Getting Middle of the Road Political on you

The budget debate is a mess right now. U.S. politicians are facing quite the challenge as they make policy decisions to keep the country going. President Obama's recent speech called all Americans to weigh into the debate and contact their federal representatives. Whatever side you are on, you have the right and ability to influence public policy through your representatives. If you haven't yet, weigh in:

If you are on the conservative side, The Heritage Foundation provides a public petition to Congress.

And on the liberal/progressive side, MoveOn.org takes the opposing tack.

Whichever side you find yourself on, you have the opportunity to engage in government in the way a republic is designed. This also provides an opportunity to take a step back, and look at the bigger picture.

One of the central features of the debate in government spending is social services for the poor and the needy. A common argument against government funding for social services is that it is not the government's responsibility to care for charity cases. However, it is less common to hear proposals that would meet the needs of the poor and the needy residing in the United States, without using government funding to do so. And yet, there are petitions encouraging U.S. policymakers to give money to other countries struggling with extreme poverty. If the United States cannot provide for the needs of its own poor, how can it conscionably appropriate funds to relieve poverty of other countries?

For the record, I agree that governments ideally would not use taxpayer money to the care of people in other countries, especially when there are such severe needs in our own country. With the proposed budget cuts, the elderly, children in poverty and the disabled will be without heat this winter, facing exposure and increasing the likelihood of health complications.  At the same time, I recognize the Christian and humanist duty for all people of the world to care for the poor and the needy. Though, the people of the United States may feel the need to prioritize the people of their own communities and country first, the suffering of people in developing countries are equal in value and importance.

Enter limited resources. If the money is not coming from governments, who does it come from?

Peter Singer, in The Life You Can Save, promotes the idea that everyone, especially those blessed with the affluence of the developed world have a percentage of their income to share with those who are in more need than they.  The Live You Can Save has been called the Billionaire's pledge for people of all income groups.

Since I doubt we have any billionaire's reading this blog, the pledge calculator conservatively estimates the percentage of income that a given household can comfortably donate to charitable and humanitarian organizations. Giving What We Can's donation calculator can tell you which percentage of the world is more wealthy than you. Chances are, if you are lower-middle to upper middle class, in a developed country, you are in the 20% percent of the world's wealthiest and your earnings are 4 or more times those of the typical person.

So, the proposal:

Over a period of a few years, the United States governments passes of the responsibility for social services to its citizens through incentivizing freewill donations to private sector non-profit organizations that take over service delivery. A suggestion for organizing and making needs known and accessible to potential donors is to use a website organization much like the one already in use by Global Giving.

The incentive from the government may be in the form of a tax credit or a tax deduction that is exempt from itemizing. A PSA and public education campaign similar to Let's Move, maybe called Let's Give, can be developed and promoted around the country.

While at the same time promoting citizen donations to social services, the proverbial Let's Give campaign can encourage giving to international humanitarian efforts like those recommended by The Life You can Save, Giving What We Can and Global Giving. Singer asserts, "If everyone who can afford to contribute to reducing extreme poverty were to give a modest proportion of their income to effective organizations fighting extreme poverty, the problem could be solved. It wouldn’t take a huge sacrifice." All it requires is the coordinated will, cooperation and some effective marketing.

We have the means available to meet the needs of all those who suffer from poverty, but it will require more people working together. Governments can play a role in the promotion of these values, but the domestic needs of their countries need to be their first priority. Sure, its redistribution of wealth, but this proposal addresses its biggest objection: voluntary giving. A good deal of resentment exists at the compulsory means of collecting funds for social services. If those who object so much were given the ability (and the incentive) to choose for themselves, perhaps we would see the Christian mandate to give of one's wealth accomplished and relief for the poor and the suffering of the world.

Where is this all coming from?

Many of my recent posts were prompted by a thought process that Rixa started me on when she posted a blog about doulas making a difference in the birth outcomes of women. She expressed her reservations that doulas may unintentionally support the status quo in our maternity care system.

This is my response to her post, and what started me on thinking about what an "organized effort" to promote change in the maternity care system would look like.

On August 20, at 9:58 pm I wrote:

In the last few months, I've been having a crisis of faith in doulas which has kept me away from going through the certification process.

From a first time mom who then came into the birth community, I learned that doulas tend to represent themselves as advocates and spokespeople for laboring women. But then the same doulas turn around and change the definition of advocate into something that doesn't mean what is being heard when a pregnant couple hears "advocate."

I also know that I am one of those mothers who found a doula as a no confidence vote in the hosptial. And while I avoided the cesarean, my plan backfired when I experienced PTSD after being forced repeatedly to find my voice in order to speak up for myself like Jen said. I did that and it was like trying to stave off a freight train that was trying to barrel down on me. And Jen is right, it is the responsibility of DOULAS (not mothers!) to correct the misconception that they aren't there to be advocates or spokespeople.

