Home birth death: are pieces of the puzzle missing?

I recently read the article about a Missouri baby who died after a troubling home birth in October 2009. I felt that, based on what I read, surely there are pieces of this puzzle that are missing.

I've read two separate articles - one who's tone was anything but unbiased and felt very negative towards midwifery and home birth in general. The other was filled with several inconsistencies, and left me scratching my head at the statements made by doctors: "The doctor told the investigator that the baby likely would have been born safely by cesarean section if the mother had come to the hospital soon after her water broke."

It seems like some form of cord compression happened as a result of the baby's cord being wrapped around his neck, which the doctor described as a "common condition that is easily corrected at hospitals." (emphasis mine)

Wow. Where to even begin here?

The whole issue of nuchal cord and their response to it makes me laugh, because women are often made to think this is always a life-threatening issue that can only be avoided by cesarean. Or that it makes it impossible to birth a baby vaginally. I'd be willing to bet that a good midwife will know how to fix it in a way that doesn't end in surgery more often than an OB would, but that's just a guess. And now suddenly it's "common" and can be fixed only in a hospital? Are you kidding me?

The response about wanting the mother to come in several hours after her water broke seems typical: the general rule is that usually if contractions don't begin within 24 hours, a cesarean is recommended. Some are speculating whether they're really necessary even then, as long as the baby is doing okay and if few vaginal exams are done in order to prevent infection. Some doctors wait less than the typical 24 hours, and a few I've read about give only eight hours. Where's the continuity of care in that?

The comments the doctor made to investigators, though, got me thinking. What, really, does this investigator know about childbirth? About current birth politics? About the reasons women want to avoid a hospital birth? All this comes into play when considering the death of this baby. You can't just take a doctor's admission of the baby "likely" being born safely, because even that is not a given. Since the obstetrical crystal ball technology hasn't really been perfected yet, the best you can do is speculate. Unless the jury is remarkably packed with pro-home birth advocates, or at the very least, people who really know something about birth - and why some women feel boxed into a corner when it comes to hospital birth - what do you really think the jury is going to say? Since most of the country naively perceives all midwives as incompetent, and home birth to always produce disastrous results, why even bother going before a jury? Why not just engage in a massive witch hunt and dispense with the formalities already?

What's to stop any doctor who just happens to be anti-home birth from making this into a situation that clearly damns the midwife, no matter what? How is any investigator going to know the difference?

This raises more questions than answers for me, some of which don't have anything to do with the safety of home birth in and of itself. It's not just a question of poor judgment on the midwife's part; there's so much more going on here.

Apparently, the midwife insisted she had everything under control when the parents were asking about transferring to the hospital. However, "minutes later," she decided to dispatch them to the hospital anyway.

As birth advocates, we preach endlessly about trusting your care provider. Sure, that's very important. But I'm not sure it means that you still don't question them sometimes and do everything they say. I don't know - if the parents are asking to transfer, what do you say? Who's to say you're right, and they're not? Or vice versa?

If I reached a point in a home birth where I thought my instincts were telling me to ignore the advice of my very trusted midwife, I don't know if anyone could hold me back from the doorway and take the keys out of my hand as I prepared to leave for the hospital. It makes me wonder about this thing called "patient compliance," where we as patients find ourselves agreeing with things, doing and saying things while at the same time, in our heads, we're wondering, "Why did I just say that? I don't believe that. I don't want to do it this way, and yet I'm agreeing to it anyway."

I can't really blame the parents, though, because if you don't get that "intuition" that tells you that something might be wrong, then what?

It does make me question, though, how in-depth they researched her qualifications. The midwife apparently produced records after the baby's death that said she was some type of "medicine woman and traditional spiritual leader." Umm.... not exactly sure what that means or how it even remotely makes you appropriately qualified.

Another irony is the criminal investigation of the midwife, and others like her - whether they're trained or not - when a baby dies. Conversely, babies die in hospitals every day. Sure, doctors can be investigated, sued, even. No one denies that. But where is the outrage over that? Given the rise of things like the "Pit to Distress" phenomenon and iatrogenic prematurity, it's amazing more babies don't die. What's even sadder is that people seem completely unaware that this stuff happens, simply because babies don't die more frequently. Depending on the situation and state laws, many times an autopsy is never performed - which grieving parents often, understandably, might not think about or want to deal with at the time, meaning negligence is unlikely to be proven.

