Another Saint in Heaven

I hate to break my blog fast with bad news, but it's 2:30 in the morning and I ate too much Halloween candy before bed. That's not the bad news, that's just the reason I'm blogging at this hour. Also, I apologize for the stream of consciousness blogging that will follow, I just need to get all of this out but I don't think it will be very coherent.

We have another Saint in heaven. Ironically, looking back, I believe I tested positive exactly 2 months before I miscarried. I conceived around August 15, tested positive around August 28, and on October 28 we found out our sweet baby had died.

It is such a baffling loss. I had two prior ultrasounds this pregnancy, one at eight weeks and one at ten weeks. Both times, the baby was measuring right on target and had a beautiful heartbeat. I could even see him or her wiggling around. 

Our ultrasound at eight weeks

Our ultrasound at 10 weeks

Then, at what was supposed to be a routine prenatal appointment at 12 weeks, my midwife could not find the baby's heartbeat on Doppler. She wheeled in a portable ultrasound machine and did a belly ultrasound, which showed a baby about the right size but too still, and no flicker of a heartbeat.

Even so, we held out a thin shred of hope. The portable ultrasound machine was old and fuzzy, so she sent me to a nearby radiology practice for a better quality ultrasound (the practice I go to does have an in-house, high-quality 3-D ultrasound machine, but the tech only works Mondays and Fridays, and this was a Wednesday). 

But our hope was extinguished. Although the baby was measuring exactly the right size for his or her gestational age, there was no heartbeat. Our baby had died.

Baby Jude, 12w4d... too still

I had a D&C the following day. I briefly thought about taking pills to induce labor instead, and delivering naturally, but I couldn't bear the thought of going through all that pain knowing it would end in heartbreak. Or miscarrying at home with the children around. Or having to deal with the baby's body myself. Also my doctor usually recommends a D&C if the pregnancy has progressed past 10 weeks, as he has observed a higher rate of complications with miscarrying naturally past that point. 

Once again, I went in for surgery. Many of the same nurses were working in the surgical department and remembered us from June. They were shocked and sad to see us return. 

And once again, we have had to bury another baby. The same section of the same cemetery, the same deacon performed the service, and we even had several of the same friends present. The same tiny casket, with the same little blanket covering it. 

We named the baby Jude, since we found out about his or her death on the feast day of Saint Jude, patron of impossible causes. I had just finished a novena to him on the day of my appointment. In the time between my first and second ultrasounds, I begged St. Jude for a miracle, but it was not to be.

I am having a much harder time with the aftermath of Jude's loss than I did with Francis'. With Francis, I was able to accept his or her loss as a fluke. Granted, I had had two prior miscarriages before Francis, but they hadn't been consecutive. I've brought five healthy babies to term (Peter's birth defect notwithstanding). I thought, surely, my "pattern" would hold and my miscarriage would be followed by a full-term pregnancy. I even began making plans as a portent of hope - discussing names, hiring my doula, planning for maternity leave, even unpacking my maternity clothes. I had started wearing some, as my regular clothes were starting to get tight.

But my hopes were dashed, and it was made even more inexplicable by the fact that by all accounts the baby was healthy and thriving throughout most of the first trimester. I had much less nausea than usual, but I attributed that to the fact that I was taking some additional vitamin supplements. Plus, I had had terrible nausea and vomiting with Francis, so I knew that bad nausea did not necessarily equate to a healthy pregnancy.

And now I just feel at a loss. Is there something wrong with me? Did I do something to cause this? Do I have low progesterone, or a blood clotting disorder, or is it because I'm approaching advanced maternal age (I turn 35 on November 3) and my egg quality is declining?

Or is there another reason altogether? Does God think I'm a such a terrible mother that I don't deserve to be blessed with another living child? Intellectually I know that's not true, but in my darkest moments I still wonder. I wake up in the middle of the night and start crying when I remember that I'm not pregnant anymore.

