Please take our poll to the left. It will close on 10/13.
If you haven't considered the idea that the current movement of "education" and reform of the laws may backfire, read the article I posted on babywhys. http://www.babywhys.org/#legal
Mothering.com and Mothering Magazine have done articles about how breastfeeding is in trouble. I wonder, could the campaign to make everyone aware of the so-called shortcomings of the law actually have an effect on breastfeeding rates, because it scares moms? Should we instead be talking about standing up for our human rights as women, and for our babies' human rights, not "fighting for rights"?
You can vote here on our poll, comment here on this post, or post to the babywhys yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/babywhys/
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Please go to http://www.babywhys.org/ and check out the latest news, and sign the "Take a Chance For Change" letters. There is one to the AAP about breastfeeding duration, and one about circumcision.
Also, I thought up a new term - "Humanidairyan" which is a humanitarian trying to get people to consume "human dairy products" aka promote breastfeeding in desperate areas unfit for bottle feeding. Check out my project idea, and let me know what you suggest!
If you haven't checked out babywhys yet, please go have a look. You can also join the yahoo group!
There are some fun videos on there too!
Also, I thought up a new term - "Humanidairyan" which is a humanitarian trying to get people to consume "human dairy products" aka promote breastfeeding in desperate areas unfit for bottle feeding. Check out my project idea, and let me know what you suggest!
If you haven't checked out babywhys yet, please go have a look. You can also join the yahoo group!
There are some fun videos on there too!
http://regansravings.blogspot.com/2007/09/romneys-bribe-pharmaceutical-companys.html
"Saturday, September 08, 2007
Romney's bribe? The Pharmaceutical companies and Mitt Romney. Breastfeeding and formula feeding.
In 2006, Mitt Romney overturned the Massachusetts Public Health Council's decision to ban formula bags from hospitals. Was he doing what he believed was right for his citizens or was he bribed by the big pharmaceutical companies?My wife subscribes to Mothering Magazine. In the recent issue (September/October 2007), they had an article entitled "A Quiet Place" which focused on the battle breastfeeding proponents face in the public arena. One section of the article had my wife reading out loud to me. I post it here for your consideration. It eliminated Mitt Romney from my "Potentially Receiving My Vote" list.
"In December 2005, Massachusetts became the first state to prohibit formula sample bags in hospitals, as part of an update of an update of the State's Department of Public Health regulations. Bot the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have called for an end to this practice(www.massbfc.org/news). Governor Romney pressured the Public Health Council to rescind the ban, but the council successfully resisted his pressure, until he fired and replaced three members just prior to a vote on it; the ban was rescinded in May 2006. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced a deal with Bristol-Myer Squibb, the world's largest formula manufacturer, to build a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts."Sounds like a really interesting coincidence to me. In the best scenario, Romney is convinced that formula feeding bags should be distributed because corporations should have the freedom to distribute whatever they want in hospitals. In the most likely scenario, Bristol-Squibb Myer bribes Romney by saying if you allow our baby formula bags to be distributed in your hospital, then we will build the new plant we need to build in your state. In the worst scenario, Romney takes some person bribes from Bristol-Squibb Myer to allow the company to restart the banned practice of distributing formula bags in the hospital.For those who have not had a baby recently, a formula bag is a nice diaper bag given to new parents in the hospital filled with coupons and all sorts of gifts. One of the main gifts is formula. Also in the bag are coupons for future formula purchases and pamphlets on the benefits of formula. We really liked the baby bag, but we did not use the formula until we added it to cereal after our babies were much older. The bags are provided to the hospital by the big pharmaceutical companies that manufacture baby formula. The question of whether to allow these formula bags to be distributed is a difficult dilemma which seems to be representative of the current debate centered around the government's role in protecting the public from corporations. When a company continues in practices that are harmful to society, should the government make those practices illegal. Obviously, there is a point where we say that the government should step in an force the action to be stopped and make the company pay for damages to the people harmed. It is difficult in deciding where that line is. How harmful does an action have to be to initiate the process of penalties? Does the distribution of formula bags in hospitals to new parents cross that line? Distribution formula bags seems like a right of the pharmaceutical companies that should not be taken away in such a scenario, but it is a sticky situation.Nobody is making money off of the much healthier practice of feeding your kids breast-milk, so breast-milk proponents cannot compete on the marketing field with the pharmaceutical industries. Despite being much healthier, breastfeeding is handicapped in the field of concepts when it comes to convincing people that they should breastfeed rather than formula feed. This practice takes place in a publicly funded (at least in the state of Massachusetts) hospital. The pharmaceutical companies bombards new parents through their gift bags with the message that formula feeding is a "healthy" alternative when there really is nothing healthy about using that alternative. What this all results in is parents being told that formula feeding is a "healthy" alternative despite it not really being such. Breastfeeding proponents do not have equal resources to compete with the pharmaceutical company at the same level. There are rare cases where formula feeding is necessary, but it is not even close to being equal to breast-milk on the healthy scale. It is a sufficient alternative meaning that it will sustain the life of your child till you get the baby on real food, but it is not a healthy alternative. But should we take away the freedom of a company in order to protect individuals from doing what is not optimal for their baby?"
