Parent and Guardian

I remember reading a permission slip on my walk home from school.  It was for a field trip, and at the bottom, it said "Signature of Parent or Guardian."  I knew what parent meant, obviously, and I contemplated the word Guardian with a mind filled with Narnia and Middle Earth.

My brain came up with something like this:

And I thought, that kid with a Guardian is so lucky!

I promptly told my mom that I wanted a Guardian.  She explained what the word actually meant, that some children don't have parents and a guardian is someone who takes care of them if their parents can't.  I decided I didn't want a guardian after all.

guard·i·an

noun /ˈgärdēən/ 
guardians, plural

A defender, protector, or keeper
A person who looks after and is legally responsible for someone who is unable to manage their own affairs, esp. an incompetent or disabled person or a child whose parents have died


The superior of a Franciscan convent

Now, as a parent, I'll get to sign that "parent or guardian" line.  I'm going to cross out the "or" and replace it with "and."

A guardian is a defender, protector and keeper.  Not owner, not king.  A guardian holds the gate, standing between their charge and the evils of the world.   "You shall not pass", he cries to the beast of flame, not while he can stop you.  His mere presence implies that what he guards is valuable and precious, worthy of protection.  His sword is never directed toward his charge, but outward.

I am my son's parent and guardian.  I am not his owner or his master.  It is my solemn duty to protect him from harm, no matter the cost.  He is precious and fragile, and the world is not always kind or safe.  I may not have a sword (well, ok, Dave has a cool Claymore for Highland festivals...) but I would still give my life to keep him safe.  It's not my job to "make him into a man" - that will happen on its own.  I am powerful, but I do not need to wield power against him.  I won't even let the little dragons in (well, maybe the nice dragons).


Are you also your child's guardian?  What does that mean to you?

And some are very, very bad.

One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish...

"Who is the bad fish in this picture?"

...I asked my husband, with a pit in my stomach, as I read to our 13-month old son.

He raised an eyebrow and said, "Uh, the red one, obviously."

I always thought it was the yellow one.

My whole childhood, in the thousands of times I've read Dr. Suess's wonderful book "One Fish Two Fish", I thought the bad fish on this page were the little yellow and blue fish.  The red fish, in my child's eyes, was their father.  The yellow fish was in trouble and had been "very very bad."  The little blue fish was smug because he'd gotten away with it and his sibling was taking the blame. The red father fish was spanking the little yellow fish.

I saw this page last night through adult eyes and decided, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that our home will never be a spanking home.

I was not raised in an abusive house, by any definition.  My parents are wonderful, kind, and supportive people who I am honored to have in my life.  As I have said before, they made the best decisions they could with the information they had, and always did what they believed to be right.  So, in keeping with the times, our home was a spanking home.  We weren't spanked for minor infractions; it was rare and reserved for only the worst offenses - things that could cause us real harm, like playing with fire or messing with dangerous tools, running away from our parents in an amusement park, darting out into traffic.  Offenses that, by conventional logic, were "deserving" of a spanking. We were only spanked if we were "very, very bad."

Spankings were never doled out in anger; they were measured, explained, and followed up by a hug.  Once the spanking was over, it was over and the world continued to turn.   My parents never left marks or bruises, and, presumably, the harm of the spank was less than the potential harm of the offense.  A spank certainly hurt less than an abduction or 3rd degree burn could have.

Spanking has an interesting history in the United States, but not as far back as you'd think.  While there are ancient historical examples of young adults being physically punished by their parents, the concept of disciplining small children "by the rod" is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Ancient Jewish law in particular is very clear in its opposition to causing harm to children.  The New Testament is even more definitive. Throughout history, spanking has been reserved for adults only, as a method for removing sin and allowing penance.

Spanking as a form of discipline for little ones seems to have come into fashion during the Victorian era (1837-1901), first in Europe and spreading to the USA, along with the notion that children should seen and not heard.  It began first with spanking young men and women to punish for sexual deviance (aka, masturbation), and slowly moved backward in age.  Spanking on the rear end was preferred because it could not accidentally cause harm to the internal organs, and on the naked bum because it would help the child associate pain with sexuality (sound familiar, intactivists?).

Books were published about the right way to spank, and the oft-used and always misinterpreted bible verse "Spare the rod and spoil the child" was used to support spanking small children for any offense.  This verse has many, many different translations depending on the version of the Bible.  While revisiting the earliest versions, the word discipline is a more accurate translation, and the rod is more like "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me" than "thy rod beats me when I mess up."

Notice that He is not swinging the rod at the wayward sheep....
The rod is hooked so the Shepherd can gently pull his flock into safety.

Spanking is seeing a gradual decline in popularity, but a majority of Americans still believe it is an appropriate and effective form of discipline.  In a 2000 poll, 61% of parents believed that regular spanking is acceptable, even beneficial to children.  An astonishing 37% believed that spanking a child younger than 2 is acceptable.  Not surprisingly, 56% thought that a 6-month old baby can be "spoiled" by too much attention.  More than 90% of parents report that they have spanked their children.

Frankly, these parents either haven't kept up with research or are ignoring it.  The American Academy of Pediatrics not only states that spanking can cause damage, they further illustrate that it doesn't work, long-term.  They are especially vocal about spanking children under 18 months of age, citing an increased of physical injury.  Children who are spanked occasionally as small children need to be spanked more and more often to "behave" as they age, and parents are left with very few disciplinary options with teens,

Another recent study by Pediatrics reported that children spanked at a young age were much more likely to be aggressive in the years following: ""The odds of a child being more aggressive at age 5 increased by 50% if he had been spanked more than twice in the month before the study began." 

Additional research has shown that children who are spanked are more likely to have social and emotional problems, are more likely to commit violent crimes, and are more likely to be involved in abusive relationships as adults.

For an in-depth review of corporal punishment studies, click here

Spanking emotionally harms the child and the parent, and can damage an otherwise trusting relationship.  Children who are spanked are less likely to confide their troubles to a parent, for fear of reprisal.  Instead, spanked children learn to be better liars to avoid consequence.  They learn to avoid being caught, not to make good choices.

