There are many things we are thankful for, like the fact that insurance companies can’t kick sick kids off coverage and people can stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. Obamacare is making it easier and more affordable for all of us to get the health care we need, when we need it – and there is still more to come!

Despite all of this progress, Obamacare is facing a big test this summer. There is a real threat that Obamacare could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  If so, millions of Americans stand to lose a lot – affordable coverage, accessible, quality care and so much more.

We need your help NOW to share the personal impact of this important law. We are going to tell the Supreme court, “Don’t Deny Us.” Send a photo of you, your family or a loved one who has been impacted by Obamacare to inform@cohealthinitiative.org.  We encourage you to include a sign that says “Don’t Deny Me” or another message representing how Obamacare has helped you.  Check out the sample photo at right – isn’t she adorable?

We are going to incorporate all of the photos into a video that we will be sharing online in late May, early June. (We also want to give a hat tip to our inspiration for this project, the Courage Campaign’s “Don’t Divorce Us” video in 2008/2009.)

Please submit your photos today to inform@cohealthinitiative.org.

Detoxing your home shouldn’t be a chore. Make it a party instead!

As a busy parent, you have a lot on your mind, and the last thing you want to worry about is exposing your baby to harmful chemicals in your own home. But it’s not always easy to figure out where those toxic chemicals might be lurking. For example, did you know that:

• Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo was found to contain formaldehyde – a known cancer-causing chemical?!

• Or that Tide Free & Gentle laundry detergent contains 1,4-dioxane, also a carcinogen?!

• Or that many canned foods contain Bisphenol-A (BPA), a hormone disruptor that interferes with the body’s development – in the liners?!

And how are you supposed to figure out what the safe and practical alternatives are? And the thought of doing this all on your own?! Talk about overwhelming!

That’s why Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) launched Green Momma Parties last week! Designed for baby showers, parents’ groups, or get-togethers with friends, Green Momma Parties bring parents together to make detoxing the home fun.

WVE’s free Green Momma Party Guide is available for download online and has everything parents need to throw a great party, including steps for hosting a party, non-toxic tips and solutions for each room in the house, economical do-it-yourself recipes for safer products with how-to videos, and more.

It’s estimated that between 80,000 and 85,000 chemicals are in use in consumer products in the United States, yet only about 200 of these chemicals have been thoroughly evaluated for safety. Babies and small children are particularly vulnerable to toxic chemicals because their immune systems and organs are still developing.

WVE believes that all products, especially those for vulnerable populations like babies, should be safe and non-toxic. That’s why Green Momma Parties also include opportunities for parents to take easy actions to raise their voices together for safer products.

What’s in the Green Momma Party Guide?

The Green Momma Party Guide includes everything you need to host a great party, including:

• Room-by-room guide of hidden hazards and practical tips for avoiding them

• Do-it-yourself recipes & how-to videos for each recipe

• Non-toxic shopping guide

• Action tips for busy mommas

• A discussion guide to keep the conversation flowing

And much more!

So let’s get this party started! Sign up today to host a Green Momma Party and get the free Guide, and join together with friends and family to start creating a non-toxic home for you and your baby!

Sample recipe from the Guide

“Russian Women are no longer the best kept secret of the cold war” notes the website of Encounters International, the mail-order bride company that is lobbying hard for the passage of the scary Republican version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — the version that passed the House of Representatives earlier this week. An actual reauthorization of VAWA passed in the Senate last month by a 68 – 31 margin, in a rare show of bipartisanship.

As I previously reported, the VAWA reauthorization provides Republicans with a unique opportunity to advance a war on two fronts (fighting women and immigrants), and they’re taking it. One would think that some problems—like domestic violence—are just too universal a struggle to fall prey to politics. Sadly, the Republicans’ handling of the Violence Against Women Act proves that’s not the case.

Incredibly, rather than protecting all people from abuse, they are doing the bidding of Encounters International and other “men’s groups” who are lobbying hard for the Republican VAWA bill. Why do these groups care? They’re lobbying for provisions that empower abusers and make it harder for victims of domestic violence to leave an abusive situation. See, immigration status and the fear of deportation give abusers just another tool to wield against their victims, and that much more leverage to make them stay.

As Mony Ruiz-Velasco, National Immigrant Justice Center’s director of legal services, told the Daily Beast:

“I’ve never had a case where the abuser did not use … immigration status as a tool.”

