Eideard

A Denver mom says she was singled out by a judge when she brought her six-month-old daughter with her to report for jury duty. Christine Kalata says she had no choice. She is breast feeding her child and breast-feeding mothers are not exempt from jury duty.

“I felt embarrassed. I remember looking down and thinking everyone’s going to be mad at me because I want to be excused,” says Kalata.

She says she was humiliated in front of other potential jurors in Denver court when the judge was not happy to see a baby in court.

“When I stated that this was my job she did not let me say anything else after that she just said to the jurors, ‘how many of you left a job? Please raise your hand,’” Kalata says.

She says Judge Claudia Jordan told the clerk to put her name back in the pool and then sent her home.

“After I left I cried all the way down the elevator. As I drove home I actually started to get angry,” Kalata says. “That’s when I started to think this is ridiculous.”

Then she got fired up and is now working on changing the law in Denver so breast-feeding moms can fulfill their civic duty while taking care of their children.

Kalata says she had asked for a deferment but the clerk told her no.

Contradictory crap like this has no reason to happen. Either the judge hasn’t a clue what the regulations say about jury duty – or the clerk advising Christine Kalata doesn’t know what their job is all about. I don’t know who has it wrong.

But, it gets worse in these tired old eyes when it turns out to be a lady judge. Whether you have children or not, you would expect a women judge to be somewhat sympatico to a nursing mother.

To the outrage of breastfeeding campaigners and probably the utter confusion of most women with small babies, scientists today advocate rewriting the rulebook to drop the current guidance that says mothers should breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of their child’s life.

It was 2001 when the World Health Organisation announced that exclusive breastfeeding for six months was best for babies. In 2003 the then Labour minister Hazel Blears adopted the recommendation for the UK.

But today, in the British Medical Journal, doctors from several leading child health institutes say the evidence for the WHO guidance was never there – and that failing to start weaning babies on to solids before six months could be harmful.

Mary Fewtrell, from the childhood nutrition research centre at the University College London Institute of Child Health, said probably no babies had been harmed, as few mothers in the UK manage to stick to six months of nothing but breastmilk with a baby who by then is taking an interest in the contents of people’s plates. “About 1% were doing it in 2005, although probably more now,” she said. “But only about 20% breastfeed at all at six months. It is not a common behaviour…”

Fewtrell said she supported the WHO recommendation, but argued that it needed to be interpreted differently in different countries. Exclusive breastfeeding protects against infections, which is critical in developing countries, but less important in the UK where hygiene and sanitation are better. “There’s only one piece of evidence relevant to babies in the UK – a slightly decreased risk of gastroenteritis,” she said…

Pro-breastfeeding groups were dismayed, however. Unicef pointed out that it did not contain any new experimental data and said the UK policy had been a success as greater numbers of mothers now delayed the introduction of solids until after four months. It added that most early foods “are not nutrient dense and do not provide quantities of iron and zinc”…

Fewtrell was unapologetic. Ideally, mothers would give their babies fresh food, including meat, for iron. “This is not an attempt to promote commercial weaning foods,” she said. “We are a university and Medical Research Council-funded group.”

They had advised babyfood manufacturers because they were specialists in child nutrition, she said…”Some organisations are all too happy to quote our data when it supports breastfeeding,” she said. “They are choosy in what they will allow.”

Folks who never have spent any time at scientific research do not understand that not only do the wheels of experiment and study grind exceedingly slow, conservative and redundant; but, they do not cease and become immobile once a group of conclusions are reached.

Sound science requires continued study, verification, additional avenues always suggested by the course of study. Sometimes – as in this case – modifications result. It ain’t a catechism, folks.

Dozens of Valley moms converged Saturday on a McDonald’s in Phoenix to breastfeed their infants in protest of a woman who was asked to leave the establishment for doing the same.

An assistant manager of the McDonald’s at 51st Avenue and Cactus Road asked Clarissa Bradford and her children to leave when Bradford began nursing her 6-month-old child on Aug. 11.

Although the restaurant this week issued an apology saying it would never happen again, demonstrators were upset at public reaction to the story and wanted to respond to critics who say mothers shouldn’t breastfeed in public…

A restaurant employee stood outside the entrance, shooing members of the media away. Starchman and another woman, Alisa Ilardo, came out to speak with reporters. They estimated there were about 100 people in the restaurant at the time, mostly mothers with infant children.

There was no sign of resistance from restaurant employees, Starchman said, characterizing the atmosphere as relaxed with most of the women using the time to have casual conversation. Once inside, a few of them even bought food, she said.

Alisa Ilardo said the group was not upset with McDonald’s, but they wanted to make a statement.

“It was just someone’s bad judgment, but we need to keep people from treating moms like this,” she said.

Right on!

