‘Babywise’ Linked to Babies' Dehydration, Failure to Thrive


By Matthew Aney, M.D.

THE OFFICIAL NEWS MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 14 Number 4


Expectant parents often fear the changes a new baby will bring, especially sleepless nights. What new parent wouldn’t want a how-to book that promises their baby will be sleeping through the night by three to eight weeks?

One such book, On Becoming Babywise, has raised concern among pediatricians because it outlines an infant feeding program that has been associated with failure to thrive (FTT), poor weight gain, dehydration, breast milk supply failure, and involuntary early weaning. A Forsyth Medical Hospital Review Committee, in Winston-Salem N.C., has listed 11 areas in which the program is inadequately supported by conventional medical practice. The Child Abuse Prevention Council Of Orange County, Calif., stated its concern after physicians called them with reports of dehydration, slow growth and development, and FTT associated with the program. And on Feb. 8, AAP District IV passed a resolution asking the Academy to investigate “Babywise,” determine the extent of its effects on infant health and alert its members, other organizations and parents of its findings.

I have reviewed numerous accounts of low weight gain and FTT associated with “Babywise” and discussed them with several pediatricians and lactation consultants involved.

The book’s feeding schedule, called Parent Directed Feeding (PDF), consists of feeding newborns at intervals of three to three and one-half hours (described as two and one-half to three hours from the end of the last 30- minute feeding) beginning at birth. Nighttime feedings are eliminated at eight weeks.

This advice is in direct opposition to the latest AAP recommendations on newborn feeding (AAP Policy Statement, “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk,” Pediatrics, Dec. 1997): “Newborns should be nursed whenever they show signs of hunger, such as increased alertness or activity, mouthing, or rooting. Crying is a late indicator of hunger. Newborns should be nursed approximately eight to 12 times every 24 hours until satiety...”

Although demand feeding is endorsed by the Academy, WHO, and La Leche League among others, “Babywise” claims that demand feeding may he harmful and outlines a feeding schedule in contrast to it. The book makes numerous medical statements without references or research, despite that many are the antitheses of well-known medical research findings. In 190 pages, only two pediatric journals are referenced with citations dated 1982 and 1986.

Many parents are unaware of problems because the book is marketed as medically supported. It is co-authored by pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D., who not only states in the book that the “Babywise” principles are medically sound,” but also writes, “Babywise” has brought a needed reformation to pediatric counsel given to new parents.” Obstetrician Sharon Nelson, M.D., also warns: “Not following the principles of “Babywise” is a potential health concern.”

The book’s other author is Gary Ezzo, a pastor with no medical background. Ezzo’s company, Growing Families International (GFI), markets the book as “ideally written” for “obstetricians, pediatricians, or health-care providers to distribute to their patients.” (GFI promotes the same program under the title “Preparation for Parenting,” a virtual duplicate with added religious material).

Though “Babywise” does say, “With PDF a mother feeds her baby when the baby is hungry,” it also instructs parents to do otherwise. In a question-and-answer section, parents of a 2-week-old baby, who did not get a full feeding at the last scheduled time and wants to eat again, are instructed that babies learn quickly from the laws of natural consequences. “If your daughter doesn’t eat at one feeding, then make her wait until the next one.”

Unfortunately, the schedule in “Babywise” does not take into account differences among breastfeeding women and babies. According to one report, differences of up to 300 percent in the maximum milk storage capacity of women’s breasts mean that, although women have the capability of producing the same amount of milk over a 24-hour period for their infants, some will have to breastfeed far more frequently than others to maintain that supply. Babies must feed when they need to, with intervals and duration determined according to a variety of factors in temperament, environment, and physiological makeup. Averages may fit into a bell-shaped curve, but some babies will require shorter intervals. (Daly S., Hartmann P. “Infant demand and milk supply, Part 2. The short-term control of milk synthesis in lactating women.” Journal of Human Lactation; 11; (1):27-37).

Examples of the many other un- substantiated medical claims in “Babywise” include:

• “Lack of regularity [in feeding intervals] sends a negative signal to the baby’s body, creating metabolic confusion that negatively affects his or her hunger, digestive, and sleep/wake cycles.”

• “Demand-fed babies don’t sleep through the night.”

• “A mother who takes her baby to her breast 12, 15, or 20 times a day will not produce any more milk than the mom who takes her baby to breast six to seven times a day.”

• “Mothers following PDF have little or no problem with the let down reflex, compared to those who demand-feed.”