They tell women that going to the police means deportation and separation from their children. And rather than recognizing their role in this problem and working to correct it, the mail order bride industry is actually lobbying Congress to give abusers more power and more control.

As Rachel Maddow explained in her expose Wednesday night:

One of the worrying aspects of the whole mail order bride phenomenon – not just now, but always – is that a woman who immigrates to the United States using a service like this can end up dependent for her immigration status in this country on the American man to whom she has just been married for a fee. And if that American man starts beating her up, an immigrant woman who came to America under these circumstances can kind of be trapped. I mean, you don’t want her to stay with the abusive guy who bought her hand in marriage on the internet. But if she leaves the abusive American husband, she also may lose the marriage tie that was making it legal for her to be here, and she would therefore get deported.

So that’s the choice – right, stay with the man who was beating you…or get deported.

House Republicans claim that they are trying to protect women, but their group is opposed by all the major national, state, and local domestic violence groups. The only groups that are gung-ho about the Republican version of VAWA are really, really sketchy.

From the Huffington Post:

The advocacy group, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, or SAVE, has been lobbying the House of Representatives to include a “reform to curb VAWA immigration fraud” in its version of the bill. The GOP version of the bill does that by removing confidentiality protections for immigrant victims of abuse and forcing them to tell their alleged abusive husbands that they’re applying for protected immigrant status. It also removes an avenue through whih immigrant victims can achieve permanent citizenship.

An official of SAVE has a major financial interest in reducing immigrant protections: Its treasurer, Natasha Spivack, started international “marriage service” Encounters International in 1993 with the aim of arranging marriages between U.S. men and Russian women. “The Woman Of Your Dreams Just May Have A Russian Accent,” states the company’s website.

One of the Russian brides matched by Encounters International sued the firm, claiming that she was beaten by her American husband, that the company failed to properly screen candidates and neglected to tell her about a law allowing immigrants to escape abusive marriages without fear of automatic deportation. A jury decided in favor of the Russian bride and awarded her $434,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The case was affirmed upon appeal.

And so on. Back in February, when the Senate was first taking up VAWA, a letter was sent from a group called the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.

“We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing today to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda,” the letter read.

Please note that “We, the undersigned” from the Concerned WOMEN for America Legislative Action Committee comprises mostly men. Of the twenty-five people who signed the letter, sixteen are male.

In an exchange between Representative Sandy Adams (R), who introduced the bill in the House, and Representative John Conyers on the House floor Wednesday, Conyers asks “Who supports the Republican version of the bill?”

Representative Sandy Adams can only respond with “Well, Mr. Conyers, I can say I do. And I know that we have a list of them…”

Responds Conyers, adequately:

I ask who’s supporting the Republican measure, and you say ‘I am.’ Well, I’m glad to know that. And I think that just about tells everybody where the logic and the support for this bill is – there is none.

Unless, of course, your dating profile is: Republican, male, single, seeking Russian bride

Although the occasional abuse made her son reticent, he still wanted to visit and play with his friend.  His mother was concerned because this was one of very few friends Aiden had and she and the boy’s mother were also friends.

What to do?

To understand how to respond to bullying we must first understand its motivations.  Bullying is an attempt to exert social power.  Bullying is not the result of the bully’s lack of understanding about right and wrong, or their lack of empathy.  Quite often a bully is conflicted between their desire for power and their empathy.  It’s not that a bully doesn’t understand or feel empathy, it’s just that their desire for social power is stronger.

Social power is increased when a child shows disregard for the opinions of adults.  Grade school children are uncertain about who they are, and there is nothing cooler to their peers than a child who shows that he not only doesn’t need the approval of adults but is unafraid of their opinions or outrage.

Consequently, there are generally two effective approaches to handling bullying.  One is to consequence the bully and the other is to coach the bullied.  The biggest mistake adults make is to intervene by lecturing the bully or otherwise telling him how his or her actions are wrong, bad, shameful or disapproved of.  Berating or lecturing the bully in front of his peers is particularly ineffective as is provides a perfect platform for the bully to display social status and power.

So what to do with Aiden and Noah?

I suggested the mom start by coaching her son in effective ways to handle the situation.  Ask him to look out for the first signs of the bullying and when he sees it going that way he should say to his friend, “I don’t want you hitting me.  If you hit me I won’t play with you.”  Then if his friend does hit him, he should immediately tell the adult who’s at the house that he wants to go home or he wants his friend taken home.

