming he thought maybe there was a mistake with the cuff — but he had me call my doctor, just in case.
After leaving a message for the on-call doctor, I downplayed my husband's concern. Birth — the hard part, or so I thought — was over. I had a healthy baby boy to take care of. I left my phone to get a snack and returned to two missed calls and a voicemail from my OB-GYN telling me to return to labor and delivery immediately.
When we arrived at the hospital, I still didn't feel too worried. So when the nurses started frantically hooking me up to a catheter and IVs, I was afraid and confused. Before anyone could tell me what was wrong with me, I was whisked away to a dark room as my headache worsened. At the time, I had no idea I was at risk of a lethal seizure or stroke.
While in emergency treatment, I could not hold or breastfeed my new baby, and my husband was left alone to care for him while worrying about what was happening to me. It was then that we learned about postpartum pre-eclampsia for the first time. It was terrifying — not just for me, but also for my husband.
I am so fortunate that not only did my husband believe my symptoms (and have a blood pressure cuff at home) but that my doctor believed me, too. I am a white woman who received swift and effective medical attention. Not everyone has that privilege or is as lucky. Gender bias and systemic issues, including the minimization of women's pain and dismissal of Black women's symptoms in particular, have led to many missed or delayed diagnoses. Black women are three times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes, and five times more likely to die from postpartum cardiomyopathy, a possible symptom of the condition.
By sharing that she suffered from postpartum pre-eclampsia, Meghan not only helps break the long-held silence around the condition, but also highlights how frequently women's health concerns are dismissed or minimized, especially surrounding birth. The skepticism she has received isn't just about celebrity gossip, it's a microcosm of how society often treats women's pain as an exaggeration. And when it's a Black woman speaking out? The disbelief comes faster. Meghan's willingness to speak publicly forces a critical conversation not just about postpartum health, but also about the cultural reflex to second-guess women when they say something feels wrong.
This backlash also speaks to the growing broader and darker mistrust of the medical establishment — ironically, rooted in histories of neglect, racism and systemic inequality — that continues to leave so many, especially women of color, feeling unheard or unprotected. That's what makes the backlash to Meghan sharing her story particularly damaging; it threatens the progress toward a more inclusive and accountable medical system by discouraging others from speaking out.
Because maternal mortality is rising in the U.S., we cannot afford to stay silent. Our stories matter. Our lives matter. Every woman deserves to know the risks, princess or not — and to be believed.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declares 'loyalty' to Trump, rules out a 2028 presidential bid
WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he's not running for president in 2028 and intends to remain in his position until President Donald Trump leaves office. The leader of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement said in an X post that his "loyalty" lies with Trump, and he dismissed speculation about his political future as part of a "smear campaign" from disgruntled Washington insiders who oppose the MAHA agenda. "They're pushing the flat-out lie that I'm running for president in 2028. Let me be clear: I am not running for president in 2028," Kennedy said. Kennedy competed for the presidency in 2024, first as a Democrat and later as an independent, before suspending his candidacy last August and throwing his support behind Trump. After the election, Trump made him HHS secretary. His comments ruling out a 2028 bid came far-right activist Laura Loomer accused Kennedy aide Stefanie Spear of using her position at HHS to lay the groundwork for Kennedy to run again. Loomer's comment came in a Politico interview and followed an Axios report in July that said Kennedy super PAC head Tony Lyons and Spear convened MAHA supporters on a call that left some attendees with the impression he was mulling another campaign. But in his social media post, Kennedy said, "The president has made himself the answer to my 20-year prayer that God would put me in a position to end the chronic disease epidemic — and that's exactly what my team and I will do until the day he leaves office."
