Kevin De Leon is swell.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/BA2S165E34.DTL&hw=lactating&sn=001&sc=1000

Bill boosts required help for lactating moms
Wyatt Buchanan
Thursday, February 26, 2009
PRINT E-MAIL SHARE COMMENTS (0) FONT | SIZE:

A Los Angeles Assemblyman has introduced legislation that would require 30-minute work rest breaks for mothers who are extracting milk for babies, and require insurance companies to include coverage for lactation training and rentals of breast pumps.

Democrat Kevin De Leon said he was concerned that breastfeeding mothers who work do not have sufficient time or resources to extract milk and thus could give up on breastfeeding altogether.

"Working mothers shouldn't have to choose between earning a living and breastfeeding their baby," he said, flanked by mothers and breastfeeding advocates at a news conference Wednesday.

But it so happens that California already has a law on its books requiring employers to give lactating mothers "a reasonable amount of break time ... to extract milk." The assemblyman said his legislation is necessary because the state Department of Industrial Relations has not followed through in creating regulations to enforce that 2001 law.

"I have to disagree with that," said Erika Monterroza, spokeswoman for the department. She said it has taken action: The department fined International Security Services of Santa Clara $4,000 last year for not providing an adequate room for a mother to express milk. It was the first complaint the agency received.

"If anyone is having difficulty in either getting break time or a location they need to let the labor commission office know so we can assist and continue to make that protection strong," she said.

This article appeared on page B - 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle

What better way to begin?

Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing Editorial

This editorial has been gathering momentum in
my mind since I heard about a resolution introduced
by the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) to the House of Delegates
of the American Medical Association’s (AMA)
annual meeting in June 2008. American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists’s resolution #205
was adopted by the AMA and is titled ‘‘Home
Deliveries.’’ So that I cannot be accused of misquoting
the AMA or ACOG, you will ¢nd the text
of the adopted resolution at the end of this editorial.
In his ‘‘College News’’ column of ACOGToday (September
2008), ACOG Executive Vice President
Ralph W. Hale reported on his attendance at the
AMA Annual Meeting and wrote, ‘‘Also, there
was model legislation related to home deliveries
supporting the ACOG position against home
births.’’ The point of this resolution is to lobby
against home birth as an option for women and
against providers of home birth services. This type
of resolution by ‘‘authoritative’’ bodies such as
ACOG and AMA will certainly in£uence decisions
made by third-party payers when women request
home birth services and by liability insurance carriers
when providers seek coverage for home birth
services.
Rumor has it, as stated in the Los Angeles Times
on July 9, 2008, that in the original ACOG
resolution, there was another ‘‘whereas’’ that was
deleted before adoption.

Please continue reading.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121645508/PDFSTART