Strollerderby : newborn

Melissa Joan Hart Drops the Ball on Being a Role Model

JeanneSager — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:26:00 GMT

So Melissa Joan Hart packed on the pounds during her pregnancy. That makes her different from any other pregnant woman in America, how?

The former Sabrina the Teenage Witch star showed off her bikini-worthy bod in People last week, but it was her words that cut deep into the psyches of moms everywhere.

A picture of her post-partum at one hundred fifty-five pounds, snapped on the beach, was "horrifying," Hart told People. That's why she lost weight. Not because she felt physically bad at her weight. Because she cared what everyone else thought of her.

Wow, how, SHALLOW of her. Yeah, yeah, I know, she lives in Hollywood - she's supposed to care what the public thinks about her. She points out that living in Hollywood puts huge pressure on you, and I'd bet it would. But if you're going to use that as your excuse, you can just as easily use it as your soapbox. Because Hart is one of those women who can make a statement to the world that sets the world afire and lets other women know it is OK to walk outside of their houses with their heads held high in the days after they give birth.

But where she had the chance to be a wonderful anti-dote to the thousands of celebrity women who practically prance out of the hospital with their twiggy forms back and make the rest of us feel even worse about ourselves, Hart chose the wrong route. Showing off her hard fourteen months of work was a great example to women that you can do it, maybe. But the words "horrifying" about her post-partum body undid much of that positive message.

What happened to being honest about what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy? To facing up to the fact that the weeks after having a baby are hardly the time to focus on weight loss/gain because you're focused on a new life?

Image: People

Kelly Ripa Beats Obamas for Your Family Vacation

Post Partum Hilarity in Book Form

Hint: We Really Might Know Our Kids Better Than You

JeanneSager — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:04:00 GMT

The best part of the latest Non-Breeder column on Babble? The author realizes she was being a bit of a tool.

Not that all "non breeders" are bad people. Far from it. But the expectation that they know better than a parent does how to raise their kids runs high among the kid-free crowd.

And somehow, for all our protestations that we might know our kids a little better than they do, comes the insistence that, hey, you can bring your kid out to the bar at 11 p.m. . . . they'll just sleep in their carrier! Or, in the case of Rachel Odell Walker, the insistence that an eight-month-old belongs on a three mile hike (with a 2,000 foot vertical climb).

I won't rip Walker to shreds, because she does that to herself in her essay. She realized she was a bit of a jerk, and she apologized. It happens to the best of us.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of non-breeders who are still stuck in the first half of Walker's essay. They still think we're staying home with our kids because we're Debbie Downer. As Walker says, "I believed she could reverse her negativity and stop focusing focus on difficult things with a mixture of personal will, therapy, and endorphins."

In a way, you can't blame them. If you don't have kids, you don't think about the money it costs to hire a sitter. You don't have to.

If you don't have kids, you don't think about the aftermath of a night out on the town, of getting up at 5 a.m. with our three-year-old when you didn't crawl into bed until 2 a.m. because the child doesn't understand Mommy wants to sleep. You don't think about the conscious decision to abstain from alcohol because you're breastfeeding.

You don't think about the realities of trying to keep a small child occupied and quiet in a restaurant. Or the fact that that small child has a right to NOT be cooped up in a highchair just because Mommy and Daddy want a night out on the town.

It's why so many of us have lost touch with friends we held near and dear before the baby days. It's important that we as parents respect their lifestyles (don't nag on them for not having kids, for cripes sake, and don't expect them to love, love, love our kids every minute of every day), but it's just as important that they get us.

That they GET that sometimes, it's a lot easier for them to come to OUR houses because we don't have to pack the trunk full of a porta-crib, diaper bag, box of toys, etc. just to have a night out. That we aren't being petulant - just realistic. That kids aren't accessories.

The chief criticism I hear for parents from non-parents is that we change our lives too much after the baby comes along. Yes, we change our lives. But how can we not? Because we are now responsible for someone's entire life. Is there any other responsibility so big? For that matter, would you tell an airplane pilot he's being a big party pooper because he opts out on "the fun" the night before he's supposed to fly a plane full of people's lives?

I'm not asking my friends to make major sacrifices just because I have a kid. They can go out and do their own thing, have their own fun on their time. It's true, I had this child; not them. They don't even have to like my child. But if non-breeders value the person underneath the new parent veil, they will realize, if they want time with us, they need to meet us in the middle.

Don't Give Me Your Tired, Your Stained

We're Not Judging You, Pinky Swear

Playdate: Does Your Sitter 'Love' Your Kids?

Lose a Game, Gain a Son

JeanneSager — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:01:00 GMT

The day your child is born may not be THE best day of your life (because, really, what does that say about every day after that). But, hey, doesn't the birth of your child tend to overshadow everything else that happened around that time?

Let's hope so for Casey Jennings.

The pro volleyball player had a horrendous day in the sand on Saturday, finishing in seventh place with partner Matt Fuerbringer at the AVP Crocs Tour Huntington Beach Open. But Jennings walked off a pretty happy guy - it was less than twenty-four hours since wife Kerri Walsh (the Olympic gold medalist) had given birth to a little boy.

Jennings played in matches (and won them) on Friday, but he made it home in time to escort Walsh to the hospital and be present at the birth of Joseph Michael. But he said his finish on Saturday was most disappointing because it doesn't carry with it the story he'd hoped to tell Joey down the road.