Interestingly enough, I do remember during my brief employment at a hospital one OB nurse talking to me at length about a doctor who waited too long to do a cesarean. She said nurses were urging him to do so, but he waited. The baby died. As far as I know, he is still practicing medicine, still delivering babies.

One must wonder if perhaps the midwife's obvious reluctance to head to the hospital sooner meant that she would be met with scrutiny and a couple of policemen on each arm. I would hope the mother, when hiring this woman in the first place, would understand that - as well as midwifery laws and their tumultuous history in her home state of Missouri. The often (well-documented) harsh, judgmental behavior of both doctors and nurses during a home birth transfer is, sadly, probably enough to make many only want to head there as a last resort, which could possibly have dire consequences. Couple that with the all-too-common naive assumption that any home birth transfer is likely because of impending disaster, and it's a recipe that leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth.

Edit: Reader Lauren has recently posted this link about the death of a labor and delivery nurse's baby and her hospital transfer when things went wrong. Apparently, you can never get to the hospital soon enough, so it's always your fault, right?

Risked Out

A few months ago I posted the home birth story of my friend, R. She is now weeks away from the birth of her third child and was planning a home birth. The birth kit had been ordered; arrangements were being made. But in the background, other things were happening.

Before R got pregnant, she had been diagnosed with an infection of some kind, which meant her platelets were low and she developed thrombocytopenia. Despite this, her doctor gave her the all-clear to become pregnant. This bleeding disorder means that if R had problems during labor, she could essentially bleed out. She has tried everything, to little avail. She finally emailed me and said her midwife, who sounds very caring and supportive, has officially risked her out of a home birth.

I told her I thought it was the best decision, under the circumstances, to have a hospital birth. In her situation, it was best to know ahead of time and not be faced with it for the first time while in labor. Her care so far, from her description, under both her OB and her midwife, has sounded thorough and excellent (contrary to the belief that midwives can't provide more than adequate care during pregnancy). Her midwife has agreed to also act as her doula and accompany her to the hospital.

While it's a tremendously emotional, difficult decision to make, I think R and her midwife were very wise to do so. I remember being faced with similar decisions in my last two pregnancies: attempt a VBAC or go with a repeat c-section? Proceed with the hopes for a vaginal birth even though the baby had turned and my blood pressure was up? It's a gamble we often have to take, and it does hurt when things are obviously not going to work out as planned.

I told R I wanted to highlight her situation on my blog if only to say, "Home birth mothers are not reckless; they do care about their babies!" Of course, we know that. But many people - including doctors - seem to think that people who desire home birth have an agenda; that they place the actual experience of giving birth over the importance of having a healthy baby. I think R, and many home birthing mothers, agree that you can achieve both. R has dealt with medical issues during her entire pregnancy, and none of what she decided to do was taken lightly. I get so irritated with people who have a certain stereotype of mothers who home birth - and chances are they, and the doctors who hold similar ideas, have never even attended a home birth to even know remotely what they're talking about.

Home birth has recently been a hot topic of debate in the media in the last few months, whether it's the snide, sneering comments about Gisele Bundchen's home waterbirth or the somewhat patronizing headline, "Should American women learn to give birth at home? " (When you click on the link, the headline is different on the page, almost like someone went back and changed it.) Learn? It almost sounds like society is asking itself, "Should we allow women in our culture to behave so stupidly?" not realizing that their own perceptions about care for the average, normal pregnancy and birth are defined by many outdated practices and ideas, shaping their thinking and creating a false idea that everything is inherently right, good and necessary because it comes from a doctor or hospital's standpoint.

What doctors, hospitals, the media and other critics of home birth fail to look at almost every time is why women are choosing to have one. Many like to just scratch the surface with things like unnecessary cesareans, Pitocin inductions and the basic idea that pregnant women are often treated like they're terminally ill instead of just having a baby. Many critics treat home birth and natural birth advocates as if they all disagree with interventions of any kind, when in fact, that's not true. (I haven't met anyone, ever, like this yet.) The idea of a pregnant woman being treated like a medical experiment or as if they are completely incapable of making decisions for themselves - and their unborn children - is nothing new and probably spans more than an entire century.