I spoke to my OB about having genetic testing done on Jude, but it would cost us $2500 out-of-pocket and that is just not an expense we can bear right now. In addition, my OB pointed out that if the tests did show something wrong genetically, it's not really something we could act upon, and he prefers to perform tests that yield an actionable outcome. 

He is going to refer me to a reproductive endocrinologist, though, for more extensive testing on me. Maybe I do have some sort of blood clotting disorder or genetic mutation that has caused my four losses, and I've just been amazingly fortunate to bring five healthy children to term. Maybe there's something we can do next time, if there is a next time. Assuming we ever get pregnant again, I know I am definitely going to get my progesterone tested first thing, just in case. But my OB doesn't think progesterone deficiency was a factor in my loss, since the placenta takes over progesterone production at 10 weeks and it's unlikely to have a late miscarriage caused by progesterone issues (usually that kind of deficiency will cause an early miscarriage). Plus my progesterone has been tested with other successful pregnancies, and was always at an optimal number. Still, I don't think he would object if I asked to be tested, and it may prove to be one more piece of the puzzle.

I feel guilty for taking this loss so hard when I do have five beautiful, healthy children. But they are grieving as well. My oldest daughter is especially devastated; she has longed for another  baby sibling now that Peter is a toddler and not a baby. She especially wants a little sister, but she understands that the baby's gender is beyond our control. Telling her that Jude had died was one of the hardest things we've ever done.

And as a consequence I'm terrified of getting pregnant again. Obviously it's too soon - both logistically and in terms of the grieving process - to make any decisions in that regard, but I know that if we do choose to get pregnant again, my first trimester is going to be a time of constant fear and trepidation, not joy. And even having successful ultrasounds that show a a living baby won't help take away the fear. 

I think that miscarriage definitely robs you of your pregnancy innocence, but multiple consecutive miscarriages, especially after what seemed like positive signs, completely robs you of your joy. A positive pregnancy test seems like a harbinger of doom instead of a gift of new life.

And yet I know I shouldn't feel that way either. God has given, and God has taken away. My babies are with God now, and they will never know pain, will never know sin, will never know heartbreak or loss. They are perhaps the most fortunate of all my children in that regard. But it hurts that I will not know them this side of heaven. 

It feels so strange to not be pregnant anymore. I can't quite seem to wrap my mind around it. One day I was pregnant, the next I was not - but there is no baby in my arms to help me acclimate to the change. Part of me wants to give away all of my maternity clothes, baby clothes, and baby gear, just to get the constant reminders out of the house. Part of me feels that's foolish because… What if? I don't know. Something to think about later, I guess.

I've been writing for about an hour now and it's about time I shut things down and try to get more sleep. If you've made it this far, thanks for "listening."

Why I've Been Quiet Lately

It's not just the typical busy life of working full time plus five kids... it's not just the post-vacation scrambling to catch up... it's not even working on my new blog, set to launch on Tuesday (feast day of St. Gianna Beretta Molla!).

Nope, there's another reason entirely that blogging has had to take a backseat...

Yes, that's right... as those of you who are my FB friends already know, Wahlund Baby #6 is due December 12, 2015. We haven't come up with a nickname for him/her yet. (I suggested Lupe or Guadalupe, since Baby is due on the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, but Collin nixed it.) 

I've been struggling with pregnancy-induced nausea for the past several weeks (I refuse to call it "morning sickness" because for me it's 24/7), especially since I won't take Zofran this time around. 

Last week was really bad... I threw up twice (once at work) and felt horrible the rest of the time. I guess that's better than non-stop vomiting and a trip to the ER (as experienced with pregnancies #1 and #3), but still, it was pretty hard to function. I decided to try several different solutions in hopes that something would help. 