• “Colic, which basically is a spasm in the baby’s intestinal tract that causes pain, is very rare in PDF babies but is intensified in demand-fed babies.”

• “In our opinion, much more developmental damage is done to a child by holding him or her constantly than by putting the baby down. In terms of biomechanics alone, carrying a baby in a sling can increase neck and back problems, or even create them.”

• “Some researchers suggest that putting a baby on his or her back for sleep, rather than on the baby’s tummy, will reduce the chance of crib death. That research is not conclusive, and the method of gathering supportive data is questionable.”

My review of the low weight gain and FTT accounts associated with “Babywise” revealed several disturbing trends. Parents were often adamant about continuing with the feeding schedule, even when advised otherwise by health care professionals. They were hesitant to tell their physicians about the schedule, making it difficult to pinpoint the cause for the weight gain problems. Many elected to supplement or wean to formula rather than continue breastfeeding at the expense of the schedule. The parents’ commitment call be especially strong when they are using the program for religious reasons, even though numerous leaders within the same religious communities have publicly expressed concerns.

Pediatricians need to know about “Babywise” and recognize its potential dangers. History taking should include questions to determine if parents are using a feeding schedule, especially before advising formula supplement to breastfeeding mothers or when faced with a low-gaining or possible failure to thrive baby. Lactation consultants also should be instructed to probe this area.
Efforts should be made to inform parents of the AAP recommended policies for breastfeeding and the potentially harmful consequences of not following them.

