I'm not at all inclined to believe any of the flotsam floating around out there about the state of Angelina Jolie's twins' health. I am inclined to believe, however, the bits about Angelina suffering from post partum depression (PPD). Ange is a mom just like the rest of us, and, like most new moms, she is probably experiencing it on some level.

According to reports, Angie is in a tither over the health of twins Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon and is depressed. She is crying throughout the day and exhausted from sleepless nights. Well, welcome to early motherhood! Birth is a big deal, however you do it. Between the act of giving birth and all the pregnancy hormones flowing in and out of your body, crying is probably the least of it. Some women get PPD so badly they impart harm to themselves, their spouses and their children. Ange will be lucky if she gets away with just crying.

Having been through a milder form of PPD myself, I can say that sometimes the crying seems as if it will never end. The sadness seems insurmountable and the lack of control overwhelming. But, hope is around the corner--women and their doctors are more aware of PPD and how to treat it. Even superwomen/supermoms like Angelina Jolie are not immune to PPD or other post-natal symptoms. Let's hope that's all it is, and that she is able to get the help and understand--and support, especially from Brad--she needs in order to get better!

Ok, who knows if this is really true, but it's certainly cute. According to Victoria Beckham herself, she cooks for her family. Many moms accomplish this task, but I'd wager few are as busy as Posh Spice, who spends her time running her fashion lines of jeans and clothes as well as modeling and being a fashion plate in general. Posh also recently released yet another fragrance she's been promoting.

Posh, who is vegetarian (perhaps that is how she keeps her trim figure?) says she makes a good mincemeat pie though. Posh also says she cooks dinner every Sunday for her family, which consists of husband David--international soccer star and megahottie--and three sons, Romeo, Cruz and Brooklyn. The menu includes Yorkshire pudding and Dora the Explorer cakes--I'm guessing those are David's favorite???

Victoria was under recent speculation that she might be adding to her family but has done her best to quell those rumors by wearing tight fitting clothes and telling everyone she is too busy to consider another child at this time. Part of the reason she is so busy is spending some time suing magazines for claiming she takes dieting pills. Maybe she just doesn't like mincemeat pies!

OK, is it me or is a national convention no place for a baby? As was widely covered (yet not as much as the Democratic National Convention, interestingly), the Republican National Convention showcased many of Sarah Palin's children (and a would-be teenage groom). Among them, Palin's infant son, Trig. I thought it was a lot to take my newborn to the local diner when he was born!

Now, while the Republicans seemed a little more calm and collected than their boisterous Democratic opponents, they were still a relatively rowdy bunch. The whole point of a convention is to get people riled up for the cause, and there was a lot of that going on, especially from Palin herself. It was a loud, crowded, noisy place, which, to me, is no place for a baby. Babies need stimulation and interaction with the social world, I'm sure, but the RNC is a far cry from what good old Doctor Spock imagined. I am sure that kid was terrified. He seemed ok in the arms of family members as the rest of the RNC wailed on, but I couldn't help but think he should have been home with a nanny or a sitter.

Of course, the whole point of having her family there was to drive home the point that she's a mom and that she is a working mother, too. And, naturally, rather than focusing on real issues that truly matter to the election, the focus was all on her family. Trig has down syndrome. Bristol is pregnant. Levi will we her. Both Palin and the press have done their best to constantly remind us of these things--things which matter, sure, but they shouldn't be a part of the race for the White House. Should they? Palin and her people say keep the children out of it, yet there they were, even the littlest one, at the convention. Obama was no better--he trotted his kids out for the cute factor, no denying that.

Thoughts? Should we keep candidates' kids out of the political spotlight? If so, shouldn't they NOT be on television?

Kate Moss seems to have a few tricks up her designer sleeve when it comes to getting her daughter to eat her vegetables. The supermodel tells Glenn O'Brien in September's Interview magazine that she bribes her child into eating the less desirable foods by promising her access to her wardrobe when she's older. Seems ironic for the woman who was constantly at the center of a rumor tornado surrounding her alleged eating disorder.

Moss freely admits she "blackmails" daughter Lila Grace, 5, into eating the vegetables by telling her she'll get what Kate no longer wears when she's older. Can you imagine what this woman's closet looks like? I'd eat broken glass to get even a fraction of it! Moss tells her daughter if she doesn't eat her vegetables and finish her dinner she won't grow and she won't get the clothes. It's a deal I guess Kate can easily afford, being one of the most famous of the supermodels out there. I certainly couldn't promise my children much more than a couple of hairy dogs and a lot of well-loved maternity wear.