Sara asked me if she should sit Noah down and tell him that she knows about the bullying and that it isn’t okay and I told her no.

There are two problems with Sara, not Aiden, confronting Noah about his bullying.  First, it undermines the power of Aiden by demonstrating that he must rely on his mom’s power and can’t assert his own and it denies him the opportunity to assert that power himself.  Second, it gives status to Noah’s actions by allowing him to flaunt his opposition to Aiden’s mom’s wishes and approval, inadvertently increasing Noah’s social power.

Then Sara asked me if she should talk to Noah’s mom and have her talk to Noah about his behavior.  My answer was no.  Again this will increase Noah’s status and show Aiden’s lack of power and status.  If she does talk with Noah’s mom it should be to ask for her support of Aiden as he negotiates this problem while specifically asking her not to talk to her son.

This way Aiden can exercise the power of following through with what he said he would do.  When Aiden comes to either adult he should be coached to say simply, “I want to go home now” or “I need you to take Noah home now”.  And the adults should honor his request immediately without questioning him or reproaching Noah.  This gives Aiden a tool to exert his own social power and to take away social power from Noah.

The other effective approach to bullying is hard to do in this situation since the boys are always playing alone when it happens.  However, in other situations I would advise the adults to stay close and within eyeshot when possible and intervene with an immediate action consequence that lowers social power.  Telling the bully to take a break for five minutes away from other children, without discussing with them why, can be a good way to do this.  Once the adult says why, or what the bully did was wrong, they inadvertently increase the status of the bully.

My wife told me about a teacher she had as a child who insisting that any child he caught bullying wear a big pink bow for the rest of the day.  While I’d never recommend this kind of shaming, her teacher clearly understood the root cause of bullying and attempted to counter it with something that diminished social power and status.

As we move forward in our attempt to eliminate the growing epidemic of bullying it’s essential that we respond with more than simple outrage and moralizing for the bully and empathy for the bullied.  Our responses must consider why it’s happening and which actions will undermine, or strengthen, the true motivations for it.

Joe Newman is a Behavior Consultant and the author of Raising Lions

Hitting your computer this week: A Better Balance’s sobering small-screen look at what you may NOT be expecting when you’re expecting—losing your job. Check out our new video and hear real stories from people whose lives were turned upside down by outdated laws and workplace policies that pushed them out of the jobs they needed to support their growing families.

Our culture has an obsession with pregnancy and parenting advice. Our news media is awash with stories of celebrity baby bumps, breastfeeding preschoolers and tiger moms. But we hear far less about the critical challenges facing millions of expecting and new parents, such as pregnancy discrimination, inflexible work schedules, lack of time off to care for new and sick children, and rampant bias in the workplace against family caregivers. Rollercoaster hormones may plague plenty of pregnant women, but so do outdated laws that don’t guarantee expecting moms the right to minimal workplace modifications they need to stay healthy and employed.

This is one of many areas where we, as a country, can do better. Just last week, members of Congress introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which would ensure protections for pregnant workers who face being pushed out on leave or terminated when they ask their employers for even the most minor workplace accommodations. No pregnant woman should be forced to choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy. (To learn more about this legislation and support it becoming law, please visit A Better Balance’s website.)

Pregnancy and parenthood will inevitably lead to upheaval of some sort, but we can make sure they do not lead to demotion, job loss and poverty. Together, we can change our laws and culture to value the work that goes into creating and raising a healthy, happy and productive member of our society. Expecting parents should be able to expect that.

One recent study gave me serious pause. We already understand that some chemicals can change how our genes function; now researchers know that this damage can be passed from one generation to the next. I’m no scientist, but I understand enough to know that compromising the DNA of future generations is not a good idea.

It’s been known for some time that a range of pollutants can strip or add chemical tags to DNA, locking the expression of these genes on or off and changing how they function. These changes are called “epigenetic tags,” and have been linked to various health effects including early puberty, disrupted ovarian function, and death of sperm-forming cells.

Overriding the reset button

What’s news from this recent study is that some chemicals can override the genetic “reset button” that usually protects a developing fetus from such changes.

