President Trump has repeatedly challenged far-left media outlets for their exaggerated and often blatantly inaccurate reports. In his most recent Twitter battle with the “failing New York Times,” the argument calls into question which group supports a woman’s right to choose.
Last spring, hundreds of delegates met in Geneva for the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO), to discuss tactics for limiting the marketing of baby formulas and promoting breastfeeding worldwide. The New York Times claims that U.S. commissaries disagreed with the methods and threatened to set trade sanctions and withdraw military aid to nations unwilling to comply.
They went on to assert that the threats continued until Russian officials entered the conversation and silenced the Americans. They declared that more than a dozen international officials recounted the experience, but all asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the United States.
President Trump responded:
The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breast feeding must be called out. The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don’t believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2018
Well, they can’t both be right. Who’s telling the truth?
Weighing the Facts
All who supposedly submitted reports to the NYT did so anonymously. Also, the article notes that the Department of Health and Human Services denied that U.S. delegates made any threats during the meeting. They instead explained that the Americans contested the resolution’s wording because it would place difficult constraints on women by limiting the marketing of baby formulas.
The U.S. officials believed ladies should have the choice to access these alternatives. The NYT claims that such outlooks are scientifically illiterate and dangerous to the well-being of kids in all nations.
The WHO explains that exclusively breastfeeding all infants under six months of age might save about 820,000 lives each year. However, two in every three do not receive any of such nutrients in low and middle-income countries. Furthermore, for nearly two in every three of those under six months worldwide, other foods are regularly introduced into their diets.
The National Institutes of Health details that the milk protects against Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, which occurs when a sleeping newborn stops breathing. It also promotes mother-child bonding, which boosts immune strength and aids in preventing future neurological disorders.
There is preliminary evidence that it may contribute to reducing the child’s risk of allergies, asthma, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, as well as improve cognitive development.
Although almost all women are capable of breastfeeding, some experience conditions that limit the amount they can produce. In low-income nations, many are unable to make enough milk due to malnutrition, forcing them to opt for substitutes, which don’t provide the same benefits.
Females taking medications for mental disorders or other illnesses are often discouraged, due to the potential influence of the drugs. Numerous scientific analyses have found that about one in six Americans uses prescription medications for a psychological condition each year, many of which may pose a danger to the kid if consumed through breast milk.
Furthermore, some single-mothers must work long hours and are thus often unable to devote the time to exclusively breastfeeding. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 36% of all moms in the country are single, many of whom live below the poverty line.
There are instances in which women are required to seek alternatives, and those should be readily available for the nourishment of their youth. This freedom of choice is precisely what the American delegates advocate. However, the NYT article misleadingly asserts that they did so as “the latest example of the Trump administration siding with corporate interests on numerous public health and environmental issues.”
A second piece by the news source states that baby formulas have led to the deaths of about 66,000 infants. They gave “evidence” for their claims by citing a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. However, the NYT either intentionally misrepresented the findings or have scientifically illiterate authors.
The study noted that the culprit for such deaths was not the food, but consumption of contaminated water from developing nations mixed with the powder before feeding. In fact, the WHO reports that over 2 billion people worldwide use drinking water contaminated with feces, and 502,000 people die each year from diarrhea induced by consuming the liquid.
Young children comprise the vast majority of those deaths. The issue is not the formula, but the poor sanitation conditions in which many in developing nations reside. When using clean water, formula may save the lives of many infants in regions plagued by malnutrition.
Limiting availability will only make it harder for mothers to provide the best for their young. After all, many requiring such alternatives live in low-income areas and are often unable to afford regular doctor visits to learn of other options, as published by the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
However, because the Trump Administration believes in allowing these ladies to access readily available choices, the NYT seems to insist they do not deserve that selection. Instead, they promote shaming females unable to breastfeed to further their political cause.
Indeed, a mother’s milk is optimal for the health of the infant. However, when alternatives are necessary, ladies in all nations should have the freedom to choose the most beneficial route for their babies. Even if the “failing New York Times” suggests otherwise.Whatfinger.com