Therefore, when we understand that the roots of our maternity care system come from this standard of care, we will understand why many women choose home birth. We will understand why things like birth trauma matter, and why some women are even forced into a corner in order to avoid more trauma, which can lead them to make dangerous decisions in childbirth. Instead of demonizing them, however, we need to understand why they felt compelled to make the decision they did - and that sometimes, even though it's perceived as reckless, selfish or stupid it can still work out.

The fine line between advocate and arrogance

A baby died this week. It's been blogged about, Twittered about, FaceBooked about. Apparently, the baby had pre-existing heart problems that some say made him a poor candidate for circumcision, but for whatever reason, he was circumcised anyway. Some are suggesting that his tragic death was directly resulting from his circumcision. His doctors feel that it wasn't.

That's not really what this post is about. I tend to avoid the topic of circumcision because I feel it is a personal choice the parents make, much like deciding to get an epidural while in labor, or perhaps the decision to go straight to a c-section as a way to avoid labor. Whatever the reasons, people have them, feel passionately about them, and decide to go ahead with it. Does it matter if I disagree? Not one bit.

The real issue that has me fuming, frustrated and just plain disgusted are some of the comments people have been leaving on blog posts about this topic. I can't even access The Navelgazing Midwife's post about telling anti-circ people to "STFU" already because my internet filter won't allow me to. The Spirited Doula also talked about it, and was equally shocked and horrified by the comments.

Anytime a baby dies, for any reason, it's a tragedy. But to blame the parents, say they're "stupid," and especially to say you're not sorry for them and that "they got what they deserved" literally makes me want to smack someone in the head. Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, people are free to make remarks, some of which are absolutely the cruelest things I've ever heard. Ever.

Other commenters were blasting the mother for her remarks on the situation being 'in God's hands,' and used that opportunity to lambast her on her assumed religious beliefs as well. This segues into another slam on the spiritual beliefs of parents who circumcise.

It almost makes me want to delete my blog and give up on childbirth and parenting issues forever, I am so disgusted.

It does remind me of one blogger (I am trying desperately to find a link; maybe someone can help me - here is the link , in case someone is interested) who was very passionate about birthing issues and homebirth. Then she had a difficult home birth herself, only to decide to give it all up after being disillusioned with the astounding hubris some hardcore advocates had over the subject. When I read this, I was saddened by her decision and it was hard to comprehend. Now I understand.

I've had frustrating conversations on my blog and fan page about people I know - even people I don't know - having unnecessary inductions or c-sections for no reason, and all manner of other things in pregnancy and birth. The best you can do, we concluded, is to offer the information, and if they decide not to take it, walk away. Because, really, it's not our business. How is the topic of circumcision not the same?

That same "gentle" approach to birth and parenting could apply to advocacy, too. In-your-face activism, whether it be about breast vs. formula feeding, vaccinations, or co-sleeping is not going to get anyone anywhere. If you want to be an advocate, do so in a respectful, productive manner. Ultimately it's not your business what parents decide to do, or not do, with their son's penises. You can respectfully educate or inform, but if they still want to go ahead and do it, that's their decision. There are plenty of ways to constructively direct that passion: but doing so as a hateful bigot - cloaked under the guise of advocacy - isn't one of them.

I am pretty active on birth boards that represent a cross-section of women, some who are informed, some who aren't. One thing I try not to do, ever, is come across as superior or fear-mongering. It's a very fine line, and ultimately if they want to follow my advice, heed my suggestions or click on my links, that's their decision.

This whole situation makes me wonder, sometimes, if perhaps we aren't jumping to conclusions about situations and letting our egos get in the way. Were we there when a home birth went wrong? No. Were we capable of making a sound medical diagnosis at the time? No. We need to be very careful before we demonize all doctors, all mothers, even, who make decisions that we ourselves would not have. This puffed up and inflated opinion just comes across badly, and I can see sometimes where Dr. Amy's criticisms of birth and parenting advocates come from.