"Saturday, September 08, 2007
Romney's bribe? The Pharmaceutical companies and Mitt Romney. Breastfeeding and formula feeding.
In 2006, Mitt Romney overturned the Massachusetts Public Health Council's decision to ban formula bags from hospitals. Was he doing what he believed was right for his citizens or was he bribed by the big pharmaceutical companies?My wife subscribes to Mothering Magazine. In the recent issue (September/October 2007), they had an article entitled "A Quiet Place" which focused on the battle breastfeeding proponents face in the public arena. One section of the article had my wife reading out loud to me. I post it here for your consideration. It eliminated Mitt Romney from my "Potentially Receiving My Vote" list.
"In December 2005, Massachusetts became the first state to prohibit formula sample bags in hospitals, as part of an update of an update of the State's Department of Public Health regulations. Bot the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have called for an end to this practice(www.massbfc.org/news). Governor Romney pressured the Public Health Council to rescind the ban, but the council successfully resisted his pressure, until he fired and replaced three members just prior to a vote on it; the ban was rescinded in May 2006. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced a deal with Bristol-Myer Squibb, the world's largest formula manufacturer, to build a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts."Sounds like a really interesting coincidence to me. In the best scenario, Romney is convinced that formula feeding bags should be distributed because corporations should have the freedom to distribute whatever they want in hospitals. In the most likely scenario, Bristol-Squibb Myer bribes Romney by saying if you allow our baby formula bags to be distributed in your hospital, then we will build the new plant we need to build in your state. In the worst scenario, Romney takes some person bribes from Bristol-Squibb Myer to allow the company to restart the banned practice of distributing formula bags in the hospital.For those who have not had a baby recently, a formula bag is a nice diaper bag given to new parents in the hospital filled with coupons and all sorts of gifts. One of the main gifts is formula. Also in the bag are coupons for future formula purchases and pamphlets on the benefits of formula. We really liked the baby bag, but we did not use the formula until we added it to cereal after our babies were much older. The bags are provided to the hospital by the big pharmaceutical companies that manufacture baby formula. The question of whether to allow these formula bags to be distributed is a difficult dilemma which seems to be representative of the current debate centered around the government's role in protecting the public from corporations. When a company continues in practices that are harmful to society, should the government make those practices illegal. Obviously, there is a point where we say that the government should step in an force the action to be stopped and make the company pay for damages to the people harmed. It is difficult in deciding where that line is. How harmful does an action have to be to initiate the process of penalties? Does the distribution of formula bags in hospitals to new parents cross that line? Distribution formula bags seems like a right of the pharmaceutical companies that should not be taken away in such a scenario, but it is a sticky situation.Nobody is making money off of the much healthier practice of feeding your kids breast-milk, so breast-milk proponents cannot compete on the marketing field with the pharmaceutical industries. Despite being much healthier, breastfeeding is handicapped in the field of concepts when it comes to convincing people that they should breastfeed rather than formula feed. This practice takes place in a publicly funded (at least in the state of Massachusetts) hospital. The pharmaceutical companies bombards new parents through their gift bags with the message that formula feeding is a "healthy" alternative when there really is nothing healthy about using that alternative. What this all results in is parents being told that formula feeding is a "healthy" alternative despite it not really being such. Breastfeeding proponents do not have equal resources to compete with the pharmaceutical company at the same level. There are rare cases where formula feeding is necessary, but it is not even close to being equal to breast-milk on the healthy scale. It is a sufficient alternative meaning that it will sustain the life of your child till you get the baby on real food, but it is not a healthy alternative. But should we take away the freedom of a company in order to protect individuals from doing what is not optimal for their baby?"