Although I still have some bad days, I think I mostly have a handle on it. Part of me is scared that it means imminent miscarriage, but it could also be the changes I've made. In hopes that it is the latter and not the former, here is what I've done:

1. My doctor gave me a perscription for Diclegis (unisom + vitamin b6), which is the only category A drug that is FDA-approved for pregnancy nausea, and I've been taking two at bedtime for the last two weeks.
2. I'm getting more magnesium. I tried soaking in a tub of warm water + 2 cups Epsom salts (aka magnesium sulfate) for over 45 minutes, and the next day I felt so much better. I picked up some magnesium supplements in pill form and am taking those every evening before bed (and soaking in the tub whenever I can, too!).
3. I have started following this diet, as recommended by Jen Fulwiler: no processed food, no sugar, no grains or vegetable oils. It's been a struggle but I'm mostly sticking with it. 

I don't know what it is that is working, but SOMETHING is. I can manage the nausea without Zofran, which I wasn't sure would be possible. Praise God.

My first prenatal appointment is May 4. Please join me in praying that the ultrasound will show a living, thriving baby!

There's No Reason to Feel Offended by Pope Francis

I think I've finally been able to pin down why I'm so bothered about the reaction to the Pope's infamous "rabbits" comment.

Hypothetically*, let's say a generic Christian minister made the following comment during a news interview:

"Some women think that, in order to keep a boyfriend, they have to have sex. No. Responsible sexual behavior."  

The next day, the media reports, "[Pastor] states women shouldn't have sex! War on Women!"

It'd be ridiculous, right? Anyone could look at the actual comments in context and see that's clearly not what the pastor said, or meant. He clarified his words with "In order to keep a boyfriend"; clearly, his statement was not directed to all women - only those who believed that they had to have sex in order to keep their boyfriends.

As a woman, I wouldn't be offended by his words, since I agree with him that women shouldn't feel like they have to have sex in order to keep their boyfriends (since any boyfriend who won't respect your choice to abstain from sex prior to marriage isn't worth keeping).

Compare that to what Pope Francis said:

Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood. 

Clearly, Pope Francis' comment was not meant to include all people with children across the board; rather, he was only talking about the specific people who believe that in order to be a good Catholic, you have to reproduce without recourse to human reason, just like rabbits do.

That's why I'm so puzzled by all of the parents of many who were so offended by his remarks. I don't know any mom or dad of many who thinks that they HAVE to have a certain number of children in order to fulfill some kind of "good Catholic" quota. They have the number of children that they do because they discerned that they should, and that's precisely as it should be. Unless you're a person who honestly believes that in order to be a good Catholic, you have to reproduce without recourse to human reason, Pope Francis wasn't talking about you or your family. There's no reason to feel offended.

And if you DO believe you have to reproduce without recourse to human reason in order to be a good Catholic (I personally don't know of any Catholic who thinks this, but there are many non-Catholics who are under that impression), Pope Francis was explaining that such a belief is in direct opposition to actual Catholic teaching.

Not to mention that if Pope Francis really thought large families were a bad thing, he wouldn't say this only a day or two later:

"It gives consolation and hope to see so many large families that welcome children as a true gift of God. They know that every child is a blessing."

*Not a perfect analogy, obviously, but it's the best I could come up with after a long day at work and a long evening dealing with a three-year-old's histrionics. If you can think of a better one, or if you'd like to buy a three-year-old, please leave a comment!

What the Catholic Church Means by Responsible Parenthood

Forgive me, this is going to be a long one.

Yet again, Pope Francis is being attacked for reiterating the teaching of the Catholic Church. This time, he made the not-so-revolutionary statement that parents are called to both generosity and prudence in discerning their family size.

However, like always, the media interpretation is quite different. According to them, Pope Francis says "Catholics shouldn't breed like rabbits." Which is, of course, not at all what Pope Francis said.

C'mon, media, even we can figure that out*

But I'm not really interested in rehashing what the Pope actually said as opposed to what the media claims he said, as several other bloggers (such as Leila and Simcha) have already done an excellent job doing so. Rather, I'd like to expound upon what the Church means by responsible parenthood, because this seems to be a concept that Catholics on both end of the spectrum don't fully understand.

What is Responsible Parenthood?

