"Overachieving" moms, unite!

Lately I've loved being in the kitchen,
doing a ton of baking, canning and
cooking. Except I'm not wearing a bra.
Don't hate. 

I'm sure we've all seen those blog posts about how 'overachieving' moms try too hard, make the rest of us look bad, give us a false expectation of reality, etc. I wish I could find the original article I read - full of positive affirmations that we're all doing a good job, we're all good moms, blah blah blah.

Well, of course. Why does it matter if someone is addicted to Pinterest and loves to craft and make exquisite Christmas cookies and you don't? Since when is this a sign that you're a "bad mom?"

As I canned what seemed like my 500th jar of applesauce this morning, I thought about that article - and how it's often perceived that anyone who so much as turns on an oven is thought of as a "overachiever." I sometimes wonder what people think when I post pictures of all the canned goods, birthday cakes and Barbie clothes I like to make. I wonder what the other moms think when our kids line up at Halloween, and my child is wearing a hand-made costume that took weeks to make while the kid next to her is wearing something they bought on clearance the day before yesterday.

I am not going to let that stop me, though, because you know what - it's my passion! It's what I love doing. And if those other moms don't, so what. I'm sure they have passions and interests that I don't have; things they know how to do that I wouldn't have a clue about. Why are we turning this into another mommy war? Why are you letting someone else make you feel inadequate? And why is this even perceived as an inadequacy in the first place?

One of my favorite DIY bloggers is Ana White - a wife and mother who knew nothing about power tools and building stuff and then decided to learn. Now she is building her mother a freaking house! Can you imagine? I bet she's doing it all to make the rest of us look really bad ....

I can't wait to make this and show the entire world
how awesome I am. *sarcasm*
Photo credit: lynneslovables.com

So far this summer I've canned, tried a buttload of new recipes, and picked fruit with my kids (cue the happy music and images reminiscent of a J Crew catalog), have plans to make more Barbie clothes for a craft show and am constructing a replica of a toy fashion shop and modeling runway to showcase my stuff. Because I'm nuts. And because I freaking love it and think it's fun. Not to make you feel like a bad person, so get over yourself already. (said in the most polite way possible)

I like to write, do family genealogy, bake and cook, photography, make beaded jewelry, make Barbie furniture, antiquing and yard saling and probably a bunch of other crap I can't even remember. While I'm not very good at decorating cakes, I still enjoy doing it. And when I've posted pictures before (of the ones that actually looked presentable), I've heard comments like, "You're such a good mom." Why?! Because I baked a freaking birthday cake?! Our culture has become so used to just opening a box and dumping it out and voila, you have a meal. And while I certainly make my share of Stove Top stuffing, it makes those of us who actually like to slave over a hot stove doing this stuff feel like freaks, like we're only doing it to show people up.

Before modern packaging, people canned and preserved food because that's all that was available. Things like store-bought sugar were a luxury. Handmade clothes were the standard because nearly everyone knew how to sew, and mass-produced clothing was a sign of status and wealth.

Pardon me while I post my pictures on FaceBook - because I want to share in a way that was shared with me, and sparked an awesome idea. That is why I sometimes wish I could live in Pinterest. So many great ideas, and who cares if you don't do them all? Who is ever going to know but you?

It can be so gratifying to take something from raw material to finished product (finish a project? What??) - whether it be sewing, hunting, carpentry, cooking or whatever. Instead it's almost like they're saying, "How dare you know how to do all that stuff, then have the audacity to share your ideas! Shame on you!"

I think our ancestors - you know, the ones who lived on farms and knew how to build and do things for themselves because there was no other way - would be laughing at us because many of these skills are a lost art. Gone are the days of little girls sitting quietly, cross-stitching a sampler (I wonder if that's a discipline skill in and of itself). I am amazed when I read the book Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder: an account of her future husband Almanzo's family, an entire chapter is devoted to what the kids do all on their own while the parents are away for a few days. They use up all the sugar to bake goodies and make their own ice cream, and when a problem arises that could get them in some serious hot water, older sister comes to the rescue by meticulously patching up the wallpaper and scrubbing the entire room. Wow. A kid knows how to do that, all on her own?

An awesome photo collage wall that
I've been wanting to do for at least
five years now. I *will* do this. Someday.

I'm fortunate to have the time to dabble in a variety of things because I'm a stay-at-home mom, but I think I'd be doing this even if I had a "real" job. Sometimes, it comes down to priorities and making time for your hobbies - which can be a great stress-reliever! And sometimes I wonder if women, more so than men, create these inner and outer battles with themselves and each other - dwelling on what other people do and gauging their own abilities based on their perception of someone else. My husband is crazy busy with work but makes time to go hunting - because it's therapeutic, it's a passion, and a craft, so to speak. Are other men jealous of my husband because he hunts and can field dress a deer? I doubt it. So if someone is putting smiley faces on their kids' sandwiches and enjoys it, so be it. If you feel like a "bad mom" simply because of this, please don't. Sometimes I think the only one making you feel inadequate is you.

And if you'll excuse me, it's time to put my handmade-from-scratch calzone (no premade dough here!) in the oven. (My kids are eating cereal instead.)

If you're interested in seeing my (inadequate) craft blog, click here. Not updated very often, but I try. LOL

The ultimate litmus test: vaginal birth or cesarean?

You can tell Jessica Simpson is getting close to her due date - the "Will she have a cesarean?" question comes up. Apparently there is a story circulating the internet (and has been for months) that says Jessica wants to have an elective cesarean to avoid childbirth pain. Is it really true? Who knows.

The thing is, before we go off on a tangent, we need to realize a few things: first, it's her body, right? It's her choice, whether it's an ill-informed one or not. Secondly, the same thing was said of her sister Ashlee - and we still don't know, after two years or however long it's been, whether she had a vaginal birth or cesarean. It's almost like the tabloids picked up the old story and just switched the names.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. And yet it does. Beyonce went through the same thing - even drawing criticism over whether she was really pregnant - and we find ourselves back in the same place. The entire birth community came down on her for one reason or another, and then had to backtrack when they realized they had fallen for a story that wasn't even true. Does it even matter? It's not our story, we don't own Beyonce or any other mother, and I hope it didn't steal her joy. Jessica is probably facing the same thing - people who question her decision and judgment, starting another battle that proves the mommy wars are alive and well and says, "Welcome to motherhood!" I won't even say it's the natural birth community that's jumping on her case - it's women in general. It doesn't matter in that it's her decision to make and not ours; it does matter in that it might send a message (as if that hasn't been done for decade upon decade) to women that trivialize cesareans and their risks. It doesn't matter in that, in the end, a baby is born and will take its place among the millions of other babies - and there are plenty of celebrities and influential people who don't want to electively have a c-section. It doesn't matter because, in six months, we'll be focused on something or someone else - the next flavor-of-the-month will get pregnant and we'll be asking the same questions about her, too.

After awhile all the questioning starts to sound like a litmus test to prove your worth as a woman and mother among other women and mothers. What next? Proof that she delivered in a particular way? Do we want to see the scar? The episiotomy? It sounds disgusting, but seriously, that's what it's starting to sound like. If she has a cesarean, I suggest we use this time to reserve judgment and instead gently advocate - instead of turn it into a virtual slugfest between people who think they have the monopoly on childbirth, whether it's "I had three cesareans and turned out fine!" or "I had three totally natural births and turned out fine!"

It's her body, and her choice. Whether we like it or not.

"Booby traps" in the NICU

Photo credit: Benjamin Earwicker.

I've never had a baby in the NICU, but I've run across more painful, heart wrenching stories of women desperate to nurse their babies who were offered little, if any, support. Then others have nothing but glowing reports about how wonderful and supportive their staff was, how caring and understanding the nurses were. It leaves me wondering: why is there such a disparity of care and support for these mothers and babies?