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
I'm troubled by the almost total lack of breastfeeding in our society. I am troubled by the pervasive problems I hear repeated over and over by moms when they ask questions about breastfeeding and caring for babies. The answers are so simple and common sense, yet so difficult to convey because people are so easily offended, put on the defensive, or turned off when they hear something counter to what they did.
I find it incredibly frustrating every time I learn about another instance where insanity and nonsense and harm are being widely promoted as "normal" or "a fact of life."
I am slowly but surely collecting articles and website links into one resource, my new site http://www.babywhys.org/
I also have a shop on cafepress, at www.cafepress.com/undercovermom
Soon I'll be adding even more "not a plastic bag" designs for totes so you can shop for your groceries or books or clothes without guilt.
Unfortunately I can't keep up with all the websites I blog on, but I do make the rounds on the web! Come post to my wall on Facebook, comment with me on Myspace, or join the discussion at babywhys!
I find it incredibly frustrating every time I learn about another instance where insanity and nonsense and harm are being widely promoted as "normal" or "a fact of life."
I am slowly but surely collecting articles and website links into one resource, my new site http://www.babywhys.org/
I also have a shop on cafepress, at www.cafepress.com/undercovermom
Soon I'll be adding even more "not a plastic bag" designs for totes so you can shop for your groceries or books or clothes without guilt.
Unfortunately I can't keep up with all the websites I blog on, but I do make the rounds on the web! Come post to my wall on Facebook, comment with me on Myspace, or join the discussion at babywhys!
Friday, February 02, 2007
I Got The Piggie's Attention - Response From an Oinkie Head
Friday, February 2, 2007
Thank you for your email to the National Pork Board. We appreciate you taking the time to send us an email regarding our communication with "The Lactivist" webstore on CafePress.com about our trademark rights.
It is important to understand that our lawyer’s correspondence to Ms. Laycock was in no way intended to challenge or demean breastfeeding or those who support it. This correspondence is about defending our trademark and the National Pork Board's responsibility to protect pork industry investments on behalf of the 70,000 US pork producers we represent. The Other White Meat® is a pork industry trademark whose value was built slowly and thoughtfully over 20 years, paid for by producer’s hard-earned dollars. Any infringement on that mark would substantially lessen its value and impact for US pork producers.
It’s also important to understand that the National Pork Board cannot pick and choose which infringement challenges it decides to address. We have a responsibility to the industry to challenge all viable infringements (and we do so on a weekly basis) or face the possibility of losing trademark protection and allowing the industry’s valued trademark to become public domain, and thus worthless.
Again, the National Pork Board takes no issue with your important cause. Our interest here was in protecting US pork producer’s investment in The Other White Meat® trademark. We apologize if our response seemed impersonal or harsh; that was not our intent. We will use all feedback that we receive to improve our communication processes in the future. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Sincerely,
Steve Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
The National Pork Board
Friday, February 2, 2007
Thank you for your email to the National Pork Board. We appreciate you taking the time to send us an email regarding our communication with "The Lactivist" webstore on CafePress.com about our trademark rights.
It is important to understand that our lawyer’s correspondence to Ms. Laycock was in no way intended to challenge or demean breastfeeding or those who support it. This correspondence is about defending our trademark and the National Pork Board's responsibility to protect pork industry investments on behalf of the 70,000 US pork producers we represent. The Other White Meat® is a pork industry trademark whose value was built slowly and thoughtfully over 20 years, paid for by producer’s hard-earned dollars. Any infringement on that mark would substantially lessen its value and impact for US pork producers.