In the normal course of things, any genetic changes parents have accumulated over the course of their lifetime are erased, and the genes go back to the original programming. A fascinating evolutionary trick.

But researchers at Washington State University in Pullman found that when pregnant rats were exposed to permethrin, DEET or any of a number of industrial chemicals (including common ingredients in plastics), the mother rats’ great grand-daughters had higher risk of early puberty and malfunctioning ovaries — even though those subsequent generations had not been exposed to the chemical.

The study’s leader, Dr. Michael Skinner, told Science News that every chemical tested resulted in these transgenerational effects, suggesting that “epigenetic changes are not some unique quirk of any one chemical,” and that many pollutants likely have the potential to override the fetal reset button.

Cutting edge science

For me, these so-called “epigenetic effects” are hard to wrap my mind around. So I’m very much looking forward to a conference on the topic coming up later this month, sponsored by our partners at the Children’s Environmental Health Network.

CEHN is pulling together an impressive cadre of researchers working to understand exactly how pollutants are compromising our DNA, how the damage gets passed along, and what it means for the health of future generations.

The Contribution of Epigenetics in Pediatric Environmental Health will be held here in San Francisco, May 30 – Jun 1. I’ll be listening in, along with my PAN colleague (and fellow mom) Dr. Medha Chandra. We believe that the more we understand about how we are compromising the DNA of future generations with today’s policies, the better case we can make that real change is needed, and soon. Hope to see you there.

This article was also posted on GroundTruth.

Americans, or at least the chattering class, have gotten all riled up about motherhood twice in the past few weeks.

First, there was the kerfuffle between Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen and Ann Romney about whether Mrs. Romney, a stay-at-home mother, could truly understand the plight of working Moms enough to advise her husband on the subject. Instead of turning into a real debate about the struggles of parenting and working, it turned into a question of whether the left really hates stay-at-home Moms.

Then last week, thousands of people were atwitter about how long a mother should breastfeed her child. Not only is it a completely personal decision that not has no universal answer, it also very much depends on whether a working mom can take breaks at work to pump while she is away from her baby — a point that was decidedly missing from Time magazine’s coverage.

While most people were distracted by these side shows about privileged moms who have real options to take time away from work for their children, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, convened a hearing, “Beyond Mother’s Day: Helping the Middle Class Balance Work and Family,” to shine a light on the problems faced by the overwhelming majority of mothers in the United States.

The fact is, working mothers, or at least those with limited education and lower-end jobs, have almost no employee benefits that allow time away from work when their children are sick or even when they give birth. Many of these moms have to work — with more than 6 out of 10 families relying on women to bring in at least one-quarter of the family income.

This disparity between highly-educated and economically secure mothers and those with less education and income is striking, as I testified at the hearing, pointing out that college-educated workers are far more likely to have access to paid maternity leave than workers with a high school degree or less.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a federal law passed in 1978, requires employers to offer equal benefits to all workers, including pregnant women. This means that if an employer offers paid sick days or paid short-term disability benefits, the law allows women to use these benefits for pregnancy-related illnesses or for time during child birth and recovery.

The law does not, however, affirmatively require employers to allow their workers paid time off, or any time off at all, for child birth if other workers don’t have the right to take time off for illnesses or injuries.

For college-educated women, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act still has made a big difference because many employers offer paid short-term disability insurance and paid sick days to attract and retain high-end employees. The law effectively requires those benefits be made available for pregnancy and child birth; thus, providing many college-educated women back-door access to paid maternity leave.

According to an analysis by the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1961 to 1965, only 14 percent of college-educated women workers received paid leave before or after the birth of their first child. The number jumped to 59 percent in the immediate period after passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and held at 66 percent in 2008.

From the Census Bureau report, "Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of First-Time Mothers: 1961-2008"

Compare that with less-educated workers: The law has made little difference to them because they are less likely to have access to paid sick days or paid short-term disability. For workers with less than a high school degree, access to paid leave after child birth remained nearly constant from 1961 to 2008 at about 18 percent — yes, 18 percent — less than one for every four college-educated workers with paid maternity leave.

Congress tried to fix this disparity in 1993 when it passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, requiring employers to provide workers with 12-weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a new baby or seriously ill family member, or to recover from one’s own serious illness. But only about half of all American workers qualify for this leave.

Senator Harkin and his colleagues on the committee did not have to rely on just these numbers to illustrate the inequality. They had witnesses — Kimberly Ortiz and me.