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
US aid cuts condemn hungry children abroad
Starvation in the Gaza Strip has brought intense international attention to the horrors of famine, but less attention has been paid to a wider issue: The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development has worsened the problem of severe hunger and malnutrition throughout the world. Advertisement Saving children with severe acute malnutrition is simple and inexpensive. Each packet costs less than 30 cents but contains a high-calorie mix of peanuts, sugar, milk powder and oil -- flavors appealing to children -- and a blend of vitamins and minerals. A complete six-week treatment for a severely malnourished child runs less than $45. Advertisement USAID funded roughly half the world's supply of ready-to-use therapeutic food, or RUTF, purchasing some directly from U.S. manufacturers and funding the United Nations Children Fund, or UNICEF, to manage its distribution. All those grants were abruptly halted when the Trump administration froze foreign aid earlier this year. USAID eventually reimbursed grantees for costs already incurred. The State Department recently authorized a $93 million new grant to UNICEF, but it is less than half what the government had typically spent. In 2024, the agency spent about $200 million on this work, not including aid for countries and direct grants to organizations that implement programs. Funds for 2025 have yet to be released to manufacturers; the World Food Programme, which distributes a similar product for moderate acute malnutrition; those who transport the products; or the many organizations, like the International Rescue Committee or Helen Keller International, that run the malnutrition programs. In response to questions from the Times, the State Department emailed a statement asserting that lifesaving malnutrition programs 'remain a priority.' 'Malnutrition treatment is among the first new obligations of foreign assistance funding,' the statement said. But it also said that 'other actors -- including national governments and international humanitarian organizations -- must step up.' President Trump has made the same argument for many aid programs, saying the United States should not have to carry the bulk of the burden of caring for the world. Although other countries do already contribute, and some organizations are scrambling to fill the gap, it is unlikely that they can do so quickly enough to help the children who are now in need. Increasingly, some governments such as Nigeria, Kenya and Burkina Faso have been contributing by hosting factories that manufacture the packets. The Child Nutrition Fund, started by UNICEF, the British government and others, encourages governments to finance supply by offering a 1:1 match for every dollar. Advertisement Before the sudden withdrawal of aid, 'things were absolutely moving in the right direction,' said James Sussman, a spokesperson for the International Rescue Committee. Now boxes containing millions of dollars' worth of the lifesaving packets are stuck at every link in the supply chain: in manufacturers' warehouses, at shipping companies, in cities that received the shipments and in treatment centers that have shut down all over the world. In nearly a dozen countries, the supply chain for the packets has become so unstable that thousands of children are at high risk of dying, according to organizations that help distribute the treatments. Tens of thousands more could be in danger in the coming weeks and months if funds for this year do not move quickly. 'We have seen the mortality rates in the hospitals increasing by the day,' said Aliyu Mohammed Jabo, Helen Keller International's director for Nigeria. 'This is the ugly situation that we are facing because of this funding cut.' In Nigeria, 150 clinics operated by the World Food Programme in Borno and Yobe states, which provided treatment for more than 300,000 children under the age of 2, shut down at the end of July. In Bauchi state, Helen Keller International has had to stop treating malnutrition in 16 of its 17 centers, leaving more than 17,000 children without treatment. In eastern Chad, Mali and Niger, malnutrition treatments are unavailable or in dangerously short supply. Clinics in northeast Syria, Burkina Faso and Kenya have closed down. In South Sudan, the International Rescue Committee estimates that it will have to close 62 static treatment sites and nine mobile clinics if funding is not restored by September. Advertisement In Afghanistan, IRC warehouses are bare, despite 900,000 children who are in desperate need of treatment for severe acute malnutrition. Nepal has no supply in about half of its provinces and is facing a nationwide shortage starting this month, endangering about 200,000 malnourished children, including about 25,000 who are at risk of death. Several other countries, including Congo, Ethiopia and Madagascar, similarly have only enough products to treat children for a few more weeks or months. This month, after long delays, the State Department authorized $93 million for UNICEF, its first large grant for 2025, to supply RUTF to 12 African countries and Haiti. Part of the grant is for distributing 11,000 metric tons of packets, enough for about 800,000 children, to last through June 2026. Some money will also be spent to transport and distribute more than 1,200 metric tons of stalled packets -- enough for about 87,000 children. But UNICEF expects that it will be two to three months before the products are delivered, according to Helen Wylie, a spokesperson for the organization. After orders are placed and products manufactured, it can take months for treatments to reach people. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly said that no children have died as a result of the cuts to foreign aid and the dismantling of USAID, calling reports of any deaths 'false' and 'fake.' But several organizations, including Doctors Without Borders and the aid group Action Against Hunger, have reported deaths in children related to malnutrition. More timely and precise estimates of deaths are difficult, because many of the programs that track children in need have shut down, and most organizations dare not speak up against the administration, fearing retaliation. Advertisement One global study has estimated that more than 160,000 children might die each year if the funds are not restored. Acute malnutrition, also called wasting, is thought to affect about 43 million children worldwide. Even when aid flowed freely, it did not reach many of them. In 2023, RUTF was dispensed to 9.3 million children, according to UNICEF. The first 1,000 days of life in particular are critical for brain development. Severely malnourished children have impaired immune responses, may suffer permanent cognitive damage and are more vulnerable to infections, even after treatment. They are up to 11 times as likely to die as a healthy child is. Severe wasting accounts for as many as 1 in 5 deaths of children younger than 5 worldwide. By the time a child reaches a treatment center, he or she may have only hours to survive. 'It really comes down to the children who do not have time to waste,' said Navyn Salem, who runs Edesia Nutrition, one of two large U.S. manufacturers. In previous years, American farmers supplied the raw ingredients -- peanuts, milk powder and soy -- to Edesia and Mana, two large U.S. manufacturers. The finished product was transported by truck to major U.S. ports, then shipped to the ports of Africa, where it would be unloaded and stored. An intricate network of organizations then transported and distributed the boxes. The stop-start-stop of work orders and the dissolution of USAID has thrown the system into disarray. USAID's activities have in theory been transferred to the State Department, but the department has neither the personnel it needs to restart all activities -- even less so after widespread layoffs earlier this month -- nor the systems needed to release funds. Advertisement The department 'continues to strengthen internal systems and personnel capacity to ensure timely, accountable delivery of lifesaving humanitarian programs,' a representative of the State Department said in an email. In the meantime, some organizations are burning through their reserves, but many small ones have folded. Others are looking to philanthropy. Mana received a gift of $20 million from a British philanthropist and donated about 500,000 boxes to UNICEF. Edesia has raised $2 million in private funding and is shipping some boxes to the neediest sites on its own. Without more funds, the companies will have no money left to buy raw materials and are in danger of defaulting on contracts from farmers in 25 states. 'The American farmers that we work with can only hold on for so long as well,' Salem said. 'So it's been a waiting game, a very stressful waiting game.' Edesia recently shipped 122,000 boxes to Sudan and still has more than 185,000 at its warehouses. UNICEF will use the new funds to ship those products soon, according to the State Department. Mana, too, has already been paid for 400,000 boxes which have yet to ship; 100,000 are slated to move to South Sudan sometime in the coming weeks. Even if funding were to resume tomorrow, it takes weeks to ship products to their destinations. For RUTF to reach locations in South Sudan, for example, the products must first be shipped to Mombasa, Kenya -- or produced locally in Kenya -- then transported by road through Kenya and Uganda to Juba, the capital, and then to more remote parts of the country. The roads are rough, especially in the rainy season, and boxes may take two or three months to reach the sites, said Stephane Doyon, an operations manager for Doctors Without Borders. In Afghanistan, the time to delivery may stretch to eight or nine months, he said. That may be too late for some children. This article originally appeared in
Epoch Times
7 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Parents Prepare: Trump's Megabill Brings 3 Crucial Tax Changes
You may have heard of the Trump tax bill that was recently signed. This key piece of legislation, so-called 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' (OBBB), impacts millions of Americans through its provisions on health, border security, and taxes.