With her 5-week-old daughter crying in a bathroom at Nordstrom, and not knowing how to get the baby to latch on to her breast, Garima Nahar found herself surrounded by other women. Some offered tips, but one woman told the new mother to cover up or turn the other way.

“I had to kind of hide my tears and just be brave in front of her, because, you know what, ‘I have a crying baby and I don’t want to deal with you right now,’ ” said Nahar, a software manager in Chicago, Illinois.

Women across America have felt uncomfortable in public situations when breastfeeding their children. Sarah Hood of Fayetteville, Arkansas, who works in advertising, got stares when breastfeeding her son in the open.

Working mothers like Nahar and Hood have had to carefully tailor their schedules so that they can pump milk in the middle of the day, and avoid stares when they put bottles in the communal refrigerators. Some have to use a bathroom stall to pump milk, as there is no other space available.

Nursing mothers will now get additional support, thanks to page 1239 of the health care bill that President Obama recently signed into law. It requires employers to provide “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.” Only companies with less than 50 employees can claim it’s an undue hardship…

A recent study in the journal Pediatrics showed breastfeeding a child for the first six months of life would save nearly 1,000 lives and billions of dollars each year. That’s because breastfeeding reduces the risk of certain illnesses such as pneumonia, according to the study. Much of the cost comes from excess premature deaths, the study authors said.

Part of the question takes us back to what bloody century does our nation belong to? Not the part that studies and learns, not the part that marches towards health and happiness? It seems to be the loudmouthed crowd that Congress seems to listen to at least as much as the lobbyists paying their country club bar bill.

RTFA. It’s long and useful. It’s amazing that this is a tougher question to deal with in the 21st Century than the centuries which felt women shouldn’t have the right to vote or equal opportunity at a job.

If most new moms would breastfeed their babies for the first six months of life, it would save nearly 1,000 lives and billions of dollars each year, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics.

“The United States incurs $13 billion in excess costs annually and suffers 911 preventable deaths per year because our breastfeeding rates fall far below medical recommendations,” the report said.

The World Health Organization says infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life “to achieve optimal growth, development and health.” The WHO is not alone in its recommendations.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all agree that breast milk alone is sufficient for newborns and infants until they are 6 months old.

However, a 2009 breastfeeding report card from the CDC found that only 74 percent of women start breastfeeding, only 33 percent were still exclusively breastfeeding at three months and only 14 percent were still exclusively breastfeeding at six months…

Dr. Melissa Bartick and her co-author Arnold Reinhold found that most of the excess costs are due to premature deaths. Nearly all, 95 percent of these deaths, are attributed to three causes: sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); necrotizing enterocolitis, seen primarily in preterm babies and in which the lining of the intestinal wall dies; and lower respiratory infections such as pneumonia.

RTFA. Reflect upon science and common sense both surpassing fashion, convenience.

The photo removed by Facebook admin

Mom Kelli Roman got an unexpected Christmas Eve surprise: Facebook yanked her privileges to use the social networking site not long after she received an e-mail warning for “misusing certain features on the site.” Roman has been at the center of a growing controversy on Facebook that’s been brewing since last summer — that some photos of breastfeeding are obscene.

The group that Roman started after Facebook removed a photo of her breastfeeding, called “Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding is Not Obscene,” now has more than 64,000 members. They’re having a combined virtual and real event to protest Facebook practices.

Facebook suits have issued a candyass disclaimer saying they only act upon “complaints”.

For the virtual event, the organizers are asking its members to post profile photos of a nursing mom of any sort (human, animal or in art) along with a status line of “Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!” There will also be an in-person nurse-in outside Facebook’s Palo Alto offices.

Of course, this doesn’t affect my use of Facebook. I see no reason to socialize with most human beings, anyway. That’s part of my official hermit oath as you all should know, by now.

Although 77 percent of moms nationally start to breastfeed, the new Brigham Young University study found that only 36 percent of babies are breastfed through six months, well short of the federal government’s goal to hit 50 percent by 2010. The American Association of Pediatricians recommends continued breastfeeding through the first year.

“Breastfeeding promotion programs encourage women to start but don’t provide the support to continue,” said Renata Forste.

Breast milk is considered healthiest for babies because it is easily digested and provides antibodies that prevent ear infections and other illnesses. Earlier work by Forste supports research highlighting the link between breastfeeding and infant survival.

Many personal characteristics, such as a mother’s age and education level, influence whether a baby is breastfed. “Where the need is greatest, breastfeeding happens the least,” Forste said. “It’s a sad irony both in terms of health needs and the expense these families incur buying formula.”

Sad but true. There probably should be some effort at increasing public acceptance, as well. Every month or so, I read about some dummy who’s offended by a mom breastfeeding her child.