Obviously premature babies have special needs and issues, and often times they are born too young to even have a strong sucking reflex down yet. Not all babies, though, who are in the NICU are premature, and even some that are don't have the same problems other babies do. While obviously the sucking reflex is a common problem among preemies, I can't imagine that it exists with all of them, and I start to wonder, is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? That because it can be a problem, we're just going to go ahead and treat it like it is one?

Popular breastfeeding websites like Kellymom.com and the Best for Babes Foundation both posted this article on their Facebook fan pages, and the response from some mothers was nothing short of heartbreaking. Some of the comments included:

"I was flat out told by a nurse that it's nice to try but don't be afraid to give up - formula is just easier."

"They were very pro-milk, but not pro-breastfeeding. I had no support after."

"I am VERY thankful my preemie was my second breastfed child. If he had been my first I am confident that the hospital would have ruined any efforts to breastfeed...they were supportive (somewhat) of providing breast milk to my baby, but not of my baby breastfeeding. I had to push very hard on the doctors and nurses in the hospital to make it happen."

"My son went for 3-4 hours. I literally told the nurse "you can take him but if anybody gives him formula I will kill them." An hour later, the same nurse said, "His blood sugar was low so I gave him a little formula."

This also happened to me with my third child, who was born at term weighing 8 pounds, 7 ounces - nothing huge. The nurse flatly told me, "We gave him formula because his blood sugar was low," and when I shot her a look of surprise, she said, "We don't ask, we just do it." I received no other information whatsoever about my son's condition, nothing - and wondered, What is it about my breast milk that can't solve this problem but formula can? I don't think so.

Much like the schedules and strict feeding routines have been encouraged among term infants, the same exists in the NICU. One mom told how the nurses would only let her put the baby to the breast for short periods, then wanted her to give a bottle so they could see how much he was getting. Like this mother, I remember being almost obsessed about wet and poopy diapers and the length and time of feedings, to the point where it was almost making me crazy. And like her, I had an almost epiphany where I asked myself, What am I doing?! and threw them away, which made the nursing relationship so much easier and more relaxed, for both of us.

In the case of infants who were there but weren't premature, it seems that formula was often still pushed.

"I had some nurses forcing formula if she wasn't finished nursing after ten minutes on each side."

"I'm surprised we didn't have issues establishing a nursing relationship! They constantly 'forgot' to tell me when he was hungry so i could come and breastfeed him (I was recovering from a very traumatic birth) and *sneaked* formula. I was SO MAD."

"My youngest was automatically put in the NICU because he was a vaginal breech delivery. He was born a day short of 41 weeks. He was 9 pounds. They told me they didn't now if they could "allow" me to breastfeed."

Many said the same thing: that the idea of breast milk itself was readily accepted, just not breastfeeding. Why? I have to wonder if it's not so much because of 'cultural norms' but because they don't want to see you - and don't want to run the risk of others being offended because of an inability or lack of desire to breastfeed. I've often thought there were serious psychological and control issues when it came to some nurses and breastfed babies. And while most nurses would happily turn over care to the preemie mom, some, I think, almost develop a complex - because they are so engrained and entrenched in the care of these babies that they get defensive of their territory when someone - even the mother - steps in. Our cultural attitudes about public breastfeeding can also spill over into healthcare professionals - the very people who should know the most about it, and facilitate it the most, can also be the same ones to totally undermine and completely destroy that relationship.

I came across this link to a blog post where a nurse overhears a potential NICU job candidate announce, during the interview, "I don't DO breastfeeding." In her post, she mentioned an article posted on the Breastfeeding Moms Unite! blog, "Do nurses learn about breastfeeding in nursing school?" She confirmed our worst fears - that they don't, or at least didn't when she was in school, learn much about either the physiology or the mechanism behind it. As she put it, "The nurses owned the babies back then..." I argue they still often think they do.

Why would someone make a public declaration of this? Especially a person who is responsible for the care of patients who could benefit the most from breast milk? The nurse who overheard the exchange actually felt that this person would be hired, and I can't imagine why. Unless we're praising formula strictly for the sake of convenience, instead of seeing breastfeeding as a public health issue - especially among those most at risk. Her poor attitude could - and probably will - compromise the care of some - maybe all - babies, and I just don't see how anyone could want that person on their staff.

And if you actually question their authority, take charge of your baby and defy their "orders," you just might run into this problem:

"I think the only reason I established a successful nursing relationship, despite NICU nurses who threw away my "extra" expressed milk and gave her formula because the "refrigerator had no space," who scoffed at the "trendy" idea of kangaroo care, who chastised me when I nursed in the open, busy main room in front of her isolette instead of in the curtained-off "family room" that was almost always in use and locked (the hospital social worker actually reported me to CPS for my "public indecency" in the NICU and my "troubling attitude!"), the doctor who insisted on "plumping up" my expressed milk with preemie formula and sent me home with two massive cases of free liquid samples of the nasty stuff, was that I have a hypersensitive bullshit detector and a hyposensitive reaction to the advice of outsiders."

More reading:
When should I give my baby formula? regarding hypoglycemia and the newborn
NICU nurse in job interview: I Don't DO breastfeeding"- StorkStories
Gettin' your baby fix on, Similac Style
The nurse's role in promoting or undermining breastfeeding
Anti-breastfeeding NICU - mothering.com post

Stay-at-home-moms: Would you send your kid to daycare?

Before we even get started on this one, I'm going to say one thing: If someone says "Don't judge," just remember: we all judge. At one point in time you have judged someone, and if you say you haven't, you're probably not telling the truth. I'm sure we've all judged moms who circumcise their sons, who formula-feed their babies, who fully (or don't) vaccinate, women with large families, those who have epidurals;  the hot-button issues run the gamut and everyone has an opinion. Just keep that in mind.

I couldn't help but notice the new trend among some mothers I know - sending the kids to daycare. That in an of itself isn't revolutionary; one of them is a working mom who just had her second baby. She's a teacher, gets summers and breaks off, and sends her 2 1/2 year old to day care. So what?

The other mom does, too. But she's a stay-at-home-mom. In fact, her three-year-old has been in daycare a few days a week since her youngest was born almost a year ago.

So yeah, I guess I'm judging.

Wouldn't it be nice to drop so and so off so I could actually do something for a change? Yeah. That would be nice.

Then I think back - I put my oldest two in preschool 2 1/2 hours a day, three days a week, but is that the same?

I do think in some ways that preschool and daycare are different: most preschools are only a few hours a week, whereas daycare time tends to be several hours every day or at least several days a week. I felt that sure, all those great things like socialization, blah blah blah were important, and my kids were enrolled in a great program with fantastic teachers. I wanted them to experiences a "rules" setting much like the classroom with similar expectations that they would have in school, and admittedly, it was also good for me, too. So yeah, I can admit that I partly did it because I wanted a break.

But what I found was that much of the time, I admittedly didn't do shit during that break. Sometimes grocery shopping, but certainly not every day. Working out? Yeah, whatever. I don't know about other people; I'm sure some are super-diligent about their time, but I bet more often than not that others fritter away their time much like I did. Now that I have two full time in school, I'm home alone with my youngest, who just turned three. And you know what? I don't want to send him to preschool next year, because we're rather enjoying ourselves at home, doing our thing. And I realized, I can teach him just about as much, maybe more, as he could be learning in preschool.