It’s also important to understand that the National Pork Board cannot pick and choose which infringement challenges it decides to address. We have a responsibility to the industry to challenge all viable infringements (and we do so on a weekly basis) or face the possibility of losing trademark protection and allowing the industry’s valued trademark to become public domain, and thus worthless.
Again, the National Pork Board takes no issue with your important cause. Our interest here was in protecting US pork producer’s investment in The Other White Meat® trademark. We apologize if our response seemed impersonal or harsh; that was not our intent. We will use all feedback that we receive to improve our communication processes in the future. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Sincerely,
Steve Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
The National Pork Board
BOYCOTT PORK! (For now, all you pig eaters!)
To: The Pork Board
(and to all of the internet recipients, feel free to forward)
Jeff Hartz - Director of Marketing Communications
(515) 223-2629 JHartz@pork.org
Joy Johnson - Vice President Marketing
(515) 223-2631 jjohnson@pork.org
Michael Wegner - Vice President Communications
(515) 223-2638 MWegner@pork.org
Teresa Roof - Public Relations Manager
(515) 223-2616 troof@pork.org
Hello to the Pork Board!
I understand you have ordered a work-at-home mom who raises money for the MOTHER'S MILK BANK in her area (a charity that SAVES lives of babies every day) to stop selling shirts that say "The Other White Milk." The old saying goes that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but apparently you are putting out a smelly pile of pig crap and attracting a lot of flies here! According to The Lactivist Blog, she would kindly have removed the shirt if you had asked nicely, although personally I think that you are pretty darn stupid for trying to stop the sale of the shirt.
Do you honestly think you have the eternal rights to those three words of the English language: the, other, and white?
Do you think that your board may perhaps be long overdue for some downsizing? I mean come on, you must really have a lot of excess fat that needs to be trimmed, like a "pork barrel" or something like that at your organziation. Because you seem to have WAY too much time on your hands.
Anyone who would just threaten to sue a mom for selling a shirt that might actually promote pork should take a little lesson in common sense, so as a former teacher, I tell you that you are about to get schooled.
I want you to know that this has actually resulted in the tarnishing of your image. When I saw the shirts a while back, I actually thought "Hmm that's funny, cool, etc. What a neat shirt," and, "Oh yeah - pork slogan - maybe I should buy some pork when I go to the store, that sounds like a good dinner plan."
Now instead, every time I see a package of bacon, sausage or a pork tenderloin, I will think, "Hmmm the pork board is a bunch of ignorant jerks who are apparently very concerned about their image, but hate breastfeeding, breast milk, and its many medicinal properties. I wonder why they would be concerned about their image. Could it be that they have to fight against common ideas like: don't eat bacon, don't eat sausage, or don't eat pigs at all? Why? Maybe it's just that unhealthy for you since pigs wallow in their own poopies!"
I am abstaining from all pork and pork-derived products until such time as you issue a formal apology to Jennifer Laycock. And I will ALSO tell all my friends and family and vast internet contacts NOT TO EAT PORK. It will be difficult because I love to use pork to make meatballs and spaghetti sauce, but I think I can take it.
Oink oink! Save the pigs. Save Wilbur.
I am very serious about this! You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves.
Amy Philo
Frisco, Texas
P.S. There is this little invention called the laser printer with which any person who wishes can print a transfer that says "The other white milk" and put it on a shirt. You have in essence contributed to the increased popularity of that spin off of your oh-so-effective slogan in addition to the unfortunate tarnishing of your image as a member of the food industry for all time.
P.S.S. It's as if you think that parodying slogans and jingles actually "tarnishes the good image" of businesses. We are all sitting around thinking of as many funky new slogans as we can come up with because we have nothing better to do with our time, what with all the lazy moms out there who are just lying around breastfeeding all day. Oh yeah - breast milk - gross - the mere mention of a wonderful substance like that would tarnish ANY image it is associated with!
ALL THINGS BOOBIE
It shouldn't be too big of a sacrifice, but as stated in the previous blog entry, I am personally abstaining from purchasing anything at Walmart, for the time being.