"I wanted to win and be able to tell him, 'The day after you were born I kicked some butt, and that 'The day you were born I kicked some butt!'" Jennings told the LA Times.

Otherwise, Jennings was on top of the world. And a seventh place finish wasn't going to change that.

Can you blame him? Did you have something really crappy happen around the birth of your child that you were able to power through because this was just SO much better?

Image: LA Times

Mom Uses Breastfeeding as Weapon in Custody Battle

JeanneSager — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

The story is full of bad breastfeeding puns (that, honestly cracked me up), but an interesting case came up in the Globe and Mail this weekend. A mom has made her breastfeeding schedule so rigorous that the ex-boyfriend who fathered their child has been essentially totally cut off from spending any time with his daughter.

A judge has decided enough is enough. Either wean your child or start pumping honey, because Daddy's got to have a go.

Jennifer Johne and Carl Cavannah were together only briefly, but their relationship resulted in the birth of a little girl in June 2006. Although the couple was broken up, Cavannah made it clear he wanted to be in their daughter's life, even quitting his job so he could move closer to Johne and the little girl. He volunteered (volunteered!) to pay child support, and bought books on parenting.

But Johne told him he couldn't take the little girl anywhere, because she needed be with mom to be breastfed. The Globe and Mail cites an e-mail from Johne to Cavannah that makes it pretty clear she was about to sway on the issue: "A baby belongs with its mother, and if you had an understanding of the needs of a fully breast-fed baby and truly had [her] interests at heart, you would not be bringing this subject up again."

Now with the baby ~~facing~~ past her second birthday, the date the World Health Organization suggests breastfeeding up to, a judge has said it's over. Johne can breastfeed her toddler if she wants to, but she has to do it via pumped milk, so Cavannah can spend some real time with his daughter.

Frankly, I'm surprised he waited this long to "bring this subject up again." Because as wonderful as breastfeeding is (and this is very definitely not a breastfeeding vs. formula post), it's also pretty darn great for a child to have their biological parent who WANTS to be in the picture and has demonstrated themselves to be a a willing and able participant in their life. If anything, this mother is proving not how important it is to breastfeed but the theories of those women who would say breastfeeding chains them to their child.

Because while there are the bonding elements of breastfeeding, the larger part of the argument has always been that breastmilk itself is healthier than formula. So pumping and handing it over to her ex-boyfriend to feed their daughter would still make this child a "full breast-fed baby," albeit one who had the opportunity to bond with both her mother AND her father during her formative years.

Johne actually works in a daycare (which enabled her to keep her daughter around her so constantly), where she sees perfectly healthy and able children who are not attached to the mother's breast constantly.

What irks me about this story? This is a woman who has put breastfeeding above everything else. She's taken "breast is best" to an extreme that's unhealthy, and makes a bad name for breastfeeders everywhere.

Image: EcoStreet

Also on Babble:

The Backlash to Breast is Best

iPhone Making Parents Everywhere More Helpless?

JeanneSager — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:07:00 GMT

Who knows how mothers managed before the days of the iPhone.

If the Baby Brain iPhone app is any indication, we left them sitting in poopy diapers all day and neglected to nurse!

Designed to help new parents break through the fog of the newborn phase, the app lets you track track feedings, diapers, and sleep. Sent to us by a reader who I'm sure has the best intentions, I'm just not sure how many parents will find this useful.

Maybe I'm the only parent out there who didn't log everything my daughter did as a baby? I had one sitter who gave me a list of every time my daughter had a bowel movement (which she sweetly marked "BM" with a smiley face) and a full description of each. My reaction? Er, OK. Just telling me she had some poopy diapers would have been enough for me.

Nor did I ever find myself writing down how much she ate per feeding or how long she ate for (which, by the way, they say is counterproductive for breastfeeders). And my pediatrician never asked for specifics unless there was something wrong.

I can relate to swimming along in a sleepless fog after my daughter was born, but if multi-tasking diapers and feedings is too much for you, I have a piece of advice: put down the iPhone and give your texting thumbs a rest.

What do you think, parents, will you be downloading this one to get you through the day? It's about to be available on iTunes, so if it's for you, have at!

Image: Baby Brain

Breastfeeding Debates: Just a Tempest in a Sippy Cup?

JeanneSager — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:23:00 GMT

Here's the thing about the breast is best debate. Do we really care what another mother does with her boobs?

No, really. You might say you care that she gets the best medical advice, that that precious little baby gets the best start to life. But when your kid and her kid sit side by side in kindergarten, holding hands, is it really going to matter who did what on day thirty-six of that baby's life?

Sometime Babble contributor Lynn Harris turned her often irreverant sense of humor to the oh so serious topic of breastfeeding on NPR this week, and though she treats the subject with all due respect (she is, after all, a mother), she pokes her fun where it's due. The breastfeeding debate, she says, is nothing but "a tempest in a sippy cup."

For MOST women, it isn't about whether or not they think breastfeeding is good for babies, or even whether they WANT to do it. Says Harris:

"Because we don't read the Journal of the American Medical Association to decide whether, or how long, to breast-feed. We consider our bodies: Are we physically able to nurse in the first place? Or are we plagued, as I was with my first child, by plugged ducts and serious mastitis? We consider the child: Did we, luck of the draw, get one who just says no to latching? We consider our workplace: How long is our maternity leave? Where can we pump when we go back?"

And that, my friends, is where the debate needs to take a hike. You want to breastfeed? You made it work? Woohoo! Fabulous! Really. I'm not being facetious here. I'm happy for you that you are able to nourish your child with your breastmilk, that you have got the latch down and find the appropriate place to pump if need be.