Pope Paul VI gave a very clear, concise explanation about what constitutes responsible parenthood in Humanae Vitae (HV), paragraph 10 (all bolding mine):

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

If you have a large family, you can practice responsible parenthood. If you have a small family, you can practice responsible parenthood. All families regardless of their size are called to practice responsible parenthood with both prudence and generosity. Like so many other aspects of Catholicism, it is not either/or, it is both/and.

Not prudence (small family) OR generosity (large family). Prudence AND generosity.

What is prudence?

We can turn to paragraphs 1806 and 1835 of the Catechism for that answer:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.  

1835 Prudence disposes the practical reason to discern, in every circumstance, our true good and to choose the right means for achieving it.

Simply put, prudence is applying moral precepts to every day situations. A prudent couple may discern that they are not called to have another baby, and use right means (NFP) to avoid conception. A prudent couple may also discern that they are being called to have another baby, and use right means (the marital act) to achieve conception. Neither couple is "wrong" in what they choose to do, as long as their consciences are properly formed according to the Church, and they have done their utmost to discern God's will for their lives. Some may not know if they have discerned correctly until Judgement Day.

HV 10 continues,

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

The Church tells us we need to keep a right order of priorities, and then gives us those priorities AND their proper order!  God, ourselves, our families, and human society. Notice that "having another baby" does not top that list. Nor is it #2. If a woman has a grave health risk in which pregnancy could cause grave harm or even death, she is not required to try to conceive again in the hopes that everything will turn out all right.

For example, look at the story of Andrea Yates. She had severe PPD/PPP after her first several pregnancies, and her doctor had warned her that she needed to get serious treatment before having another baby, but she conceived anyway. The result was tragedy.

We are reminded that we have to conform all of our actions to God's will:

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.

Paul VI had already promulgated this teaching in Gaudiem et Spes, several years earlier:

Let [parents] thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. 

This is what Pope Francis was referring to when he told reporters that the Church does NOT instruct us to "be like rabbits" (and he apologized for using that phrase -- he too understands how demeaning it is toward faithful Catholic couples).

Rabbits do not care about the objective moral order. Rabbits do not stop to question their consciences before engaging in intercourse. Rabbits do not have a right order of priorities.

Rabbits are not bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the creator.

We are not to be like rabbits, mindlessly using our bodies without also engaging our human reason. That soundbyte, however, doesn't garner the amount of clicks that "Pope says Catholics shouldn't breed like rabbits" does.

Large Families and Responsible Parenthood

Finally, I'd like to point out something else Paul VI said in Gaudiem et Spes:

Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.

Note that Paul VI did not say the people who merit special mention are "those who just have baby after baby after baby without any regard to the conditions I just discussed." Catholics are encouraged to have large families, but only if, after "wise and common deliberation," they feel they are called to do so.

Given these precepts, let's look at the example Pope Francis himself used. He spoke of a woman who'd had seven C-sections and was pregnant with her eighth child. Here is exactly what he said:

This doesn't mean that the Christian must make children "in series." I met a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant with her eighth child, who had had seven C-sections. But does she want to leave the seven as orphans? This is to tempt God. I speak of responsible paternity. This is the way, a responsible paternity.

We don't have all the details because Pope Francis did not give them, but we know he was concerned enough about her situation to use her story as a caution to others.

It seems safe to assume that she had some health problems that made deliberately achieving another pregnancy very imprudent, or lived in an area of the country that made having a C-section much more dangerous and risky than it is in the United States.

I say "deliberately" because I doubt Pope Francis would have used her story if she'd been trying to avoid pregnancy but was victim to the failure rate of NFP; he speaks of "tempting God," which seems to imply that the woman in question became pregnant deliberately, and rationalized her decision by stating she would trust God to save her from the consequences of a poor choice.

It seems also safe to assume, given that he prefaced the remark by stating that Christians do not have to have children "in series," that this woman was of the providentalist mindset (e.g., couples who make no attempt to space pregnancies because they feel it is inherently wrong to do so).