Both bloggers and commenters have long debated whether or not it's appropriate to bribe children into doing things that are good for them or that we want them to do. Eating vegetables is no exception. I'll tell you right now that, if I could, I would immediately bribe my seventeen-month-old into eating his vegetables--well, into eating anything other than fake sausage links and pirate booty. I can easily see how parents give in to it as a last resort. Question is, if it starts out as a last resort, how long before it becomes the standard?

Recently we all got a good laugh, intentional or not, from a mom who posted on Craigslist looking for a nanny. For those of you unfamiliar with Craigslist, it's a now international site where one can post or look for anything from a job to household goods (used baby clothes too!) to a hot date, and everything in between. Hence, it should come as no surprise that someone would post looking for a nanny.

Finding a good nanny, especially in a city as big as New York, can be daunting at best. Sure, there are many to choose from, but they're expensive and trolling through their credentials can be arduous. All the good ones seem to have been snatched up by a neighbor uninterested in doing a nanny share. Finding affordable daycare, however, can be twice as hard. There are waitlists and questionnaires long enough to boggle the mind. All the good ones are very expensive, and few if any actually provide a discount for siblings (often they will give your child preference over another if you already have a child in regular attendance).

I find myself in this very situation right now. To live in New York, I have to work full-time, so childcare is a necessity for me. I am a Brooklyn mom so things in my part of New York should be less expensive than, say, the Upper East Side (from whence the poster looking for a nanny hailed), but it's still eyepoppingly absurd how much everything costs. If I were to put both my kids in daycare it would cost more than my new mortgage. Yep. So a nanny seems like a good idea, if I could just find a good one that wasn't too expensive and that didn't need to live with me. I, too, have thought about posting on Craigslist. Perhaps not in quite the manner in which the other mother posted, but it's certainly crossed my mind. After all, folks post for everything else so why not?

Would you post for a nanny on Craigslist or any other site or is that a crazy idea? Also, if you happen to be a nanny or know of a good one in the New York area, please let me know. My kids are NOT a pain in the ass. They're cute.

With my first pregnancy, everything was done by the book. My OBGYNs were staunchly against inducing until a full two weeks after my due date. They were also against scheduling a C-section barring there was no medical reason to do so. In other words, they viewed pregnancy and birth as a natural thing that should happen when good and ready, not something that needed to be scheduled in time for a tennis match or dinner plans (theirs or mine).

This time around, nearly twenty months later, I received a slightly different tune. My child is due relatively near Halloween (my father's birthday and my favorite day of the year). I'd inquired if the two-week rule still applied as I thought there would be a slight possibility my child could be born on Halloween. My OBGYN wanted to know if I wanted to schedule an induction. She noted that a woman had recently done so because of childcare issues--she had to have the baby at a certain time in order to find someone to watch her other child.

So the message was a little different this time around. Have we gotten so busy and our lives so scheduled that we need to induce our labors in order to fit into them? Sure, no one likes the thought of not knowing when the baby will arrive--you could be in the middle of a subway ride or something--but isn't that half the fun and excitement, too? Some would say that fun and excitement have their place, but not when it comes to having a baby. They want to know exactly when and where (usually they've got the why and how figured out).

What about you? Would you or did you schedule an induction for something other than medical reasons or that it was two weeks past your due date? If so, why?

We've often had the conversation here at ParentDish about how many children is enough. The answer? Well, it depends on the family. Desire, money, space, time and energy requirements all make their case in the debate, and it ultimately comes down to how much kid a parent can handle. Several people have said to me, for example, how they really wanted three children until they had two. Some, like me, who came from a small family--I was an only child--want as big a family as possible. Others think one is the magical number.

For Brad Pitt, apparently that magic number hovers somewhere near what it would take to have your own baseball team. The actor, heartthrob and life partner (or whatever you want to call him) of Angelina Jolie, who already has six children, recently admitted he'd like two more. To take matters further, he is quoted (probably WAY out of context) as saying they'll arrive within the next year. That statement, true or not (probably the latter) will do two things:

1. It will give the media, tabloids and gossip hounds even more ammunition that the twins were conceived using fertility treatments, which has been denied by the pretty pair and that they'll use such methods again to get two more children in such a short span of time (unless they adopt, and you know how long that can take, even for a celebrity: just ask Madonna); and

2. It will, indeed, give them almost enough kids for a baseball team. I mean, if Ange and Brad joined in the fun then there'd be ten of them, so you know, you could have reserves and pinch hitters and whatnot.

Safety in numbers, right? And, really, once you have six kids, what's two more? I mean, other than the baseball team thing. Good luck to the happy couple, if indeed what Brad says is true in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

There are a lot of ways that we, as parents, put ourselves into groups. Breastfeeders vs. formula feeders, co-sleepers vs. cry-it-outers, stay at home moms vs. working moms. I think it's really unfortunate when these very personal issues divide us, because, really, what do variations in parenting technique have to do with adult friendships and relationships? I'm very committed to the way I choose to parent my children, but I'm not committed to making sure other parents parent their children the same way. That's just not my business.