Kimberly testified that she grew up in poverty and was determined to escape it. She went to work for a food vendor at the Statue of Liberty before having children and put in long hours, rising to Assistant Manager. But when her two boys arrived, she soon faced an unforgiving and unrelenting employer: no paid time off when her first child was born, a disciplinary write-up for taking an unpaid sick day when her son was in the emergency room, and an ever-changing schedule that made lining up child care extremely challenging.

Me: I grew up in the middle class. My parents put a second-mortgage on their home to put me through college. I took out loans and received scholarships to put myself through graduate school and law school. The end result is that today I’m a highly-educated professional worker. When my first child was born, I received 4-months of time off with full pay. When my second child was hospitalized at 6 months old, I took paid sick days to sit by his bed side. And when my children get unexpectedly ill or need to go to the doctor’s, I move my schedule around — and sometimes call my boss at the last minute to say I’m not coming in, all with knowledge that I will not be disciplined for doing so.

The real debate we should be having isn’t whether breastfeeding or stay-at-home mothering is good or bad for parents and children. We should be talking about public policies that virtually ignore less-educated workers in their quest for the same family-friendly benefits provided to professional parents.

How can we expect our children to thrive if their parents are penalized when their children are ill?

Follow Ann on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Ann_OLeary

“Women often serve as caregivers for their families, putting the needs of their spouses, partners, children, and parents before their own. As a result, women’s health and well-being becomes secondary. As a community, we have a responsibility to support the important women we know and do everything we can to help them take steps for longer, healthier, and happier lives.” -Womenshealth.gov

For Wellness Wednesday, we’re focusing on taking charge of your health and finding out new ways the Affordable Care Act can empower you to make the best health decisions for you and your family. Here are 10 posts with resources, advice, and news about Women’s Health and the Affordable Care Act from the MomsRising blog:

Ask an Expert: Women, Health Reform, and the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative by Ashley Wheeland

I will NOT be denied: Protect women’s health care! by Leni Preston

HERVotes Blog Carnival: What Health Care Reform Means to Women by Cindy Pearson

Healthcare Reform and Breastfeeding by Saray Hill, IBCLC

5 Ways Health Reform Supports Women by Erin Armstrong

Wellness Wednesday: Women and Heart Disease by Claire Moshenberg

It’s in the Law: Breaking Down What’s In It For You in the New Health Care Law by Thao Nguyen

How Restrictions on Health Care Funding Affect Low-Income Women’s Access to Care by Amanda Dennis

Women’s Health, Worth Fighting For by Avis Jones-Deweever

Top 5 Tips for Working and Breastfeeding by Bettina Forbes

This week’s observance of National Women’s Health Week, with its theme of “This Is Your Time,” underscores the need for every woman to stay vigilant, through regular health screenings, good nutrition and exercise, about maintaining her own health. I applaud the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for raising awareness this week that individual women need to make their own health a priority.

But I would like to broaden the conversation. So many of the threats to women’s health stem not just from their own choices but the environment they live in, the public policies that affect them and their access to health care – all factors beyond their control. I’m referring to things like whether a woman has health insurance to pay for health screenings, breathes air that is polluted or lives in a low-income community, or even whether medications are available to meet her distinct needs.

Guiding all of the work we do at the Public Health Institute (PHI) is the awareness of the social and economic factors that contribute to everyone’s health. Many of our cutting-edge programs focus on ways to change the conditions that shape a woman’s health and better understand her health needs:

