I neglected to add a few items. First, after the resolution was introduced by Russia instead of Ecuador,  it passed.  I don’t know the final vote.   Frequently, when it becomes obvious that a resolution will pass, and it is not what the US wants, countries will simply abstain.

I also neglected to include the entire Trump tweet,  which says  the US “strongly supports breastfeeding but we don’t believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty.”   Along with calling the New York Times article a “fake”,  this is equally dishonest.  There was nothing in the resolution denying access to formula.  Of course, this would be impossible.   WHO and other women’s health organization all recognize that when breast feeding is not possible, then formula is the right solution and women have to be able to purchase formula.

The US Health and Human Services put out a statement, saying this was a women’s choice.   Of course it is.   But unfortunately, they are often fed wrong information from advertisers.  All the World Health Organization was trying to do, is counter decades of formula promotion.

A link to the original New York Times article was not given.   It looked like it was for subscribers only,  but really NYT maintains a limit on the number of free accesses, which I guess I used up.  Here’s the original story:  NYT article.

Every journalist would like actual quotes from people attending the meeting.   NYT articles simply stated that:

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States. Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.

Health and Human Services responded as follows:

“We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely.

Again, this misinformation about choice and access.  It wasn’t part of the WHO  resolution.   Of course, HHS isn’t about to issue a statement that perhaps all the millions of dollars of political donations could be impacted, if Trump supported the breastfeeding resolution.

I am very glad we have journalists like Adam Jacobs,  with the New York Times, who provide accurate honest reporting.   I really put facts first.

Both Bush and Obama supported the World Health Organizations efforts in breastfeeding as the preferred feeding at least in the first 6 months.  If fact,  George W. Bush was a very strong advocate, as per the “failing fake NYT:

Twelve years ago, during the George W. Bush administration, the Department of Health and Human Services promoted breast-feeding in a public health campaign that suggested that failing to breast-feed would be as bad for your baby as riding a mechanical bull while pregnant. A senior scientific adviser to the Office on Women’s Health in the department at that time said that it was risky not to breast-feed, and compared not breast-feeding to smoking during pregnancy.

The breastfeeding incident would not be so bad, if the Trump administration just backed off, and apologized to Ecuador for their heavy handed approach.  It is hardly Trump’s style.  And his combination of threats and demands hasn’t been working in many areas.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan of “Stronger Together”  can be restated as “Weaker apart” – case in point being the recent NATO summit, or the NAFTA negotiations, or trade war with China.

The swamp has been referred to by Donald Trump as the cozy relation of business lobbyists to government.  The main targets of industry are those that make regulations,  the Environmental Protection Agency,  Department of Interior (oil drilling leases), Department of Energy,  Consumer Finance and Protection Bureau, and of course,  Health and Human Services. It’s filling up fast, particularly at the EPA.

I think we will hear more about HHS in this month.  HHS is now defying the court ordered re-uniting of illegal immigrant parents with  children.

Stay tuned,

Dave