Quoted in the Wall Street Journal: My Take on Cannabis and Pregnancy Reporting
Exciting news y’all, I was quoted in the Wall Street Journal in an article about cannabis and pregnancy. (Article)
I love that more articles are coming out and raising awareness about cannabis use in pregnancy. This is such an important topic that deserves open and honest conversation. At the same time, I did notice that while the article shared personal stories, it didn’t really back them up or give much support for those choices. The way it was written leaned more toward concern and caution instead of really meeting people where they are.
My goal here isn’t to tear down cannabis coverage but to add some balance and point out where reporting on this topic could go deeper.
Spotlight on a Few Studies Mentioned
The article leaned on several recent studies, including a large systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics. This review pulled together 51 studies and concluded that prenatal cannabis use was associated with increased odds of preterm birth, low birth weight, and perinatal mortality. (Source)
It also cited a cohort study from Ohio where children exposed to cannabis in the womb scored lower on certain attention and planning tasks at age 5. The article summed this up by saying that 5-year-olds “struggled more” with attention and behavior. (Source)
What Gets Lost in Translation
The findings themselves are not the issue. It is the way they are presented. Here are a few areas where I think it helps to add more context.
Size of effects: The Ohio study found that kids exposed to cannabis in the womb scored about 0.4 points lower on attention and self-control. Researchers usually look for at least a 1-point difference before considering it a concern, so 0.4 is a small shift, not a dramatic struggle. Caregivers also reported no differences in behavior.
Other Influences: Many participants also experienced poverty, tobacco or alcohol use, and other stresses. It is very hard to discern what is cannabis-specific versus what is related to those overlapping challenges.
Conflicting findings: Some studies do show risks, while others such as a Canadian cohort study found no differences in birth outcomes or developmental delays after adjusting for socioeconomic status. The science is mixed, and headlines do not always reflect that. (Source) (Source) (Source)
Self-reported data: Many of the studies rely on people reporting their own cannabis use and other behaviors during pregnancy. This can be tricky because people might forget, underreport, or misjudge amounts. Self-reported information can introduce uncertainty and make it harder to know exactly how cannabis use may be affecting outcomes. In other words, the numbers in these studies aren’t always a perfect reflection of what actually happened, so it’s important to interpret them with caution.
Harm reduction: The article did mention stopping cannabis use early in pregnancy and it included a few stories of people weighing risks and benefits. What it did not do was explore other strategies like dose, frequency, or method of use, or how providers can support people in making safer choices.
Language matters: Another thing worth pointing out is the language used. Articles like this often use the word marijuana instead of cannabis. That word is not only outdated, it also carries stigma and bias. Its history is rooted in racism and was used in the early 20th century to push anti-cannabis laws by associating the plant with Mexican immigrants and communities of color. Continuing to use “marijuana” instead of “cannabis” reinforces that stigma, whether or not it’s intentional. Using accurate, respectful language matters.
Why This Matters
When articles on cannabis in pregnancy lean too heavily on risks without enough context, readers are often left with fear instead of tools. To its credit, this WSJ piece did include personal stories and acknowledged that the science is mixed and limited. But what often gets less attention in mainstream reporting are the details that really matter to people making these decisions, like how big or small the risks actually are, when during pregnancy they matter most, how much is being used, and what harm reduction can look like.
This kind of reporting can end up:
Making cannabis seem more harmful than the evidence actually shows
Skipping over harm reduction strategies that could reduce risks for people who continue to use
Highlighting studies that show risks while leaving out those with neutral or no significant findings
A More Balanced Approach
Here is what I wish reporting on this topic would include:
Clearer language about how big or small the risks actually are. “Slightly lower on attention tasks” is different from “struggled.”
Transparency about conflicting study results. Listing both as sources.
Practical harm reduction strategies beyond just “stop.”
Centering the real voices of people navigating these choices.
Bottom Line
I am grateful this conversation is happening in mainstream outlets like the Wall Street Journal. But it is important to go beyond the headlines. The research on cannabis and pregnancy is complex and often mixed, and people deserve honest, balanced information to make the choices that are right for them.
This is why our work at Mary Jane Doulas matters so much. Our mission is to help families navigate the overwhelming and often conflicting information about cannabis and pregnancy, empowering them to make decisions free of shame, fear, or outside bias.