Another commenter argued, rightly, that by spewing attacks and vile comments that it was only giving people like Dr. Amy and her group ammunition. And I totally agree. I would love to see some of these "advocates" step up to the plate and admit they were being harsh and insensitive. Regardless of their opinions, they were not there, and to the best of my knowledge, are likely not doctors. Even if they are, until you can provide your own professional, first-hand diagnosis, perhaps you'd be wise in following The Navelgazing Midwife's recommendation to "shut the ---- up."

VBAC survey online

A new birth survey is circulating from the ICAN Athens (GA) branch on VBACs and attempted VBACs, no matter what the outcome. Follow this link here to fill out the form.

The survey's authors, Makini Duewa and Michlene Cotter-Norwood, both have had VBACs. Michlene had a home birth after cesarean (HBAC), and Makini had a home birth after multiple cesareans (HBAMC). While the survey is ongoing, the authors say they need to have a great number of them filled out within the next five to seven days. Respondents can send the survey to makiniduewa@gmail.com.


Also, I invite you to take The Birth Survey if you haven't already done so!

The ultimate sacrifice?

Today is what would have been the 95th birthday of Ethel Rosenberg , the American woman who was charged with conspiracy against the US government in her "involvement" in selling secrets of the atomic bomb to the Russians. She and her husband, Julius, were executed in 1953. She was 37 years old.

Being a history buff, I've always been somewhat morbidly intrigued with the Rosenbergs. The other night I was surfing and somehow ended up in the black hole of Wikipedia searches that led back to these two. They were devout Communists, involved in the web of spying and espionage through her brother David Greenglass, who worked at Los Alamos on The Manhattan Project. David's wife, Ruth, was the one who encouraged her husband and Julius to get involved, and so it began.

In the end, both David and Ruth ultimately betrayed the Rosenbergs, implicating her as having more involvement in the whole thing than she probably did. David later admitted that he doesn't remember who did what, but Ethel had no involvement in it - and both he and Ruth gave false testimony if only to save themselves (and claimed they were encouraged by the prosecution to do so). To this day, he still says he has no regrets whatsoever in betraying his own sister, and says he would not sacrifice his wife and children, even though his own sister did so. Arguably if anyone "deserved" the electric chair for their involvement, it was David and Ruth Greenglass.

One thing that touched me in this story was how Ethel was a mother to two boys, who were only 3 and 6 at the time. The same age as two of my children. I pictured her giving birth to these boys, the glimpse of her fate only a distant glimmer. She probably breastfed them, diapered them and chased them around not much differently than you or I. I pictured her mother giving birth to her, and wondered, as many parents probably do, if she ever thought, Would my children grow up to do something wonderful? Horrible? While it was confirmed that Julius was guilty, people still speculate on Ethel's involvement. The fact remains, though: she knew about her husband's involvement in the spy ring and did nothing to stop it. The impact of selling atomic weapons secrets to the Soviets could (still) put millions of lives in danger - Russia has sold , or at least attempted to sell, military weaponry and nuclear technology to Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria, and perhaps even Venezuela. Did the Rosenbergs, and others like them, have any idea of the long-term implications of what they were doing?

The young Rosenberg boys read of their parents' stay of execution

I wondered how two people could become so involved in a thing that would endanger their families so much. Surely they had to know that at some point, one or both of them would be caught. Once they finally were implicated and charged, the boys went to live with several relatives, an orphanage, and finally were adopted by another couple who were also Communist. Both boys grew up with normal, happy childhoods despite the pressure of being the children of such hated, reviled people in American history. Both were well-respected in their academic fields, and one son even applauds his parents for standing up for their beliefs and not "betraying their friends" by giving away the names of people they worked with (unlike their uncle, unfortunately).

Not betraying their friends? That struck me. What cause would I believe so deeply in that I would sacrifice my life and leave my children motherless? Even my belief in Jesus Christ, admittedly, might not even cause me to do that - even though the Bible says that believers should love him more than their own children. But based on my beliefs, somehow the rewards in Heaven for having done so far outweigh the perceived good of spreading communism, which has never worked and probably never will. No references I could find said specifically why the Rosenbergs believed so deeply in the cause, or why they got involved in the spy ring in the first place. While admittedly there was, no doubt, anti-semitism running amok in this country and elsewhere, the execution came less than a decade after many Nazi death camps had been liberated. Without trying to sound too crass, I think Ethel and Julius would have been better off leaving the Horn of Plenty that is the United States and defecting to Russia if they thought it was so great. Communism did nothing but essentially destroy Russia in the end, and isn't doing a whole lot for Cuba right now, either. What personal freedoms and quality of life do Cubans have in comparison to even the poorest people in the United States? If communism is so wonderful, why do Cubans still attempt to defect to America?