• The Child Health and Development Studies (CHDS) at PHI is a landmark longitudinal study that tracks the health of 15,000 pregnant women from the SF Bay Area between the years 1959 and 1967 – such as Sue above – as well as their children. Their work includes the Three Generations Breast Cancer Study, the first womb-to-breast cancer study in the world, which also examines disparities in environmental exposures and breast cancer. CHDS is uniquely able to trace the long-term effects of environmental exposures in women and girls, examining the effects of chemicals including DDT and PCBs on fertility, pregnancy and the health of the mothers who were exposed and their children and grandchildren.
• In Kenya and Tanzania, PHI supports local organizations to increase women’s access to Misoprostol. An inexpensive and widely available drug, Misoprostol can prevent post-partum hemorrhage and unsafe abortion, the two leading causes of maternal mortality in many countries. Most important, evidence now shows that women can use this drug safely, in their communities, without going to a facility or seeing a provider.
• PHI’s Global Clean Cookstoves Project is at the forefront of developing clean energy technologies to make cooking safe, environmentally sound, and healthy for women and families. Together with scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, PHI is field-testing state-of-the-art stoves with village women in Western Kenya to replace open-fire cookstoves used by 3 billion people worldwide. By identifying stoves that reduce killer levels of exposure, PHI hopes to reduce the impact of cookstove smoke, the fifth leading cause of death in developing countries.
• The Coalition Advancing Multipurpose Innovations (CAMI) at PHI works with researchers, biotechnology developers, policymakers, advocates and providers to promote the development and distribution of prevention products with more than one purpose. The products would prevent unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and other illnesses. For example, testing of a microbicide gel supported by CAMI has been shown to protect against acquiring both the AIDS virus and the genital herpes virus.

These programs don’t just better the conditions, health and lives of millions of women. Together, they are building stronger families and communities. Investing in women and mothers has a huge multiplier effect on the well-being and productivity of the family, the community, the nation and the world.

PHI will be hosting a Facebook chat Wednesday, May 16th at 3pm ET, noon PT, to talk about domestic and global women’s health. ‘Like’ Dialogues to Health to join the conversation.

TIME raised a ruckus recently with a profile of “attachment parenting” guru Dr. Bill Sears, highlighted by a cover photo of a mother breastfeeding her three-year-old son, according to the Huffington Post. Healthy Child believes breast is best—especially for the first year, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics—and welcomes the discussion these photographs have incited (although not the flaming, that’s just plain mean). Some additional information to add to the chatter: African Americans have the lowest breastfeeding rates, yet the community is hit hardest by health problems that breastfeeding protects against.

Our newest Mom on a Mission has set out to change these statistics.

Victory for Safer Cosmetics

Thanks to an amazingly vocal community, which sent thousands of letters, petitions, tweets and Facebook posts on the subject, the Safe Cosmetics Bill achieved a major victory last week, as Congress held the first hearing on cosmetics safety in 30 years and decided not to short-circuit it by adding it to a FDA-related bill, according to ABC News.  However, the innocently-named “Cosmetic Safety Amendment Act of 2012,” written by the Personal Care Products Council, was recently introduced and would allow decisions about ingredient safety made by the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel binding to the FDA, according to the Breast Cancer Fund’s Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

If you need a reminder of what’s at stake, read this beautiful Mother’s Day blogpost by Lisa Archer, with the Safe Cosmetics Campaign and be sure to sign the action alert supporting meaningful reform of the cosmetics industry.

March for Safer Chemicals

If we can do it for cosmetics, why not for chemicals in general? There are 80,000 chemicals registered for use in commerce—not one of them has been tested for children’s safety. That’s why motivated moms—including Healthy Child’s representative, mom blogger Christy Funk—are heading to Washington, D.C. on May 22nd to march with Safer Chemicals Healthy Families in support of a long-awaited overhaul of the woefully outdated federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Join us!

Flame Retardants’ Smokey History

The Chicago Tribune wrapped up its four-part series on flame retardants with a must-see video that it teased with the following statement, “The average American baby is born with 10 fingers, 10 toes and the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in the world. The toxic chemicals are present in nearly every home, packed into couches, chairs and many other products. Two powerful industries — Big Tobacco and chemical manufacturers — waged deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation of these chemicals, which don’t even work as promised.” Our feelings exactly. Join Healthy Child in our support of a petition by our Parent Ambassador Sara Snow to Graco to phase out these toxic chemicals from baby products!

BPA Linked to Breast Cancer

For years advocates have warned about studies of mice that found links between BPA and breast cancer. A new study of monkeys published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and reported by the Wichita Eagle found similar results—leading researchers to conclude that the chemical is a risk factor for breast cancer in humans.

Healthy Child Makes Celeb News

Yes, Us Weekly is a guilty pleasure—and not exactly news—but we can’t resist the opportunity to toot our own horn when we recently found a tweet from Vanessa Lachey quoted in its pages: “’This past weekend I discovered these two AMAZING books! Let’s learn together!’ she tweeted April 17 with a pic of Breastfeeding Made Simple and Healthy Child, Healthy World.” Thanks @VanessaLachey!