In addition to all of that, I do believe that doulas are contributing to the status quo of what is happening to women during birth. I see them spending more time trying to make women "more educated" when all that ends up happening is that those women go into the situation that is stacked against them. Doulas should be mounting organized efforts against hospitals and maternity care providers that change the face of birth in hospitals so in time it will become what we know is the true face of birth is supposed to be.

I see the efforts to make those changes being kept separate from the work of doula-ing. I've heard doulas say "when I'm older, I'll take on the system but now I'm going to focus on the individual family." While I understand where they are coming from, I strongly think that most doulas have the responsibility to do both: care for their individual familes and take on the system. As they do that work, women will join them.

This is also a time to say that when I do see doula efforts to take on the system, it is very disjointed and in little pockets. While that is the way grassroots changes come about, its important to connect those pockets and getting them to work together. It is that organized effort that is needed now.

To see the posts I've written aspects of what an organized effort would look like go to:
Birth "Think-Tank"
Legal Rights to Informed Consent in Birth
Framing Birth As Public Health, Reproductive Rights Social Issue
Speaking of Frames

Stay tune as my vision and ideas coalesce themselves, and how the organizations that I volunteer for (The Coalition for Improving Maternity Services and Solace for Mothers) fit into that vision.

Speaking of Frames

A couple of my recent posts have been on "frames"--concepts and ideas that are associated in the consciousness about issues.

If birth, as well as pregnancy and breastfeeding, issues can be framed as social issues and concerns relating to the legal rights of patients and reproducing women as well as public health concers (which I believe it can be with the proper practice and research to back it up), then what type of coalition building can occur?

One important aspect of framing issues is selecting the messenger. The messenger can assist or hinder the effective communication regarding an issue and can either reinforce the unwanted, past frames or can support the development of new, more accurate frames in the public consciousness.

Which brings me to my theory that is childbirth issues are social issues, including legal issues that also makes birthing a civil rights issue.

And who is a better mesenger for civil rights battles than the ACLU?

The American Civil Liberties Union's job is to "conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - and defend the rights of every man, woman, and child in this country." Many people may view the oranization as extremely liberal and opposed to tradition American values.

The ACLU has issued this article which addresses some of the misconceptions of their organization. I also beleive it can be seen from this article how the ACLU could work with birth activists to fix many of the legal issues inherent in the modern maternity system.

Three Things You Should Know About the ACLU

We're for traditional American values. In many ways, the ACLU is the nation's most conservative organization. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - and defend the rights of every man, woman, and child in this country.

We're not anti-anything. The only things we fight are attempts to take away or limit your civil liberties, like your right to practice any religion you want (or none at all). Or to speak out - for or against - anything at all. Or to be treated with equality and fairness, no matter who you are.

We're there for you. Rich or poor, straight or gay, black or white or brown, urban or rural, pious or atheist, American-born or foreign-born, able-bodied or living with a disability. Every person in this country should have the same basic rights. Since our founding, we've been working hard to make sure no one takes them away.

In my vision of a concerted effort to change the modern maternity system, the ACLU would partner with a birth think-tank and the grassroots birth activists to petition change, make midwifery care more accessible and affordable to American women and descrease the high infant and maternal mortality rates around the time of birth and make unhindered, normal birth the norm.

YAY BYU!

I found this article quote on Hathor the Cow Goddess's page:

First I want to say, Yay BYU for funding, sponsoring and conducting research on the importance of breastfeeding. You don't have a medical school, and the women in the church associated with you frequently wean their children early, but you are taking the issue on. Good on my alma mater!

Next, the issue of breastfeeding can also be framed as a social issue relating to public health. The book Baby Matters presents a ponderance of research showing that not breastfeeding or weaning early contributes to many of the childhood illnesses that can sometime be perpetuated into adulthood, including mental health issues.

Three out of four new moms try breast-feeding over the bottle, but most of them have quit by the time the baby reaches six months, a new study shows.

Breast or bottle? (Francesco Tonelli for The New York Times)
A report from Brigham Young University shows only 36 percent of babies are breast-fed through six months. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breast-feeding through the first year.

The data are based on a weighted sample of more than 60,000 children, collected from national immunization surveys compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the data are focused on childhood immunization rates, questions also were asked about breast-feeding, giving the researchers a representative sample of nursing patterns in the United States.

The researchers found that children who were most likely to be breast-fed for more than six months typically had mothers with higher levels of education and income. Married women and those who lived in Western states were also more likely to breast-feed. Hispanic women and women born in other countries were also more likely to breast-feed.

Returning to work, being a smoker or living in the Northeast decreased the likelihood of long-term breast-feeding. Notably, low-income women who participated in the subsidized Women, Infants and Children program, which provides food, milk and formula to mothers and young children, were also more likely to stop breast-feeding sooner.

“Breast-feeding promotion programs encourage women to start but don’t provide the support to continue,” said Renata Forste, co-author of the report, published in the August issue of the Journal of Human Lactation.