Some still despise the Rosenbergs for their actions, and others hail them as heroes for their cause. While in the beginning of her trial I doubt she thought she would actually be executed, as the date drew nearer she had to have known it was inevitable, and yet still did not speak up. An extreme case of loyalty? Hubris? Who knows. I wonder if it was all really worth it.

Raising children with morals in an immoral world

Katy Perry's SNL response to Sesame Street - and parents

The latest Katy Perry fiasco has really gotten me thinking. Reading some of the comments made by people - even parents - to "get over it," "be silent," "grow up," "turn the other way" - and the backhanded apology from the Sesame Street team themselves - feels like people are telling parents who find this stuff inappropriate that they're wrong for trying to raise their children with some ounce of common decency. Some have even suggested the entire controversy was started by "moms who are fat and jealous." Jealous of what? Since when am I, and parents like me, the source of the problem and not the people who normalize and justify these behaviors?

There is an entire movement in this country and elsewhere to not circumcise infant boys. Other parents refuse all vaccinations, for whatever their reason. And others eat all organic food, cutting out candy and processed foods from their household. Some consider McDonald's and similar fast food just about the worst you can feed a kid, and steer clear. That's all their personal choice and I respect them for it, even if it's not something I necessarily completely agree with or subscribe to in my household. But I figure, when it comes to their children, they're doing what they feel is best.

We put so much emphasis on the physical well-being of our children - even the President's administration is trying to conquer the plague of childhood obesity. But when it comes to the minds and spiritual well-being of our children, we're supposed to turn a blind eye and forget about it?

(You can bet that if Perry had been using those same breasts to nurse a baby, the very people who thought she was so great would have screamed, "Get her off the air right now!")


It doesn't matter if you're Christian, atheist, go to church or not - most people I know want their kids to grow up well and have morals. No parent says, "Hey, I'm teaching my child how to be a serial rapist! All right!," raising a triumphant fist. Why would anyone want that?

But throughout childhood, the bombardment of images, television and advertisements, cartoons, music and other cultural influences can shape our children's lives in ways we probably can't even begin to imagine. Their brains are like sponges - I'm sure we've all said something maybe once to our children, only to hear them repeat it back to someone else. Kind of embarrassing at times, or just funny to hear them take something so literally.

I mentioned in my last post that I had a babysitter who "watched" me in the afternoons. Rather, she was somewhere in the house, but her kids were in and out, doing whatever. One older daughter was probably in her early 20s, still living at home, and was watching a movie one day while I was there, waiting for my mom to pick me up. I still remember it vividly - something about Paul Newman, Robbie Benson and Newman calling his son "chickenshit" a lot. It's kind of funny but not really. Something I doubt my mom would have approved of in our household. (Perhaps this is where my penchant for swearing comes from, since I never heard that kind of language at home. Who knows.)

Another time someone in the babysitter's house was watching some movie - I have no idea what it was about, but do remember one scene in particular: a crazed guy driving an ice cream truck, and one hapless victim, who unfortunately was a kid, had a sizable hole shot through her chest by his shotgun, knocking her blood-spattered body to the ground. Pretty horrific, huh? What a role model. I remember thinking, 'I'm so glad I live in the country and we don't have ice cream trucks out here!' Needless to say, the sight of Mr. Cool coming down the street gives me unpleasant images even now.

I bet if I came up to her and asked her about it now, she'd look at me like I was nuts and say, "You remember that?" I think that's probably the general consensus: that because they're children, they won't remember or understand, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I can also tell you that said babysitter's husband looked at porn. And didn't leave it in a very hidden place. If it's in the house, people, kids will find it. No matter how well you think you hide it. (If you want something hidden well, maybe you should ask the kid to hide it. Not the parent who thinks he's smarter than the kid.)

My husband also says he remembers seeing pornographic images from moments in his childhood, and how those pictures are etched into his brain forever. This must have been over 30 years ago, and like my "memories," they're still there.