I don't begrudge any mom who does need to send her kids to daycare because she's single, struggling financially, can't afford not to - but then there are those moms who agree that whatever money spent on daycare sucks up all their income and they have to ask themselves, is it really worth it? Don't get me wrong: I think there are some situations where sending the kids to daycare when you stay at home might be good for a mom's mental health. Someone mentioned taking care of a child with long-term illness, which is probably above and beyond what most of us go through in a typical day. Dealing with depression is another, which might give someone a much-needed break.

But does it become a crutch?

The moms I'm talking about are people I know, and rather intimately. One stays at home during the day and works occasionally in the evenings while her husband watches the kids. She's well-adjusted, watches a lot of Ellen, and sheepishly admits to sending her daughter a few days a week - presumably so she can run errands and make her life easier with the youngest (and watch more Ellen). The other has expressed her interest in keeping up her tenure and seniority at her teaching job, and I think therefore feels that she "must" work. Neither are depressed, and we're all living pretty much within the same economic sphere. (Although with two incomes I know they can well afford the house and two cars they bought this past year.) Judge much? Hell yeah.

Because I know that even as a stay-at-home mom, there were times I spent more time focusing on things that were way less important than my children. And they were even at home with me. And suddenly it hits me like a smack in the face: I can't get that time back. And neither can they. That time that they sent their kids off to daycare so they could keep their fantastic (and totally unnecessary) job, run errands or have coffee with the girls and errands, is totally gone and can never be reclaimed.

I judge because I see her tooling around with her husband while neither of them are working, knowing their kid is in daycare. If I were a working parent, I'd absolutely take a hit on the daycare bill to be with my child, even if I'd already paid up. And since I know they pay by the month, it means there are literally weeks at a time - like Christmas and spring break - where they know they'll be off work. And guess what? She's still often in daycare.

I judge because I see how freaking sick that kid is, every time I see her. She hacks and coughs endlessly and always sounds like she's miserable, to the point where others have noticed and expressed concern. And she's already been hospitalized at least once.

Both used daycare as an option when they had their second children, which must be nice - and yet makes me wonder: how are you ever going to get used to the full workload of two kids when they're not together all the time? How unrealistic. I'd love to send them off to my mom's so I can go into town for 20 freaking minutes, go on a date with my husband, or just whatever. But my mom lives six hours away, all my friends have kids of their own to deal with, and my two most reliable babysitters are moving half a dozen states away this summer. So I guess I'll just have to find another way. Because I signed up for this when I decided to have children. Isn't that what motherhood is ultimately all about?

Years ago, moms stayed home and dads worked full time, often detached from their children and the child-rearing responsibilities. Heavy-handed discipline was often the norm, leaving physical bruises and emotional scars. Now with generations of kids practically raised by someone else in a daycare setting, is it any different? No physical scars, but perhaps an emotional void that should, if possible, be filled by a parent? (Stay-at-home dads are the shiznit!) In cases like this, is it mothers who are now detaching themselves, if not only partially?

I know it's not always possible. And I'm sure I'll come off as a hating, judgmental fill in the blank. That's not really my intent to hurt someone, but ... well, there's not really anywhere else to go with that. If you are probably going to be home anyway, then what is the point? Are we really letting ourselves be told - or telling ourselves, maybe - that motherhood is too much, or that we can't do it? Then why did we assume this role?

All those doddering old people that come up to us in stores and smile at our sweet children, telling us "Enjoy it - it'll go so fast!" have a point. They're freaking right.

The politics of nursing in public: haters gonna hate

The other day someone graciously shared this very powerful photo on my fan page:

Photo credits: Teresa Henderson/Michelle Hickman/Becky Wheeler

It generated a lot of interest and definitely some controversy, with 160 shares and more than 500 comments - more than my page has ever seen all in one place before.

Most were overwhelmingly positive, and of course, it'll also bring people out of the woodwork. In moderating the comments, I noticed some interesting things happening, though.

Whenever someone argues against breastfeeding in public, specifically, they always say things like this, "I don't want to see her breasts in public!" But the mother isn't showing any breast at all, so they move on to something else, like the age of her child.

If the child can walk and "could ask for the boob," then he was too old. Or that breast milk didn't provide much nutrition, if any, past the age of one year. (Not sure why, but that part about walking seems to stick with many, who think that's the magic age when kids are automatically independent and don't need their parents anymore.)

Thankfully some pointed out that even newborns can "ask" for milk - by doing the breast crawl, rooting, shoving their fists in their mouths, and finally, crying. And some children start cruising, walking well before a year old, so then what?

Photo credit: Carin Araujo

"'If they're old enough to ask for it, they're too old!' Right! My four-year-old just walked up to me and was like, 'Mommy, can I have an apple, please?' and I was like, 'Oh hell no, if you're old enough to ask for it, you can starve!'" 

Others then mentioned how they felt misled because the photo was staged. Psychologically I think it makes people feel better to know that this particular mother really didn't have to nurse her child in there, even though thousands of women everyday feel compelled to do something very similar.

One guy gets huffy and says "he was lied to." "Just a random pic is VERY misleading." In other words, I don't want to admit or believe that women really do have to sit in a toilet stall to breastfeed because of my delicate sensibilities!"


Some stated that they supported breastfeeding in public, as long as mom was modest about it and used a cover. While I personally preferred to be covered, my babies never liked it much. And I've heard many stories from nursing mothers about how, even though they were covered and showed nothing, they were still confronted publicly about it. A friend told me how, when she was at the mall, she had barricaded herself in a corner, behind her stroller, her baby covered, and someone still came tottering over to her to complain about what she was doing.

As usual, many women asked why the mother couldn't "just pump for those occasions?" Because we all know it's so easy! I asked readers on my fan page if they had trouble pumping and almost everyone that responded said "Yes!" I thought it was just me. I had no problems pumping with my first child, but after that, would probably have to start three or four days ahead of time if I knew I was going to be away from the baby for even a short time. Dreadful.

Photo credit: Marek Bernat

"I don't think she should have to pump just so YOU don't feel uncomfortable. That's your problem... My son never took a bottle, so do you suggest I let him scream instead of nurse? If my son wants to nurse, shoving a carrot or a granola bar in his face is not going to appease him."

And lastly, they picked apart the fact that the mother was pregnant. "You're so not supposed to do that!" one person practically gasped.

In other words, if your supposed immodesty isn't an issue, something else always will be. You just can't please anyone, it seems, and someone will always find a reason to complain about your choice to feed your child. Haters are always gonna hate.

On birth suites and breastfeeding: what a busy week!

I've been slacking - I'm supposed to be writing posts about thyroid awareness, but considering the busy week the entertainment industry's been having, I couldn't help but get distracted!

Beyonce's Birth Suite
First, Beyonce had her baby. Woo. I know, I'm like the 400th person to write a blog post about it, and really, it doesn't matter to me whether she had a natural birth or a cesarean. Well, in some ways it matters, yes - but not in the way some people think it does. Without rehashing too much of what everyone else has said, I do think how a woman gives birth matters: in the sense that surgical births are completely downplayed and approached with almost a blasé attitude, to the point where vaginal births - normal ones, anyway - are almost considered "old-fashioned." If she got the birth she wanted, then great - either way. When the entire world thought she had a cesarean at 37 weeks for breech, though, I wondered aloud, "What if this is the best information she had at the time? Many of us, including myself, have been there."

Photo: TMZ

Anyway, once photos of her birth suite were leaked, it got me thinking: why does someone have to be of "celebrity" or important status to have a comfortable, homey-looking place like this? Why do the rest of us get relegated to a double room with a complaining, loud roommate and plastic furniture?

