Seriously? Did you not read the first paragraph of this post you quoted? I mean, it's aw, so I get y'all want to snipe at her, but stop cherry picking.
She says she respects that her experience is different, then says its choice. Well which one is it?
I may be cherry picking. But she's trying to vacillate here. Her experience is different from many other women, yet she is still inferring that wic recipients who ff are making a choice as opposed to operating under a requirement.
I'm seriously head tilting here. She mentions the varied ways in which her decision to BF was an easy one, and then mentions that a woman who chooses to BF doesn't have the expense of formula. Obviously we're talking about people who have access to formula through WIC, so anybody who BF's did in fact CHOOSE to do so. Are you reading what she said backwards??
I'm seriously head tilting here. She mentions the varied ways in which her decision to BF was an easy one, and then mentions that a woman who chooses to BF doesn't have the expense of formula. Obviously we're talking about people who have access to formula through WIC, so anybody who BF's did in fact CHOOSE to do so. Are you reading what she said backwards??
Sorry. I deleted. I still don't see her comments as you do, but I'll just assume I'm wrong.
I hate the "Baby-Friendly" thing because it again tells women, "You know what? You don't need anything. Your job is to kill yourself making sure you give what little you have away. You just had a major medical event, and possibly major abdominal surgery? You don't need any help, you don't need any support, you don't need any healing. What you need to do is get to fucking work establishing breastfeeding." It once again ignores the fact that Mom is a patient too.
I was lucky that my hospital, while "baby-friendly," had a realistic approach to it. They were trained and helpful in breastfeeding and had LC's on staff. But they still sent me home with some "just in case" formula because she had lost a lot of weight. They had a night nursery. They did wake me to ask about a paci (which ticked my tired ass off at the time) but they gave her one. I hope their approach doesn't change, because I think it really was the best of both worlds.
Mmhm. Once again: men who are poor health? Oh poor you, here take a load off. Rest. Reccoperate. Women who are in poor health? Suck it up honey, that's life.
I'm seriously head tilting here. She mentions the varied ways in which her decision to BF was an easy one, and then mentions that a woman who chooses to BF doesn't have the expense of formula. Obviously we're talking about people who have access to formula through WIC, so anybody who BF's did in fact CHOOSE to do so. Are you reading what she said backwards??
Sorry. I deleted. I still don't see her comments as you do, but I'll just assume I'm wrong.
LOL, don't assume that. I'm not infallible. I just don't understand. If she'd said "people who choose to FF" I'd at least understand, though I'd disagree with it being offense worthy.
I hate the "Baby-Friendly" thing because it again tells women, "You know what? You don't need anything. Your job is to kill yourself making sure you give what little you have away. You just had a major medical event, and possibly major abdominal surgery? You don't need any help, you don't need any support, you don't need any healing. What you need to do is get to fucking work establishing breastfeeding." It once again ignores the fact that Mom is a patient too.
I was lucky that my hospital, while "baby-friendly," had a realistic approach to it. They were trained and helpful in breastfeeding and had LC's on staff. But they still sent me home with some "just in case" formula because she had lost a lot of weight. They had a night nursery. They did wake me to ask about a paci (which ticked my tired ass off at the time) but they gave her one. I hope their approach doesn't change, because I think it really was the best of both worlds.
Mmhm. Once again: men who are poor health? Oh poor you, here take a load off. Rest. Reccoperate. Women who are in poor health? Suck it up honey, that's life.
This is why I think women are wrong to complain about man colds. We need to take advantage of them ourselves!
Just want to say that there are many other posters in this thread referring to BFing as a choice. Some going so far as to compare it to abortion in that all women should have the choice.
Just an FYI for those wanting to snark on the people who used the word choice in their posts.
I don't think the remark is so off-base. The author of the Kellymom response once wrote an article in which she said the following:
"It is well proven that formula marketing decreases breastfeeding rates and that lower breastfeeding rates mean more disease and death from causes as varied as breast cancer to SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)."
This is because extended breastfeeding decreases the actual amount of breast tissue. Believe me, by the seventh year there is none left. I can't even imagine what they will look like by the time I am done with #5. ::sad trombone::
And I can't believe we are actually disputing the fact that there are health advantages. I mean, the data speaks. You can't deny it. For a group of people who constantly berate the nonvaxers for ignoring science, you seem very eager to dismiss the data on breastfeeding.
