Jennifer Lopez is making big news after her April 5th People Magazine spread featuring her newborn twins. Is it because of the over-the-top ornate nursery? Her husband’s pink shirt? Or the very idea of her running down her driveway in high heels and evening wear pushing a pram for kicks? No, it’s because she said she chose not to breastfeed the twins. She gave a two-sentence explanation, “My mom didn’t breast feed and I think that was the thing for me. You read and figure out what’s the best thing for them.”

That opened the hatches and all hell broke loose. Just Google “Jennifer Lopez” and “breast feeding” and you’ll see a ton of links to blogs about what a bad example she’s setting for mothers everywhere. She’s being criticized for not only choosing to bottle feed, but also for her so-called “excuse.”

I’ve never been a fan of J.Lo. For a long time, I referred to her only as, “That Bitch Who Stole Ben Affleck,” of course that ended and the official title went to Jennifer Garner. But, I feel obligated to speak up in defense of J.Lo. now (Who knew I’d ever be pitying her?), because her rings and perfect hair don’t mean anything in the world of motherhood.

I’m a three-time breastfeeding failure. I made honest efforts with two of them (the first and third). The middle I just bottle fed from the start, because I was so anxious and frustrated after my experience with trying and failing with the first child and my run-ins with the zealous “lactivist” members, I didn’t even want to try. It still pains me that I failed with the two. I know with my whole self that I tried to the best of my abilities. That’s not to say that some other mother couldn’t have tried for longer and maybe been able to work through the same issues. But, I know that I made my personal best effort, and that’s the best I can do.

After all those years of mulling over the feelings and facts from my own standpoint, I can say that it doesn’t matter what reason a woman gives for not breast feeding. Often that reason is torn apart and criticized or it’s just not even true. When asked why I didn’t breast feed (and I’ve been asked in casual conversation countless times), I’ve found myself lying. It is such a raw and personal experience, and sometimes the truth is too revealing, leaving you too vulnerable to spit out to some doctor you’ve known for exactly three minutes, or some casual acquaintance at the park who may be genuinely interested, or may be looking to “re-educate” you about how you really could have succeeded if only this or that happened. She’ll tell you next time you should make sure you do this or that differently so you can “do things right” next time (with the implication that it’s all “wrong” with the current kid). Furthermore, some information is better not unleashed into a small, tight group of mothers who you have to see all the time and your kids have to associate with regularly. So, personally, I take Jennifer Lopez’s explanation with a grain of salt. Maybe it’s true, or maybe it’s not. The explanation was simply, from my experience, a two sentence statement to be read: This is what I chose, now leave me alone.

Maybe there should be some anonymous information bank somewhere, and women can leave detailed accounts of their experiences so that some big committee can examine it and use it to make changes to increase breastfeeding rates. Wouldn’t that be more constructive than bashing Jennifer Lopez on a blog?

Now, I know that breast feeders get bashed too. I’ve read some truly sick things in regards to public breast feeding and extended breast feeding. I know that those who choose to breast feed have their own battles, and I support them in their rights. But, really, so does everyone else. They have the World Health Organization, they have the American Academy of Pediatrics, and they have lawyers through LLL to help them with legal battles when their rights are being trampled. Being a breast feeder in today’s world is not a lonely choice. You can name a dozen celebrities off the top of your head who have breast fed and gone unblogged. But, you get this one and the world goes crazy.

Jennifer Lopez obviously loves those babies more than life. They will be raised in ridiculous opulence, given every privilege that a child could hope for. That such a deal is being made about her feeding method is disgusting. There are children born addicted to crack, with parents who abuse them impulsively or with premeditation. There are layers of festering illness that permeate family dynamics that we can’t even begin to understand. But, this woman’s feeding method is what is dominating our attention. And that’s supposed to make some sense?

I feel for Jennifer Lopez. I know what it’s like to make the unpopular choice, the choice that does not have science and world-wide medical establishments backing it. I know what it’s like to be asked to explain that choice and then suffer cruel criticism for the choice and the explanation. But, the truth is, while those who succeed at breastfeeding may be giving their children some health advantages, those of us who have treaded the territory of making the other choice get an earlier indoctrination into motherhood. This is the reality of it. You will make unpopular choices. You will choose your own sanity over the “right” thing sometime during your tenure, and later realize it was the best decision you could have made for everyone involved. You will also receive bad news at some point, and wonder whether you were the cause of it because of some choice you made on behalf of your child. Your idea of “right” will differ from someone else’s idea of “right” and you’ll question everything. This is motherhood. Get used to it.

