HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cairycat » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Current location: Iowa
Member since: Sat Jan 22, 2005, 09:08 PM
Number of posts: 1,031

Journal Archives

2018 Governor's Race Candidate Questionnaires

I always find it helpful to have information laid out in an orderly, graphic form. Citizens for Community Improvement has this neato graphic showing eight gubernatorial candidates' views on four issues (clean water, immigration, raising the wage, and healthcare). I know Todd Prichard has since dropped out, and the field will narrow further, but this may help people in narrowing their choices:

Racially-charged trouble brewing on the Waterloo City Council

A white member of the Waterloo City Council did not like the fact that the black mayor hired a part-time communications director without council approval. This council member emailed the mayor, saying, "“Not appropriate without council approval. You work for us. Obama (yesterday) is gone.” However, the City Attorney and City Clerk say the mayor did follow the proper process and had authority to hire a part-time position without seeking council approval.

Then the lone black City Council member came forward with a number of racially charged, insensitive remarks that the objecting council member and another white member of the council made.

If you read the second article, you'll see some classic examples of minimizing and downplaying racism. Hell, I'm white and clearly speaking from a position of privilege, and I can see it plain as day.

It is a lot of fuss to make over a part time position, but the council members who have made the racist remarks need to learn to filter their racism out to do the city's business, not all this bullshit "oh we didn't mean it that way, the black mayor and council member are being overly sensitive".

Quentin Hart was elected after a runoff election last year as Waterloo's first black mayor. Blacks have been a vital part of Waterloo since 1910, and account for 15.5 percent of the city's population.



Judge with little knowledge setting visitation for parent's convenience

NOT with the child's needs in mind.

What usually is better for a breastfed child this age is for the father to have visits that are shorter in duration but more frequent. Instead of two whole days, a couple of weekday evenings and a couple of weekend mornings or afternoons might work better than an entire weekend. Breastfeeding is a huge help for a child's physical and emotional health - even more important with the upheaval of a custody battle. It is selfish for the father to demand the bigger, less frequent blocks of time, and ignorant of the judge to rule that the mother must accede to that.

I am a member of a religious denomination which conscientiously objects

to all wars ... I'm a Mennonite, but traditionally Church of the Brethren and Society of Friends (Quakers) are also conscientious objectors.

My understanding is that CO status was never automatic for members of these denominations. Young men who applied for CO status had to make their case the same as others. Members of these denominations ("Historic Peace Churches" often engaged in alternative service in WWII and Vietnam.

The Mennonite Church USA has a ministry reaching out to service members who become conscientious objectors during their enlistments. It's usually a far more complicated matter than somebody thinking the Army was like Boy Scouts on steroids and finding out different. Here is a link to an article about this: http://www.themennonite.org/issues/13-7/articles/Honorable_discharge_for_conscientious_objection

Personally, I could not participate in war making or being in a situation where that was a possibility. I find it impossible to reconcile loving God and following Jesus with harming another human being. It was with a heavy heart that I watched my older son register for the draft. He has not chosen to join the church, but considers himself a conscientious objector.

Another issues that lays heavy on my heart is taxes supporting the military. Without the draft, conscientious objection is moot. But our dollars are being drafted every day, used for killing and harming people. I hate that I either pay Federal taxes (not just income tax but in the form of taxes on telephone service, etc.) or go to jail. For many years there has been a campaign to have a Peace Tax, so people would not have to compromise their deeply held beliefs. If one opted to pay the Peace Tax, more actually would be owed, since there would be an administrative cost. It strikes me as very unfair that Catholics and fundamentalists can be taken seriously when they say the Affordable Care Act would infringe on their religious freedom by making them pay for contraception, yet religious pacifists like myself must support with our money that which we find just as objectionable. Here is a link about the Peace Tax: http://www.peacetaxfund.org/

If you glance at the article, you will see

that formula fed babies will still get formula in the hospital. But mothers won't be sent home with a "gift" bag. They will have to make arrangements to feed their babies at home. Just like the breastfeeding mothers. Who are, after all, providing their babies' food in the hospital - without compensation! Think of that!

"Document a medical reason for every bottle" is about medical personnel being ACCOUNTABLE

for the bottles that are given. It is not to make parents have to come up with a medical reason. Too often bottles are given to breastfed babies, even without the parents' knowledge or consent. THAT is the problem that provision is for. I know the nurses were determined to give my youngest a bottle, fortunately I was informed and determined (and awake enough after a c-section with general anesthesia!) to prevent that. But without my advocacy, he would have been given formula.

Parents are still completely free to choose formula. No one is forcing anyone to breastfeed. Where in the article or anywhere else do you see that the choice is in any way restricted? It's not.

The article's language is loaded. It's not a matter of "hiding". It's a matter of not having the advertising everywhere you look on the maternity ward.

If an action has medical consequences, shouldn't there be a medical reason for the action?

Even one bottle of formula can make permanent changes in the baby's gut and digestive system. It can set a baby up for allergies. Here is my reference: http://www.naba-breastfeeding.org/images/Just%20One%20Bottle.pdf

In too many hospitals, doctors and nurses treat the giving of formula to breastfed babies far too casually. The choices of those breastfeeding exclusively need to be respected.

Parents are still completely free to choose human milk or formula.

The formula fed baby will learn about waiting for food anyway

There will almost certainly be a time when a bottle-fed baby will have to wait while a bottle is prepared and possibly warmed.

Hospital procedures will get worked out quite quickly, I'm sure. Maybe it will make nurses less apt to feed formula to a baby whose mother wants to exclusively breastfeed. That happens very often and many mothers are not happy about the permanent changes to their babies' digestive systems caused by that.

Actually, it's possible for adoptive mothers to nurse

but whether or not that's their choice, you would think that if adoption is planned, arrangements to have formula on hand if needed, would be made. Formula is still available for babies who are not breastfed, for whatever reason. There is no limitation on formula, merely on its advertising.

This about hospitals, doctors and nurses not being marketing agents

for the formula manufacturers, plain and simple. That's all! Mothers will still have access to formula. It's just that medical personnel will no longer be able to advertise for it via sample bags and various advertising gew-gaws.

And for pity's sake, the way some posters are writing, you'd think there were no stores where parents could buy formula. In most areas, there are many, many stores, open as many as 24 hours a day, where one can purchase formula! Need some, go out and get some, just like with every other consumer product on the planet!

The one and only reason formula manufacturers want hospitals to push these sample bags and prominently display these lanyards and other crap, is that it increases sales for them. There is absolutely no reason for them to do otherwise. Not only is that common sense, but studies have proven that this is so.

Women who want to breastfeed should be able to without interference from the formula manufacturers. Women who don't want to breastfeed should understand the health consequences of their choice for their babies and for themselves, and then buy their own damn formula and not expect the hospitals to supply endless "freebies" (which they will eventually pay for in higher formula costs).
Go to Page: 1