As Pope Francis expressed concern that this woman would lose her own life as well as orphan her seven older children, it seems he was reminding the Catholic faithful that our discernment must, as Gaudiem et Spes says, "...thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring."

Trusting God versus Tempting God

Remember that we have free will. We can choose to have sex, and a baby might result from that decision. That does not mean the decision corresponds to the will of God. To make the claim, "Well, if you do conceive that means God willed it to happen" can set a dangerous precedent. For example, it could lead to claiming that since babies are conceived via immoral means like IVF, or even rape, those means are therefore good. But while the end might be an objectively good thing (a new human life), the means to that end are not always moral or in accordance with God's will.

God's ways are mysterious. He can bring good out of our own bad decisions and bad situations. There are many women who discerned they should not conceive due to grave health reasons but who unintentionally conceived anyway. In cases like these, intent matters. The women were not trying to be reckless or imprudent or tempt God; they were trying to act according to the precepts of responsible parenthood. But that is simply the nature of our fallen world -- sometimes we can act as virtuously as we can and yet things still go wrong. (That's not to say the child is wrong, merely the situation.) In those cases, all we can do is trust God that there is a larger plan, and that He will bring good out of whatever bad situations we find ourselves in, whether or not those situations are the result of our own bad choices. Easier said than done, right?

However, we need to make the distinction between trusting God and tempting God. We trust God to take care of us, but in turn God trusts US to discern wisely and try our hardest to make decisions that are in conformity to His will -- and He trusts us to be both prudent and generous when it comes to our family size.

We tempt God when we make decisions that are reckless or irresponsible, especially if we make those decisions on the basis of trusting God to protect us from the consequences of our actions -- which He doesn't always do. I can't throw myself off a cliff and trust God to save me. He will allow me to suffer the consequences of my own bad choices, even if He chooses to somehow bring good out of them.

In Conclusion

Pope Francis hasn't taught anything new. Many people on Facebook, blogs, etc. are complaining that the media misrepresentation of his remarks means they will be inundated with comments from relatives and others telling them that they don't have to have a large family, the Pope said so! Yes, and those same people probably told you that Pope Benedict said you could use condoms, too. These days, this kind of thing is part and parcel of being Catholic. All we can do is look at it as an opportunity to evangelize to our family and correct misconceptions about Catholic teaching at the same time.

Okay? Okay. Now, go forth and multiply...

....prudently, generously, and in conformity with the will of God.

How is Gestational Age Calculated?

Gabriel at 8 weeks past LMP (6 weeks after conception)

No, Arizona did not pass a bill that says a baby's life begins two weeks before conception. That is what's known as "maliciously false pro-abortion propaganda."

Here is the text that has everyone up in arms, from HB 2036:

4. "Gestational age" means the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.

I've been pregnant six times, and every care provider I've ever seen (two different OBs and a midwife, in two different states) has calculated pregnancy this way. In fact, with Gabe it was a bit of an issue because I insist on calculating my pregnancies based on conception date since I have long cycles, and the medical assistant at my OB's office only knew how to calculate gestation based on LMP (last menstrual period). But hey, don't take my word for it:

• Calculating the day your baby begins to develop and keeping track of your pregnancy dates can be a challenge. The development of pregnancy is counted from the first day of the woman's last normal menstrual period (LMP), even though the development of the fetus does not begin until conception, which is about two weeks later. - American Pregnancy Association
  


• In the UK pregnancy is calculated from the first day of the woman's last period so for as much as three weeks of this first month she might not be actually pregnant. - BBC News
  


• The average length of a pregnancy is 40 weeks, or 280 days, from the first day of the last normal menstrual period. - Discovery Health
  


• Pregnancy is measured using “gestational age.” Gestational age starts on the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period (LMP). - Planned Parenthood

Yes, that's right - Planned Parenthood determines gestational age in the exact same manner as stated in HB 2036! Bet HuffPo missed that little factoid.