This Saturday, in complete violation of the WHO Code, Walmart stores across the country are opening their doors to the formula companies. In a series of demonstrations for an event called "All Things Baby" Similac will hold a nutrition and feeding seminar. They will hand out free samples of formula and other products. (If it's "ALL Things Baby," then please tell me - where is the representation of BREASTFEEDING?)
Free samples are proven to shorten duration, compromise exclusivity and overall interfere with breastfeeding. Babies deserve to be protected from unnecessary formula supplementation. Moms should be supported in feeding their children the normal, natural way, not undermined.
A formula representative could not possibly plan to present accurate information about infant nutrition, or else they would have to stop selling and start hiding their formula cans. Many people who work for these companies pretend to be lactation consultants and preach that mixed feedings are ok. But as we know, mixed feedings compromise the normal physiology and health of mothers and babies and ultimtely lead to premature weaning. It is the formula lobby's ultimate goal to make sure that no baby is ever exclusively breastfed and will at some point in their life drink formula. This event is a massive attack on the attempts at breastfeeding success by women across the country, and the worst part is that it makes formula seem like the normal way everyone feeds their kids. Who wouldn't be thankful for a FREE sample of something to feed a child with, right?
News flash: Breast milk is FREE!
Please send Walmart your own comment and urge them to give equal opportunity to breastfeeding support and cancel the Similac demonstration.
============ ========
http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=221 to leave your comment go to this URL
Here is what I wrote:
I was dismayed to learn that Walmart is allowing Similac into its stores all across the country this Saturday to promote and hand out samples of infant formula and impersonate nutrition experts by doing a "demonstration" and feeding lecture.
I called the store near me to inquire about the possibility of our local breastfeeding support group hosting a table near the Similac booth to provide assistance and support to breastfeeding mothers. I was told that all nonprofits have to be outside to distribute information.
So it seems that Walmart is favoring formula feeding over breastfeeding. Breastfeeding detracts from profit-driven motives because it is a free source of food, but it also saves money for tax payers and businesses and helps the planet by reducing pollution and garbage and energy consuption. The US economy spends at least $3.6 billion per year on paying for medical costs and lost wages for caring for sick children who are formula-fed.
I hate to think that Walmart would open its store to a formula company but kick breastfeeding moms out into the cold.
Formula-feeding is not a normal way to feed your child and it is responsible for over 8,000 preventable deaths in the US each year, and 1.5 million or more each year worldwide (according to the WHO and UNICEF).
Walmart is now implicated in these infant deaths.
I encourage you to invite breastfeeding support groups to hold a seminar in your baby section of your stores alongside or instead of the Similac demonstration.
I urge you to cancel the demonstration by Similac, but if that doesn't happen then I urge you to hold a special event for breastfeeding ACROSS the country and offer some REAL information about infant nutrition.
I will be at Walmart this Saturday not to buy anything but rather to nurse my two kids at the Similac counter.
I will not purchase anything at Walmart again until this situation is rectified, and I will discourage everyone I know from shopping at Walmart.
THE OTHER WHITE MILK GETS ATTACKED BY PIGS
The pork industry issued a Cease and Desist order to a mom who sells pro-breastfeeding tshirts that say: The Other White Milk. Apparently they are concerned that she might be profiting too much because of the spin off of their slogan about pig flesh. I love to eat pig flesh but try to limit my intake, well I think it's time I stopped for good. Maybe I will drink my own breast milk instead. Wait, that would be somewhat silly, I still have to eat other food. I think I'll stick with chicken and veggies.
Oh, and they are also accusing her of promoting breast milk for uses other than infant consumption. I suppose the Pork lobby is dumber than we thought, since babies and young kids can drink it, and throughout time people have used breast milk to survive. In fact, breast milk is being examined for its medicinal properties and has been shown to kill lung cancer cells in a lab dish.
Here is the link to the blog of the accused stay-at-home mom who is trying to promote breastfeeding in our messed up society. http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2007/02/overzealous-big-pork-stomps-on.html
Maybe the pork lobby could start marketing pig milk next, since obviously breast milk is so tied up with criminal activity and we should look for alternatives.
