The Governor’s Cup is empty. In 2003, newly elected Governor Sonny Perdue instituted the “Governor’s Cup Challenge” to reward schools for bringing up the average senior SAT score. He was trying to fulfill a campaign promise to bring Georgia’s average SAT up from “dead last.”
What Perdue didn’t tell us is why Georgia was dead last. Georgia has a 24% higher SAT participation rate than the national average. The side-effect of higher participation is a lower state SAT average, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that Georgia is committed to educating youth to face the challenges of tomorrow.
Other states do not have the HOPE Scholarship, which was instituted back in 1993 when Georgia was led by Democrats. HOPE offers a full-tuition scholarship to every Georgia student who graduates high school with a “B” average and is accepted to a state college.
In Georgia, HOPE has given over a million additional students the incentive to take the SAT and the ability to follow through with a college education. Because we have HOPE, about 66% of our high school seniors take the SAT, compared to 42% nationally.
Higher participation rates correlate with lower average SAT scores. This is because students from wealthier, college-educated families tend to score higher. In states without something like HOPE, those are the students taking the SAT because those are the students who can afford to go to college. In states like Georgia where college tuition assistance is readily available, a wider variety of students take the SAT, bringing down the average score.
In 2001, well before Perdue promised to raise Georgia’s SAT average, experts had already pronounced state SAT rankings “worse than meaningless.” Ball State University conducted a study of state SAT rankings and discovered that the numbers revealed almost nothing about the quality of education or the college-readiness of a particular region.
The SAT is voluntary by nature. Not all students take it. Thus, an SAT score can only measure the scholastic aptitude of one student at a time. It was never intended to measure the academic prowess of a school, a region, or a state.
Yet Perdue instituted a policy that pits neighboring schools in competition for the highest SAT average. Why? We already have standardized tests, given to every student rather than just the brightest and best. These are the tests designed to measure the annual yearly progress of our schools.
A cynical person might think Perdue chose to use the SAT precisely because schools can manipulate participation in order to control the average result. Because the SAT is not required of all students, school faculty may wield influence over which students take the test. By encouraging only the best and brightest to take the SAT, school averages improve, our state ranking climbs, and Perdue can pretend that he is “the education governor.”
Perdue’s contest allows school participation if even twenty seniors take the test. To tweak the average, some schools exert influence over potential SAT-takers. They can encourage smart seniors to take the SAT, and discourage or ignore those who are likely to bring down school scores. They can offer test training in upper level courses to help the “winners” – and let the mediocre students slip through the cracks.
One principal said he made high math and English grades a “prerequisite” for taking the SAT. There is no real prerequisite for taking the SAT. Students can take the SAT as early and as often as they like, no matter what courses they have completed. Last spring my twelve-year-old took the SAT.
In fact, course grades are not necessarily indicative of how well a particular student will perform on the test. The SAT measures not only what a student has learned, but also her ability to engage in problem-solving. Many students with mediocre course performance find their saving grace (and college admission) in the SAT.
The other reason schools cannot create a legitimate prerequisite is that they have no right to control who takes the SAT. The SAT is not affiliated with the public school system. It is designed and administrated by The College Board to offer colleges an independent view of a student’s academic abilities. While schools can and should encourage students to take the SAT, they were never intended to be the gate-keepers of SAT registration. Perhaps this is why students register by mail or online, not through their schools.
So what is the result of hindering students from taking the SAT? Five years after Perdue’s campaign promise, Georgia is basking in the glory of ranking #46 in the nation, tied with Florida and better than three other states. Georgia’s average SAT actually fell this year, but we held onto our #46 ranking, and some individual school averages do look better.
The governor travels around the state and presents the winning schools with a big empty cup. Yes, the students who actually took the SAT scored higher than last year’s SAT-takers – but does that prove anything? Not when fewer students were encouraged to take the test. Not when the administrators admit to using selectivity to tip the odds. They used their influence to change out the test-takers. They helped smart kids, but perhaps they “left behind” those who most need an SAT score to secure college admission.
This is exactly the strategy encouraged by Perdue’s contest. It is good for the school’s reputation and it is good for the state ranking, but it is bad for many of the students. The Governor’s Cup website does not list SAT participation rates, but Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides some clues. According to the GaDOE website, four out of five Governor’s Cup Class Winner schools had significant drops in the number of students taking the SAT between 2005 and 2007. The only school with increasing SAT participation is a new school that is rapidly growing.
Schools should improve education for all students. How would we know if that happened? Assessing true progress requires measuring academic achievement of all students, not just those chosen to represent the school in the best light. Standardized testing of all students is already in place, if the governor cares for an accurate measure. Other indicators include graduation rates, college entrance rates, and college success over the long term.