I thought back to my own births. I gave birth to three children in two hospitals. My first was a cesarean, I was ill-informed, scared, and alone. My husband wasn't allowed to stay overnight with me, despite the fact there was a very empty bed next to mine the entire time I was there. Nurses ignored my repeated requests for pain medication, despite the obvious fact that something was wrong, and it was just a miserable experience overall. When my baby was born, he was quickly shown to me and then taken out in the hallway to be weighed and measured - which my husband witnessed - as I lay on the operating table, hearing his first cries. I thought to myself, I've just given birth, but this is so freaking surreal. I want to hold my child. When my husband cried tears of joy, they actually asked him if he was going to be okay, like something was wrong with him. Seriously?!

When it was time to get up and move around for the first time, I was in such pain I felt like my body was being seared in half. The nurse was unsympathetic. They actually told me to go get my own breakfast. I was confused, half-drugged with drugs that only half-worked, wondering where I was supposed to go to get it. Someone felt sorry for me and brought me a turkey sandwich. I thought this was odd, considering when I had my VBAC two years later (the birth I could have done cartwheels after) they brought me all my meals. What? 

For many women, just to have an unmedicated birth, they have to practically fight tooth and nail for it. Many are laughed at when they walk into the doctor's office with a birth plan. Many don't want anything all that special, except to maybe keep vaginal exams to a minimum, dim the lights and let them push in a position that feels comfortable to them, instead of to the doctor. In other words, they want their personal space respected as much as humanly possible, instead of be made to feel like a human science experiment, especially when it isn't necessary.

It's sad that we can't afford more laboring women the comforts of home within the "safe" confines of a hospital setting, since most people think hospitals are the best, safest place to give birth. Fine. Birthing centers seem to offer the best of both worlds, if you can find one. I know my city doesn't have any, that's for sure.

I think only within the last four or five years did my hospital convert their maternity rooms to private. In fact, there are those that can be reserved - as if you're a celebrity - but of course there's so few of them that they often get taken first. Birthing tubs and jacuzzis? Only four, available first-come, first-serve. I was denied access to them with my second birth because I was having a VBAC. Whatever. Apparently waterproof dopplers hadn't yet been invented in 2006. *eyeroll*

(Although they do mention CPMs, how they can lower infection and cesarean rates, fewer complications and healthier outcomes, based on WHO recommendations. So I'll give them that.)

Although hospitals go through expensive remodeling projects and blab endlessly about having expensive equipment to 'ensure you the best outcome,' it seems like they pour all their money into technology - which hasn't been shown to improve outcomes - and ignore some of the basics, like getting rid of that damned plastic furniture.

Seeing Beyonce's birth suite photos just reminds you of how in the Dark Ages many hospitals are when it comes to serving laboring women. And consider this - roughly only five percent are considered "Mother-baby friendly."

Sesame Street and breastfeeding in public
Like it hasn't already been done before, some think that breastfeeding should be "brought back" to The Street. I don't say that in a sarcastic tone - but mainly to say to all the haters, "It's already been done before. Twice. I don't remember hearing a lot of hoopla over it then or since, until now. One viewer remembers in retrospect:

Buffy breastfed Dakota in one episode; a former Canadian politician recently commented that "I remember seeing that and thinking about how proud she made aboriginal women because nursing is a part of our culture. During those days it was kind of a hidden thing, so to see Buffy doing it on Sesame Street was really something."

I've been embroiled in a heated, rather idiotic debate on Facebook over the last few days with some people who think it's wrong. I have repeated myself at least three or four times: "It's already been done before, twice, and no one raised a stink about it then." Someone complained, "Our tax dollars at work!" I corrected him and said, "Actually, the US government subsidizes half of the infant formula consumed in this country." No response. I don't think anyone actually bothers to read any of the comments before issuing their own thoughtful gem. What a bunch of idiots.

Some argued that that kind of thing "should be taught at home," and compared it with bodily fluids and functions (as usual) - even going so far as to say, "What next? Abortions? Conception?" I mean, come on. The reason these people don't see many women nursing in public anymore is because numbskulls like them have effectively driven women to either choose formula because they don't want to run the risk of their baby getting hungry in public, or they are currently feeding their child in a disgusting toilet stall somewhere.

And how can you teach something at home when that behavior, for whatever reason, isn't modeled at home? That's just the way it is, unfortunately. Kids are less likely to learn about something they're never going to see.

Many of the people who complained have probably never seen a woman nurse in public, or if they did, they didn't realize it. When they hear the word "breast" they immediately think "full frontal nudity," pasties and dancing around like you're a stripper.

I pointed out that, until formula started heavily being marketed to mothers, women nursing in public, tops open, was not unusual. As the formula industry moved into hospitals at an alarming rate, the sexual revolution gave way to an attitude that changed our ideas about what breasts were for, and, I think, the porn industry found new and more convenient outlets to reinforce those ideas. Before, public, open breastfeeding was normal and seen every day, and sex was not. Suddenly, those roles were reversed: sex was brought out into the spotlight, de-shamed, and breastfeeding was relegated to the back closet as old-fashioned and "dirty." Now people argue that if you're a breastfeeding mother, you should just "stay at home." But if you want to flash cleavage at all times for no reason, well - that's okay, I guess.

Where's Maria when you need her?

More reading:
You're my baby (bottled-fed version) - Sesame Street
Does breastfeeding belong on Sesame Street? - San Francisco Gate

Michelle Duggar - Pregnant again!

It's positive!

So, the Duggars are expecting their 20th child. Wow (she says with a glazed-over expression...)

It's not that I'm not excited for them; in fact, I think that if that's what they want, great! I'm just waiting for more nasty comments to fly, since it seems that no one has anything nice to say about this family.

Every time they announce a pregnancy, more myths, rumors and stupidity surface. It's things like this that just further ignite controversy over a woman's uterus, I think - the old idea that when you're pregnant, you're not thinking rationally and therefore that gives others - including complete strangers - the right to make decisions for you, make statements about your moral character, mental status, financial situation, family size and physical health.

I really think the biggest cause of vitriol is because fewer people have larger families anymore. That's it. Not that they're "killing the planet" by single-handedly overpopulating it, but because they have all those kids and are well-adjusted and appear to be reasonably sane. Because no one else wants more children, surely these people shouldn't either, and by all rights should be criticized for daring to think outside the box. Quiverfull movement aside, no one can understand why you'd want "more mouths to feed" and will criticize and label you, no matter what religious persuasion you happen to be.

Case in point - there is a large family (I think at last count they were on child #9) floating around town, the mother sort of dressed in Bohemian style, with the most beautiful hair. Her many daughters, all while maintaining their own sort of individual eclectic style, have long hair like hers, and therefore they are quite recognizable even from a distance. I've been seeing this family - in the grocery store, at the library - where mom usually has the youngest in a sling and is happily tooling around with her homeschooled bunch. No one is freaking out, yelling or fighting and everyone looks happy and well-adjusted, despite the fact that the oldest will often be seen holding one of her many baby siblings and looking totally okay with that. I have on many occasions wanted to stop her and just say, "I think you have an awesomely beautiful family!" and photograph them in all their splendor. I thought about this the last time I saw them, as I was out for a morning walk and noticed them up ahead of me on the sidewalk. I was sort of stalking them, I guess, admiring how they plodded through town like the von Trapp family.

I remember at one point hearing rather disparaging comments about them from my neighbor, who said something like "They all sit up front at mass" with an eyeroll, like they are the poster children for stereotypically dutiful Catholicism. Why the religious reference? I thought. Maybe she just wants that many kids, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I get so sick of the "Oh, the perfect family and you're done!" crap; the bullying, both overt and subtle, that goes on when someone decides to have more children than what our culture deems "necessary." And that's exactly what it is: bullying. We as a society are so set against it and want to teach each other how to love, respect, and all that crap - yet the minute we see someone with more than the prerequisite number of kids coming our way, we immediately snap to judgment. There is such negative bias against larger families, even those with far fewer than 20 kids, because we are now living in a "two-kid world." Anything more than that is often considered a burden or an inconvenience.