The businesses and in fact the general population seem to be suffering from Mad Pig Disease. Let's get them back on the right track. Contact Jennifer Laycock and offer her your support. She donates portions of her profit to the Mother's Milk Bank in her area. We should all order some shirts, and offer her our support. They are setting a compliance deadline of Feb. 5.
For now, I am abstaining from pork, and Walmart! (see next post)
The pork industry issued a Cease and Desist order to a mom who sells pro-breastfeeding tshirts that say: The Other White Milk. Apparently they are concerned that she might be profiting too much because of the spin off of their slogan about pig flesh. I love to eat pig flesh but try to limit my intake, well I think it's time I stopped for good. Maybe I will drink my own breast milk instead. Wait, that would be somewhat silly, I still have to eat other food. I think I'll stick with chicken and veggies.
Oh, and they are also accusing her of promoting breast milk for uses other than infant consumption. I suppose the Pork lobby is dumber than we thought, since babies and young kids can drink it, and throughout time people have used breast milk to survive. In fact, breast milk is being examined for its medicinal properties and has been shown to kill lung cancer cells in a lab dish.
Here is the link to the blog of the accused stay-at-home mom who is trying to promote breastfeeding in our messed up society. http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2007/02/overzealous-big-pork-stomps-on.html
Maybe the pork lobby could start marketing pig milk next, since obviously breast milk is so tied up with criminal activity and we should look for alternatives.
The businesses and in fact the general population seem to be suffering from Mad Pig Disease. Let's get them back on the right track. Contact Jennifer Laycock and offer her your support. She donates portions of her profit to the Mother's Milk Bank in her area. We should all order some shirts, and offer her our support. They are setting a compliance deadline of Feb. 5.
For now, I am abstaining from pork, and Walmart! (see next post)
Friday, December 15, 2006
"We don't take responsibility but we're kind of sorry"
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061215/NEWS01/612150310/1009&theme=
Airlines ask breast-feeding charges to be dismissed
Published: Friday, December 15, 2006
By Sky Barsch
Free Press Staff Writer
The two airlines involved in an incident that saw a mother kicked off a plane in Burlington in October for breast-feeding have asked the Vermont Human Rights Commission to throw out complaints against them. Emily Gillette of New Mexico filed a complaint with the commission last month. She claimed a flight attendant for Freedom Airlines, operating a commuter flight for Delta Air Lines, had her and her family removed from a flight awaiting departure on the tarmac at Burlington International Airport after Gillette refused to cover up while breast-feeding.
Gillette is arguing that her civil rights were violated because breast-feeding is a right protected by Vermont's Public Accommodations Law. Freedom Airlines argued in a Monday letter to the Human Rights Commission that the federal Airlines Deregulation Act trumps Vermont's human rights law, because state law cannot interfere with air carrier service. "Freedom denies having discriminated against the Charging party in any manner whatsoever and specifically denies that any violation of the Vermont Fair Housing and Accommodations Act ... has occurred," Freedom wrote in its response, which was provided by Gillette's Manchester attorney, Elizabeth Boepple.
The airline, a subsidiary of Mesa Air Group, asked that the complaint be dismissed. Delta Air Lines says that the attendant acted contrary to its policies, but that she was acting as a Freedom Airlines employee, not as an employee of Delta. Delta also asked that the complaint be dismissed. Delta spokeswoman Gina Laughlin said Thursday afternoon that she would let the filing speak for itself, but wanted to reiterate that Delta "fully supports a mother's right to breast-feed on board our aircraft and that we were disappointed that the decision was made to remove our customer from the airplane."
Freedom Airlines spokesman Paul Skellon did not immediately return a message seeking comment. "My reaction to their argument is that they have not cited that there is any law to show that there is a federal pre-emption over a state law that establishes a civil right for a breast-feeding mother," Boepple said.
Gillette said she was discreetly breast-feeding her daughter when a flight attendant ordered her to cover up. Gillette refused, and the attendant allegedly said she was offended and had the Gillettes removed from the plane. The airlines have said the attendant acted contrary to company expectations and was disciplined.