Dr. Matthew Aney is an AAP candidate fellow based in Lancaster, California.


~~~~
For more on Babywise, the Ezzos and Growing Kids God's Way methods see:





The Case for Cue Feeding (rather than PDF - "parent directed feeding")



Parents Against Babywise (Facebook page)

Moms Against Babywise (Facebook group)











Piercing Expert, and Father, on Ear Piercing Babies

Matt Sanders' original post here

More from Matt:
Instagram/online portfolio: @modified_florida


Another father, Adam, demonstrates the honoring of consent, personal choice, and agency with his 8 year old daughter on the topic of ear piercing. Original post.



Related Reading: 

The Perils of Piercing Guns: http://www.DrMomma.org/2018/08/the-perils-of-piercing-guns.html

One Regret: http://www.DrMomma.org/2011/10/one-regret.html

Peaceful Parenting Community: FB.com/groups/ExplorePeacefulParenting

Peaceful Parenting on Facebook: FB.com/PeacefulParenting


Her Body. Her Choice.
Infant ear piercing is painful, risky, and has no benefits for any baby. Allow your child to choose body modifications when she is fully informed and able to consent.

She is just as much your baby girl without body modification. Say NO to infant ear piercing.

Info Cards and Awareness Raising Materials


Informational items, lanyards, totes, magnets, bumper stickers, bracelets, etc., can now be found on Etsy

Or check by mail with a note to:

Peaceful Parenting
P.O. Box 1302 
Virginia Beach, VA 23451



Info Cards (Variety) Here
• Congratulations cards
• New Parent? cards
• Babywise (no sleep training) cards
• Intact care cards
• Thank you for nursing in public cards
• Babywearing cards
and more!


Vinyl Stickers (Variety) Here
• Love Babies?
• Intact Care
• Awareness raising
and more!


Advocacy Bracelets (Variety) Here
• Peaceful Parenting
• Birthing Bracelets
• Breastfeeding Bracelets
• Do NOT Retract / Do NOT Circumcise Baby Bands
and more!



Informational Packs (Variety) Here
• Expecting? Packet
• Circumcision & Intact Care Full Pack
• Church Pack
• Breastfeeding Mom Pack
• PRIDE Pack
• GIAW Support Pack
• Hospital Stay Pack
• Daycare / Babysitter Pack with Baby Bands
• Expecting Postcards for a Friend
• Physician Prevention Pack & Do NOT Retract Pack
and more!

Circumcision and Intact Care Information Pack
designed for new and expecting parents
can be curtailed to meet individual family needs
(faith based materials, Spanish items, etc., added)


Signs and Banners Variety Here
Contact on Etsy for custom requests


Pens (Variety of colors and phrases) Here


Lanyards (Variety) Here
Contact on Etsy for Custom Requests


• Intact Care
• Circumcision Resources
• Natural Weaning / Breastfeeding
and more!


• New Baby Visitor Chart
• Medical Statements on Circumcision
• Intact Celebs
• Intact Care Chart
and more!


*can be turned into vehicle magnets by placing the bumper sticker on magnetic backing from any hobby store



*Note that stamping cash is legal, but these can be used for stamping on any type of paper, note pads, envelopes, used books before donating, etc.




*Additional varieties will be added as we have production partners
If you are a cloth diaper maker and would like to join with Peaceful Parenting in making an awareness raising diaper on any topic, please contact us via email or at Etsy


• Custom crocheted intact phallus with functioning foreskin for education
• Plastibells in clear container for education
• Tins with lids for stickers


BOOKS ON AMAZON



Why You Should Stop Yelling at Your Kids

By Stephen Marche, New York Times
Leer en Español: https://www.nytimes.com/es/2018/09/10/gritar-hijos/
Shared at Peaceful Parenting with permission.
Read more from Marche: http://www.stephenmarche.com


Why you should stop yelling at your kids. It doesn’t make you look authoritative. It makes you look out of control to your kids. It makes you look weak.

The use of spanking to discipline children has been in decline for 50 years. But yelling? Almost everybody still yells at their kids sometimes, even the parents who know it doesn’t work. Yelling may be the most widespread parental stupidity around today. Households with regular shouting incidents tend to have children with lower self-esteem and higher rates of depression.

A 2014 study in The Journal of Child Development demonstrated that yelling produces results similar to physical punishment in children: increased levels of anxiety, stress and depression along with an increase in behavioral problems.

 How many times in your parenting life have you thought to yourself, after yelling at your kids, “Well, that was a good decision...”? It doesn’t make you look authoritative. It makes you look out of control to your kids. It makes you look weak. And you’re yelling, let’s be honest, because you are weak. Yelling, even more than spanking, is the response of a person who doesn’t know what else to do. But most parents — myself included — find it hard to imagine how to get through the day without yelling.

The new research on yelling presents parents with twin problems: What do I do instead? And how do I stop? Yelling to stop your kids from running into traffic is not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about yelling as a form of correction. Yelling for correction is ineffective as a tool and merely imprints the habit of yelling onto the children. We yell at our kids over the same stuff every day, and we yell at them some more because the original yelling doesn’t work. Put your clothes away. Come down for dinner. Don’t ride the dog. Stop hitting your brother.

The mere knowledge that yelling is bad, in itself, won’t help, said Alan Kazdin, a professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale. Yelling is not a strategy, it’s a release. “If the goal of the parent is catharsis, I want to get this out of my system and show you how mad I am, well, yelling is probably perfect,” Dr. Kazdin said. “If the goal here is to change something in the child or develop a positive habit in the child, yelling is not the way to do that.” There are other strategies, and they don’t involve screaming like a maniac.