9 Alternatives to Spanking

So, here is my question for you.... which fish is the bad fish?  Which fish will you be? 

More importantly, when your child reads the book, which fish will they think is "very, very bad"?

For more information about preventing child abuse, visit www.preventchildabuse.org.
To learn more about positive (non-hitting) discipline techniques, click here.

Vaccines and Decisions

I have never been so torn on an issue, perhaps in my life, as I am on the subject of vaccines.  Right now, I have the luxury of indecision.  Because of one of my meds (the immune suppressant), my doctors have decided it's best for my son to be unvaccinated for the time being, and I have the medical seal of approval to postpone the decision of vaccination.  My son did get DTaP before I went on these meds, and technically he could have inactivated vaccines, but we're holding off until I'm 100% sure.  You can't "un-vaccinate"; once it's done, it's done.

For those who do not vaccinate, a medical exemption is the holy grail of paperwork.  For those who believe in the importance of complete vaccination, my situation is a terrifying limbo of irresponsibility.  I see both sides of the issue, and I'm stuck.

Most parenting issues have become clear to me with research.  Breastfeeding, circumcision, spanking, co-sleeping, babywearing.  They're pretty clear-cut, and most research sits on one side or the other.  Vaccinations... eek.  Not so clear.  I have done hundreds of hours of research on vaccines, and I'm still incredibly torn.

Borrowed from Peaceful Parenting, in case you want to say "I'm vaccinated and I'm fine"
Our children are being vaccinated against many more things than we were.

I have reached 2 conclusions, both of which are controversial.  Isn't this whole topic?

1 - Vaccines are not useless.  They do work.  Maybe not as well as advertised, but they have value.  The rabies vaccine prevents the spread of rabies among dogs.  The influenza vaccine does actually reduce the incidence of flu it purports to prevent.  Since the widespread vaccination of the American public, the diseases for which we vaccinate have decreased precipitously.  I am still immune to measles, mumps and rubella, 25 years after my last booster, diseases I did not have naturally.  Vaccines generally do protect against the diseases they claim to, a majority of the time.

2 - Vaccines are not 100% safe.  They have risk.  Vaccine-related injury is real, adverse reactions are real, and to the rare number who experience them, the injury is often worse than the disease the vaccine is intended to prevent.  It is possible that vaccines damage the overall health of a person's immune system.  Unvaccinated children are, overall, healthier than their vaccinated counterparts, experiencing less chronic and acute illness during childhood and early adulthood (these studies are imperfect in design but still compelling).  Parents who consciously choose not to vaccinate are not morons; they are generally better informed and educated about the issue than those who vaccinate. 

Ethically, I am opposed to the concept of forcing a child to endure pain and sickness, against their will, to prevent potential future harm.   The child is not in immediate medical need or danger, like a child who needs stitches. I am opposed to sacrificing one child for the benefit of many; the herd immunity argument doesn't sway me.  One child should not die so that millions can live; that argument holds no water to the mother of the dead child, nor should it.  I believe in the inherent ability of the natural immune system to handle routine illness, and I believe that a bored immune system is a dangerous thing to have, increasing risks of allergies and auto-immune responses. 

Logically, I am opposed to the reintroduction of measles and polio into the general population, and I do believe that vaccines have something to do with the decrease of diseases (but not all - Polio in particular has a really interesting link to pesticides).  I don't want to see a Rubella outbreak.  I have heard the cries of a baby with pertussis, and they are heartbreaking.  If my son were to experience harm as a result of a vaccine-preventable illness, or worse, were to pass that illness on to another child, I would be devastated.

Emotionally, vaccinating feels wrong - no mother "looks forward" to a visit for shots.  On every other parenting decision, I have trusted my "gut" or "mommy instinct" and it's always been right.  Here, in this one circumstance and no other, I am expected to restrain my baby, cause him pain and potentially cause him harm, to avoid the potential of harm.  This isn't about fighting a diaper change or being annoyed about being in a carseat; the pain is real, the immediate harm is real (even if it's only a mild fever and a sore leg).  If you physically restrain an adult against his will and stab him with a pen or a thumbtack, it is called assault.  I spent a lifetime terrified of doctors and needles.  Babies today are mandated to have triple the number of vaccines that I had; every child I know is petrified of going to the doctor; their parents have to lie to them and bribe them to get them in the door. 

Intellectually, I realize that people used to die of vaccine-preventable diseases in great number, and that my ancestors would likely think I'm crazy for even debating this topic.  Vaccines are considered among the world's greatest medical discoveries, one of the greatest discoveries of human history, by minds greater than mine.  My pediatrician is in favor of most (but not all) vaccines; I respect her opinion as a medical professional.  I respect her years of experience and expertise.  I also know that the entire American pediatric business model revolves around vaccines, and without a visit every 2-6 months for a shot, pediatricians offices would be a lot emptier than they are now.  Money talks.  Vaccines make literally billions of dollars a year for doctors and pharmaceutical companies, both via direct and indirect sources.

Polio kills.  Mumps is bad.  Tetanus, Diphtheria, Hepatitis, pertussis, HiB, meningitis, all of them - this is bad stuff, and I don't want my baby to get any of them, if I can help it.  Hell, my double exposure of chickenpox (at 13 and 32, thanks immune suppressants) was miserable enough that I'd happily have taken a shot in the arm instead of 6 cumulative weeks of misery!  Regardless, I am too informed to respond to the "less mercury than a can of tuna" line. 

I am asking for feedback tonight, on what ultimately made your decision, one way or the other.  I don't have to make a decision right now (in fact, I can't) but I could use some guidance. 

Why did you decide to vaccinate your child, or choose to skip or alter the standard schedule?

I was ____ and I'm fine!

One of the things I admire most about my mother is her ability to be painfully, boldly honest with herself about her own actions and mistakes.  It takes a deep level of courage, humility and flexibility to review your life's decisions, and not only admit to the mistakes that caused harm, but those that might have.  We were discussing parenting - her parenting of us, my parenting of my son, and how wanting to do things differently or even better doesn't make anyone who didn't follow those paths wrong.