A word of advice to high school students, from the 1990 Star Student of Catoosa County: Take the SAT. Take it early, and take it often. It’s not your job to either plump up your school’s ratings or take one for the team. It’s not about your school. It’s about your future.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bush wants money for Iraq occupation, not America’s children
Last Wednesday, President Bush demanded another $189 billion to extend his occupation of Iraq for another year – even as he stripped low-income children of their healthcare. The cost of funding an expanded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, pronounced s-chip) is only $12 billion per year, less than a tenth the money he wants for Iraq.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
“Apples and oranges,” replies the White House, apparently not understanding the concept of opportunity cost. Every dollar that is spent on the occupation is a dollar that could have been put to a different use. Bush’s SCHIP proposal does not even include funds to continue insuring the children who are insured today. He claims he vetoed the expanded plan because it would federalize health care. Read: If we make sure children can go to the doctor, we’ll all turn into a bunch of Commies.
The implication is patently false. SCHIP is a stop-gap measure to aid state programs like PeachCare that help uninsured working families buy medical coverage. Under SCHIP, health care is delivered by private doctors and administered by private insurance plans, and thus is hardly “government health care.” Bush had polyps removed from his colon using government health care funded by taxpayers. Apparently it’s not socialist when Bush does it.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a key sponsor of the SCHIP reauthorization, takes issue with Bush’s federalization claim. “To call this a march toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care, is just political, in my opinion, because this is a block grant to the states.”
Recent headlines painted US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson (both R- GA) as Georgia’s child health champions. Georgia was still reeling from the impact of the four-month-long PeachCare freeze that left thousands of children without health care, and these two were poised to come to the rescue. Instead, Chambliss and Isakson voted against SCHIP.
In a Gainesville Times interview, Chambliss defended his vote, falsely claiming that the Democratic proposal would give free health care to families making $80,000 per year. In fact, the plan only provides block grants to states, which set their own guidelines for how those funds are used. In Georgia, SCHIP funds are used to insure 273,000 children of working class families.
Some Republicans are wise enough to consider how their SCHIP vote will affect their future election prospects. Senator Lamar Alexander (R- Tenn) was among 18 Republican senators who voted to re-authorize SCHIP. The Senate vote is strong enough to override Bush’s veto, but the House vote is currently two dozen votes short.
Don’t count on Rep. Nathan Deal for help, either. Forget the headline “Ga. Congressman will try to save PeachCare.” Deal voted against SCHIP. His proposed alternative is even skimpier than Bush’s, conveniently running out just after the 2008 election. Deal’s deal will result in thousands of kids losing insurance coverage.
90% of Americans favor providing healthcare for uninsured children. Anticipating such a reaction, Bush made a pre-emptive strike against children’s healthcare. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he claimed in a July 10 visit to Cleveland, Ohio. “After all, you just go to the emergency room.”
The emergency room is exactly where Americans do not want to see children with minor illnesses. We want their runny noses and sore throats remedied by doctors at $50 visits, not in the ER to the tune of $900 or more. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. We’ll pay the lower amount, thanks – and reserve the ER for serious injuries.
If SCHIP is reauthorized at the old levels set ten years ago, 100,000 Georgia children will lose coverage. Clearly Georgia needs an expanded grant just to meet current PeachCare obligations. The expanded reauthorization proposed by Congress covers these children plus 200,000 more kids who are currently uninsured.
Some culpability remains for State Speaker Glenn Richardson, Rep. Ron Forster, Sen. Jeff Mullis and all the other state politicians we put in office. All year the Speaker and the Governor have played politics with PeachCare kids, letting thousands fall through the cracks. At the same time, they claimed to have a state budget surplus. They fought over who should receive a tax credit – Perdue’s seniors, or $68 for every citizen as Richardson proposed?
In spite of the so-called surplus, Georgia’s officials chose to freeze PeachCare enrollments when federal funds were exhausted. Clearly they are not willing to expend more state funds on these children – but why aren’t they fighting to hang on to the federal funds? Why aren’t they taking Georgia’s US Congressmen to task?
It may be that Georgia Republicans are not good at math. SCHIP is a sweet deal for Georgia. Since 1999, PeachCare has brought $1.3 billion into Georgia through SCHIP. For every dollar the state invests, Georgia receives $2.70 from SCHIP. That’s the equivalent of a 270% return on investment! The rate is even higher when you calculate the dollars saved by using preventive care instead of hospitalization.
Maybe they do understand the math, though. Maybe the health of American children is just not on the Republican agenda. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:21) In other words, our priorities are revealed by what we do with money.
Let’s pretend that America actually has the $189 billion Bush wants to pump into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and on top of the regular Depart of Defense budget of $460 billion. The cost of the war has now hit half a million dollars per minute.
What is the opportunity cost of that money? For what Bush is spending each year in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage for every man, woman and child in America. Republicans are hard-set against such an idea, because their campaign accounts are bloated with the skimmings of exorbitant healthcare profits.
According to www.opensecrets.com, Isakson has received over $50,000 from Blue Cross, and over $44,000 from AFLAC. Saxby Chambliss is mostly an Agribusiness sell-out. That could explain why he whined that funding SHIP with a higher cigarette tax increase might cause cigarette sales to fall. Chambliss raked in nearly $300,000 from insurance companies as well. Are these politicians serving the voters who elected them, or the industries that fund their expensive campaigns?