Not breastfeeding? Didn't want to? OK, well, that's your choice. Did want to, but couldn't? I'm sorry, is there anything we can do? Other than berating you and telling you you're feeding your child pure evil in liquid form and forcing you onto mega doses of Paxil to handle your postpartum depression caused by feelings of inadequacy?

Here's why everyone needs to read Harris' essay: she puts blame where blame is due. On the crappy advice in hospitals. On the crappy employers who don't give moms appropriate time for pumping. On the family medical leave act's lack of depth and the lack of paid leave time available for new mothers. On the public breastfeeding conundrum, especially for women who are shy and uncomfortable out in the public eye.

"Show me a lactation room at the Qwik Mart, and I'll show you a woman more willing to leave the maternity ward without her care package of free formula," Harris says (see, told you she was a bit irreverant).

Come on moms, let's look at who you're really mad at. It's not each other.

Image/Source: NPR

Motherless Baby Breastfed By Six Women Each Day

Also on Babble:

The Helicopter Parent's Reading List

The Country that Never Sleeps

Did Having a Baby Make You Start Thinking About Your Ex?

JeanneSager — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:30:00 GMT

I wasn't thinking about much when my daughter was three months old. My maternity leave was over, and I was back at work - albeit at a reduced thirty-hour schedule. I didn't have time to think about sex, nonetheless an ex.

Turns out some parents have turned the seven-year itch into the three-month itch. Their baby hits three months, and as exhausted and un-sexy as the mothers feel, they start thinking about what their life could have been if they took a different path. Namely, if they picked another partner.

In the New York Times this week, essayist Anna Solomon says she couldn't help romanticizing her exes when her daughter was still a newborn, when she hit that three-month mark everyone told her would be a turning point, when she would start to get her life back:

"I was certain that I’d ruined my life, and I was thinking — with alarming frequency — of men who were not my husband, men who seemed suddenly more attractive than they’d actually been, or kinder, or braver — men who would never have gotten me into this mess."

I always thought it was just in the movies that women turned on their husbands during childbirth, that they started screaming, "I hate you, I can't stand you, get away from me, you did this to me." But here that same feeling is, rearing its ugly head three months on, when the pain of delivery is gone and the reality of being a mother has set in. You aren't you anymore, and as long as you're stuck in this bleary-eyed state with this little person who can reach top volume and turn tomato red in the blink of an eye, it's hard to imagine you ever will be again.

Is it any wonder some women fantasize their way out of it? Even for a few moments? It's not sexual fantasies of exes past, because, frankly, sex is what put you in this predicament. It's emotional escapism, the kind that nourishes the body in what can be a very dark time for a parent, especially a stay-at-home parent or a woman still nursing a baby through the night (and hence getting no sleep). And that's why, for most of us - including Solomon, it's fleeting. Your baby grows, you get some sleep, and you realize you are pretty darn OK where you are - if not completely and wonderously in love with where you are.

Did you ever fantasize about the ex when your child was young, or daydream about going back to the pre-pregnancy days?

Image: DailyMail

Your Kid's Mouth Stinks: Here's Why

Also on Babble:

The New Celibacy

No Sex Please, We're Parents

Where I Say Something Nice About the New York Mets

JeanneSager — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:34:00 GMT

Ready your markers for the calendar. I'm about to do something a Yankees fan should never do.

I want to send good thoughts the way of New York Mets' pitcher Johan Santana. There I said it. Happy? Good, because it hurt.

So what did Mr. Santana do, pray tell? The pitcher skipped the Mets' home opener last night at the new CitiField because he had bigger fish to fry. Like the birth of his third child.

Santana stayed in Florida after allowing no earned runs in seven innings and pitching thirteen strikeouts on Sunday, so he could be at wife Yasmile's bedside when she delivers a sibling for daughters Jasmily and Jasmine (have they been talking to the Duggars?).

He wasn't scheduled to pitch anyway, but come on, we're talking about the home opener at a brand new park in arguably the biggest baseball town on the planet. I always love it when the big names show they have their priorities straight. It makes me respect them a whole lot more - even if they do play for the Mets.

Does finding out athletes are family oriented change your opinion of them?

Image: NJ.com

Baby Survives Removal from Life Support

JeanneSager — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:29:00 GMT

A baby girl whose parents were prepared to take off life support so her heart could be donated came off life support . . . and is holding her own.

Baby Kaylee, two months, was born with a rare brain malformation that doctors expected would keep her from every breathing without medical assistance. Her devastated parents made the decision to take her off life support when they learned there was another sick child who could use her heart via transplant.

As far as they knew, there was no hope for their daughter. When doctors removed her breathing assistance, however, Kaylee started breathing on her own. Not perfectly - she's stopped as much as thirty times in one night - but the fact that she's done it at all means doctors have removed her from their transplant list.

If it all sounds too good to be true, it is. Because on the other side is the second baby girl, a one-month-old named Lillian, who Kaylee's parents say will still get the heart if their daughter succumbs in the near future.

Jason Wallace, father to Kaylee, has spent the past day lashing out at people saying that he wants his daughter to die, people who criticized the choice he and wife Crystal Vitelli made to remove their daughter from life support. He says they didn't want their daughter to suffer, and they were being told there was no hope for her to live without medical help.

