Breastfeeding, Options, and a Tale of Two Michelles

In the wake of a study that suggests formula-fed children are six times as likely to be obese by age three, Michelle Obama has taken up breastfeeding promotion as a main objective of her Let's Move campaign.  According to her spokesperson, the first lady is focusing not on dictating people's infant feeding choices, but instead "trying to make it easier for those who choose to [breastfeed]."

Lower-income, predominately African American communities have the lowest breastfeeding initiation rates, rates that drop even lower to around 20% at six months of age.  Children in these communities are also at the highest risk for infant death and, of course, childhood obesity, both of which breastfeeding is known to curb.  Additionally, women who breastfeed are less likely to develop breast cancer and diabetes later in life, health problems that are both prevalent among African American women.

Surveys have all but confirmed that the abysmal breastfeeding rates in lower-income communities (regardless of race) are mostly due to socioeconomic barriers: women who cannot afford (or locate) a professional lactation consultant are likely to give up breastfeeding when problems arise.  While these problems (sore nipples, engorgement, etc) can make breastfeeding unbearably painful, the assistance of a lactation specialist or consultant often provides a quick and easy fix. Additionally, lower-income women are more likely to have to return to work sooner, and, without appropriate equipment, support, and know-how, many of these women will have to give up breastfeeding all together.  Such a factor played a role in the IRS' recent decision to allow the deduction of breastpumps and other supplies as medical expenses.

Cue the circus of rich folks who are "tired of the government telling them what to do with their bodies."  Take Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachmann, whose reaction to increased accessibility of breastfeeding is probably nothing more than a political stunt: on the Laura Ingraham show, Bachmann railed against the supposed "nanny state" that we are creating by helping women make more autonomous infant feeding decisions.  Bachmann bragged, "I've given birth to five babies and I breast-fed every single one," continuing with, "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump ... That's the new definition of a nanny state."

Staying home and breastfeeding five babies is all well and good for Michelle Bachmann, but in communities where women are more likely to have to return to work soon after baby is born, laying down $200+ for a decent breast pump is out of the question.  Never mind that many of the jobs these women hold aren't exactly friendly to a mother's pumping needs (a cause which Mrs. Obama has also taken up), even a working mother with an office job is infinitely more able to keep her supply up while at work.  This is simply not the case in retail stores, schools, factories, and service industries.

Of course, to the hard-line conservative, women who cannot breastfeed their children should think twice about that before "choosing" to get pregnant in the first place.  Talk about government control of women's bodies: these are the same people who are currently working to remove Title X funding from family planning clinics, cut funding from supplemental nutrition programs, strike programs that provide prenatal and pediatric care, and of course, limit the accessibility of abortion.  It's almost like they, not the first lady, are the ones dictating what women are and are not able to do with their bodies, from the prevention of pregnancy to their infant feeding choices.

Michelle Obama's call to promote breastfeeding is hardly a question of government intervention.  Women know that breastfeeding is best, and most women want to be able to provide breastmilk for their children.  The problem is not that the government is intervening, but that for many women, continuing to breastfeed is out of the question.  Breaking down barriers, providing education and support, and promoting the healithiest of healthy practices is not just best for our newest citizens, it is in fact a practice that could save billions in medical costs per year.  You'd think these purported "fiscal conservatives" would be down with that... but then, who ever said they were champions of sound logic?