An editorial recently ran in Shine magazine about a woman who is childless by choice, and wants her friends, family and strangers to stop asking about when she's having kids, especially now that the population toll has reached 7 billion. Great - I can respect your choice and think if you don't want kids, don't have them. Do the responsible thing and go to great lengths to protect yourself from pregnancy; I wish everyone could be as responsible as that. But some of the comments were, as they usually are, disgusting - implying that people who wanted kids were stupid breeders and totally ignorant.

I find some of the comments about Michelle Duggar, though, as ignorant as some of the her harshest critics say she is - worrying about her pre-eclampsia, birth defects, leaving her children motherless, blah blah blah. You stand just as much chance of having a child with birth defects at age 20 as Michelle Duggar; statistically more women have children with Down Syndrome at a younger age, even though the risks of it go up after age 35.

A childless friend commented on the Duggar story and remarked that 'she didn't even carry the last baby to term.' Perhaps, but that almost makes it sound like she had an abortion. And it's not like all of her children were premature; her premature baby was no different than any of the millions of others born in this country every year, for various reasons - it's just that we heard more about it because of the media's focus. Should that be a reason for her to stop having children? I have a friend who has three children and had complicated pregnancies and pre-term births every time. Does that mean she shouldn't have any more?

With the current crisis of forced abortions in China, why are we worrying about this? When a family can stay together, under one roof and raise a family without outside assistance - not to mention they can raise them to be loving, conscientious and productive members of society - who are we to criticize when in other parts of the world there are women who are forced by their own government to undergo abortions when they want to be pregnant and have a family? And even if you aren't financially stable, does that mean you have no right to have a family?

Bottom line: Reproductive rights don't end with abortion. Everyone is so concerned about Michelle Duggar's health, which is great - but something tells me she has it under control. She has support from her OB, which is amazing, especially considering the overwhelming lack of support some OBs seem notorious for. When you start invoking China's horrible one-child policy and saying things like "Remove her fallopian tubes!" you are still attacking her basic human rights.

Everything in moderation - even birth advocacy?

I have always stood firmly in the middle when it comes to birth advocacy. I am not in the "trust birth!" camp, because I feel that birth can still be predictably unpredictable; our bodies, for all their wonderment, can still betray us and so, sometimes, can our births. I am not a person who believes that every doppler and every ultrasound is bad, nor do I believe that birth is "an accident waiting to happen." I also don't agree with the mantra "Just trust your doctor!", because being burned by doing so is probably what leads many women to seek a home birth (or at the very least, an alternative birth experience) in the first place.

Yesterday I read three articles that stuck in my brain - one, about the Australian midwife Lisa Barrett whom the 10 Centimeters blog lambasted for her seemingly reckless midwifery; one written by labor and delivery nurses on how to have a "natural hospital birth," and one from none other than The sOB about The Navelgazing Midwife's transition out of the NCB community. (That one was especially bizarre, most of us agreed.)

If what the writers over at 10 Centimeters are saying is true, Lisa Barrett has had four baby deaths on her hands recently, two of which occurred very close together. I haven't read much on the subject, but I agree that something sounds weird about that. I question those who align themselves with her, simply because overall her attitude sounds very cavalier, almost. The Navelgazing Midwife commented about the situation and further distanced herself from the "NCB crowd," something I can understand - because it seems like The NgM was very judicious in her practice and someone I respected for her cautious approach to bringing babies into the world (something that has drawn both praise and criticism).

As far as Barrett's behavior, I don't know what to say - I wasn't there. If it's true, then I don't know how birth advocates can support her. I get the feeling that it's very easy to blame the mother (for hiring her), in some bizarre way, blame the baby (because, admittedly, some babies die anyway, right?) - instead of blaming a cowboy-type attitude of the birth attendant (which you see in hospitals, too). I've often wondered how women can not intervene and tell the obviously whacked midwife not to get the F out of the way because I'm calling 911 whether you like it or not, but again, I wasn't there. I wasn't inside mom's head to understand what she was thinking, or even if she really had time to think. The words "I trusted her" come to mind, much like they do for many women in hospital births who feel helpless, powerless to question the authority of a doctor who might be behaving in much the same way, only in the opposite direction. I am not saying no cesarean is every unnecessary, but you do have to step back and question for a moment why 1 in 3 babies are born this way.

On the other hand is the article written by two labor and delivery nurses - who give pointers on how to have a great natural birth while in the hospital. Yeah, that's all well and good, but perhaps the realist in me is coming out. The first one on the list is to "plan your birth," whether you write it out officially or not. That's a good idea, in theory, but as most people will tell you, not all births work out the way we want them to. There's a Catch 22 there, though, because for some women having a "plan" doesn't change the outcome - how many times have we heard that having a birth plan is almost a guaranteed cesarean? Is it because mom's plan is too rigid? Or because her physician sees it as an attack on his knowledge and authority?

That's where the idea of "finding a physician you can trust!" comes in. This is true; but for some, it's harder than others. Some go through multiple physicians and still can't find one who doesn't see birth as potentially catastrophic. What if you're living in a remote area and have one doctor to choose from? Then what?

Other points on the list include "asking for the right nurse" and "bringing your own doula." As they put it,

“There are some nurses who cannot stand to hear a woman screaming and it kills the nurse NOT to put in an epidural." 

Oh, I'm sure it "kills her." Perhaps. And then there are those who just want you to STFU and stop your whining already because you're being a royal pain just by allowing yourself to be in pain, like these:

"There is good reason for birthing couples to be wary. Our hospital epidural rates run over 90% and in most hospitals, over 95%. The nurses in general not only do not know how to support a laboring women, but have no desire to do so. They would scramble to take other patients first, leaving the "natural" moms for whoever was "unlucky" enough to not be at the board first. They sabotage natural childbirth at every turn ("There's no need for this suffering you know--they don't give out medals for this," and on and on). I saw moms thwarted at every turn--no help, no support, no suggestions until moms finally begged for the epidural and the nurses responded with comments like "See--now you'll know better than to try this next time." I helped where I could, but couldn't take every mom wanting a natural childbirth. (Read the entire article here.)

As far as the doula part, they say, "...doulas can do the things we'd love to but can't." Well, that may be true, to a point. But there are lots of hospitals and doctors who don't like doulas, don't want them anywhere near the patient, and don't consider them a help but rather a hindrance.

One that really stuck out was "Be prepared to follow hospital procedure." Then that basically means, be prepared to surrender your rights in some cases, and have a far less chance of getting the birth you want. I guess this is one of the parts that makes me a moderate - while I know you're there for help should you need it, I also realize that much of the hospital's crap policies and procedures make that desired natural hospital birth next to impossible.

The article asks, "What keeps women from having a great birth experience?" The nurses say it's the idea that women are not accepting enough of themselves, and often blame themselves when things don't turn out perfectly.

“We tend to be pretty controlling beings. Having a baby is a rare situation for us [as individuals] because we’re not used to the lack control. For most women, this is their first experience in a hospital or in any real pain.”

That idea of control sticks with me, somehow. I do think that women should be permitted to exercise control during their labors - to a point. You should be able to control some aspects, but if the true need for cesarean arises, you have to surrender some of that control to the physician, unless you plan on doing one on yourself.