Me and My Daddy, 1978

When I was a baby, my parents would visit their best friends on Fridays and play cards until late in the night.  I would fall asleep, and rather than wake me up by putting me in my carseat (what passed for a carseat in the mid-70s anyway), my mother would hold me in her arms in the front seat of the car for the 5 mile drive home.

I'm fine. 

My mother wanted to breastfeed me, but her doctor told me that I wasn't getting enough milk.  She switched to formula when I was 2 weeks old.  She always regretted the decision, but she didn't feel confident enough to argue with her doctor.

I'm fine.

 My parents were raised "by the rod" and followed suit with us, until I was about 10 and my mom's research led them in a different direction for discipline.  As a result, I was spanked more times than I can count, and the wooden spoon in the drawer doesn't remind me of baked goods.

I'm fine.

I wasn't a great sleeper as a baby, and my parents were told by their parents and doctors that the only way I'd ever sleep was if they left me to cry it out, which they did for a week straight.  It was such a miserable experience that they didn't repeat it with my brothers.

I'm fine.

My parents smoked until I was 8.  In the house.  Mom didn't smoke while she was pregnant, but a lot of her friends did.  I was around cigarette smoke constantly; I loved when my father would let me light his cigarette for him with his shiny Zippo.  My grandparents, aunts and uncles all smoked.


I'm fine.

1980's fashions never go out of style.

 Well, am I "fine"?  I'm a responsible citizen, a good parent, a kind person.  I pay my taxes, don't commit crimes, and try to be a respectable human being.  I have a high IQ, make over 100K a year, and sing professionally in my spare time.  I also have an auto-immune disease, occasional anxiety issues, and insomnia.  Are these a result of being formula-fed, crying it out, being physically punished and exposed to second-hand smoke?  Maybe, probably not - who can say for sure?  What if my parents had gotten in a car accident while I was in my mom's lap?

None of the examples above make my parents bad parents.  Quite the opposite - my parents are loving, caring and wonderful people who did the very best they could with the information they had at hand.  I have a close relationship with them; I am honored and lucky to have them.  If I could have chosen my own parents, I would not have chosen differently.  They are remarkable parents, and their willingness to admit to mistakes is one of the things that makes them so incredible.

The whole gang, Summer 2010

It bothers me when I hear people say, "I was _____ and I'm fine" as an excuse not try to for better with their kids.  When you know better, you do better.  Before you say, "I'm circumcised and I'm fine" or "I had peanut butter when I was 2 months old and I'm fine" or "My mom left me in the car while she went into the store and I'm fine", consider what might have happened.

I'm not a perfect parent.  I'll never be perfect.  There are already things I plan to do differently if I am blessed with another child (home birth and breastfeeding, to start the list!)

I can try to be the very best parent I can be, using as much evidence as I can to make parenting decisions, unhindered by the successes of the past.  Despite my un-carseated history, I made it to adulthood....but you'd better bet my little guy is staying in his (rear-facing) carseat!

How to Support Breastfeeding without Demonizing Formula

The most positive changes made in the world are not against something but for it.

It can be very tempting to further the normalization of breastfeeding by demonizing formula, or worse, by demonizing formula-feeding mothers.  It calls to you.  The information's right there, and, if you breastfeed, it makes you feel better about yourself and better about your struggles and your hard work to bring it up.  I remember!  It's so tempting to respond to the Similac recall with "Serves you right, you should have breastfed" or "Boobs don't have bugs, this is mom's fault."  Formula sucks.  The educated, informed women who read this stuff already know that.  Most of us tried to breastfeed, and we hate that we're giving our babies crap. 

Attacking formula-feeding mothers is incredibly detrimental in a number of ways, but the biggest one is that you potentially lose very strong allies by doing so.  Me, for example.  My nursing in public post has now been read by over 30,000 people in a month (squee!).  That's good for breastfeeding. We all need formula-feeding moms on the side of babies and boobs.

Some of the strongest advocates in the intactivist movement are mothers who circumcised their first children.  Marilyn Fayre Milos, for example.  Some of the strongest advocates for gentle discipline are those who chose corporal punishment first.  Some of the strongest proponents of natural birth are those who experienced an over-medicated labor or an "unnecessarian".  Many cloth diapering mothers chose cloth because their babies' bottoms reacted badly to disposables.

Many lactivists have never fed their babies an ounce of formula, and some (certainly not all) really seem to enjoy making that fact very known.  They should be proud, but sometimes comments cross the line.  Formula-feeding mothers are referred to as "lazy", "selfish", "lame", "stupid", "irresponsible" and worse.  I'm not pulling this from my own imagination; I am a member of many natural parenting groups and have seen all of these accusations in the last month.  I am not an advocate for formula-feeding, any more than I am an advocate for cesareans.  I believe that supporting breastfeeding means supporting breastfeeding.  No more, and certainly no less.

So, if you want to be a lactivist without pissing off us lazy, irresponsible mothers who didn't try hard enough (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha), what else can you do? 

How to Support Breastfeeding 

Without Being a Boob

Support nursing in public

I've talked about this one a lot.  'Nuff said.

What you can do: If you are a breastfeeding mother, unashamedly nurse in public.  If you can't, thank or at least smile at women who are.  Tell the nursing mama that she's welcome to nurse in your living room if she wants to, and she doesn't have to cover up if she doesn't want to.  If someone brings up the topic of breastfeeding in public, make your views known, don't stay silent.  If you see a nursing mother being asked to leave a public place, come to her aid and fight the flight attendant for her.  Support laws that protect nursing mothers.

Support longer, paid maternity leave

Compared to the rest of the developed world, the USA has an embarrassing maternity leave policy.   There is no paid maternity leave on a national level.  FMLA guarantees 12 weeks of time off every 2 years, without pay, but only if you work for a company with more than 50 employees (in the same state) and have worked there for at least a year.   Unpaid.   If you work for a small company, just got a new job, or (gasp) have another baby less than 2 years after your last, you're likely out of a job, permanently, if you take leave at all.

Some states extend temporary disability benefits for 6-8 weeks, at a paltry 60% of base earnings, with a low cap.  Other states provide nothing.  A well-off family can budget for this time, but eventually, the savings run low.  A single mother who works at a small company has no real choice - either she goes on welfare or goes back to work.  A two-income family, living paycheck-to-paycheck may have no choice at all.