Many think of positivity as a form of laziness, as if parents who are positive aren’t disciplining their children. But not yelling requires advance planning and discipline for the parents, which yelling doesn’t. Dr. Kazdin promotes a program called the ABCs, which stands for antecedents, behaviors and consequences. The antecedent is the setup, telling a child, specifically, what you want them to do before you want them to do it. Behaviors are where the behavior is defined and shaped, modeled by the parent. And the consequence involves an expression of approval when that behavior is performed, an over-the top Broadway-style belt-it-to-the-back-row expression of praise with an accompanying physical gesture of approval. So instead of yelling at your kid every night for the shoes strewn across the floor, ask him in the morning if he can put his shoes away when he comes home. Make sure when you come home that you put your own shoes away. And if your child puts his shoes away, or even puts them closer to where they’re supposed to be, tell him that he did a great job and then hug him. 

The ABC method of praise is a highly specific technique. You have to be effusive, so you actually have to put a big dumb smile on your face and even wave your hands in the air. Next thing is you have to say, in a very high, cheerful voice, exactly what you’re praising. And then the third part is you have to touch the child and give him some kind of nonverbal praise. The silliness is a feature, not a bug. It makes the kid notice the praise that accompanies correct behavior. And that’s the point. “We want to build habits,” Dr. Kazdin said. “The practice actually changes the brain, and in the process of that, the behaviors that you want to get rid of, having all kinds of temper tantrums and all the fights, all that just disappears.” Furthermore, he noted, “as a side effect, when you do these things, the parents’ depression and stress in fact go down and family relations pick up.” If our kids behave better, then we won’t feel like yelling. And if we don’t yell, our kids will behave better.

The beauty of having a system is that instead of reacting after your kids do something bad, instead of waiting for them to mess up and then getting angry, you have a conscious plan. But planning requires discipline on the part of the parent, and it’s tough. “We know that humans have what’s called a negativity bias,” Dr. Kazdin says. “The technical term for that in psychology is ‘normal.’ This is something in the brain, in which through evolution we are very much sensitive to negative things in the environment.” We are hard-wired to yell. It’s an evolutionary survival instinct that has turned on those it was meant to protect. It’s hard to abandon yelling, because it gives us the impression that we’re parenting.

In the 1960s, 94 percent of parents used physical punishment. A poll in 2010 found the number had declined to 22 percent. There are probably many reasons, including the influence of a number of childhood development educators. But surely one reason has to be that the reason to spank your kids evaporates if there’s a more effective way to change their behavior that doesn’t involve violence. Why spank if it doesn’t work? The same applies to yelling: Why are you yelling? It isn’t for the kids’ sake. Ultimately, techniques of discipline have to be about effectiveness, about getting through the day while trying to get your kids to do what you want and not do what you don’t want. Praise works. Punishment doesn’t.

Sex Characteristics Bill in California Legislation: Genital Autonomy for Intersex Babies



Full text of the California Legislation on SCR-110 Sex characteristics (2017-2018).

REVISED AUGUST 23, 2018
CORRECTED AUGUST 17, 2018
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 16, 2018
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 27, 2018
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 09, 2018
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 23, 2018

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

Introduced by Senator Wiener (Coauthor: Senator Glazer)(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Thurmond) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Limón)(Coauthors: Senators Glazer and Lara) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Gloria, Limón, Low, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O’Donnell, Quirk, Rendon, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Ting, Weber, and Wood) February 27, 2018

Relative to sex characteristics. 

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST 

SCR 110, as amended, Wiener. Sex characteristics. 

This measure would, among other things, call upon stakeholders in the health professions to foster the well-being of children born with variations of sex characteristics through the enactment of policies and procedures that ensure individualized, multidisciplinary care, as provided.

Fiscal Committee: no

BILL TEXT WHEREAS, Between 1 and 2 percent of individuals are Individuals born with variations in their physical sex characteristics, which may include may present with differences in genital anatomy, internal reproductive structures, chromosomes, or hormonal variations; and

WHEREAS, “Intersex” refers to the variety of different physical indicators that create these differences, which occur with about the same frequency as green eyes; differences; and

WHEREAS, The majority of babies born with these variations are healthy or do may not require medical intervention related to their physical sex characteristics until puberty, immediately, if at all; and

WHEREAS, Beginning in the 1950s, physicians in the United States began performing irreversible surgeries on intersex infants without medical justification in an attempt to surgically and hormonally force them to conform to what these physicians perceived as typical male and female bodies; and

WHEREAS, These surgeries, which include nonconsensual unnecessary infant vaginoplasties, clitoral reductions, reductions and recessions, and removal of gonadal tissues, continue to this day; and

WHEREAS, These surgeries are often performed before a child can even speak or stand, meaning the intersex individual is excluded from the decision whether to undergo these irreversible procedures; and

WHEREAS, There is evidence that these surgeries cause severe psychological and physiological harm when performed without the informed consent of the individual; and

WHEREAS, These harms may include scarring, chronic pain, urinary incontinence, loss of sexual sensation and function, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidality, and incorrect gender assignment; and

WHEREAS, Despite that being born intersex is not a flaw or shortcoming, intersex people and their families across California report difficulties accessing competent medical care that does not emphasize surgery, such as one mother, a resident of California interviewed by Human Rights Watch, who explained: “I just wish someone had said: ‘she’s OK, she’s perfectly healthy, there’s nothing wrong with her, surgery can happen later and here are some people who have been through your situation.’”; and