A slight change of plans

Collin's work schedule is changing (from a Saturday-Wednesday shift to a Monday-Friday one, woohoo!) so I rescheduled my 20-wk ultrasound for Oct. 9. Even though we're not finding out the gender, I'm excited to see the baby sooner than originally planned!

Baby kicks!

I felt the baby kick for the first time last night! I've felt what I suspected were movements for the last week or so, but I was never 100% sure that they were movements and not just indigestion or something. Last night, however, there was a definite *kick*, coming from right where the doctor said the baby was (right below my belly button, on my left side) based on where he found his/her heartbeat. What a great feeling!

I still keep referring to this baby as "her" in my head, although Collin keeps talking about when "he" arrives. I guess between the two of us, we have our bases covered.

14 weeks today!

We went to an introductory Bradley class last night. The instructors (who, as an interesting side note, are both blind) have had 10 homebirths! Their oldest is 33 and their youngest is 9.

We listened to one couple's amazing birth story (and met their adorable 2-month-old, Elias) and chatted for quite a while. We're looking into seeing if I can switch to a midwife and Olga (Bradley instructor) is looking into that for me. The trick is seeing if the hospital will allow the midwife to deliver there. I will probably keep my OB as a backup OB if he is amenable to that.

We're still not sure if we're going to take the classes (Collin is hesitant about the price -- $300 for 8 sessions + 4 optional review sessions), but he was impressed so I'm hoping he'll agree. If nothing else, we made some new friends.

It's also our eighth wedding anniversary today. That's, what, twenty in celebrity marriage years? We're going out for dinner and possibly a movie (sans kids!) on Thursday to celebrate. I am looking forward to many more happy and fruitful years, God willing.

11w6d appointment

I had an appointment this morning. The nurse found the baby's heartbeat with the Doppler - nice and strong at 160bpm. What a beautiful sound!

I've lost a few pounds but my bump is more noticeable. Second tri, here I come!!

Bronchitis

Since I've had a chest cold for 10 days now, I finally went to see the doctor. The diagnosis is bronchitis. Lovely. At least I'm getting some medication to deal with it.

The nurse decided to do a u/s to check the baby, so that was a pleasant surprise. S/he looks great! I didn't get a pic, but we have one adorable alien baby.

Problem resolved!

Collin was able to take a half hour off of work on Thursday, so he can just watch the kids while I go to my appointment. Whew!

I've often wondered...

...if Mary had to go through first trimester nausea when she was pregnant with Jesus. I tend to think she did, given that her body was a human body. If so, I heartily sympathize, and ask her to pray for me right now.

I've never had an epidural during childbirth, but I do wish I could get one for the first trimester. I hate the all-day nausea, the occasional vomiting, and trying to make it through the workday when all I want do do is crawl under the covers and whimper.

I do have nausea medication (Phenergen), but I'm reluctant to take it at work as it makes me drowsy. It's hard enough staying awake while at work the way it is!

A few more details about this pregnancy: I got the positive test on Father's Day, June 21. Collin was thrilled by his surprise gift (I wrapped up the test and gave it to him after I showed him the slideshows I'd made of the kids). Over the course of the next week I had two quantitative HCG tests done; my number at 15 days past ovulation was 256 and my number at 17dpo was 667. Both excellent numbers, and doubling nicely, as they're supposed to do. My progesterone level was 19 - also excellent. I've had a "paperwork" appointment at the doctor's office and go in on Thursday, July 23 for my first actual appointment.

I'm not sure what I'll do with the kids. I don't really want to bring them with given I'll be getting a Pap smear done, but Collin's not sure if he can take time off of work due to a project with which he's involved. I may just bring them to daycare and then drive back to Surprise for my appointment, but that seems like a waste of gas (it's a 45-minute drive, one way, to their daycare). Still, it may be worth it. I'll have to think about it more.

I'm really hoping I'll get an ultrasound at my appointment, but from what I understand they're not routine. Still, given my miscarriage history and the fact that I won't be far enough along to hear the baby's heartbeat via Doppler, maybe the doctor will take pity on me and give me one anyway.