Vaccinations are a different issue, however. Whether or not you vaccinate your kids can have an impact on other people's children. That's one of the biggest issues vaccinating parents have with parents who choose not to. When kids aren't vaccinated, parents fear, then the risk of their children contracting those illnesses increases. Says Dr. Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, "One of doctors' biggest concerns is loss of 'herd immunity.' Because no vaccine is 100 percent effective, successfully fighting disease requires most children be vaccinated."

Is there a downside to breastfeeding? A new report from the New York Times might have you thinking so. In a recent article, several studies monitoring a lack of vitamin D in infants might support that breastmilk is not enough to prevent things like rickets in children. The biggest fear is that the deficiency is more common than previously thought and is going undetected. Breastmilk apparently does not necessarily provide enough of the vitamin to children.

Doctors, of course, are rare to say anything at all negative about breastfeeding. Unlike perhaps even fifty years ago, women are being told that they simply must breastfeed, that they are wrong for not doing so, and that breastmilk is the ultimate wonder food for their infants. This may well be true, but the medical profession that's been pushing breastfeeding down our throats has also admitted to knowing there is a probable link between vitamin D deficiency and diseases like diabetes and cancer.

The answer, of course, is not to stop breastfeeding, but rather to augment a child's nutrition by adding vitamin drops, or, my favorite, cod liver oil (yummy!). The other pretty obvious answer is that if a woman is deficient in something, so, too, will be her breastmilk. Mothers should be getting plenty of vitamin D themselves in order to pass on the right amount to their infants. That should be good news to those of us who are committed to breastfeeding exclusively for as long as possible. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and my own pediatrician recommend supplementing with the vitamin D drops.

Thoughts? I for one drink enough milk while pregnant and nursing to keep a small dairy in business. Is it enough? Who knows. Did you supplement breastfeeding with vitamins for your infants or enjoy a little cod liver oil?

Pic by timtom.ch [surfin' USA].

A new Census Bureau report confirms something most of us already suspected: women are waiting longer to have children than they did 30 years ago. What might be a little surprising is the fact that more women than ever are choosing not to have children at all. In fact, the numbers show that a whopping 20 percent of women ages 40 to 44 have never had children.

"A lot of women are not having any children," said Jane Lawler Dye, a Census Bureau researcher. "It used to be sort of expected that there was a phase of life where you had children, and a lot of women aren't doing that now,"she said.

The report also reveals that the more education a woman has, the less likely she is to become a mother. Clearly more women are taking advantages of the opportunities available now that didn't exist 30 years ago. But these numbers suggest - at least to me - that women may be giving up on the idea of 'having it all'. Sure, the big job can be managed at the same time as a full family life. But it isn't easy and eventually something has to give. It would seem that for many women, what gives is motherhood.

Is there a link between having an aboriton and depression, or other psychological maladies? According to the American Psychological Association, not if a woman has only had one abortion. In a report that came out last Wednesday, women who have one abortion are no more likely to suffer depression or other mental health problems than women who go on to have their babies.

To be clear, the abortions in question were those that were elective and in the first trimester. Prior mental health as well as self-esteem issues and the fear of stigma were the main factors in post-abortion health, according to the study. Also according to the report, which I find really hard to believe, is that half--HALF!--of American women will experience an unwanted pregnancy and that about half of those--a quarter, for those of you doing the math--will get an abortion. That's a LOT of people.

I also think that it's one thing to look at a hundred studies, but it's another to talk to the women who've made this choice themselves. And yet another for those women to feel like they can be honest with their responses and reasoning behind getting an abortion. I've never had to make that choice, but I know people who have. And let me tell you something--they come from all different backgrounds, are different ages, etc. And each of those women has had to deal with the decision she made for the rest of her life. I am all for women being in charge of their bodies and strongly support the pro-choice movement, but to say that having an abortion doesn't affect a woman's mental health (for better or worse), at least for some period of time, might be a little misleading.

It seems like it should be common sense. Don't diet while pregnant. Yet for many moms these days that seems to be the trend. Many of them are successful at it--but at what cost to their unborn children? In the United States as well as in the UK, pregnant women are succumbing to what is being termed "pregorexia," wherein the consume as little as possible during pregnancy to avoid weight gain. Experts agree this is harmful to both mother and unborn child. Fetuses get their nutrients straight from mommy; when she doesn't supply enough, like with calcium, they get it from her bones. If they can't get the nutrient from the mother, they suffer--kids are born prematurely, with a low birth weight and an increased risk of spina bifida all from mothers being underweight during pregnancy.

