Entries for June 2006

Geez, those abortion-rights folks just won't give it up. Even though EvangelAmerica (sic) is close to overturning Roe v. Wade and seems determined to outlaw abortion, those pesky pro-choicers keep finding "ways around."

Do the media give equal time to Democrat and Republican recreants seeking the nation's highest office? That's the question posed in the latest issue of the liberal Washington Monthly magazine and making the rounds on liberal blogs such as Alternet.org.

Other Title IX changes: When you think "Title IX," you think women's sports. But the imbroglio over changes to the law involves much more.

Friday, June 23, marked the 34th anniversary of Title IX. OK, so it's not a bellwether number like 25 or even 35. But it's still worth noting on this particular anniversary, Title IX is a shadow of its former self–a landmark law that, like an athlete going into retirement, has lost a lot of muscle. And I'm not just talking about its power to promote women in sports.

What's a "manny"? you might ask. Remember nannies? Now it's mannies. Celebrity mom Britney Spears is making headlines with her new male nanny, Perry Taylor. But she's not alone.

By 2010, the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services wants all new mothers to be breast-feeding for at least the first six months. Six months of breast-feeding is a tough proposition for the majority of working new moms because fewer than one third of companies have a private area for mothers to breast-feed, and fewer than 10 percent offer child care.

The federal government's "Born to be Breast-fed" campaign is sparking controversy even as it winds down. Click here and prepare to be reviled. You'll see one of several public service television announcements prepared under the auspices of the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services. It shows a floridly pregnant woman bouncing and flailing about on a mechanical bull (a second ad shows two late-term preggers log-rolling). As the bull rider buffets wildly, belly and all, the message to women is, this type of risky behavior during pregnancy is as bad for fetuses as NOT breast-feeding is for newborns.

The ads are winding down a two-year run, but they are now sparking renewed criticism from women's groups who believe the administration isn't doing enough to promote breast-feeding, is caving into baby formula company censorship, or, at the other extreme, is portraying women as walking wombs.

In and of itself, promotion of breast-feeding is a good thing. Whether it's the province of the federal government is quite another matter. Promotion of breast-feeding is also not a new thing. Children's health experts have long touted breast-feeding as a major health benefit because breast-fed babies are less likely to develop ear infections, respiratory illnesses, and diarrhea.

But critics say this campaign goes too far because it actually guilt-trips new mothers. It could make mothers who cannot or choose not to breast-feed feel guilty. Considering that 60 percent of new mothers work, breast-feeding is simply not feasible for all of them.

UP NEXT: Why all new mothers can't breast-feed, and Bush's HSS is strapped with a problematic message.