It's when sometimes over-the-top advocates over-analyze the experiences of others and tell them what could have been different, what you should have done, this that and the other that I start to be glad I'm sort of sitting on the outside of the advocacy circle, sort of like watching the debacle unfold while sitting on the curb. I think we've all done it, and sometimes it's quite clear what happened and where things went downhill. Sometimes it isn't, though. I've had at least three people feel the need to almost justify their experiences - prefaced with a "I know it's basically everything you disapprove of" - and this makes me bristle. Disapprove? As if I am somehow the Final Judge of All That Is Holy and Right concerning your birth. Not. Although, in explaining the situation, I've realized there is often a lot more going on behind the scenes than I know, and can often understand their position. And sometimes I don't agree (like my neighbor who likely had two births unnecessarily over-managed simply because it was a holiday) but crap, I'm not going to say anything. What business is it of mine? Not my body, not my baby, not my doctor, not my anything. And likewise, I will use my somewhat crazy birth experiences to inform others that yes, there is an alternative. You can still think I'm nuts, but that's your problem.

It's important to be very careful when questioning the experiences of others. There's a fine line between coming off as a know-it-all and basically telling them they're dumb for doing it by the book and simply, respectfully, informing them of their various choices when it comes to birth. I know after having my VBAC and second cesarean that things could have been different - it was after this last birth that I read that "breech and nuchal cord are not necessarily cause for cesarean." Yeah, that doesn't really help me after the fact, though. And who the hell am I to force my doctor to deliver a baby in a manner that he hasn't been skilled in since I was probably a child? No thanks.

One thing I simply cannot stand is the idea that all natural birth advocates are the same: the group at 10 Centimeters does this, as does The sOB. Surprisingly, she had a change of heart about The Navelgazing Midwife after hearing that Barb was leaving the midwifery community because of her disagreement over their somewhat radical views. Strangely, she is now almost aligning herself with Barb.

I was once lambasted in the comments section of The sOB for a post I did on gullibility and the "Trust your doctor!" ideology.  Someone questioned my idea that because it comes from a doctor's mouth, it must be right and true, and asked "How can we stop this?"

I guess this is just another way in which I am a moderate: blindly, completely trusting your doctor is often not a fool-proof way to have a great birth. Neither is throwing all caution and reason three sheets to the wind. There has to be middle ground. I try to be realistic but not scary and ridiculous; I find that some like to practice "fear-based obstetrics" in both directions: there has to be more to the argument than "all birth is dangerous" or "home birth/unassisted birth is the only true option." Many women have been betrayed by their bodies during the birth process; just as many have been betrayed by overzealous midwives who want them to have a natural, intervention-free birth seemingly at any cost; by nurses who sabotage their efforts to have a "safe," natural birth in a hospital; by doctors who knowingly put them at increased risk to either get it over with already or teach them a lesson. By lumping all natural birth advocates together, by shunning those who disagree, or by aligning ourselves on the extreme ends of either spectrum, we are ignoring - and doing a great disservice to - all of those who land somewhere in the middle.

Related posts:
What the "other side" is saying about NCB literature
A bitter birth nerd
He's your doctor...you have to listen to him
My doctor will tell me everything! Part 1
The myth of the emergency c-section
Birth faith

Gardasil and the systematic destruction of Michele Bachmann

As the election season draws closer, there is a lot of media attention on Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann - namely a systematic destruction of her career a la Sarah Palin - because of Bachmann's views on the controversial HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

Many were not happy when Texas governor Rick Perry voted to push through legislation that would make it mandatory for the vaccine to be administered to Texas school kids. Some, including Bachmann, criticized him for being 'sold out' by the vaccine's manufacturer for the tidy sum of $5,000. Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. I think he was just drinking the Kool-Aid prepared for him by Merck - the same crap doctors, nurses, and just about everyone else feeds to us when it comes to making informed decisions for our kids.

The other day I decided to flip on the TV and watch a little Fox News, only to see a group discussing Bachmann and her 'radical' views on Gardasil on Greg Gutfeld's segment. One contributor said she couldn't understand what the big deal was and called the vaccine a "wonder drug for women," and made a reference to schools requiring vaccines anyway - so what's the big deal about this one?

During a news break just a few hours before, the news anchor made Bachmann sound like a complete moron for daring to question "science." Everyone is trying to make her look as pathetic and idiotic as they did Sarah Palin, nitpicking and ridiculing at every turn.

She's the candidate everyone loves to hate - and no one wants to admit that they agree with. Dr. Manny Alverez, a Fox News contributor, stated his piece on their website that he has to 'side with Governor Perry' on this one, but doesn't agree that it should be mandated by the government. He also goes on to say that it isn't 100 percent effective at preventing or treating all strains, and thinks Perry made the wrong move by endorsing it. Well then, it doesn't sound like you are siding with Perry at all, does it? Did I read that correctly?

He latches on to her claim that a parent told her it caused her child's mental retardation after she received the vaccine. True or not, he isn't making any mention whatsoever of the potential side effects of this or any other vaccine, a completely legitimate argument not to vaccinate. Bachmann never said she personally made the claim, only related the story of someone else that did - and Merck immediately, unsurprisingly, went on the defensive.

Basically what I have noticed is that they are completely ignoring the issues surrounding Gardasil - whether they're political, philosophical, medical or spiritual - and ganging up on her to destroy her credibility and her reputation. No one mentions anything about side effects or potential complications, or that it ideally should be administered to children as young as nine years old.

Apparently Perry's legislation did include an opt out* for parents, but that also seems to be publicized little. Some argue that bureaucratic red tape could make it difficult or virtually impossible to refuse, combined with pressure from districts to go ahead with it. The word 'mandate' implies that parents don't have a choice when really they do, but I bet Merck and others involved want you to think you don't - sort of the "if you can't beat 'em, you might as well join 'em" approach.

What everyone except Bachmann seems to be missing is the idea that yes, this threatens personal liberty - that of the child in question and that child's parents. The state, to some extent, does intervene in our lives, in the sense that we would be arrested if we were doing our children bodily harm. Unfortunately to some, not vaccinating your child constitutes as 'bodily harm.' Where do you draw the line?

As a result, the State of California is giving children as young as 12 years old the power of informed consent to be given Gardasil, without their parents' knowledge. Groups that support the legislation include the ACLU, ACOG, and Planned Parenthood, and opposition is considered "largely faith-based." (I find it laughable that the ACLU, of all organizations, is basically saying only the rights of certain people - in this case, not the parents - count.)  I find this probably the most alarming, least-talked about aspect.

As parents, we know how hard it often is to refuse vaccinations at the doctors' office that we might philosophically disagree with, and are frequently pressured by pediatricians, healthcare workers, school nurses, friends and family to vaccinate for everything, without question. How then, do you expect a 12-year-old to adequately make that decision? And why are they essentially ignoring the rights of the parents? What happens if a well-informed child tries to refuse? And if children are fed scare tactics to get the shot, but know their parents don't approve, isn't this essentially a situation of the school district (and the state) pitting the child against her parents?

Apparently this legislation is part of an already existing bill that enables children as young as 12 to seek treatment and testing for STD's without parental permission. (Click here) The thinking is that those kids who are too afraid to talk to their parents will get the treatment they need. Unfortunately, I think that is only feeding the problem.

The core issue at the heart of the state-forced Gardasil vaccine is that parents are not often adequately talking to their kids about sex. Period. Kids know little information about what constitutes sexual contact, and parents admit to not having appropriate conversations with their children about it. The state, in an effort to curb STD and pregnancy rates in teens, has no doubt decided to do the parents' jobs for them - figuring that if they don't, we will.

The problem is, many parents do educate their  children about the reality of sexual relationships and the dangers of STDs. In many circles this vaccine, and our overall sheeple mentality on vaccines in general, is that it will fully protect our children 100 percent of the time. Even though some suggest educated teens do wait longer to have sex, there is still the idea that "teens are teens" and will do this sort of thing, so why not provide a safety blanket of sorts. Others think that safety blanket is not enough, and it might fool teenagers into thinking they have a green light to engage in even riskier behavior.