Conversely, Norway and Sweden offer 13-16 months of paid maternity leave at 100% of base earnings.  The rest of Europe averages between 16 and 26 weeks (6 months), also paid at 100%.   Maternity leave in most of these countries is compulsory - you can't go back to work 3 weeks after your baby is born, even if you "want" to.

There is a direct correlation between the length of maternity leave and breastfeeding success. 

• University of California: "A maternity leave of < or =6 weeks or 6 to 12 weeks after delivery was associated, respectively, with a fourfold and twofold higher odds of failure to establish breastfeeding and an increased probability of cessation after successful establishment"

• University of Melbourne: "Mothers who returned to work full-time within three months of birth were twice as likely to have stopped breastfeeding by the time their baby was six months, than those who were not employed.  Mothers who returned to work full time between three and six months of birth were three times as likely to have stopped breastfeeding by the time their baby was six months than non-employed women."

When Canada extended maternity leave from 6 months to one year, they saw a large increase in infants who were successfully and exclusively breastfed.

What you can do: Contact your congressional representatives - both senators and representative.  Contact your local state representatives and senators.  Let them know that you support paid parental leave and extension of FMLA to include all employers and employees, and to extend to at least 52 weeks.

Support certified lactation consultants

 Poor medical advice for breastfeeding is pervasive through the system.  Certified lactation consultants can save a breastfeeding relationship.  Unfortunately, they are expensive to hire, and their services are not usually covered by medical insurance. 

A lactation consultant can take a mother from the brink of quitting to a healthy, happy nursing relationship.  She can save damaged, bleeding, painful nipples.  She can fix bad latches and bad positioning, she can un-advise against bad advice.  She can make magic happen - if she is given the opportunity.

The average visit to a lactation consultant costs $250-$300 - and while it's certainly cheaper than a year's worth of formula, to the low-income mother on unpaid maternity leave, it might as well be a million bucks.  After all, formula is covered by WIC.  LCs are a luxury that many women cannot afford.

Further, they're not that easy to find.  Sure, if you're part of the AP community, you know the names of a few off the top of your head - but where would the average mother get this information?  I hadn't heard of lactation consultants until I started to really research...and not all mothers research.

What you can do:  Call your insurance company and ask if they cover lactation consultants.  If they don't, ask why not, and ask how you can complain in writing.  Make sure your pregnant friends know the names of LCs in their area.  Provide a list of LCs to your local hospitals, visiting nurses associations, YMCAs and OB offices.  Post the date and times of local LLL meetings on community bulletin boards and in supermarkets.  Provide that information to teen mother support groups.  If you are a LC, consider donating some of your time or offering low-cost services, even on a group basis to low-income mothers.

Support gentle birth

Getting a good start at breastfeeding is so very important.  Maternity leave, lactation consultants, and pediatrician support only work if a mother begins her breastfeeding relationship right.  Baby-friendly hospitals are a start.  Baby-friendly hospitals aim to have a 100% breastfeeding rate, and they educate staff appropriately.

1 -	Have a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff.
2 -	Train all health care staff in skills necessary to implement this policy.
3 -	Inform all pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding.
4 -	Help mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth.
5 -	Show mothers how to breastfeed and how to maintain lactation, even if they are separated from their infants.
6 -	Give newborn infants no food or drink other than breast milk, unless medically indicated.
7 -	Practice “rooming in”-- allow mothers and infants to remain together 24 hours a day.
8 -	Encourage breastfeeding on demand.
9 -	Give no pacifiers or artificial nipples to breastfeeding infants.
10 -	Foster the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and refer mothers to them on discharge from the hospital or clinic

I'm going to add on steps 11-20:

11 -	Limit interventions in labor to those that are truly medically necessary for the health of mother and baby.
12 -	Do not circumcise baby boys or girls for non-medical reasons.
13 -	Encourage mothers and babies to attempt the "breast crawl" after delivery.
14 -	Teach baby-wearing
15 -	Provide safe co-sleeping guidelines
16 -	Arrange for lactation consultant follow-up home visits after discharge.
17 -	Provide midwifery care for lower risk births.
18 -	Provide prescriptions for breast pumps to be covered as durable medical equipment by insurance
19 -	Encourage immediate and prolonged skin-to-skin contact, as well as a gentle post-birth environment.
20 -	Skip the hospital  If you are low-risk, try to give birth at home.

What you can do: If you gave birth naturally or gently, tell your birth story.  Support home birth.  Support midwifery.  Contact your local hospital and ask if they have been certified "baby-friendly" by the WHO.  If not, ask why not.  Drop off breastfeeding information at your local maternity ward and at your OB's office.   Support the right to genital integrity and openly oppose routine infant circumcision. 

Support the re-education of medical professionals

The worst breastfeeding advice I have ever heard came out of the mouths of medical professionals. 

• "Only feed for 10 minutes on each side, any more is unnecessary." 
• "Only nurse every 3-4 hours, any more and he's using you as a pacifier."
• "We have to give her formula until your milk comes in."
• "You can't have a glass of wine if you're nursing."
• "Pregnant women's milk is not good for older babies.  You need to wean."
• "After 6 months, there is no nutritional value to mother's milk; it's just for comfort."
• "One bottle of formula won't hurt anything."
• "Breast milk doesn't have enough vitamins.  You need to give your baby vitamins unless you formula-feed."
• "You can't breastfeed if you take_____ medicine" (without checking if it is actually true)
• "Your baby isn't growing fast enough.  You need to supplement with formula."

Sometimes, there is a real, medical reason to stop breastfeeding or supplement with formula.  That is rare - but the majority of women trust their doctor over their own gut feeling or their own research.  Medical professionals need to be educated on the facts.  More breastfeeding relationships have been ruined by pediatricians, nurses and obstetricians than all the free cans of formula in the world.   One bottle of formula *does* harm a nursing relationship.  Nursing on-demand really means on demand!  It is so hard to question your child's doctors.