But, what I hope from new mothers is that they won’t get so defensive of their methods that they cross the line and become malicious to other mothers who make different choices. We should give each other the benefit of the doubt, and assume that unless we’re shown otherwise, that other mother loves her child as much as we love ours. She’s as bright and caring as we are, and she’s reached her decision with as much thorough deliberation as we reach ours. And whatever that deliberation consisted of is none of our business. Because babies don’t need to be rescued from formula. They don’t need to be saved from baby-carriers or strollers and put in Maya wraps instead. Cribs are not cages. There is a very clear line in our legal system as to what constitutes abuse, and it is only insulting to those suffering from actual abuse to be focusing so much of our collective hostility on these differences of parenting practice. It’s almost like we’re looking for an excuse not to get our hands dirty with the real issues. And, ironically, so many of the little girls suffering this very minute in those real abusive conditions will be mothers themselves someday, and when asked what could have been done to help them succeed at breast feeding, they’ll give some flippant, unrelated answer, but they may be thinking You could have helped me fifteen years ago, instead of ranting about what a horrible mother Jennifer Lopez was.

An analysis by STATS.org, a non-partisan organization based out of George Mason University, is starting to question the campaign towards spinning statistics in order to guilt mothers into breastfeeding.

Why, you ask?…because it is highly political. Breastfeeding represents certain political, social and moral ideals while formula represents corporate America and women succumbing to the pressures of American society with short maternity leaves, an industry that contributes to environmental pollution and the sexualization of a woman’s breasts.

STATS.org offers some perspective in one of breastfeeding advocacy’s statistical weapons, a scare tactic about childhood cancer:

One notable addition to the list of ills which breast-feeding guards against, notes Orent, comes from a 400-page HHS Agency for Health Care Research and Quality study. It concludes that childhood leukemia is reduced by as much as 19 percent for breastfed babies, as compared to non-breastfed babies.

But given that there are approximately 30 leukemia cases in a million children, a 20 percent reduction due to breastfeeding avoids a risk of 1 in 150,000 that your child will develop leukemia; of these, 50 to 80% survive, depending on the type of leukemia. In other words, insisting that all women breast feed (and for more than six months) would save less than one life in 300,000.

While one could easily argue that saving one child’s life in 300,000 is something that our society should strive for, the actual stats are likely not to be statistically significant.

STATS.org goes on to ask us to consider this:

In other words, driving safely is more than twice as risky for death than not nursing and getting leukemia as a result.

And then, if you are genuinely concerned about risk, there are the approximately 203,000 kids who were injured as passengers in 2005. Yet, it’s hard to imagine any newspaper running an op-ed warning mothers to avoid letting their child inside a car, and chastising the government for being in league with the auto industry to suppress the risk.

If certain women wish to shape PUBLIC POLICY based on statistics, shouldn’t it be presented accurately and with fairness? Honestly, the whole idea of government mandating breastfeeding or creating social and political policies or possible tax breaks to women who breastfeed coupled with using propaganda to “punish” corporations leaves me contemptuous towards those who wish to force their agendas on me (or women on a whole). Women deserve better. Women deserve accurate information and they deserve to have a choice in the matter.

In my opinion, the zeal to empower women and lead them into certain social choices is in actuality, setting them back many years. Present the truth and let women decide. Nobody should be influenced by false representations, especially by their own government.

The World Health Organization recommends you nurse a toddler until 2 years old, basing that off of available resources of third world countries. In countries where adequate nutrition is accessible, is this necessary or could it even be harmful if based strictly on societal taboos? Should our society be more open to the potential nurturing advantages of extending breastfeeding?

Food for thought…

If a child in a third world country remembers drinking milk from his/her mother’s breast, surely that memory would be one of thankfulness for the meeting of needs such as nourishment and possible survival. If a child from a developed country remembers drinking from a mother’s breast, can or will he/she feel the same way?

In some cases, there are mothers who continue to nurse children who have turned 4 or even 5 years old, which is old enough to enter kindergarten, believing their children will reap nutritional benefits.

“The idea of breast-feeding a child until they’re a preschooler is still fairly restricted to a small group of women, or at least, it’s kept in the closet,” said ABC News parenting contributor Ann Pleshette Murphy.

The practice of extended nursing has sparked heated controversy because some disagree about when it is no longer appropriate to breast-feed children.

Some critics say breast-feeding too long could potentially stunt child development. Read the rest…

According to new research, Islam just might contradict breastfeeding and knowing how repressive it is to women, it shouldn’t come as any shock. In many, if not most, Islamic nations, women have to be covered from head to toe — forget about even showing a toe — you’d get your ear cut off! Do you really think the sensitive, oh-so-in-touch-with-their-feminine-side-brotherhood would be down with chicks doing that in public?? When are people ever gonna learn?? The Islamic society represses and suppresses women. Women are as good as dirt in much of the middle east (and Islamic nations). This is one of the reasons I find it so deplorable that anybody would try to find reason within their totalitarian regimes and/or try to justify their motives.