In order for the vaccine to work, it's suggested that patients receive three doses, and some are speculating that often the girl doesn't get the remaining two vaccines. You're considered more at-risk for HPV if you've had multiple sex partners, or been with someone who has. Additionally, the younger a girl is when she starts having sex can also increase her risk. The irony in this is that culturally, we seem to condone teen sex or even embrace and tolerate it in an effort to remove the stigma. Combined with the fact that many parents do not adequately inform their teens about the potentially life-threatening repercussions of sexual relationships, this is like setting a trap for our children and then pushing them into it. Even so, is that really up to the state to decide?

In the meantime, legislators had to disclose that Merck personally paid them to push legislation through. And at $360 for a trio of doses, that's a lot of money the drug manufacturer stands to gain.

The Gardasil problem joins a number of other ones surrounding our medical community. What once started out as an altruistic approach for the common good, now the boundaries are blurred as more and more people want to take initiatives to force that "common good" on others. Forced or coerced vaccinations are just the tip of the iceberg; it's not unheard of for women to be forced into cesareans by court order, or for cancer patients who refuse treatment to be ordered to do so. A UK woman with severe hospital phobia and "learning difficulties" has been the subject of just such a debate, and was ordered into surgery to save her from potentially fatal cancer. What does it take to deem a patient unfit to make their own medical decisions? Probably not a whole lot.

Because Bachmann is essentially questioning the motives of the medical community and others' blind trust in it, I think it will be hard for her to wade through the mire of opponents. I'll also be waiting to see if Merck personally decides to take action to shut her up already regarding her claims on Gardasil, or if the media will essentially take care of that problem for them.

I'm seeing an interesting turn of events, though - perhaps what will amount to parents on both sides of the political and faith-based spectrum siding with Bachmann because she is such an outspoken opponent of this policy.

More reading:
Judge criticizes council for trying to force contraception on woman - The UK Telegraph
One More Girl - Truth About Gardasil documentary
Bachmann's Vaccine Theory pulls GOP to Jenny McCarthy Territory 

*The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. issued this statement on Perry's approach to state-mandated Gardasil, as copied and pasted from the blog, "A Time for Choosing:"

“Opting-Out” of HPV Vaccine WILL NOT WORK for Many in Texas

Governor Perry is misleading legislators and families in Texas by claiming that they will be able to “opt-out” of having their 6th grade daughter vaccinated with the vaccine for the sexually transmitted virus HPV. For many families currently, the exemption isn’t worth the piece of paper it is printed on. Besides the simple fact that parents should not have to get permission from the state to make informed consent medical decisions for their own children, here are four reasons why “opting-out” of state mandated vaccines doesn’t work for many families in Texas:

“Opt-out” or Conscientious Exemption to Vaccination Process is a Bureaucratic Nightmare

To get the exemption form, parents must first submit a written form to State Health Department in Austin which forces the disclosure of the child’s full name, birthdate, and mailing address. The Health Department takes those written requests and creates yet another form on which they print the child’s same personal information that the parent had to send to health department, and the Health Department sometimes takes weeks to mail out these forms inevitably disrupting the child’s school attendance. The Health Department only sends the forms by U.S. mail, and once the parent receives the forms, they must be notarized within 90 days of submitting them and then repeatedly resubmitted every 2 years even though there is no expiration set in statute.

[1] Because the Health Department further eroded parental rights by publishing more rules getting rid of provisional enrollment for exemptions, (families used to have 30 days at the beginning of school to get their paperwork in), now schools participate in aggressive misleading education campaigns touting “no shots – no school” while not informing families of the exemption or the instructions how to obtain it.

Private Schools Deny Admission

The Texas attorney general issued an opinion in April of 2006, ga0420, that states that private schools do not have to accept the conscience exemption to vaccination in Texas Law[2], and many private schools do not. For example, the Dallas Diocese for Catholic Schools policy number 5024 states, “Schools will comply with immunization requirements established by the Texas Catholic Conference Education Department. Conscientious objections/waivers are not accepted in schools of the Diocese.” [3] Every new vaccine mandate causes more children with valid legal exemptions to be denied their private school education.

Doctors Refuse Medical Care

Even though you may be able to get a piece of paper from the state health department affirming your right to refuse state mandated vaccines for your child, just try and find a doctor who will honor it! According to a recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 39% of pediatricians surveyed said they would throw kids out of practices who are not vaccinated. [4] PROVE has documented this rampant problem of doctors dismissing families utilizing a vaccine exemption in Texas to the legislature in previous sessions. Please review our report entitled “The Erosion of Public Trust & Informed Consent through Immunization Harassment, Discrimination and Coercion” prepared for the House Public Health Committee in 2005. [5]

Insurance Rates Rise and Accessibility Affected

Responsible parents who have secured health care coverage for their children will be forced to pay higher insurance rates whether they want the HPV vaccine or not. Even if you “opt-out” of the HPV vaccine mandate for Gardasil by Merck by securing a conscientious exemption waiver, there is no way for Texas parents to “opt-out” of the corresponding rise in their insurance premiums. § 1367.053. (a)

(2) of the Insurance Code REQUIRES that any vaccine required be law must be covered by insurance. [6] This first-dollar coverage requirement results in corresponding direct hiking of insurance premiums to meet costs, and for a vaccine as expensive as this one, an HPV vaccine mandate risks putting premiums for basic health care coverage out of reach financially for even more Texas families. Additionally, we have received complaints from families where insurance companies are harassing parents with letters and discriminating on coverage based on whether or not the child has had all their state mandated vaccines.

Is America being brainwashed by formula ads?

Yesterday someone on Facebook posted a lovely article about babies' development of facial expressions in the womb. Too bad I couldn't get past the hyperactive web banner at the top that screamed "70 PERCENT OF BABIES WILL HAVE FEEDING ISSUES IN THE FIRST YEAR" or something to that effect. Before I could click or do anything, it magically morphed into an ad for infant formula. It was, basically, a call to action that you should be running around with your arms in the air, screaming hysterically, "I must put my child on formula or she will die!"

I must have refreshed my screen several hundred times and that ad never came up again, something I found interesting. I did manage to get a screen shot of the second half, though:

Since I skipped infant formula altogether, perhaps I'm a big dummy - but doesn't soy formula often lead to more stomach upset - not to mention constipation - in babies? And for some infants, it's often an allergy trigger. Not only that, but some worry that the phytoestrogens (a group of chemicals found naturally in plants that can often act like estrogen) and isoflavones (organic compounds that often act as a phytoestrogen in mammals) can be harmful to developing babies. Although the jury is out on whether or not it's harmful, there has been little research done on it - which doesn't necessarily mean it's totally safe.

In the link referenced above, a mom named Janet nervously poses a question to Dr. Ianelli, and says that:

"I am very upset because I have 3 boys who have had to take soy as infants on the advice of my pediatrician and a daughter 2 mos old currently who is having feeding problems while breastfeeding presumably secondary to dairy in my diet and is on soy presently."

Janet, what you need to do is this: save your hard-earned money and change your diet, honey! We want the best for our children. So why aren't more people willing to sacrifice milk and cheese while nursing their babies? Because it's just easier to put them on formula?

I went through this with my second child, who regularly spit up, vomited copiously and screamed halfway through bedtime because, as I found out, she was so miserable. I was determined to find the source, and so, as the Enfamil ad above suggests, I asked my doctor. Turns out, she didn't know squat about what to do and suggested this: "You could put her on hypoallergenic formula for three days and see what happens."