Will breastfeeding vaccinate children against cancer? No but you can't ignore the data that shows the difference in things like gut flora between FF and BF babies or the decreased risk of cancer in mom or the decreased risk of SIDS in BF babies. The numbers and data don't lie. The question is whether or not the data is convincing enough for you or if those things (gut flora or SIDS) can be made up or prevented in other ways that negate the benefits.
This is mostly just a vent, but it will feel good to get it out. I'm almost 10 weeks pp and my "breastfeeding" experience has been flawed as well.
I'd always wanted to BF from the beginning, but also knowing that it might not work out. We met with a pediatrician a few weeks before DD was born and she said that they support BF or FF as long as the whole family is happy. We just had our 2 month check up where I mentioned we give her formula in the MOTN out of convenience, to which I got scolded ("Baby doesn't like the taste of formula!"). Umm, ok...
After delivery, I'd attempt BF every few hours. I'd mention to the nurses (who were all "trained" to help with BFing) that she would just sit there on my boob and not really suck. To which the response was always "Oh that's normal, she's just tired!". Finally we had the LC come 12 hours before our discharge time and found out that her suck reflex was not great. The LC gave her a paci to help her suck. It seemed to help and she was latching OK. Success!
I ended up back in the hospital with an infection. So for the 1st week of her life, she had only a handful of successful BFing sessions and wouldn't latch once I was home and healthy. I started exclusively pumping. Her pediatrician told me she'd likely never latch on the boob again (I gave up after several attempts that ended in tears for both of us), and my OB told me that "there's no such thing as nipple confusion". I also probably had a slight case of postpartum anxiety because of being sick and tied to pumping every 3 hours.
Long story short, I'm currently weaning from EPing. All of my BFing and FFing friends keep telling me to not let anyone give me sh*t about it. I'm already thinking of the "excuse" I am going to give the pediatrician at her 4 month appointment. I'll have moments of weakness where I try and tell myself I can keep pumping, but then she'll start screaming and I can't console her because I'm hooked up to the damn pump.
How can it be that it simply reduces the amount of tissue, resulting in lower cancer rates? Wouldn't that mean those with larger breasts/more breast tissue to begin with were more susceptible? and I don't believe there is data that supports smaller breast size results in lower rates of breast cancer.
It's probably more related to the fact that breastfeeding limits estrogen production and often interferes with the reproductive system for a period of time, causing women to have less overall cycles. But what about those who, despite EBF, have their cycle return very soon after child birth? are they as likely to reap the little benefit, or not?
I believe pregnancy alone also reduces the chance of breast cancer slightly?
also women who breastfeed may be more likely to eat healthier and not smoke, drink less etc. when looking at a population as a whole. which may make them in general a slightly "healthier" bunch.
I don't doubt there IS a benefit, it's statistically proven (slight benefit), but I just doubt that it's very large, and like anything, on an individual basis who's to say one would even reap the benefit or couldn't easily cancel it out with other factors. when faced with this very slight possible benefit and the life altering experience of a baby feasting on your boobs 24/7 with a return to work looming around the corner ... well I can see why people continuously insisting that breastfeeding is great for preventing cancer for you, and various childhood maladies for your sweet baby can be upsetting and overwhelming.
How can it be that it simply reduces the amount of tissue, resulting in lower cancer rates? Wouldn't that mean those with larger breasts/more breast tissue to begin with were more susceptible? and I don't believe there is data that supports smaller breast size results in lower rates of breast cancer.
It's probably more related to the fact that breastfeeding limits estrogen production and often interferes with the reproductive system for a period of time, causing women to have less overall cycles. But what about those who, despite EBF, have their cycle return very soon after child birth? are they as likely to reap the little benefit, or not?
I believe pregnancy alone also reduces the chance of breast cancer slightly?
also women who breastfeed may be more likely to eat healthier and not smoke, drink less etc. when looking at a population as a whole. which may make them in general a slightly "healthier" bunch.
I don't doubt there IS a benefit, it's statistically proven (slight benefit), but I just doubt that it's very large, and like anything, on an individual basis who's to say one would even reap the benefit or couldn't easily cancel it out with other factors. when faced with this very slight possible benefit and the life altering experience of a baby feasting on your boobs 24/7 with a return to work looming around the corner ... well I can see why people continuously insisting that breastfeeding is great for preventing cancer for you, and various childhood maladies for your sweet baby can be upsetting and overwhelming.