Now that she's surviving, the parents are cautiously optimistic - they say they want their daughter to live . . . if she can. But they feel too for Lillian's family, a family that had gained hope when they thought their daughter was going to receive a heart. As Wallace says, his family has waded into an "ethical minefield."

Comments on the media reports have run the gamut - from the "you want your baby to die" nuts to the "yay, Kaylee, keep fighting" cheerleaders. But with every piece of this story unforeseen, I'm having a hard time seeing my way to judge any decision this family has made. Their daughter has an incurable brain tumor, one her parents admit she's unlikely to overcome. Losing a baby is hard enough, but to know you could have saved another by choosing to donate her heart, some of that pain could be assuaged.

Now she's surviving . . . and people are criticizing the family, how? Because they didn't know their daughter might have a remarkable reaction to removal from life support? All around this story broke my heart, and as much as it's my job to comment on other people's situations, this is one where I just have to sit back and wonder how anyone can. What do you think Babble readers?

Image: CBCNews

Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:01:00 GMT

Despite all the modern technology that's meant to keep newborns from being given to the wrong parents in the hospital, there seems to be a rash of inadvertent baby swaps going on. The latest took place in New Hampshire, at the Portsmouth Regional Hospital, late last month. And the parents of the newborn in question -- a baby girl who was handed to the wrong mother for either five minutes (according to the hospital) or significantly longer (according to her parents) -- are hopping mad.

Calling it "every parent's worst nightmare," the father has taken to the media to publicize the mistake, because, he says, "the public has a right to know." Also, I'm guessing, to lay the groundwork for a lawsuit. Because here's the crux of the matter: when their baby, whom they had sent back to the nursery after the mother had ("reluctantly"!) taken a sleeping pill, was given to another mother, that mother did something truly horrific. She breastfed the baby. Now the parents are waiting for results of tests for HIV and Hepatitis C (despite the fact that doctors estimate a risk of HIV transmission at one thousandth of one percent per liter of breastmilk consumed). They are terrified the other mother took drugs during her pregnancy (although it's not clear how this would affect their baby). They feel violated, assaulted, scared. The father says his wife is "physically sick" over it.

Could it be because they are both white, and the other couple is a white woman and a black man? I'm sensitive to making unwarranted charges of racism (it's too easy, and not fair), but in this case it's hard to escape the feeling that the parents' overwrought horror of contagion may have something to do with their (all white! 100% caucasian!) baby's having been sullied by the possibly unclean nipple of a race traitor, a nipple meant for another, darker baby. The racial difference has the white baby's parents especially confused as to how the other mother (and the nurse) could have made this error. Why didn't she notice, he asks, and "give our baby back?"

The thing is, biracial babies aren't necessarily any darker at birth than white babies -- believe me, I've given birth to both! My children, born 13 years apart and with different husbands, looked enough alike as newborns to be twins, and it's a well-known fact that many black and biracial babies don't come into their skin tone until they're older. At any rate, newborns are newborns -- the reason hospitals go to such trouble to set up systems to avoid baby-swapping is because they do tend to look so much alike.

Of course, now I guess I'll have to believe something a little bit uglier: that hospital policies to avoid baby mix-ups exist to allay the fears of parents who think that another woman nursing their child for five minutes is their "worst nightmare" (I can think of worse, and have friends who have lived through worse, and I'm sure you all do, too). I genuinely hope this is the worst thing that ever happens to this family; if it is, they'll have lived a blessed life.

Babies Switched in NYC Hospital

More by this author:

Spurred to Action by Natasha Richardson Death, Parents Save Girl

Child Support Suffers in a Recession, Too

Are Working Mothers (And Fathers) Discriminated Against?

Family Evicted for Having Twins

JeanneSager — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:57:00 GMT

Ever heard of someone too big to fit inside a house? What if that person were two people - two teeny, weeny newborn people?

A Michigan couple learned their newborn twins put them over the limit for space allotted to people in their housing community this week when they received an eviction notice - just after the babies were born.

Mike Morris, Shawnee Crider, and their three kids, moved into Mike's mom's double-wide at the housing complex in Kentwood, Michigan shortly after Mike lost his job . . . and the family lost their house. Shawnee was pregnant with twins when they moved in, and she gave birth shortly after they moved in.

That's when Mike's mom's landlord sent a letter - three adults and five kids was too much for one doublewide, it said. Park regulations require at least two hundred fifty square feet of living space per person. Mike and Shawnee - and their five kids - had to get out.

Mike is still looking for a job, and this is his mom's house - his family who had offered to help them when times got rough. Where are they supposed to go? Although we don't want to send people back to tenement living, when families of ten slept in one bed in one room, there's a reason tenements were popular in the thirties - because everyone was broke.

I'm also not convinced a newborn baby needs two hundred fifty square feet of living space. For what? To stare at while they lie like a lump in Mom's arms? They're not crawling yet, not running around, and they don't spend a whole lot of time not connected to a person (even sleeping they need only the size of a bassinet - and that's if you're not co-sleeping).

Should the landlord update its rules or should they stick by them, regardless of the economy?

Image: WoodTV

There Oughta Be A Law (Really?)

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT

The state of Oklahoma is set to pass a law that would protect pregnant women against murder charges if they kill to protect their unborn child(ren). Legislators pushing for the bill (which passed the state's house this week and soon will hit the senate, where it is expected to pass) cite a case in which a Michigan woman, pregnant with quadruplets, killed her boyfriend after he punched her in the belly. The woman was charged with manslaughter; she lost the pregnancy as well.

