One is, why postpartum depression? I mean, and not other things instead or too?

One in eight new mothers is said to develop postpartum depression, with some indeterminate fraction of cases either lasting months or developing into a more serious psychosis. In some other indeterminate fraction of cases, women do not get treatment, because their husbands or other family members discourage it, because the women themselves think it's normal "baby blues" they'll recover from naturally, or they seek treatment but are rebuffed by doctors, or some other reason.

My point is not that this isn't serious, of course it is. I don't understand how much more urgent screening for this is than for, say, thyroid disease. Or breast cancer. Don't misunderstand me to be saying people should be compelled by law to submit to tests for those things, too; in fact the very moment I'm required by law to have regular prostate exams, the tea's going in the harbor.

The answer to my question has something to do with former state first lady Mary Jo Codey, who very publicly championed the law, plus the Andrea Yates nightmare and Tom Cruise dissing Brooke Shields. I'm glad prostate cancer doesn't normally result in multiple homicide or celebrity books, but it seems like if, and I don't concede this, government should be passing laws requiring doctors to do certain things, it should be motivated less by true crime stories and celebrity publicity.

Another question is, does anyone else think it's creepy when former Governor Richard Codey, now a state Senator, says women "facing the fear and uncertainty of postpartum depression will have someone looking out for them"? Considering who he means? I know if I'm facing fear and uncertainty, I want the closest bureaucrat to hold me. But I'm just that way.

Ok, that may have been a cheap shot, but it's also a good segue into my last question. What could possibly be wrong with a law that simply makes doctors do what they should be doing anyway, when it will unquestionably help women who otherwise wouldn't get help? Surely you're not hanging your hat on a general distrust of government, are you, libertarian boy?

Here's what could possibly be wrong, even assuming you don't believe the distance between something like this and mandatory digital rectal exams is uncomfortably short. New Jersey has around 115,000 births a year. Celeste Andriot Wood, assistant commissioner for family health services, says (link above) "10 percent of the new mothers will require intervention." Set aside how fascist that sounds, since we're being skeptical toward complaints about this. That's not 10 percent of New Jersey mothers who are not apt to otherwise get help. Remember our indeterminate percentages? Some will get help on their own; some, the mildest cases, may franky not need or want help. Is New Jersey treating a (say) three percent problem like a 10 percent problem?

How about whatever percentage of postpartum depression sufferers who would get help -- the personal, specialized, doctor-patient kind, not the one-size-fits-all state recommended kind? Are they better off? Are you ever better off when your consultation with your doctor is replaced by a nurse's followup phone survey that triggers the state-certified "requires intervention" scenario? Administration of the law is in the hands of the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services. Are you confident the Commissioner's not going to shunt mothers who would otherwise get actual, personal, professional care through some state hoo-hah involving doctors or professionals of the Commissioner's choosing? Commissioners of things hardly ever take care of their friends in New Jersey, but it's possible, anyway.

Pulling back from the floaty-hair black helicopter theories, what happens every single time you start requiring people to do things you would normally rely on their good judgment to do? Right, they bob down to your waterline of competency. I know the problem here is doctors who are not rigorous enough about discovering and treating postpartum depression, but those who are are now, essentially, off the hook. They are less likely to take a personal, profesisonal interest in their patients' postpartum health, because as long as they do what the state tells them to do, they're good.

If you don't believe that this is human nature, then have a kid, get him into fifth grade, and have his teacher assign essays with no set length. He's apt to fill a couple pages, if he's interested in what he's writing about. Now have the teacher say the essay must be at least two paragraphs long, because some of the kids are turning in "the cat sat on the mat." I'll give you three guesses how long your kid's next essay is going to be, but you'll only need one. Teacher has improved the performance of the lazy, good for nothing kids, but if yours wasn't one of them, how are you doing?

This is what happens, absolutely without exception every time, when you have some people doing well, some people doing barely passably and some people not doing, and you require that they all do barely passably. Hurray for the people relying on he doctors who weren't doing anything for them -- now they have one less reason to switch doctors to one who knows what he's doing next time they get pregnant. But not everyone's care has improved; some are worse off. Right?