WHEREAS, The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment explained in 2013, “Children who are born with atypical sex characteristics are often subject to irreversible sex assignment, involuntary sterilization, involuntary genital normalizing surgery, performed without their informed consent, or that of their parents, ‘in an attempt to fix their sex,’ leaving them with permanent, irreversible infertility and causing severe mental suffering.”; and

WHEREAS, The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights explained in 2015, “medically unnecessary surgeries and other invasive treatment of intersex babies and children… are rarely discussed and even more rarely investigated or prosecuted... . The result is impunity for the perpetrators; lack of remedy for victims; and a perpetuating cycle of ignorance and abuse... . We need to bridge the gap between legislation and the lived realities of intersex people.”; and

WHEREAS, The World Health Organization explained, also in 2015, that intersex children have been “subjected to medically unnecessary, often irreversible, interventions that may have lifelong consequences for their physical and mental health, including irreversible termination of all or some of their reproductive and sexual capacity… Human rights bodies and ethical and health professional organizations have recommended that free and informed consent should be ensured in medical interventions for people with intersex conditions, including full information, orally and in writing, on the suggested treatment, its justification and alternatives.”; and

WHEREAS, Physicians for Human Rights has “call[ed] for an end to all medically unnecessary surgical procedures on intersex children before they are able to give meaningful consent to such surgeries.”; and

WHEREAS, Human Rights Watch concluded that these surgeries are “often catastrophic, the supposed benefits are largely unproven, and there are generally no urgent health considerations at stake. Procedures that could be delayed until intersex children are old enough to decide whether they want them are instead performed on infants who then have to live with the consequences for a lifetime.”; and

WHEREAS, The Intersex and Genderqueer Recognition Project, the preeminent organization in the United States to address the rights of people to self-identify as nonbinary on government-issued documents, was founded by intersex individuals and “envisions a world that recognizes that sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation have endless variations, with all possibilities valued and respected,” and consequently calls for a delay of all medically unnecessary procedures on intersex children until the individual can participate in the decision; and

WHEREAS, The United States Department of State has commemorated Intersex Awareness Day in both 2016 and 2017 by recognizing the harm of these surgeries, stating “at a young age, intersex persons routinely face forced medical surgeries without free or informed consent. These interventions jeopardize their physical integrity and ability to live freely.”; and

WHEREAS, The largest intersex patient support group in the United States, the AIS-DSD Support Group, has called for a delay of all medically unnecessary procedures on intersex children until the individual can participate in the decision; and

WHEREAS, The largest advocacy organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to intersex advocacy, interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, was founded in Cotati, California and has called for a delay of all medically unnecessary procedures on intersex children until the individual can participate in the decision; and

WHEREAS, In light of ongoing advocacy by the intersex community, in 2005 the San Francisco Human Rights Commission performed an investigation into this topic and issued an indepth report, recommending that “‘normalizing’ interventions should not occur in infancy or childhood. Any procedures that are not medically necessary should not be performed unless the patient gives their legal consent.”; and

WHEREAS, Those subjected to medically unnecessary surgery at a young age express despair over the fact that they were unable to make these decisions for themselves, publishing about their experiences in major news outlets: “I know firsthand the devastating impact [these surgeries] can have, not just on our bodies but on our souls. We are erased before we can even tell our doctors who we are. Every human rights organization that has considered this practice has condemned it, some even to the point of recognizing it as akin to torture.”; and

WHEREAS, Physicians who have participated in these surgeries have also expressed remorse that their training did not properly prepare them to respect the bodily autonomy of intersex people, as a Stanford-educated urologist explains: “I know intersex women who have never experienced orgasm because clitoral surgery destroyed their sensation; men who underwent a dozen penile surgeries before they even hit puberty; people who had false vaginas created that scarred and led to a lifetime of pain during intercourse…the psychological damage caused by intervention is just as staggering, as evidenced by generations of intersex adults dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, problems with intimacy and severe depression. Some were even surgically assigned a gender at birth, only to grow up identifying with the opposite gender.”; and

WHEREAS, Intersex young people who have been able to participate in these life-altering decisions are thriving, such as a young intersex San Francisco resident who was not forced to undergo surgery in infancy and instead participated in the decision at the age of 16, who told reporters that for them, surgery “was the right choice, but that’s very much an anomaly for intersex people... . The important thing was that I was old enough to make that decision for myself.”; and

WHEREAS, When the physical health of an infant with atypical sex characteristics is threatened and medical attention cannot be safely deferred, all therapeutic treatment options should remain available to children, families, and medical professionals to ensure that the imminent physical danger is addressed; and