In Hollywood, the recent barrage of women giving birth would have have us think they were barely pregnant at all. Most of them gain hardly and weight and sport only the tell-tale bump. Almost as soon as they've given birth, they return to their pre-pregnancy weight, which was scandalously low in the first place. Some, like Nicole Kidman, have even drawn harsh rumors that she was never even pregnant at all--after seeing her less than a month post-baby her body was scarily small, prompting the media to generate the notion that her sister, who'd basically remained under cover during the pregnancy, was the one actually carrying the baby.

%Gallery-29681%

With all these Hollywood celebrities maintaining tiny frames while they attempt to bring another human being into the world, it's hard to not feel the pressure to be thin in our own lives. Forget the fact that it's pure misogyny at work, isn't it also the worst thing in the world to deprive not only yourself but your unborn child of vital nutrients and sustenance? Experts suggest that women of normal weight (meaning not underweight nor overweight) gain between 20-25 pounds during a pregnancy. That number was recently lowered from the old notion of anywhere from 25-35 pounds (and in some cases 40). instead of worrying about gaining too much weight, shouldn't we be more focused on getting our children--and ourselves--the nutrition needed to be happy and healthy?

As many of you may know, I have a sixteen-month-old-son. When I first became pregnant I never thought whether I wanted a boy or a girl. I was simply thrilled to be having a child at all, and wanted only a happy, healthy child--the sex of the baby was inconsequential. Then, at one point I found out I would be having a son. I was an only child and a girl and knew not the first thing about having, and raising, a little boy. Now I'm on track with my second child, a little girl. I'm nervous and flustered and wondering just how different raising a child of the opposite sex will be. After all, I've had experience raising a baby, but he is all boy, all the time.

Is there such a difference in raising children of the opposite sex? Ask anyone, whether or not they're parents, and they'll have a pretty strong opinion about the world of boys vs girls. For example, when I found out I was having a girl, the pink clothing literally started pouring in. Everything is pink! When I was pregnant with my son I received clothes in all manner of colors, but not with my daughter. People also always comment that boys are much more rambunctious than girls in the beginning, but that girls are ever so much harder to deal with as teenagers--and that as the would-be mother of a teenage girl I have a lot of drama to look forward to.

The only real difference I've come across in my research is how you change a diaper. For girls you simply wipe in a different direction than with boys. Perhaps there's a little more clean-up involved as you're dealing with internal parts as opposed to external parts, but really that's the only difference I can discern. All of my friends who have two children, oddly enough, started out with a boy and then followed up with a girl. They all say that there is a real difference, even if it can't be defined in words, to raising a boy vs a girl.

Thoughts? Is there any real difference? Is it just society straining its concept of norms over us? Or is there more to raising girls than pink clothing that makes them intrinsically different than boys? After all, aren't little boys made of snails and puppy dog tails and such, while girls are made of sugar and spice?

Did you ever play with paper dolls? Perhaps you did when you were young. Perhaps, even now, you continue to collect them for nostalgia's sake, or to refrain back to your old days when you didn't have kids and were one yourself. Well, in the world of paper dolls comes along a set that is fun and humorous and possibly just a wee bit controversial: The pregnant paper doll.

The pregnant paper doll is intended as a gift for the mother-to-be who has a sense of humor and doesn't mind yet one more reminder that her waist is about to become a thing of the past. There's a doll and requisite set of clothes for each trimester, including what some women call the "fourth" trimester--you know, the one after the baby is born but you still feel and look ginormous? The first trimester offers a few tummy-bearing options and some strategic layering, while the third trimester offers sweatpants, a mu mu, and, oddly, a wedding dress.

Not sure what comment the creators of the paper dolls had in mind when they decided to add that garb to the mix. Are they secretly (or not so much) hinting that pregnant women ought to get married? Maybe I'm just being overly analytical; after all they are just paper dolls. The only other thing I think is worth mentioning is that this is a kitchshy item that, while fun, will most likely just sit on the shelf. No mom-to-be is going to take time out of her busy nesting schedule to cut these out.

Actress and break-out movie sensation Katherine Heigl is too busy for children. The Grey's Anatomy star, whose recent silver screen hits include 27 Dresses and Knocked Up, says she is far too busy to consider having kids.

The newlywed's husband, musician Josh Kelley, basically couldn't agree more. According to him he's even taken some time off touring to focus more on music. Once you're married, though, inevitably comes all the questions about when you'll be starting a family.

Like many, many women before her, famous and not, Heigl is spurring on the trend of having a baby later in life (if indeed she wants kids at all). With a career as full and successful as Katherine's, I can certainly understand putting off motherhood for a while. Or, maybe the experiences she had while playing a pregnant woman in Knocked Up scared her!!!