Now, I don't know about you but I would have no problem using maximum force if someone threatened me while pregnant, or if they threatened one of my children. That said, I'm not sure a new law is needed -- I would use force to defend myself or my kids whether I was currently pregnant or not. The only purpose such a law could serve would be to make the Oklahoma legislature appear to care deeply about women facing domestic abuse while pregnant (which is a real problem), and to create a back-door justification for future legislation targeting women who do anything while pregnant that could be perceived as harmful to a fetus. So if you're comfortable with the idea of fining or jailing women for failing to take their prenatals, then you should support this law. Otherwise, it's really just a waste of lawmakers' time at best, a cynical and sneaky anti-choice move at worst.

Sadly, many women are beaten when pregnant (though it's not always or even often because they "refuse to abort their child," as argued by Representative Mike Thompson). I'm all in favor of toughening laws and procedures to help protect women from domestic violence. As for mistreatment that happens specifically to pregnant women, heck, let's see if we can rectify some of the worst abuses they face now, like expensive or nonexistent medical care, the inability to find a private health insurer who will cover them, or the lack of a federallly mandated paid maternity leave? Advocacy for those goals would help moms and babies more than this silly bill ever could.

So yeah, I'd probably kill to protect my unborn baby. But I'd fight any law -- like this one -- whose actual goal isn't to help pregnant women, but to hurt them.

More by this author:

Spurred to Action by Natasha Richardson Death, Parents Save Girl

Child Support Suffers in a Recession, Too

Are Working Mothers (And Fathers) Discriminated Against?

And Deliver Us by Google

JeanneSager — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:34:00 GMT

For all you people who scoff at the power of Google University, I present the story of Jordan and Natalie Peck and their newborn baby girl

The Pecks live in Hendrum, Minnesota, right in the center of the bad flooding that's been making the news lately. So when the heavily pregnant Natalie went into labor, Jordan knew there was no way he could drive her to the hospital - and there was no way their midwife was getting to them.

So he did what any American who wants to know something did - he powered up Google and read up online on how to deliver a baby.

And then he did. The Pecks welcomed a healthy little girl named Margaret into their lives - and into their home - which they soon left because of the rising water. They are now staying with friends, unsure when they can move back into their home. But Jordan joked that he knows what it's like to be the guy told to just follow the instructions.

"This was one of those cases where I was going to follow the instructions to the T," he said. If you're one of those people who doesn't mind brushing up on knowledge (no need for waders - you can still be ready for the floods!) check out eHow - they've got it all . . . down to the T.

Image: KSTP TV

Babies Switched In NYC Hospital

JeanneSager — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:52:00 GMT

Let me just say that part of this story is absolutely awful - that a maternity ward's security practices could fail so miserably that two newborn babies are mixed up for several hours is criminal.

HOWEVER, every time I hear a re-telling of the story of Shatiesha Brown's baby being given to the wrong mom in the New York City hospital's maternity ward, I am more mystified by her misplaced anger.

Brown told a NYC news station that she was outraged that her little girl, Aniya Victoria, was breastfed by another woman at Brookside Hospital.

OK, so what? I'd be flipping a lid over the fact that my newborn child was given to someone else to begin with. That she was breastfed by that woman. . . eh. . . as long as the woman had no communicable diseases, who cares?

The thing is, Shatiesha Brown was told by her doctors that her dangerously high blood pressure had to be monitored. For twenty-four hours, they said, she would have to be separated from her newborn. It's during that period when hospital staff apparently took little Aniya Victoria to the room of another new mom, whose last name was also Brown and whose first initial was also S. The other new mom breastfed the baby and posed for pictures before the mistake was discovered.

Now Shatiesha is claiming that her daughter suffered nipple confusion and that the hospital ruined all her plans to breastfeed the little girl with the mistake. "The bond that you have when you breastfeed your child, that's everything," she told ABC 7.

Except that's not how nipple confusion works. Moving from breast to breast isn't an issue - if it was, babies would have trouble moving from the right side to the left on a mom who has different shaped or sized nipples (which is actually most of the population). Nipple confusion comes into play when a newborn baby feeds from an artificial nipple - which Aniya Victoria would have done ANYWAY if mom and baby were to be separated for twenty-four hours. Even then, babies can still make the switch, albeit with some difficulty, and many women report successful breastfeeding of a year or more after their baby received an artificial nipple during the very early days of life.

The mother I feel for is the one who breastfed Aniya Victoria . . . while her own baby lay in the nursery, missing out on the colostrum that's chock full of nutrients and antibodies.

Shatiesha is suing, of course (doesn't everyone?). I agree she has grounds to demand the hospital be held accountable for the mix-up itself, but I'm smelling a cock and bull story here.

Would you be more upset over the mix-up or the fact that your child fed at someone else's breast?

Image: ABC

What You Look Like After Triplets

JeanneSager — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

This mom is BRAVE. And totally awesome.

A mom allowed herself to be photographed throughout the weeks of her pregnancy with triplets. Then she jumped forward to three months after delivery and struck the same pose - shirt pulled up to just below the boobs and everything hanging out.

Wow. The stretch marks are scary, but honestly, they're what to be expected for normal women who get stretchmarks (because, I'm sorry, but I have some intense loathing going on for you "Oh, I didn't get a mark" women - I fart in your general direction) and one carrying three babies at that. But look at that tummy tone! Go mama!

I love these kinds of pictures, honestly, because they remind me that my tummy will never be toned again . . . and that's OK. I don't need to look like Angelina, and my husband doesn't think I need to look like Angelina.

Because the picture at the very end of the long series of triplet pics says it all - it's the three "sweet peas" (her words) she got out of it all. Yeah, totally worth it.

Click here to see the entire series.

Image: ShapeofaMother

Motherless Baby Breastfed By Six Women Each Day

JeanneSager — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:02:00 GMT

A baby without a mom. A bunch of moms still breastfeeding their own babies. It was just meant to be.

You don't hear about death during childbirth much anymore, (and thank goodness for that), but when Susan Goodrich lost her life shortly after giving birth to her son, one of her most important wishes for her child was fulfilled by a band of impromptu wet nurses, moms who heard a baby needed their help.

Charles Moses Martin Goodrich was born on Jan. 11, but when his dad said he wanted the boy to receive breastmilk right off the bat, he was told the hospital didn't have a milkbank. A delivery could come in from elsewhere in Michigan, but it would take several days to ship.

Then Robbie Goodrich got a call of condolence from a friend, a mom who was still nursing her one-year-old daughter. Anything the family needed, she said, anything. . . even her breastmilk. It's when Robbie told his hometown paper that things clicked - he realized other moms might want to help him in his plight, and he called on a family friend to help him round up moms with something to give.

The found twenty total women who set up a schedule - six times a day, Charles has been fed by a different woman (that's one of the volunteers pictured). And by fed, I mean actually suckling at the breast.That is the most incredible part of the story to me - that these women don't just pump their milk and ship it over. With children at home (obviously), they drop everything to drive to the Goodrich home and allow a stranger's baby to nurse. It's the kind of love only a parent could muster for a child - but these aren't his parents!

At night, his father feeds him with bottles of milk pumped by the volunteers, and Charles is a happy, healthy baby despite his rough start to life.

The subject became controversial recently with Salma Hayek's highly publicized feeding of another woman's child, which some called a publicity stunt. There's no way these nameless women could be accused of the same thing. More to the point, what they're doing is life-sustaining while Hayek's one-off feeding was not going to drastically change a child's life.

What do you think of this? Would you do it? Or would you just pump your milk and send it over?

Image/Source: The Mining Journal

They Say: Early Pacifier Use Can Undermine Breastfeeding

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:31:00 GMT

Some parents swear by them, some swear at them, but pacifiers are a nearly universal symbol of babyhood. Now a new study by Danish researchers suggests what many have warned, that early use of pacifiers can be associated with shorter duration of breastfeeding. The study looked at data from visiting nurses who assess and assist all new mothers in Denmark, typically in the family's home around eight days after birth. The health visitors, specially trained in breastfeeding issues, specifically noted whether the baby was being offered a pacifier; two-thirds were.

Published reports about the study are notably light on details. But apparently the Danish study authors noted that early pacifier use correlated with shorter breastfeeding duration, and have advised that mothers wishing to nurse their babies should hold off on offering the pacifier in the first few weeks after birth.

At most U.S. hospitals, nurses still use pacifiers -- without parental notification or consent -- in the earliest hours and days of a baby's life. I'm fairly certain this was the case where my children were born (although nobody ever mentioned it to me one way or the other, the tiny green newborn Soothie was always right there in the bassinet). My kids were both massive nursers and refused the pacifier at home (they also refused bottles), so I don't believe their early introduction interrupted our nursing relationship; that said, it would be interesting to see a study of this sort in the U.S. Some lactation consultants here warn against their use, citing nipple confusion issues, but others hail them as a way for a baby to get its suck on while your nipples rest.

What do you say? Do pacifiers help or hinder the nursing cause?

More by this author:

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

What If The State Kept Your Kid's Blood for "Research?"

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:01:00 GMT

I never thought about what happened to the blood sample taken from my daughter in the maternity ward after she was born . . . until now.

Apparently in Texas, blood samples taken routinely from newborns are kept on hand to be used for research. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest.

But a bill making its way through the Texas Legislature will give parents who DON'T want their kids' blood used in research an out; they can ask for the blood sample to be destroyed rather than held onto by the state.

I understand there are huge privacy concerns here. Even though the state assures parents that the baby's names are not connected to the individual samples once the screenings for disease and defects are completed, we've all seen privacy breaches around the nation on supposedly "safe" credit card information, social security numbers and more. Who's to say health information is safe?

But I'm not sure I see the concern here. Is it that kids might be discriminated against if it gets out that they have a certain disease? Or that parents don't want the blood used for research? Because only three parents have actually complained about the issue so far. In one of the top states in terms of population, we're talking ridiculously low numbers of parents here.

Would you care what happens to a small vial of your child's blood?

Image: Maine.gov

Congress Looks at Postpartum Depression Support

JeanneSager — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:37:00 GMT

Unless you're Tom Cruise, you probably have some sense that postpartum depression is very real and moms could use a heck of a lot more support.

A bill winding its way through both houses of Congress could finally make postpartum depression awareness a priority in the country, along with making it easier for mothers to apply for and access treatment.

The Melanie Blocker Stokes Act, named for a new mother who took her life eight years ago, was introduced in the House of Representatives last year but floundered. Now it's back, with bills reintroduced in the House AND the Senate in 2009. According to a group stumping for supporters who will write to their Congressman begging for passage, the act "would mandate research on the benefits of screening for PPD, and it would also create programs to deliver outpatient, inpatient and home-based health and support services, including services that would promote earlier diagnosis and treatment."