Because I remember what it was like to be a kid, and the stuff that still lingers with me, therefore I do not buy for one second that 'they're just kids, they won't understand!' Media and cultural influences are very sneaky and subversive in not only reeling in kids, but the adults that are their parents. Gradually over the generations we've come to see what our parents wore as stuffy and too conservative, and gradually hemlines have given way to the band-aid like skirts we see everyone wearing today. People complain about women sharing their "muffin tops" with the world, but hey - we wanted it, we got it.

As far as Katy Perry's wardrobe choice on the show, many parents justified it by saying, "You see this every day at the mall." Well, that doesn't make it right. It does not mean you should turn a blind eye, either. I applaud the people who wrote letters or called Sesame Street to give them a piece of their minds, and actually do something about it instead of sit back and let it happen. It seems that so many parents have just become complacent because they feel that there's no choice but to let society win because "majority rules." When this happens, you might as well say, "I'm letting society raise my children by letting it, instead of me, dictate what goes in my household."

You may not have a problem with Perry's dress, but somewhere the line has to be drawn. What would you consider inappropriate? At some point, something has to offend and you realize, This is too much. Another parent and I were talking about it yesterday and she said her four-year-old daughter notices immediately when a top mom is wearing is too revealing by saying, "Mom, your boobies are showing!" She said her older daughter noticed right away in a Hannah Montana video when one of the back-up singers - wayyy in the back - was flashing her midriff during a dance. Kids do notice - they have eyes and ears just like the rest of us, and if anything they are probably more in tune than their adult counterparts.

Like my post on high-heeled shoes for girls , children's clothing is another topic of hot debate. Some of it mirrors dresses like Katy's (minus the cleavage, let's hope) and looks bizarre, like a mini pole dancer decked out in glitter and rhinestones. I walked into The Children's Place the other day and thought a motorcycle gang had taken over: what happened to all the cute, trendy (yet ghastly expensive) clothes I remember? And who replaced them all with skulls and crossbones all of a sudden?

Children dressed in their Sunday Best for a wedding, 1958. Photo from www.fashion-era.com

Children's fashions seem to be mirroring adults', with higher and higher hemlines that creep up before you know it, mini-heels and flared legs. (Photo from The Children's Place website)

Not that these are too terrible, but somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if an adult guy saw girls like in this in public and thought they were much older than they really are. 

One place I've noticed that seems to be really over-the-top in some of their styles is Target. Affordability is probably the biggest point that snares parents in, because in my experience, all those cute-but-conservative "preppy" clothes only come from places like The Gap and cost an arm and a leg. 

From Target. I'm not really sure what this get up is, but it's labeled under "teen fashion."

I've noticed that, for now, the most effective way of combatting cultural crap that I don't want is to turn off my television. No, your kids can't live in a bubble, but just not having access to all of it has helped so far. Most of the people who really had a problem with The Great Sesame Street Gaffe could probably benefit from just turning it off permanently - but I think that's hard for some, because it infringes on the viewing habits of other people (namely the parents). I had to make this decision too when I decided to cancel cable, and finally said, "Who cares? My kids are more important." HGTV can wait. My kids are only young once. 

Sesame Street ditches Katy Perry

Singer Katy Perry and her low-cut "dress" apparently didn't make the cut on a recent taping of the favorite children's television show. And after looking at the pictures, I can see why parents would complain.

Photo from AP/San Jose Mercury News

Apparently, the top is actually flesh-colored material like the costumes that ice skaters wear. But after watching the video, it looks like boobs to me. I didn't see a full-length picture of the dress, but based on the clips shown in the video, there doesn't look like a whole lot of material there.

The video was first shown on YouTube before making it to the network, and I'm wondering if the producers of Sesame Street did this in order to gauge parents' reactions - because they knew they were crossing a fine line.

Ironically we were just talking about this at the lunch table yesterday - the somewhat questionable stars Sesame Street hosts lately (?) have me scratching my head, wondering if it's really something I want my child watching. One mom commented on a Sex and the City character making an appearance and talking about "Mr. Big," (which went over my head since I don't watch the show) and explained that it referred to Big Bird, (of course!) but was a double entendre from the S&C series. Yeah. Okay. That's the part that sort of irks me. That some of the humor is off-color for children and is understood in more of an adult context. I've never understood how some elements of the script are equally geared towards parents or adults. I think their original expectation is that the adults will be watching with their children, which is probably the last thing that happens, especially these days.