The incident has garnered national and international attention, prompting a "nurse-in" at several airports across the country last month. Robert Appel, executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, cannot say whether complaints are filed with his office unless the commission determines that human rights laws were violated. In general, investigations take between three months and a year, he said. While he couldn't confirm Gillette's complaint, he said there has not been another breast-feeding complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission since the law went into effect in 2003.
Contact Sky Barsch at sbarsch@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com or 660-1861.
Amy's Poll:
What is the best thing to do to make changes in our society?
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061215/NEWS01/612150310/1009&theme=
Airlines ask breast-feeding charges to be dismissed
Published: Friday, December 15, 2006
By Sky Barsch
Free Press Staff Writer
The two airlines involved in an incident that saw a mother kicked off a plane in Burlington in October for breast-feeding have asked the Vermont Human Rights Commission to throw out complaints against them. Emily Gillette of New Mexico filed a complaint with the commission last month. She claimed a flight attendant for Freedom Airlines, operating a commuter flight for Delta Air Lines, had her and her family removed from a flight awaiting departure on the tarmac at Burlington International Airport after Gillette refused to cover up while breast-feeding.
Gillette is arguing that her civil rights were violated because breast-feeding is a right protected by Vermont's Public Accommodations Law. Freedom Airlines argued in a Monday letter to the Human Rights Commission that the federal Airlines Deregulation Act trumps Vermont's human rights law, because state law cannot interfere with air carrier service. "Freedom denies having discriminated against the Charging party in any manner whatsoever and specifically denies that any violation of the Vermont Fair Housing and Accommodations Act ... has occurred," Freedom wrote in its response, which was provided by Gillette's Manchester attorney, Elizabeth Boepple.
The airline, a subsidiary of Mesa Air Group, asked that the complaint be dismissed. Delta Air Lines says that the attendant acted contrary to its policies, but that she was acting as a Freedom Airlines employee, not as an employee of Delta. Delta also asked that the complaint be dismissed. Delta spokeswoman Gina Laughlin said Thursday afternoon that she would let the filing speak for itself, but wanted to reiterate that Delta "fully supports a mother's right to breast-feed on board our aircraft and that we were disappointed that the decision was made to remove our customer from the airplane."
Freedom Airlines spokesman Paul Skellon did not immediately return a message seeking comment. "My reaction to their argument is that they have not cited that there is any law to show that there is a federal pre-emption over a state law that establishes a civil right for a breast-feeding mother," Boepple said.
Gillette said she was discreetly breast-feeding her daughter when a flight attendant ordered her to cover up. Gillette refused, and the attendant allegedly said she was offended and had the Gillettes removed from the plane. The airlines have said the attendant acted contrary to company expectations and was disciplined.
The incident has garnered national and international attention, prompting a "nurse-in" at several airports across the country last month. Robert Appel, executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, cannot say whether complaints are filed with his office unless the commission determines that human rights laws were violated. In general, investigations take between three months and a year, he said. While he couldn't confirm Gillette's complaint, he said there has not been another breast-feeding complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission since the law went into effect in 2003.
Contact Sky Barsch at sbarsch@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com or 660-1861.
Amy's Poll:
What is the best thing to do to make changes in our society?
- Educate the public
- Sue anyone who messes with nursing mamas & babes
- Hold nurse-ins
- Write letters
- Pass additional laws to penalize anyone who messes with nursing
- More than one of the above
- None one of the above
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Nursing Images, The Act of Nursing, Nursing Promotions
If you see a mom breastfeeding her baby, babywearing, or otherwise nurturing her baby in a healthy way, send me the description and I will add it here.
If you see a pro-breastfeeding ad, TV show, movie, or other media example, send me a description or a link and I will add it here.
If you see any other promotion or hear of one, send me the description and I will add it here.
I'll start:
===================
12-10-2006
Saw one mom breastfeeding a newborn at church, in the back pew with a blankie covering said baby.
Nursed my own baby and babywore in public today... at church I also nursed my toddler.