Every new breastfeeding mother I know has worried, "how do I know my baby is getting enough food?" especially because all newborns seem hungry all the time.  One statement from a doctor about low percentiles or supplementation can be the beginning of the end of a healthy relationship.  Doctors need to be educated about alternative ways to increase supply if there really is a problem - and need to realize that formula should be the last resort, not the first reaction.

What you can do: Talk to your pediatrician about breastfeeding.  Invite local pediatricians to attend LLL meetings.  Encourage your local hospital to adopt baby-friendly policies.  Make sure every pregnant woman knows how to find accurate information.  Bookmark KellyMom.com on her computer.  While you're at it, send the link to your pediatrician.   Write to the AAP whenever you hear a doctor saying something untrue about breastfeeding, to encourage further training.

Support nursing rooms in workplaces, schools, and public buildings

Nursing rooms are common in Malaysia. 

Not all women are comfortable nursing in public.  Nursing rooms are a wonderful amenity that should be as available as bathrooms.  Many laws (but not all states) require that nursing mothers be provided a clean, safe and comfortable place to pump in the workplace....but this is rarely true.  Most moms end up pumping in bathrooms, spare conference rooms, supply closets or cars. 

Schools are especially key - not just for the teachers, but also for the students.  Breastfeeding rates among teen mothers are appalling.  Not all mothers are happily married stay-at-home mommies.... in fact, most aren't.  Supporting nursing and pumping means supporting it in high schools, Walmart break rooms, and your local fast food joint.

What you can do:  If you work, ask your HR department about space for nursing mothers.  Contact your local high school and encourage the school to set aside a room for mothers to pump or nurse.  Ask at your local government building.

Support breast milk donation

There are real, undeniable, and unavoidable reasons that breastfeeding may not be possible, including but not limited to:

• Death or incapacity of the mother
• Inability of the mother to produce sufficient milk, due to PCOS, insufficient glandular tissue, mastectomy, etc.
• Adoption of a child (before re-lactation or if it is not possible)
• Medical conditions that require unsafe medication to manage

Babies should be able to drink human milk, even if their mothers can't provide that milk to them. 

Unfortunately, "official" milk banks are extremely selective and extremely expensive.  I contacted two when I had to stop breastfeeding, and I was told that milk was reserved for sick babies, and that even if they had some, the price for the milk was $3.50 an ounce and not covered by insurance.  For a baby who eats 32 ounces a day, that is simply impossible - and we are a well-off family.

Between then and now, a new organization has come onto the forefront, Eats on Feets, which will connect nursing mothers with women like me, who need donated milk for our babies.  It's still in its infancy, and private milk donation has a long way to go toward being socially acceptable again, but it is a place to begin.  Right now, there is less milk than women who need it.  

What you can do:  Donate any extra milk you have.  Support Eats on Feets.  Talk about breast milk donation, and challenge gut reactions that it's "icky."  If your local EoF is active and has milk available, reach out and let folks know it's there for the taking.

Support media exposure of breastfeeding

1977, Buffy explains breastfeeding to Big Bird.

Bottles are everywhere.  Every time you see a baby on TV, you see a bottle.  Children's cartoons are filled with bottles, but nursing is taboo.  This is an echo on nursing in public, and all the same reasons apply.  Normalizing breastfeeding means that it has to make its way onto television.

What you can do:  Contact PBS and ask them to run another special on television.  Every time you see a baby bottle on TV, comment online at the station and on facebook/twitter.  If you do see nursing on TV, send a compliment (I sent one to the director of  "Four Christmases", which was the first movie I've ever seen with casual nursing and lots of breastfeeding mentions without being a movie about babies) 

Oppose Unethical Marketing of Formula

Haha, exception proves the rule, right?

Yes, the whole point of this article is not to demonize formula or formula-feeding moms. Demonize the mainstream formula companies as much as you want.  Go for it.  Thanks to these jerks, babies all over the world die, and I fed my kid bugs, while they profit massively.

Formula companies advertise *everywhere*.  Boobs don't get glossy ads in Parents' magazine.  Formula companies are regulated in what they can say, but boy, do they squeeze close to that edge!  "Closer than ever to breast milk" is such a misleading statement.  I can make Coca-Cola "closer" to breast milk by adding DHA and probiotics.  It doesn't make it close.  Obviously, Similac is a better choice for your baby than Coke.  BUT, the difference between formula and breast milk is as far the difference between formula and soda.  

Especially abhorrant are the advertisements in developing countries, where a lack of access to clean drinking water makes formula truly life-threatening.  If you don't have clean water, breast milk is vital to the survival of babies, yet companies like Nestle see opportunities for "new marketshare" and plaster with this messaging.

Even the "Breast is Best" campaign is tainted by formula marketing.  It insinuates that perfect moms breastfeed, but who's perfect anyway?  Breast isn't just best - it's NORMAL.  It's what babies should eat, absent extenuating circumstances.  Ads plastered on TV, in magazines, in doctors' offices and in hospitals make formula seem like the normal choice.  Breast milk isn't a "nice option" like organic foods or designer baby clothes.  It's necessary, normal, and appropriate.  It's how babies were made to be fed.  It's how moms were made.

What you can do:  Boycott Nestle.  If you subscribe to any magazines that advertise formula, write to them and ask for "fair and balanced" advertising that encourages a one-to-one ratio of breastfeeding and formula references in their publication - or better yet, ask that they not advertise formula at all.  If you see coupons or advertising at your doctors' office, ask your doctor why they are advertising formula.

So, are you ready?  This is the harder road, but it's the one that makes a difference.  Invite your formula-feeding friends (if you have any) to join you in a fight for mothers' and babies' rights.  There's a lot of us, and we can actually make something happen....if we don't spend our time pointing at each other.

Birth Plans and Birth Realities

I'm was going to get my whole "birth story" up on here some day (my son's now 9 months old, hmmmm).  Meanwhile, however, I was digging through some old files and I found my Birth Plan, and thought this might be a good way to tell it!

I gave birth to David #9 at the birth center of a small community hospital, about an hour from my home.  I picked the hospital very much on purpose - they are the only one in the state that allows water births, they don't have a nursery, they're "baby-friendly", and I absolutely loved my midwife.  I wrote up a plan, and not everything went according to plan.