Estimates put the numbers of women who suffer from postpartum depression at one in ten, but as this post from the Perinatal Pro blog correctly points out, women are often hesitant to ask for help - as much because they don't understand the true symptoms as because of a fear of looking like a bad mother. Less than two tenths of a percent of women suffer from a postpartum psychosis (think Susan Smith or Andrea Yates), but because of the intense media attention, many women think their symptoms have to be that extreme to be diagnosed with PPD.

In reality, the symptoms can be as simple as an inability to sleep even when the baby is sleeping, uncontrollable crying, massive changes in appetite or feelings of guilt. They sound like the symptoms of a lot of new moms - the issue is the degree to which they appear. Women need to know there's a way out - and getting proper treatment and support services is a big part of that. Take it from a mom who knows.

Want to help get it passed? All it takes is your name, address and zip code, and the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance will send an e-mail directly to your Congressman asking him or her to vote yes on this bill.

Image: National Institutes of Health (for more information on PPD)

Three Generations, Just One Birthday

JeanneSager — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:37:00 GMT

The chances of having three generations in one family share the same birthday are seven in a million.Meet number seven - she was born February 2.

So, for that matter, was Anala Broussard's mother, Jasmine, and her grandmother, Cherise Terry.

I had to laugh at the comments from an astrologer in the Mercury News article on the family: "These kind of ties between people is a strong sign that they are karmically linked and shared other lives." Yes, they're karmically linked all right, biologically linked too!

But whether you're the superstitious type or not, there's something just this side of coincidence about every female in one family making her entrance on the same day.

As the Terrys point out, it does have a drawback for Mom - her birthday ceases to be important as the focus of celebrations and parties goes to her daughter, and now it will go to her daughter's daughter. But I suppose it must save a bundle on birthday cakes?

It also bears noting that Feb. 2 is Groundhog Day - and like Bill Murray, this family is apparently living one day over and over again.

Does your family have a double - or triple - birthday? Has it impacted celebrations?

Image: Mercury News

Mother with Herpes Unwittingly Kills Baby with a Kiss

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:09:00 GMT

This heart-wrenching story is made bearable by the courage of the mother it involves, who has taken her tragedy as a chance to educate others.

Ruth Schofield contacted the herpes simplex virus (HSV) for the first time when she was in her final term of pregnancy. She was prescribed antibiotics for her mouth ulcers, which were still present when she gave birth to baby Jennifer.

With no warnings to the contrary, Schofield naturally kissed and cuddled her newborn baby. Soon after her birth, Jennifer stopped feeding and seemed overly sleepy, so Schofield readmitted her to the hospital. Jennifer had no cold sores or outward signs of having contracted herpes, but the virus had spread throughout her organs, and she died when she was just a few weeks old.

Doctors believe that herpes was deadly in this case because Schofield had never been exposed to the virus until the very end of her pregnancy, so her body didn’t have time to build up antibodies and pass them on to her daughter.

A few years after the loss of Jennifer—and 15 months after the birth of her second child—Schofield has started campaigning to raise awareness about the potential deadliness of HSV, which kills six babies a year in the UK, where Schofield lives.

“There is not one single sign in a chemist's and nowhere on leaflets does it say not to go near an end-term pregnant mother or newborn baby [if you have HSV]," she says. I have to agree that there is far too little awareness about this fatal, yet avoidable, situation.

Did you know that a cold sore could kill a baby?

Photo: parents.com

New for Mom: Spa Treatments on the Maternity Ward

JeanneSager — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:55:00 GMT

This might make even the die hard home-birthers opt for a hospital delivery. A new service is making the rounds of maternity wards in the Twin Cities to "mother" new moms with massages and spa treatments.

Launched last year by a mother of three and former TV producer, Go Home Gorgeous is an attempt to give new mothers a jump on recovery from delivery. And did me mention they do massages?

Business owner Rachel Swardson Wenham says after her giving birth to her third child, she was exhausted (sound familiar) and couldn't summon the energy to look forward to going home with a newborn to two toddlers.

"I looked at my swollen legs, my dry skin and was startled by how old my bulbous veins made my hands look. I looked terrible and felt awful. Additionally, nothing about my environment was very healing in a comforting sense. I craved hydration, soothing music, aroma, and someone to tell me it would be okay. I didn't want to just leave the hospital, I wanted to go home gorgeous."

They probably can't do much for the swollen legs. And the stretchmarks are here to stay. But who wouldn't want a little pampering after thirteen hours of contracting followed by forty-five solid minutes of pushing? The pain of childbirth isn't equal for everyone, but it leaves no one looking or feeling their best. We all share that same wan look in the first picture of mom and baby.And with an increased push to keep babies in the mother's room at all times to promote better breastfeeding, it's all exhaustion from there on out.

The way Wenham sees it, it doesn't have to be that way. Let Dad take care of the baby for a forty-five minute message. Get a facial while the pediatrician is taking a look-see at the newborn. And you never have to leave the hospital.

Services run from $45 to $139 (pretty standard spa prices - and that's when you're going to them rather than them coming to you). So would you take them up on it?

Image/Source: MSNBC

American Newborn's Stuck in Iraqi Red Tape

JeanneSager — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:29:00 GMT

Would you go to a war torn country when you were six months pregnant? What if your eighty-six-year-old mother-in-law was there and in ill health?

Grace Alshemmari had never left the United States before, but when her husband, an Iraqi refugee, wanted to visit his ailing mother, she said OK. She'd be home, she thought, in time to deliver her little boy back in the good old US of A.