====================
via web:
12-10-06
Today at a neighborhood christmas party, I saw a neighbor of mine nursing her 15 month old daughter. I stopped and said that I was thrilled to see another mom nursing her baby past 1 year and we chatted about how much our babies loved to nurse, it was great comfort to them, etc.
If you see a mom breastfeeding her baby, babywearing, or otherwise nurturing her baby in a healthy way, send me the description and I will add it here.
If you see a pro-breastfeeding ad, TV show, movie, or other media example, send me a description or a link and I will add it here.
If you see any other promotion or hear of one, send me the description and I will add it here.
I'll start:
===================
12-10-2006
Saw one mom breastfeeding a newborn at church, in the back pew with a blankie covering said baby.
Nursed my own baby and babywore in public today... at church I also nursed my toddler.
====================
via web:
12-10-06
Today at a neighborhood christmas party, I saw a neighbor of mine nursing her 15 month old daughter. I stopped and said that I was thrilled to see another mom nursing her baby past 1 year and we chatted about how much our babies loved to nurse, it was great comfort to them, etc.
The bottle feeding frenzy
Send me an example of any WHO Code violations, and I will add it to this blog entry.
I'll go first:
In two days, I have seen two or three ads for Nestle "Good Start Supreme" Formula, with happy cute smiley babies who are free of eczema and runny nose and gas, with the cute little hearts floating around the screen, on NICKELODEON during programs my son watches. He's two. I know - you say "Perhaps he should not be watching TV." But he does, and he loves to watch commercials as well, (I used to too and depending on what it is, whether it is Barbie's 12 dancing Princesses, Floam, or a Hallmark commercial, or a Lever 2000 commercial with a hot soapy wet male model, I will still do it!) and well, he thinks that the Nestle commercial is worth watching. I guess the sight of a baby drinking from a bottle intrigues him, and the floaty hearts don't help matters.
Plus, he likes babies, live, on TV, or in pictures.
I see bottles everywhere, but to me the advertising is the worst part of everything. Especially when you consider the web address for Nestle is "VeryBestBaby.com"
Poor little babies! Cute babies being used to market formula is just going to appeal to the market and put all babies at risk! Yes, the babies are all wonderful and "the best," it's the food they're getting that isn't. Hello! Giving your baby formula does not make him the best baby. He already is the best he'll be, the way God made him.
Babies are all sweet and innocent and deserving of protection!
===============
1-4-2007
Recently returned a gift - a new baby keepsake album because of the "Holds Own Bottle" among other things written inside. This was a Winnie the Pooh book at Target. I sent them a nice little letter about the WHO Code.
Send me an example of any WHO Code violations, and I will add it to this blog entry.
I'll go first:
In two days, I have seen two or three ads for Nestle "Good Start Supreme" Formula, with happy cute smiley babies who are free of eczema and runny nose and gas, with the cute little hearts floating around the screen, on NICKELODEON during programs my son watches. He's two. I know - you say "Perhaps he should not be watching TV." But he does, and he loves to watch commercials as well, (I used to too and depending on what it is, whether it is Barbie's 12 dancing Princesses, Floam, or a Hallmark commercial, or a Lever 2000 commercial with a hot soapy wet male model, I will still do it!) and well, he thinks that the Nestle commercial is worth watching. I guess the sight of a baby drinking from a bottle intrigues him, and the floaty hearts don't help matters.
Plus, he likes babies, live, on TV, or in pictures.
I see bottles everywhere, but to me the advertising is the worst part of everything. Especially when you consider the web address for Nestle is "VeryBestBaby.com"
Poor little babies! Cute babies being used to market formula is just going to appeal to the market and put all babies at risk! Yes, the babies are all wonderful and "the best," it's the food they're getting that isn't. Hello! Giving your baby formula does not make him the best baby. He already is the best he'll be, the way God made him.
Babies are all sweet and innocent and deserving of protection!
===============
1-4-2007
Recently returned a gift - a new baby keepsake album because of the "Holds Own Bottle" among other things written inside. This was a Winnie the Pooh book at Target. I sent them a nice little letter about the WHO Code.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