I do find it super-duper ironic however, that the breastfeeding advocates who sponsored this study, are trying to use religion to influence women’s feeding choice. From the article, “Ulfat Shaikh, MD, MPH, and Omar Ahmed, MD, from the University of California Davis School of Medicine explain that the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, recommends that mothers breastfeed their children for two years if possible and, in fact, states that every infant has the right to be breastfed. If a mother is unable to breastfeed, she and the father can decide together to have a wet nurse feed the child.”

Of course, the influence and propaganda of the non-secular, breastfeeding advocates in North America use the exact same religous diatribe dribble to convince and influence women to breastfeed? Do you not find that ironic?

I’m not saying that more Muslim women shouldn’t be breastfeeding or that they shouldn’t get the support they need, but given that the Qur’an states that every infant has the right to be breastfed and that’s what non-secular advocates try to push down our throats everyday, and both spawn their share of fanatism (not all, but a lot). I’m not Muslim and in my view, I think every infant has the right to be fed a nutritionally sound, safe, healthy and appropriate food, but that’s a very non-partisan point of view so it often gets poo-pooed or ignored.

The real problem here is not whether or not Islamic women breastfeed, it’s about the non-existant rights of the women of Islam. It’s a cultural barrier for women that they are generally believed to be inferior to men. Breastfeeding will come when women aren’t shot for flashing a leg or an arm. For me, it once again confirms that many breastfeeding advocates care more about forcing women to breastfeed than giving women basic, humanitarian support and equal right advocacy. Let’s start with trying to garner support for women to be able to show more than an eyeball and afforded the right to vote, work and speak out, instead of being forced to shame themselves in full-coverage and be without certain basic rights like saying, “No.” As controversial as it may be to actually say it, I believe breastfeeding is really the least of a woman’s problem’s in the middle east. It would be lovely if more women breastfed the world over, but would be even more lovely, is the ability for a woman to do so simply because she want to, and because she can.

From http://home.businesswire.com:

Islam and Breastfeeding: Religious and Cultural Traditions

NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Sept. 8, 2006–Islamic religious beliefs and cultural practices in Muslim communities guide women’s breastfeeding decisions and are important factors in early infant care and feeding, according to a paper in the recent issue (Volume 1, Number 3) of Breastfeeding Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (www.liebertpub.com) and the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. The paper is available free online at www.liebertpub.com/bfm.

Helping Muslim women adopt good infant feeding practices requires an understanding of the differences between the religious basis of breastfeeding and the cultural practices followed by some Muslims. Clinicians can help differentiate between religious beliefs and cultural norms to promote breastfeeding in Muslim communities. Read the rest…

As an infant feeding, pro-choice advocate I think this is great news.

Apparently, 90% of Philippine women currently formula feed their babies, and although that is a pitiful statistic, education is the key here, not prohibition of infant formula. The Philippines also suffer from one of the worst infant mortality rates, much of it blamed on formula use which has been blamed for diarrhea caused deaths. On the other hand, America also has one of the worst infant mortality rates, and depending on who you ask, a plethora of causes are cited, depending on that persons particular agenda. I have heard the large infant mortality rate in the U.S. being blamed on formula as well, and it just isn’t true.

In industrialized nations, a woman ought to be allowed to decide whether or not to use her body to nourish her babies or use an acceptable alternative. With both methods, education and medical monitoring should be a part of that baby’s health care. If fresh water is not available to properly mix formula (the number one reason for diarrhea related illness in the third world in infants fed formula), then the government should be educating women on that fact, not instituting infant formula prohibition. Granted, some countries populations cannot support the cost of infant formula, coupled with unclean water, but those populations have major issues outside of formula feeding, and unfortunately, as in HIV infected women, formula is the better option, just not a realistic one. That’s unfortunate, but not the fault of formula itself, but rather the conseqeuence of a poor and uneducated society.

Komfie Manalo - All Headline News Foreign Correspondent
Manila, Philippines (AHN) - Manufacturers of infant formula scored a major court victory Wednesday when the Philippine Supreme Court ordered the government to stop its absolute ban on the promotion and advertisement of breast milk substitutes.

The high tribunal issued a two-page resolution issuing a temporary restraining order against the ban.

The TRO is “effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this court prohibiting and enjoining the respondents from implementing Administrative Order 2006-012 or the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive Order 51 or the Milk Code.”

But the petitioners must post a $10,000 bond within five days or the TRO will be lifted.

In May 16, the Palace issued the executive order and said breast milk substitutes or infant formulas “endanger the lives of infants by inadvertently misinforming mothers on their children’s health.”

EO 51 revises the Milk Code which regulates the use of infant formula. Read the rest…

In another part of the world, the world health organization (WHO) has recently revised their infant formula advertisement policies in Africa that restrict formula companies from misrepresenting the product and for health officials to represent formula companies. Seems pretty reasonable to me.