I wondering the same thing, maybe because lumps are more easily detected if there is less breast tissue?
How can it be that it simply reduces the amount of tissue, resulting in lower cancer rates? Wouldn't that mean those with larger breasts/more breast tissue to begin with were more susceptible? and I don't believe there is data that supports smaller breast size results in lower rates of breast cancer.
It's probably more related to the fact that breastfeeding limits estrogen production and often interferes with the reproductive system for a period of time, causing women to have less overall cycles. But what about those who, despite EBF, have their cycle return very soon after child birth? are they as likely to reap the little benefit, or not?
I believe pregnancy alone also reduces the chance of breast cancer slightly?
also women who breastfeed may be more likely to eat healthier and not smoke, drink less etc. when looking at a population as a whole. which may make them in general a slightly "healthier" bunch.
I don't doubt there IS a benefit, it's statistically proven (slight benefit), but I just doubt that it's very large, and like anything, on an individual basis who's to say one would even reap the benefit or couldn't easily cancel it out with other factors. when faced with this very slight possible benefit and the life altering experience of a baby feasting on your boobs 24/7 with a return to work looming around the corner ... well I can see why people continuously insisting that breastfeeding is great for preventing cancer for you, and various childhood maladies for your sweet baby can be upsetting and overwhelming.
You are correct that all of these things play a role. I mostly brought up the tissue differences because it's a sore spot for me. Seriously, mine are a wreck. I have always been small, but now they don't exist at all (unless full of milk).
Breastfeeding does decrease tissue, which decreases risk. Even if you had DDs to begin with, you will have less tissue afterwards and less tissue means less risk. Breastfeeding also changes the density of the tissue that IS left and the ratio of fat to tissue, all which play s role in cancer.
Susan G Komen's website has a page on this. I would link but can't on my phone. Slight decrease in cancer risk if you BF for at least a year. Decrease doubles at two years and continues to decrease the longer you go. BFing also decreases your risk of ovarian cancer (this is where the hormone piece fits in) amd type 2 diabetes.
And no one is saying there aren't other ways you can also decrease the risk. But the leading breast cancer researchers are advocating for it and posting data about it on their website. I think it is unwise to discount the benefit.
She says she respects that her experience is different, then says its choice. Well which one is it?
I may be cherry picking. But she's trying to vacillate here. Her experience is different from many other women, yet she is still inferring that wic recipients who ff are making a choice as opposed to operating under a requirement.
Another point on which the NYT author is wrong: WIC is not incentivizing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding women get more food because they have a higher caloric need. So it doesn't matter if it's the mother's choice or not.
Yes it is.
From the article -
-"Women who breastfeed are eligible for WIC twice as long as women who do no breast-feed." - "they get an 'enhanced food package'" - "Formula-fed babies are only eligible for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food" - "Breast-fed babies also receive meat-based baby food which is richer in iron."
WOMEN who breast-feed are eligible for WIC for twice as long as women who do not breast-feed, and they get an “enhanced food package,” which includes vouchers for a wider range of more nutritious food. Unlike formula-fed babies, who are eligible only for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food, breast-feeding babies also receive meat-based baby food, which is richer in iron. The difference in benefits is intended to create incentives for poor mothers to breast-feed, but withholding food from mothers at nutritional risk, and from their babies, seems more like punishment to me.
Another point on which the NYT author is wrong: WIC is not incentivizing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding women get more food because they have a higher caloric need. So it doesn't matter if it's the mother's choice or not.
Yes it is.
From the article -
-"Women who breastfeed are eligible for WIC twice as long as women who do no breast-feed." - "they get an 'enhanced food package'" - "Formula-fed babies are only eligible for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food" - "Breast-fed babies also receive meat-based baby food which is richer in iron."
WOMEN who breast-feed are eligible for WIC for twice as long as women who do not breast-feed, and they get an “enhanced food package,” which includes vouchers for a wider range of more nutritious food. Unlike formula-fed babies, who are eligible only for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food, breast-feeding babies also receive meat-based baby food, which is richer in iron. The difference in benefits is intended to create incentives for poor mothers to breast-feed, but withholding food from mothers at nutritional risk, and from their babies, seems more like punishment to me.