Thankfully I had already done some research on Kelly Mom and realized this would do little, if any, good - for a number of reasons. Namely because if I don't change my diet, then what difference will it make when I started nursing her again? Little did I know, the majority of infant formulas out there are made from cow's milk protein, the very stuff in my breastmilk that was making her so miserable.

Was I broken? Was my child somehow "allergic" to my breastmilk?

Nope. She was sensitive to the stuff in it, and that meant I had two choices: drastically change my diet or put her on formula. I knew one of those definitely wasn't gonna happen, so I took the Mama Bear approach: I totally cut dairy and all its forms (not just lactose) out of my diet, and voila! In ten days (not three), she was a new baby and we were happy. No butter for nine months, but hey, it was worth it and by then it had become more of a minor inconvenience than anything else.

For those babies who routinely are fussy, etc. I bet they too are sensitive to cow's milk proteins, like many babies would be up until around a year - cows milk is often hard for little ones to digest, and if you fed it to them straight before they're ready they'd often up end up projectile vomiting/pooping clear across the room. Is putting them on formula the best answer? Apparently Enfamil thinks so. (And chances are your pediatrician probably would too.)

How many nursing mothers with protein-sensitive babies are told "You have to put your  child on formula!" just because the baby is fussy? How many are encouraged to make dietary changes, or even know that they can, and furthermore - that it might help, or totally solve the problem?

When I googled "side effects of soy formula" I found an article through the Livestrong.com website, and scrolled down to read a conveniently-tucked away ad from Enfamil again - this time suggesting you try Nutramigen, a "hypoallergenic formula for babies' milk protein allergies." Dietary changes for mother might be a pain in the ass, but a few months' worth of Nutramigen - at around $30 per can - sounds even more painful on my wallet. No thanks.

I find the sway of advertising particularly amusing, if not frustrating, when it comes to infant formula. Many of them have names like "Good Start," "Nurture," "Premium" (as if the non-premium stuff is made from glass shards) and "Advance." Funny, but if I didn't know any better, I'd think they were talking about breastmilk!

What they don't say, at least

not very loudly: "DHA 

supplemented infants 

exhibited better visual acuity

than that of non-supplemented 

infants (equivalent to one line 

on the eye chart), and similar 

to that of breast-fed infants." 

Most advertising seems like a clever ploy to get mom to feel better about her decision to use formula. No one should guilt her into doing or not doing anything, but at the same time one should realize the infant formula's role in cementing the idea in our collective minds that "breast is best, but..." (and that's a big but) or that somehow, you are incapable in some way. While that may be true for some, it certainly isn't for all!

The sad truth is that even after a well-meaning visit from your doctor, you might not come away with all the answers. If you happen to land one who knows a thing or two about nursing, great! But not all of them do, and many get loads of freebies from these same companies who are actively undermining your breastfeeding relationship in an effort to get you to buy their product. Plain and simple. In a normal business setting, this would generally be called a "conflict of interest."

That conflict can taint the ideas of health care professionals who either advise you on breastfeeding problems or take care of your newborn. It's not completely unheard of for mothers to practically insist, to the point of near-violence, that they breastfeed their NICU babies, and will often find the nurse has "just fed the baby" a bottle of formula after they rush in to nurse their own child. Mothers are often told inappropriate things to convince them that breastfeeding is not a viable option and handed a bag of samples "just in case." Perhaps this is borne out of ignorance about breastfeeding; and perhaps it's based on the cultural institution that breasts are for pleasure, not infant feeding. And maybe, just maybe, they're brainwashed by the formula companies who tout their product like the Liquid Gold it is not. (The sad part of it is, infant formula manufacturers have been heavily marketing their product for decades, which can probably why breastfeeding rates have often taken a nosedive in our culture.)

Case in point: product reviews for ProSobee on Enfamil's website.

"When my son was born, he was in NICU for 16 days and he wasn't able to breastfeed..."

 "I have always used Enfamil for my children. Being a Registered Nurse I know how important it is to give your baby a quality formula." 

I have to wonder about that last review, since infant formulas all have to be pretty much standard fare as it is. In fact, previous lawsuits filed against Enfamil have found them guilty of making false claims about store-brand formulas and misrepresenting their product through false advertising.

We already know that US hospitals get a pretty crappy grade when it comes to promoting breastfeeding in new moms. Is it any wonder?! (This link is actually from 2008, and the same articles were surfacing this year - which means not much has changed!) According to the article, the highest score a hospital received was 98 - the lowest was 12. 12?!

 "About a quarter of hospitals reported giving formula or some other supplement to more than half of their healthy, full-term newborns. The practice was common even when mothers were able and willing to breast-feed, Dee said.

Of hospitals who gave supplements, 30 percent gave sugar water and 15 percent gave water.

Experts say there are no good nutritional reasons to use those, but it is commonly done to quiet crying babies separated from their mother."

To me, this means one of several things: they are separating mothers and babies for all those "essential" newborn tests for no reason, which results in hungry babies that need to be placated some way. Therefore, they feed him useless sugar water or infant formula, and by the time he gets to you, he no longer wants to nurse because he's been fed. Even if you express an interest in nursing, they'll often give your baby a bottle anyway - without asking you first. Add nipple confusion, and voila! You're no longer a nursing mom.

Way back in 1981, the World Health Organization developed the International Code of Marketing Breast-Milk Substitutes, which outlined strict advertising guidelines for formula manufacturers. In some countries, like the United Kingdom - which has the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe - infant formula ads are illegal, although this doesn't include the "toddler formulas" that have come out since the Code was adopted. Not surprisingly, the US does not follow the code. The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, begun by WHO in 1991, was a similar program to promote breastfeeding in hospitals. While breastfeeding rates in these specially-designated hospitals was nearing 80 percent, fewer than 100 hospitals nationwide (around five percent) had this designation as of 2008. Roughly half of all infant formula purchased in the US is subsidized by the government through programs like WIC. Consequentially, breastfeeding rates among WIC participants is lower than other groups.

Some of the interesting formula ads I've come across lately...

I love that little 'tilde' ~17 symbol, which basically means,
"We don't really fully understand the wonderful
properties of breastmilk yet, so we're just gonna guess."

These interesting web searches yielded interesting results, according to the PhD in Parenting blog. While the header says "breastfeeding support," you are guided to Enfamil's website and encouraged to try their product. How sweet of you.

The blog also noted how another popular website was offering breastfeeding tips, all while readers were being bombarded with formula ads:

This bag is really cute, but how much do you want to bet the
one they give nursing moms is really boring and ugly? 

Scare tactics and fear-mongering 101:

Only a parent who really cares about
their baby's immune system gives them
Similac!

This vintage ad for the Enfamil Nursette is interesting - not only do they paint a picture of the idiot dad who can't screw the nipple on the bottle correctly, but they go on at length about how great their product is. When you're encouraged to 'ask your doctor if it's really as good as we say it is,' you're told, "It is." End of conversation, so take our word for it and don't even bother questioning it, 'kay?

During the 60s and 70s, when this ad probably ran, around 75 percent of babies were formula-fed.

This 2006 magazine cover incensed some readers, one of whom proclaimed "breasts are breasts - they're sexual" and shredded the magazine after feeling the need to shield her son from it.  

Yet this one is considered perfectly acceptable:

More reading:

From the PhD in Parenting blog

Similac and Babble team up to dupe breastfeeding moms - PhD in Parenting

Breastfeeding advocate asks Babble to remove her "Momination"

When a company goes from very good to very, very bad: The Evenflo Story

Past posts:

Cultural shifts in breastfeeding trends

Gettin' your baby fix on, Similac-style