One episode featured "The Shoe Fairy Person," played by Neil Patrick Harris (who just happens to be gay). "The Shoe Fairy?" Really? In 2009, Vanessa Williams appeared - you know, the former Miss America who lost her crown because of her raunchy appearance in Penthouse magazine. Former Playmate of the Year Jenny McCarthy (who still worked for the magazine both modeling and in 'other capacities' up until fairly recently) has been on the show several times. (This one really puzzled me, considering that McCarthy is known for her often crude, over-the-top sense of humor. How does she explain that to her son, I wonder?)

The article does goes on to say, in reference to the risque costume, "That's right. We don't want a sudden flood of toddlers busting their piggy banks trying to get breast implants." This comment almost implies that parents are wrong for complaining and should just lighten up already.

Maybe they won't ask for a boob job for Christmas just yet. But I've already seen countless little kids faithfully wearing their Justin Beiber t-shirts, Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana get ups and all kinds of other age-inappropriate attire. Halloween is just around the corner - I can't wait to see what kids come out wearing then. High heels for girls, anyone? And just the other day in the store, I heard a gaggle of young kids actually singing Christina Aguilera's "Candyman." (Not sure if they got to the part about vodka and dropping underwear yet.)

People probably think children are too young to get the Katy Perry boob references or understand the lyrics to Aguilera's song, but I beg to differ. A recent study concluded that children are "surprisingly perceptive." No, really?

Even if they don't understand the sexual overtones or get the connection between the real lyrics of Perry's song versus the cleaned up for tv version, I don't think it matters much: I still wouldn't want my child singing them. At least not at that age. 

I look back at some of the sexual references or innuendo that I do remember as a kid, whether from adults having conversations that they thought were over my head or from tv. That stuff still sticks with me. It left an impression, whether good or bad, for a reason. In a lot of ways I think my mom raised me as a product of her own parents' naivete, and her innocence reflected how out of touch she probably was on such issues. 

I think I am way more guarded as a parent than my mom was. Partly because I remember those influences while growing up, and partly because, generationally, things are so much different than when I was a kid. Things were probably beginning to change culturally between the time my mom grew up and when she raised me. Each generation has gotten progressively "worse," with more modern conveniences that either take the place of a parent being more present in the supervisory role or introduce questionable influences into their lives. 

I think back to my Sesame Street days and don't remember anything too overt about some of the guests. Maybe on the Muppet Show, Charo sang and shook her whatever around in 1978 (but then again, I always thought she was kind of whacked, even when I was a kid.)

Being a kid in 1980 was a different time. Things like Adam Walsh's abduction and murder sort of peripherally lingered in the background, and the stories of several high-profile child kidnapings and subsequent murders (like that of Cleveland-area tween Amy Mihaljevic ) were only just starting to take a front seat and make parents wake up. Maybe I was more sheltered, but those were the days of no cable and certainly no internet. No texting, or anything remotely related to a computer would even enter our house for probably six years yet. Now every kid has a cell phone, is texting (or even "sexting") and some young girls have even been chatting with adult men online and meeting them for sex, sometimes ending up with disastrous consequences . 

I'm sure some parents have used tv as a babysitter from its very inception - that much has and never will change. Sometimes, I'm even guilty of that. But it's the stuff they're watching that is crucial. It seems like Sesame Street's original purpose has eclipsed itself, maybe, and now they are introducing cultural references to children who are probably really too young for it. The major problem, though, is that the references to these entertainers is no longer benign, because kids are seeing these people perform in their "adult mode" too. Whatever the reason - an older sibling, a babysitter, maybe even a parent who lets them watch, thinking it's harmless. As a parent, I find nothing cute or funny about seeing a preschooler "attracted" to Justin Beiber (or anyone outside the scope of, say, The Wiggles maybe) and think encouraging this type of behavior possibly just leads to more precocious behavior at a younger age. I don't know why people are surprised that more teens are having sex and getting pregnant, really. 

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea if Sesame Street would consider only hosting guests who are role models for children both on Sesame Street and in their "real" roles. If they can find any.