Overall, I would give my birth experience an 8/10 (the baby gets 11 out of 10, I'm talking about the experience).  I've heard the question asked often - "Does anyone have a birth plan for people who want to birth naturally in the hospital?"  I do....but it's only a plan.  If you want to be guaranteed the best shot at a natural birth, stay home. If, however, you do choose to have a hospital birth, I found this plan to be a pretty good one.

Anyway, without further ado, here's the plan, and how it actually turned out.

 The view from the birthing center at Newport Hospital.  

Not taken by me, but I remember vividly being in labor and watching the sun rise like this over the bridge during a contraction.

Arrival Plan

•    Can I have the room with the tub?  Pretty please?

•    Please assign a nurse who doesn’t think I’m insane for wanting a med-free birth

•    No IV, hep lock if necessary

•    Let Me Eat and Drink (and puke…yeah, I expect it)

•    I’d like to wear my own clothes

•    Intermittent monitoring (via Doppler if possible, please don’t strap me in bed)

What actually happened:
My first sign of labor was my water breaking all over the bed at home at 37 weeks on the dot.  We drove to the hospital, and I got the room with the tub, but never ended up using it.  I was assigned a nurse who didn't think I was nuts.  A saline lock was started 3 hours after I arrived - this was not a big deal.  IV wasn't started until later.  I was allowed to eat and drink whatever I wanted.  I wore my own clothes for 14 hours, until the plan went off track.  Intermittent monitoring was also permitted until pitocin was administered; after that it was continuous. 

Labor Plan:
I would prefer to avoid interventions, but we trust your medical opinion of what may be necessary.  Please discuss any interventions you believe may be necessary with me and my husband.

•    I’m using hypnosis; please don’t try to talk to me during contractions (pressure waves).  Dave or Mom can talk for me if it’s an emergency.

•    In hypnosis I am very susceptible to suggestion.  Please be careful with what you say – avoid words like “pain” and use “pressure”.

•    Ahhh! Bright Light!  I’d like to keep the lights low, if possible.

•    Play that funky music…. I’m bringing my iPod and speakers.

•    I know what my pain relief options are.  I’ll ask for drugs if I want them.  Promise. 

•    Limit the number of internals, and don’t tell me how far I am dilated unless I ask.

•    I would like to birth my baby in the water.

•    If I can’t be in the tub, please let me choose the position that is most comfortable for me.

•    I would like to try “mother-directed pushing” rather than counting to 10.

•    Please let me know how I may reduce tearing.

•    I would prefer to tear rather than have an episiotomy.


 What Actually Happened:
For the first 14 hours, I got everything I asked for.  We had a lovely playlist (5 hours long) going on the iPod, the lights were dim, nobody asked me if  I wanted drugs, I was given a ball to bounce on, a bar to hold, and given free range of the hospital to walk.  My progress wasn't checked (although they did ask).


After 14 hours, I consented to be checked, thinking I would be 7-8cm....but I was 3cm dilated.  My midwife was concerned about infection, given the extended length of time since my water had broken.  She recommended that I be given pitocin - which meant that I was stuck in bed with a monitor on, and that water birth was no longer an option.  After an hour with pitocin, I gave in to the epidural.  The contractions had quickly gone from something I could handle to absolutely miserable, especially since I no longer had the ability to move around.  My "unmedicated" birth was gone, I couldn't use the tub, and in many ways my will was broken.  I know there are moms who can do pitocin without an epidural...I am not one of them.

I will probably always wonder if Pitocin was truly necessary.  In retrospect, I should have asked to use the tub to see if that would help me progress....but when your contractions are 2 minutes apart and you haven't slept in 24 hours, you don't see clearly.  Ultimately, I trusted Kathy - she was the expert, and I trusted her professional opinion and her 20+ years of midwifery, including her own 5 natural births....but still, I question.

When, eventually, I got to 8cm, my midwife turned the pitocin and the epidural off.  I love her for that!  She told me - and the nursing staff - not to push unless I had absolutely no choice, until my body told me "push or die!"  The epidural wore off just as that feeling hit me.  Well,  first I threw up all over my husband, then I had to push like it was the end of the world.

Just as the last of the epidural wore off, I had full feeling in my body and I was able to first sit up during contractions, then squat on the floor, holding the bed.  For the first 40 minutes, all pushing was "mother-directed."  I started to give up a little (it had been 28 hours), and Kathy did have me do 3 massive "count to ten" pushes until she saw David begin to crown.


Then, she had me stop pushing.  Hardest thing I've ever done!  She had me stop pushing and hold, to let my body stretch.  She instructed me to give tiny pushes even though I wanted to give it everything - and David gently wiggled out of me.  I actually had an orgasm.  Seriously.  I laughed out loud, and it was the best feeling ever.  Ten minutes after I gave birth, I asked my husband when we could do it again.

The music was still playing, the lights were still low, and Kathy was wearing cowboy boots and jeans.  No scary medical equipment, no shouting - peaceful and lovely, just how I had envisioned it.    "I Just Haven't Met You Yet" played when David was born, and Rascal Flats "God Bless the Broken Road" was playing when I first held him.  I'll never forget that!

I didn't tear or need an episiotomy.  YAY for stretchy lady-bits!  Oh, and because I know I was concerned, especially with the Ulcerative Colitis....I didn't poop on my midwife.  Heh.

David James IX, 7lbs even.

When the Baby is Born
If mom and baby are healthy….
•    I would prefer that the baby be placed on my stomach immediately for skin-to-skin contact for at least 1 hour after birth.

•    I would like cord clamping to be delayed at least 5 minutes or until the cord stops pulsing.

•    I would like to deliver the placenta without pitocin or traction.

•    If I need stitches, please provide anesthetic (local or otherwise).

•    I would like to delay all newborn procedures – including weight and length checks-  until after we have had the opportunity to breastfeed.

•    I would like to allow the “breast crawl” if possible.

•    Please don’t allow any visitors in until we say we’re ready for them.

•    We plan to exclusively breastfeed.  Please do not offer pacifiers or formula.