Except she wasn't. At thirty-five weeks pregnant, Grace Alshemmari was told she couldn't get on an Iraqi Airways jet to fly back to the United States. She was stuck in Iraq for the rest of her pregnancy. In May 2008, she gave birth via C-section in an Iraqi hospital to baby Amir, a week late.

Now Grace is home in Indiana, and her son's stuck in Iraq. She's been told the only way to get the baby out of the country is by visiting the US embassy in Baghdad, but her husband's family has warned that it's much too dangerous for an American citizen in Baghdad right now. She'd be putting herself - and the baby - in mortal danger. The family made attempts to file the necessary paperwork in another Iraqi city and at an embassy in Jordan, but again they were pointed to Baghdad.

So Grace came home in September, hoping she could reach out to the American government from within the borders rather than across the globe. She's been told the State Department can't help her - she has to follow procedures that were set in place to ward against "baby smuggling." They want to verify the baby is truly a U.S. citizen before they let her bring Amir home.

I'm still not sure I'd get on a plane and fly to a war-torn country when I was six months pregnant - sick mother-in-law or no sick mother-in-law. But for family, it's hard to say what you will and won't do until you're there. Can you really blame her for supporting her husband in his time of need?

As for the baby smuggling - what ever happened to checking with the Iraqi hospital? If they confirm this woman gave birth, do they really think she's going to sneak someone else's baby into the country and leave her own stranded in Iraq? Or here's a crazy thought - how about State Department officials work FOR an American citizen instead of against one? They have the means to travel within the country with military protection. How about they travel to the Alshemmari's family's home in Najaf, where the baby is currently living, and confirm his existence and his resemblance to his mother. If they so wish, they can pluck a few hairs and send them off for DNA testing to confirm this baby is REALLY the child of an American citizen.

A part of me can't help but wonder, is Grace, the American citizen, being penalized for being married to an Iraqi?

Image: Yahoo (1 - Grace and Amir. 2. Grace and Raad Alshemmari's elder child, Karina, holds a picture of baby brother Amir)

Family of Man: Birth Photos Shows Everyone But Mom

JeanneSager — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:30:00 GMT

It's one of the most celebrated photos of a child being born - the baby's body is stretched out with the umbilical cord stretched across his glistening body, the black and white making his scrunched up screaming face that much more vibrant.

Yet, nowhere in the picture, is the little boy's mother. Not even Joan Miller's legs are seen in the most famous photo of her life - the moment she gave birth to son David.

The defining shot in Wayne Miller's Family of Man exhibition of 1955 has gained new attention of late thanks to the publication of a book, Wayne F. Miller: Photographs 1942-1958, published late last year, and an article next month's Smithsonian Magazine. Shot on September 19, 1946 (the baby in the picture is now sixty-two), it's no surprise Mrs. Miller was hidden from view. It's surprising that she allowed her husband to be in the room at all, not to mention with a camera in hand. Although most fathers have cameras and sometimes videocameras at the ready for today's labor and delivery (and we expect photos of our friends' newborn, fresh from the womb, to be sent to our phones immediately . . . if not sooner), ours were the first dads to be allowed - or ask to be - into the delivery rooms as common practice.

Making this photo - which was chosen to be sent into space aboard the two Voyager spacecraft - all the more special is the man seen holding newborn David Miller by the leg. It's his grandfather - Wayne Miller's father, and Joan's father-in-law. I can't imagine allowing my father-in-law to be my OB/GYN (eeek), but then, to know the person helping bring your child into the world has almost as much concern for his wellbeing as you do . . . that could do wonders in putting a new mother at ease!

For a shutterbug like me, the piece was an interesting read; but for a Mom, it was even better. Check it out - and see more photos - here.

Images: Wayne Miller, via Smithsonian Magazine

Let's Do the Twist, Baby

Kids Around the Globe Weigh in on Obama

Kids Explain How Babies Are Made

Hospital Hangs on to Children's Bodies for Two Years

JeanneSager — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:40:00 GMT

It's almost the exact opposite of the stillborn baby thrown in a New Jersey hospital's trash - and just as horrifying.

When a British mother suffered her second miscarriage, she went to the hospital to see if she could arrange a funeral for little Jonah.

He had already been cremated, the hospital told her. But her first son, miscarried two years ago at twelve weeks, was still in the hospital, they said. Would she like him?

Leanne McCabe had been told baby Ty was cremated shortly after her miscarriage because of a British law that requires babies stillborn before twenty-four weeks be "disposed of" by the hospital, usually via cremation. Why she never returned for his cremains is unclear (although it IS clear she wasn't aware that his body was still lying in a mortuary two years later).

McCabe's discovery has since led to the hospital's admission that hers isn't the only stillborn baby awaiting his parents' final wishes to be carried out. Two more suffered what hospital administration dubbed a "delay."

I know it's coincidence that this story came up just over a week after the missing New Jersey baby tale. It's hardly a pandemic. But what do these stories say about how the world treats stillborn and miscarried babies? Do these hospital officials think they matter less or that the outrage would be diminished because the children never actually breathed in the real world?

Moms who suffer through miscarriage and stillbirth already suffer with the misperception that their grief should somehow be less because, well, "at least you didn't have a child and lose it." No, in many ways they didn't have a child - they had a baby who they never got to enjoy, but that doesn't diminish their feelings of love or the depth of their loss. And their children all deserve the same amount of respect in the end.

Image/Source: BBC