The United States and South Africa are the only developed countries that fail to provide health care for all their citizens. Under the Health Choices Plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, every man, woman and child can enjoy reliable health care coverage using private doctors. And the cost to American tax payers? It’s a net tax cut.
For that matter, $189 billion could go a long way to shoring up our ailing education system, repairing bridges and Interstates, and taking better care of our veterans and the elderly. Republican politicians would rather dump dollars into Iraq, where they line the pockets of Blackwater and Halliburton.
Bush is fond of saying “We have a lot of money, here in Washington.” No, Mr. President, we don’t have that $189 billion. We didn’t have the $455 billion you already burned in Iraq, either. You continue to pile deficits onto the backs of American children, even as you take away their health care.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The problem with breastfeeding
What if doctors discovered a substance so potent, it could prevent dozens of diseases and even reduce the risk of cancer? What if these benefits extended not only to those who partake of this amazing substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical company had developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk, though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a marketing team.
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers – yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.
Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?
Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies – a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)
Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.
It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.
Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breastmilk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.
Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”
At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed – after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.
The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health Organization’s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from formula makers’ guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized by the U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced.
Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code. They especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a baby receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole host of problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply. If successful breastfeeding is not established within the first few days, formula-makers are practically guaranteed a new customer.
In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he had secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest formula manufacturer in the world.
Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies in developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential for good. Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world hospitals and sent home without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in the village, families soon discover that the cost of buying formula is higher than their entire wage.
As a result of Nestle’s tactics, sub-Saharan African has a breastfeeding rate of only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand, 5%. According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die each year because they were started on formula instead of breast milk.
American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society that depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet rejects the breast’s highest function. Numerous polls show that the majority of Americans are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public; yet, a few shrill voices continue to insist that it is improper.
American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries, restaurants and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One woman was even expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for breastfeeding her child, resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across the nation.
Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby’s for discriminating against a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public are lazy and narcissistic. Maher’s other comments, which are too crude to be printed in the county paper, illustrate that what bothers some people about breastfeeding isn’t that it is perceived as sexual, but rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-shirt contests and Playboy magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who believe that breasts are not for babies, but for men.
Although doctors agree that “breast is best,” their own licensing board does not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring doctor Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners for the right to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing exam. In typical anti-feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would just have to take the exam when her child was older and finished breastfeeding. She would have lost her residency in clinical pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed her career. Sophie appealed the decision, and won.
The “problem” with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit stream. It profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families, the government and tax payers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in healthcare costs could be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed. Unfortunately, nothing much happens in America unless it lines the pocket of a corporation. WHO cares about breastfeeding, but corporate America never will.
We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids – even as we feed our children cow’s milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to balance menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing medicines based on genetically-engineered pig semen. The market for animal fluids continues to grow, because there is a profit stream associated with it. If formula companies maintain control of doctors and legislators, a day may come when humans are no longer classified as mammals. Mammals, after all, are defined as animals that have hair and suckle their young.
Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers – yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.
Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?
Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies – a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)
Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.
It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.
Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breastmilk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.
Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”
At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed – after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.
The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health Organization’s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from formula makers’ guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized by the U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced.
Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code. They especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a baby receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole host of problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply. If successful breastfeeding is not established within the first few days, formula-makers are practically guaranteed a new customer.
In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he had secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest formula manufacturer in the world.
Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies in developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential for good. Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world hospitals and sent home without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in the village, families soon discover that the cost of buying formula is higher than their entire wage.
As a result of Nestle’s tactics, sub-Saharan African has a breastfeeding rate of only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand, 5%. According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die each year because they were started on formula instead of breast milk.
American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society that depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet rejects the breast’s highest function. Numerous polls show that the majority of Americans are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public; yet, a few shrill voices continue to insist that it is improper.
American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries, restaurants and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One woman was even expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for breastfeeding her child, resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across the nation.
Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby’s for discriminating against a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public are lazy and narcissistic. Maher’s other comments, which are too crude to be printed in the county paper, illustrate that what bothers some people about breastfeeding isn’t that it is perceived as sexual, but rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-shirt contests and Playboy magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who believe that breasts are not for babies, but for men.
Although doctors agree that “breast is best,” their own licensing board does not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring doctor Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners for the right to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing exam. In typical anti-feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would just have to take the exam when her child was older and finished breastfeeding. She would have lost her residency in clinical pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed her career. Sophie appealed the decision, and won.
The “problem” with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit stream. It profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families, the government and tax payers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in healthcare costs could be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed. Unfortunately, nothing much happens in America unless it lines the pocket of a corporation. WHO cares about breastfeeding, but corporate America never will.
We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids – even as we feed our children cow’s milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to balance menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing medicines based on genetically-engineered pig semen. The market for animal fluids continues to grow, because there is a profit stream associated with it. If formula companies maintain control of doctors and legislators, a day may come when humans are no longer classified as mammals. Mammals, after all, are defined as animals that have hair and suckle their young.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