•    Our pediatrician will handle the HepB vaccine; please do not administer.

•    Can we use liquid vitamin K instead of the injection?

•    Eye goop (antibiotics) should be delayed until after the first breastfeeding session.

•    Do not circumcise, and do not retract. (Click here for the 50 reasons we didn't)

•    The baby should be with Mom or Dad at all times for any procedure (including first bath).


What actually happened

David came out a little blue, so Kathy delayed clamping and held him below me until he pinked up - no suctioning or toweling.  I'm convinced that delayed cord clamping saved him a trip to the NICU.  He was placed on my stomach, and did the Breast Crawl and self-latched.  It was the most amazing thing I have ever seen.  We were allowed 30 minutes of uninterrupted bonding/breastfeeding time, before any weighing or cleaning was done.


It would have been longer than 30 minutes...but my placenta wasn't moving.  At 30 minutes, the nurses started to massage my stomach (OW), no dice.  At 40 minutes, they started pitocin again....I disliked it as much the second time around!  At 55 minutes, I started to bleed heavily and they called to prep the OR.  At the very last minute, Kathy's partner and ex-husband Doug-the-OB asked me if I wanted him to try a manual removal, rather than a D and C.

I didn't want to be separated from my baby and I didn't want to go under ansethesia, so I said yes.   They cleared the room, my mom and husband were actually escorted out of the maternity ward.  Kathy held my shoulders, and Doug reached up inside me and manually removed my placenta.  My poor husband said he could hear me screaming from across the hospital.  Hurt like hell....but given the choice, I would probably do it again to avoid the operating room.

Wow, that's a terrible picture...but a beautiful baby!!

In the 24 hours that followed (we were released early by request, I felt great), there was never a mention of formula or pacifiers.  We were visited by 3 lactation consultants!  There was no question about the Hep B vaccine, and liquid vitamin K was supplied.  No eye goop either, and no pressure to use it. They did ask us 4 times if we wanted to have David circumcised - but when we said no, our decision was met with relief and respect, depending on who asked.


David was only away from my side for 10 minutes, held lovingly by his midwife while I showered and my husband was on his way back to the hospital with the carseat. 

Summary



Overall, I believe my hospital experience was far superior to what many mainstream hospitals will offer a laboring woman.  I was respected, my wishes were respected, and the hospital waited longer than most would to intervene - 14 hours after my waters released, and almost an hour on a retained placenta.  I have since learned that most hospitals will only allow 4-6 hours of "no progress" and a hard rule of 30 minutes for placental expulsion.


Also, even though not everything went according to "plan", we were still able to get back on track.  I had an orgasmic, medicated birth.  I've still never heard of another.  I thought it was all or nothing, and again the world showed me another shade of gray!  Next time around, I'd like to have a home birth, but I'm not unhappy with the experience I had. 


So, if you choose a hospital birth and things don't go as planned, don't give up on the whole thing!  You can have a beautiful, amazing, mind-blowing experience in spite of it all.   And, at the end of it all, I got to bring home the best (early) birthday present ever, blue eyes and all.

50 Reasons to Leave It Alone

Your son's penis, that is.

DaVinci's "Vitruvian Man" - Did you ever notice that he has his whole penis?

I know, talking about baby penises seems like a strange choice for a blog post.  I used to think that penises came in two varieties, circumcised and uncircumcised....but education is a powerful thing.  Now, I know that they only come in one style - Natural - and we, as parents, choose to alter what God or Nature or Evolution or The Great Spaghetti Monster created.


Why am I calling "uncircumcised" penises "natural"?  Most of the "intactivist" culture uses the word "Intact", which is also accurate, but really, an uncircumcised penis is exactly that - natural.  

Just like women without breast implants have "natural" boobs, or a person has their "natural" nose before a nose job.   It's the way nature made it - therefore, a natural penis.  Does that mean a circumcised penis is unnatural?  Yes, it does.  

I do want to note that I'm not anti-circumcision.  If an adult man wants to modify his body, that is his choice and I support it - just as I would support a woman who wanted labiaplasty, or anyone who wanted to stretch their earlobes or tattoo their body.  I am opposed to the routine circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons.



So, here are 50 reasons to leave your son's penis alone and not let a doctor cut it up.


1.) It's his.

2.) I've never met a man who wanted "less" penis when he was old enough to care.  Men tend to like their penises just the way they are.

3.) You can change your mind.  It's not possible to "un-circumcise", although there are men who have chosen to restore their foreskin later in life.  If you're not sure, don't decide at all.   It's a non-decision.  :)

4.) There is no medical reason to do it routinely.

5.) Circumcision isn't the majority for newborns anymore.  According to the New York Times, the infant circumcision rate is down to 32%.  That means 68% of your son's locker room will likely have natural penises.  If you circumcise, he will probably ask you why he's different from his buddies.

6.) Natural penises are easier to take care of during the diaper-changing years.  Just wipe it like a finger.  No retracting, no mess or fuss.  Compare that to having to care for an open wound in a diaper.

7.) You wouldn't cut your baby girl's genitals.  In fact, it's illegal - even a "nick" is illegal.  Male circumcision is a lot more involved than a nick!

8.) Many doctors and nurses refuse to perform the procedure because it violates the Hippocratic Oath - First, Do No Harm.

9.) It hurts.  A lot.  Really.  Don't believe me?  Watch a video.  With the sound up, please.  If you can't watch the whole thing, can you really ask your newborn to go through it?

10.) Babies can't be properly anesthetized.  An older child or adult would be given anesthesia and strong pain medication after any kind of operation, especially one on their genitals.  Babies can't have the same level of anesthesia and after-care medicine that an older child or an adult would receive.

11.) Did you know?  Infant circumcision rates are less than 10% in the following counties: England, France, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, all of South and Central America, Japan, China, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Greece, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Australia and more.

Infant circumcision rates are higher than 10% in the following countries: USA, Israel, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon,  Yemen, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Republic of Congo, Eritrea, and Kenya. 

12.) Men with natural penises are less likely to experience Erectile Dysfunction as they age.  Translation - your son will be less likely to need Viagra when he's 55.