How are these NOT incentives?
Because they're intended to address the different caloric needs of the two different groups. It essentially is supposed to result in the same thing: meeting the caloric needs of the mother and baby. It would only be an incentive if it "added" something. So like, if the BF mom got something above and beyond what the additional needs are for BF moms. Like, you get the extra 500 calories a day plus...
THIS BRAND. NEW. CAR!!!!
The extra food for BFing moms thing is basically fair =/= same. This is a good thing. This is basically in the same category with the ACA requiring that BF working moms have space to pump. Moms who want to BF should not have to "choose" not to simply because the resources aren't available for them to actually make that happen.
Another point on which the NYT author is wrong: WIC is not incentivizing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding women get more food because they have a higher caloric need. So it doesn't matter if it's the mother's choice or not.
Yes it is.
From the article -
-"Women who breastfeed are eligible for WIC twice as long as women who do no breast-feed." - "they get an 'enhanced food package'" - "Formula-fed babies are only eligible for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food" - "Breast-fed babies also receive meat-based baby food which is richer in iron."
WOMEN who breast-feed are eligible for WIC for twice as long as women who do not breast-feed, and they get an “enhanced food package,” which includes vouchers for a wider range of more nutritious food. Unlike formula-fed babies, who are eligible only for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food, breast-feeding babies also receive meat-based baby food, which is richer in iron. The difference in benefits is intended to create incentives for poor mothers to breast-feed, but withholding food from mothers at nutritional risk, and from their babies, seems more like punishment to me.
How are these NOT incentives?
They get food twice as long but the formula feeding moms get formula throughout the 12 month period.
I mean I feel it would be best if they got more of everything but if you compare calories with calories - as in, breast feeding moms get more calories from food while if not breast feeding you get calories through formula for that 6-12 month period.
I feel both categories should get more overall but I'm guessing they proportion the funds as well as they can given the limits they are faced with
Another point on which the NYT author is wrong: WIC is not incentivizing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding women get more food because they have a higher caloric need. So it doesn't matter if it's the mother's choice or not.
Yes it is.
From the article -
-"Women who breastfeed are eligible for WIC twice as long as women who do no breast-feed." - "they get an 'enhanced food package'" - "Formula-fed babies are only eligible for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food" - "Breast-fed babies also receive meat-based baby food which is richer in iron."
WOMEN who breast-feed are eligible for WIC for twice as long as women who do not breast-feed, and they get an “enhanced food package,” which includes vouchers for a wider range of more nutritious food. Unlike formula-fed babies, who are eligible only for infant cereal and fruit and vegetable-based baby food, breast-feeding babies also receive meat-based baby food, which is richer in iron. The difference in benefits is intended to create incentives for poor mothers to breast-feed, but withholding food from mothers at nutritional risk, and from their babies, seems more like punishment to me.
How are these NOT incentives?
WIC gives more food to breastfeeding moms because breastfeeding mothers biologically require more calories to produce milk. WIC gives BFing mothers iron-rich baby food because formula is iron-fortified and breastmilk is not. The word "incentive" is author bias. No one at WIC sat around and said "we'll show those dumb formula feeders! They'll get less food, and then let's see if they still don't want to breastfeed! Muhahaha "maniacal laughter drumming fingers together
I just looked at the WIC website and under the FAQs they fo use the word incentive for breastfeeding moms. Part of it is basic nutrition - formula fed babies are getting food already enriched with vitamins and minerals, like iron, so breastfed babies are going to need to get it elsewhere in their diet to get equal nutrition, but the other part is incentives.
And that just makes good fiscal sense. Breastfed babies cost the government less, so why wouldn't they incentivize people who choose the free option? The government is operating in the red, people. Anything they can do to encourage behavior that saves them money makes sense. Formula fed babies are still getting everything they need nutritionally. They are just costing more. The price of 100 or do extra ounces in baby food per week (which is what we are talking about here) pales in comparison to the cost of the formula.
Seriously. What is it, $50? Considering how much a standard birth and stay costs, that's like peanuts in the grand scheme. Every new parent could take it with them. How about a couple of Velcro swaddles while they're at it.
yes the cost about $50 I think
though of course, the health insurance company will be billed $300 ...
That's what they charged, per night, for the use of my daughter's plastic bassinet.