Opponents are clear about one thing; women don’t understand the risks. They aren’t giving informed consent because they aren’t fully informed. Sure, they may be counseled about the major risks, the ones that could kill you, but deaths are rare. The other complications are so much more common. If women only knew of the myriad risks, they’d never choose it in the first place.
Opponents recommend more extensive counseling, preferably counseling that takes place long before the decision needs to be made. They helpfully offer books and websites as well as in person counseling about ALL the risks, not just the ones that doctors deign to mention.
Many lactivists, like many anti-choice activists, believe the ends justify the means.
Inevitably there has been a backlash against the opponents but the opponents claim the high ground with the retort: “Are you saying that there are NO risks?” Everyone knows that there are risks; opponents are providing a valuable service by carefully and extensively counseling women about the risks. Once women know, they will reject the choice.
Think I’m talking about anti-choice advocates who work tirelessly to prevent women from choosing abortion? Think again.
I’m talking about lactation professionals who work tirelessly to prevent women from choosing formula.
Consider the paper I wrote about yesterday. The lead researcher, graduate student Gemma Bridge, claims on The Conversation Some infant formula milks contain more sugar than soda drinks:
Some formula milks have double the sugar per serving than a glass of soda.
But that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the authors found. Their OWN data shows that NO infant formulas have double the sugar per serving than the average glass of soda.
How did they arrive at their shocking “finding”? They disingenuously included milk drinks marketed to PRE-SCHOOLERS. I reached out to the Bridge on Twitter and she does not deny it.
It’s lie on par with the anti-choice lie that abortion causes cancer.
Tragically, neither lactivists nor anti-choice activists feel constrained by the truth. Reasoning that the ends justify the means, both groups routinely exaggerate and even fabricate “risks.” Seeking, above all else, validation of their personal philosophical beliefs, both groups struggle to convince women who would choose differently that those choices are wrong.
Both groups have zero regard for what happens to women (or babies!) once they make the choice. They care about women up to the moment that they are forced into the “correct” decision; whatever happens afterward to their physical or mental health must simply be endured by the women they have tricked.
Most of us can easily recognize the tactics of anti-choice activists for what they are, mendacious attempts to force women to make approved decisions. We should recognize the tactics of lactivists — including some breastfeeding researchers — for what they are, mendacious attempt to force women to breastfeed or feel guilty if they don’t.