13.) Female sexual partners of men with natural penises are more likely to achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse.  They are also less likely to need lubricant.

14.) There are over 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin.  That's more than in the female clitoris.

15.) The foreskin protects the head of the penis.


16.) The foreskin provides lubrication during sexual intercourse.  Men with natural penises are less likely to use lubrication during sex or masturbation.

17.) No major medical organization on earth recommends routine circumcision of infants.

18.) It's easy to clean when he's older.  Shower.   Besides, by the time his foreskin is retractable, (average age, 10.4 years old), you will no longer be cleaning his penis.  I hope.

19.) Circumcision does not prevent AIDS, or any other STD. Condoms do.  Having sex with one, monogamous partner and avoiding IV drug use prevents AIDS.  Why would you assume your baby's going to be a man-whore anyway?

20.) We don't chop off ears to prevent ear infections.  We don't remove baby toenails to prevent fungal infections.  We don't cut off body parts anymore when a wound becomes infected.  In the very unlikely event your son does develop an infection, we have antibiotics. 

21.) Circumcision in the US began as a method to discourage masturbation, advocated by Kellogg, the cereal magnate, who also believed in the importance of daily cold enemas.  Really - true story!! He stressed that circumcision should be done without anesthesia so boys would remember the pain every time they wanted to masturbate.   How'd that work out?

22.)  Natural penises only "look funny" to you if they are unfamiliar to you.  Your son's generation will see them as normal.

23.) Women produce far more smegma than men, but we don't cut off their baby girl labia to keep things "clean."

24.) Your son will respect you for leaving the decision up to him, and for respecting his right to genital integrity.

25.) Complications of circumcision are NOT rare. Check out this thread on Babycenter.com (a mommy board, not a circumcision website) to read their stories.

26.) Most hospital circumcisions are performed by Obstetricians and Gynecologists, whose specialty is female reproduction, not male.

27.) Circumcision is not usually performed in a sterile operating room, but in a dirty nursery or a side room in hospitals without nurseries.

28.) Circumcision makes money for doctors.  A doctor who performs circumcisions makes an extra $20,000-160,000 per year on the operations.  That's why they offer circumcision at hospitals - for cash.  They'll ask you if you want your son circumcised multiple times at the hospital: they want the money.

29.) Less than 1% of men with foreskins will ever "need" to be circumcised, just as the vast majority of women will never need a hysterectomy or mastectomy.  We don't remove tonsils or fingernails or anything else at birth "in case" it has a problem.

30.) Penile cancer causes 300 deaths a year, almost exclusively in men over the age of 70.  Infant circumcision causes over 500 deaths a year worldwide.  Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer.

31.) Babies with foreskins are more likely to breastfeed successfully.  Infant circumcision interferes with breastfeeding and hinders breastfeeding success.  Isn't breastfeeding hard enough?

32.) Fathers don't spend time comparing penises with their sons.  If your son does notice that his penis is different from Dad's (other than size and hair), you can simply explain that Daddy had an operation when he was a baby.  My dad lost half of his ring finger in an accident, but I was never bothered by having all of my fingers.

33.) Your grandfather (or great-grandfather) probably wasn't circumcised, unless you are of Jewish or Muslim descent.  It's a relatively new thing in the USA.  Abe Lincoln and George Washington had foreskins.

34.) Most circumcised penises have scars.  If you've ever seen a circumcised penis, you have probably seen circumcision scars and didn't know what they were.  Curious?  Click here for pictures (adult eyes please, extremely graphic).

35.) When erect, natural penises don't look very different from circumcised ones (adult eyes please)

36.) Babies have died following complications of circumcision.

37.) Babies have had the glans (head) of their penis accidentally amputated during circumcision.

38.) Female circumcision was legal in the United States until 1985.  It was practiced in the USA as recently as the 1979 to prevent masturbation.

39.) Your health insurance may not cover the procedure.  Medicaid does not cover it in 16 states, and many major insurance companies also do not reimburse for the surgery, since it is cosmetic.  If your insurance doesn't cover it, it probably also does not cover any complications.

40.) Babies are strapped down on a circumstraint to have the procedure done.  That is the most unnatural, terrifying position for a baby, who previously was all curled up and safe inside Mama's body.

41.)  If you believe in evolution, why are men born with foreskins?  If you believe in God, why did he give men foreskins?  Did they screw up?

42.) If you are Christian, your religion actually *forbids* circumcision.  Your son's body is a temple, and Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices - including the foreskin.  See this link for more info.

43.) If you are Jewish, you should know that there is considerable debate about the religious necessity of circumcision. 

44.) If you do believe that your religion requires the sacrifice of the foreskin, your son can choose to sacrifice his foreskin in the name of religion when he is old enough to make the decision himself.

45.) The foreskin is fused to the head of an infant's penis, just like your fingernail is fused to your finger.  Have you ever pulled back your fingernail all the way?  Owwwwwwwwwwwww.

46.) Circumcision makes penises smaller.  Who wants a smaller penis?

47.) "My partner should make the decision, he has a penis/she looks at penises" is a dumb reason to abdicate responsibility for a decision.  You are your baby's parent, penis or not, and you have a responsibility to protect your child from harm.  Victims of FGM (aka female circumcision) are the most vocal supporters and perpetrators of the abuse.  Call on your inner Mama or Papa-bear and stand up for your baby's rights.  Make your partner watch a video with the sound on and convince YOU why they want this done to their precious child.

48.) You have seen an uncircumcised penis, and you probably didn't even notice.  Take a look at this (safe for kids) picture!

49.) He'll be in good company.  Check out this (in my opinion, mouth-watering) gallery of famous intact men!  From Elvis, James Dean, Will Smith, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jude Law and sooo many others.

 Jensen Ackles, my personal favorite.

50.) It's his.  I know, I said it already. but it's really the first and last reason - and perhaps the only one you really need.  It's his body, and unless medically necessary, it should be his choice.  You wouldn't give him a nose job without his permission, you wouldn't tattoo your infant.  This is the same thing.  If you really look at your motives, why would you want to take the risks?  Leave the decision where it belongs - in your son's hands.