WHEREAS, Medically unnecessary procedures, including all surgical procedures that seek to alter the gonads, genitals, or internal sex organs of children with atypical sex characteristics too young to participate in the decision, when those procedures carry both a meaningful risk of harm and can be safely deferred, are the sole subject of this resolution; and

WHEREAS, California should serve as a model of competent and ethical medical care and has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including intersex youth; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature opposes all forms of prejudice, bias, or discrimination and affirms its commitment to the safety and security of all children, including those born with variations in their physical sex characteristics; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature considers intersex children a part of the fabric of our state’s diversity to be celebrated rather than an aberration to be corrected; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature recognizes that intersex children should be free to choose whether to undergo life-altering surgeries that irreversibly—and sometimes irreparably—cause harm; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon stakeholders in the health professions to foster the well-being of children born with variations of sex characteristics, and the adults they will become, through the enactment of policies and procedures that ensure individualized, multidisciplinary care that respects the rights of the patient to participate in decisions, defers medical or surgical intervention, as warranted, until the child is able to participate in decisionmaking, and provides support to promote patient and family well-being; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

___________________

All children deserve protection from forced genital cutting - girls, boys, and intersex.

Equal rights for ALL sexes.
Say no to forced genital cutting of minors, regardless of sex at birth.

Equality begins at birth.
For girls, boys, and intersex individuals.
Say no to forced genital cutting.

•••••••



Historically, Breastfeeding Mothers Did NOT Cover Up



As World Breastfeeding Week kicks off (Aug 1-7 annually), Rene Johnson reminds readers on Facebook that, "When people say openly nursing in public without a cover is a new thing -- no, no it is not. In fact, it was not until the 20th century that breastfeeding started to be seen in a negative light."

Sara McCall previously expanded on these historical facts in her Breastfeeding USA article, "Nursing in Public: What U.S. Mothers Faced from Colonial Times Until Today." She writes:
Nursing in public seemed to be a non-issue in colonial America. Our foremothers were expected to maintain a busy household, which included feeding the baby, and breastfeeding in the market or other public areas was not a cause for uproar. At that time, breastfeeding was the only way to feed a baby, either by the natural mother or a wet-nurse. The Puritans believed breasts were created for the nourishment of children and strongly encouraged women to nurse their own babies. [1] Breastfeeding in public was commonplace for colonial women because they lived in a society that supported breastfeeding. 
What happened to change American society's views on nursing in public? Society’s outlook on breastfeeding began to change as the modern feeding bottle and nipple were invented, and commercially-created infant formulas became more accepted in the early 20th century. [...] 
Breastfeeding was dealt a double whammy in the early 20th century. As World War II raged on, women were needed to fill jobs left empty by men going off to war. Breast pumps were primitive in design, there were no laws that allowed women time to express milk while at work, and wet nursing went out of style. What was a mother to do? At this same time, large-scale manufacturing made infant formula easier for mothers to access. [2] Formula manufacturers cultivated relationships with physicians, which led to physicians promoting formula use as a safe and accepted way to feed baby. With so many factors suppressing breastfeeding, it isn't surprising that breastfeeding rates began to decline sharply after World War II. 
Johnson reflects on the reasons that today's mothers also do not want -- and do not need -- to cover while feeding their baby. She continues:
There are plenty of reasons a mom may not cover while breastfeeding. The baby could not allow it, and repeatedly remove the cover, or cry. It could be too hot, and a mother doesn't want her child to get too hot and sweaty. It is also really hard to cover while learning to nurse a new baby, and babies benifit from eye contact while breastfeeding. Believe it or not, covers actually draw more attention. Sometimes the mother simply doesn't wish to cover, and they legally don't have to. 
At the federal government level, Public Law 106-58, Section 647 protects breastfeeding mothers:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child are otherwise authorized to be present at the location. [3]
While laws vary by state, as of 2018, all U.S. states have laws that additionally protect a breastfeeding mother and her baby in public locations.

So nurse on, Momma! You have a right to do so, your baby and his/her needs come first, and you join the ranks of millions of mothers before you, and many more to come.

Thank you for nursing in public cards to share and encourage breastfeeding mothers you see are available at Etsy:
PINK   •   GREEN with Laws   •   GREEN w/out Laws   •   SPANISH/English

References: 

1. Mays, D A (2004). Women in Early America: Struggle, Survival, and Freedom in a New World. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. 

2. Weimer, J.P. (2001). The Economic Benefits of Breastfeeding: A Review and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 


Related Reading: 


The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business: https://amzn.to/2KrHv2O

Breastfeeding in Public: A Christian Father Stands Up: http://www.DrMomma.org/2010/05/breastfeeding-in-public-christian.html




A historical look at breastfeeding mothers nursing in public
to include a photo you have that is not yet pictured, email to ContactDrMomma(at)gmail.com









































Mary and Baby Jesus Painting





























































































































"Maybe I'm 'old fashioned' but I don't like to feed my baby with a blanket on their head."

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails