Animal husbandry and farming threatened

There is currently a bill on the books in California that could have a huge impact on farmers and breeders of any animal in California, and could potentially impact the availability of meat also.

It would criminalize any sale or transfer (including giving away or exchanging transport) of most animals on public property or in any public place (including at rabbit shows, transfer of animals in relays to get them to their new homes, etc.) within the state of California, and also is written vaguely enough that any dispatch of animals, including humane dispatch for food, could be criminalized as well.

What happens in any one state can affect the entire nation, so it's important to speak out even if you're not from CA.

There are many other organizations besides the ARBA opposing this bill--I just happen to have this info. from the ARBA because I am a member. :)

Read below for more info . . .

######################################

I've made some minor corrections to typos.

Official Call to Action from ARBA (American Rabbit Breeders Association)

Below is an official plan of action released this evening by the president of ARBA- Mike Avesing. He has sent out the following information (see below) and has urged every single member of ARBA to take action immediately to oppose SB 917.

Please do the following:

1.) Cross post this official ARBA call to action alert to every single rabbit owner and raiser you know. There are over 1,700 members of ARBA. They all need to see this message as soon as possible. Encourage cross posting to as many concerned citizens as possible nation wide. This message needs to go viral within the next 24 hours to be effective. It is up to each and every single person receiving this email to step up and to send it on to as many folks as they can. We all need to do this if we care about the future of rabbit raising and preserving animal farming interests in California and Nationally.

2.) Please either fax or send your opposition letter as soon as possible to Senator Ted Lieu, Governor Jerry Brown, and all members of the California Assembly Appropriations Committee. All of the necessary contact information is contained within the ARBA action plan below. Also attached and embedded below is a sample letter that can be used. Just fill in your information as appropriate. Please feel free to edit to better convey your opposition message. Remember to include this phrase at the top of your letter: (name of organization or individual) strongly oppose SB 917 as amended and in any an all forms. This is so your opposition to this bill will not be dropped should it be changed or amended.

3.) Next, get as many people as you can to likewise fax or send in their opposition letters. Remember that simply calling or emailing will NOT assure that your opposition will be heard and added to the official file. Have every single member of your family, your friends, co-workers, fellow farmers, etc. fax in their opposition individually. All animal husbandry will be ended in California should this bill pass. We want to literally melt down their fax machines and make it difficult for them to conduct their business as usual. Past experience has taught us that this is the only way to get their attention so they will hear us.

4.) Please, all of you from out of state, please join our opposition effort and fax in your opposition letters ASAP. As the saying goes “So goes California , so goes the nation”. The animal rights operatives behind this monstrous bill will replicate it across the nation if they are successful in passing it in California . This is their tried and true mode of operandus. YOU CAN BANK ON IT!

We all should extend a big thank you to Mike Aversing for his invaluable help in this effort.

ARBA Action Plan ” CA Senate Bill 917″

The ARBA is very concerned with the potential impacts of SB 917 on our hobby and our members in CA. With that in mind, we are urging that every one of our 1731 California members contact their elected state officials to express their concern about the negative impacts of SB 917. Target the elected officials that represent you. Encourage your family and friends fax letters of opposition to the bill. 4H or FFA groups would also be impacted by this bill and would also we a great place to get additional support.

To make it easier for everyone to do that, we are providing the following to as many members as we can:

*
A sample letter that can be sent to your elected state officials. (Separate email attachment) The letter should be useable by anyone. If you raise cavies, just substitute “cavies” for rabbits in the letter. Opposition letters can be faxed to 916-319-2181 to be reviewed by the individual who will be writing the analysis for the Appropriations Committee. Additionally, it is a good idea to fax opposition letters to each Assembly person on the appropriations committee to convey your position and how this bill will adversely affect you, your organization, and animal husbandry in general.

Faxing letters is preferred to calling since the fax is a hard copy of your opposition and must be included in the file. Calls are not recorded as such.

Contact information for the members of the Appropriations Committee is also included in this document.

*
Contact information for CA State Assemblymen (Separate email attachment)

*
Talking points that you can use in discussions on the bill (See below)

Melting down the fax machines at the capitol was a very successful tactic we have used in the past to defeat other bad animal rights bills. WE NEED LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE sending in their opposition. At the bottom of this email is the contact list for the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

When you have completed your opposition effort then it is imperative that we get others to do the same. These can be family members, neighbors, friends, fellow farmers and rabbit breeders, co-workers, etc. Please have those who reside out of state that you know do the same.

SPREAD THE WORD QUICKLY. It is especially important to fax opposition letters to Governor Brown’s office and Senator Ted Lieu’s office.

Here is their contact information:

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento , CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160

Senator Ted Lieu

Capitol Office

State Capitol, Room 4090

Sacramento , CA
95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056

The information we are providing has been supplied by many individuals within our membership. I don’t want to mention names for fear of forgetting someone. I’d sincerely like to thank them for their assistance and support.

Mike Avesing

Talking Points:

BENEFITS of the rabbit and cavy fancies:

*
the productive contribution the hobby makes in the lives of young people
*
community service
*
wholesome food
*
the green movement/sustainable agriculture
*
agribusiness/retail economy
*
promotion of responsible rabbit ownership that ARBA members support

Committee Members District FAX E-mail

Felipe Fuentes – Chair Dem-39 (916) 319-2139

Assemblymember.Fuentes@assembly.ca.gov

Diane L. Harkey – Vice Chair Rep-73 916) 319-2173

Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov

Bob Blumenfield

Dem-40 (916) 319-2140 Assemblymember.Blumenfield@assembly.ca.gov

Steven Bradford

Dem-51 (916) 319-2151 Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov

Charles M. Calderon

Dem-58 (916) 319-2158 Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov

Nora Campos

Dem-23 (916) 319-2123 Assemblymember.Campos@assembly.ca.gov

Mike Davis

Dem-48 (916) 319-2148 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov

Tim Donnelly

Rep-59 (916) 319-2159 Assemblymember.Donnelly@assembly.ca.gov

Mike Gatto

Dem-43 (916) 319-2143 Assemblymember.Gatto@assembly.ca.gov

Isadore Hall III

Dem-52 (916) 319-2152 Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov

Jerry Hill

Dem-19 (916) 319-2119 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Ricardo Lara

Dem-50 (916) 319-2150 Assemblymember.Lara@assembly.ca.gov

Holly J. Mitchell

Dem-47 (916) 319-2147 Assemblymember.Mitchell@assembly.ca.gov

Jim Nielsen

Rep-2 (916) 319-2102 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Chris Norby

Rep-72 (916) 319-2172 Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov

Jose Solorio

Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Donald P. Wagner

Rep-70 (916) 319-2070 Assemblymember.Wagner@assembly.ca.gov

Sample Letter :

I (name of organization or individual) strongly oppose SB 917 as amended and in any and all forms.

Dear Esteemed Assemblyman: ,

I would like to convey my strong opposition to bill SB 917 pertaining to the topic of “animal abuse”. I ask to be included in the count for the opposition to SB917.

This proposed law is a direct assault on animal husbandry in the state of California including, but not limited to, those who raise rabbits. SB 917 constitutes a direct assault on small farmers and intends to criminalize them simply for their responsible and ethical pursuit of animal raising. Those who raise rabbits and other animals will be forbidden to sell them anywhere except on private property. This requirement will inevitably impede both interstate commerce as well as live animal trade within California ‘s borders. Selling at shows and on public property, giving away animals as pets, and transporting them to be picked up anywhere on public property will be considered an act of “animal cruelty” complete with fines, seizure of private property (animals), and arrest as a misdemeanor offense. Furthermore, the natural and time honored farming practice of harvesting animals for food will be now be criminalized and potentially be classified as “cruel and intentional killing”, an act of animal cruelty, and, according to this law, a felonious crime.

The terms cruelty, abuse, and neglect are not well defined by this bill. As written, they are ambiguous terms subject to the conjecture and whims of the enforcer. Who is to determine what is cruel, neglectful, and/or abusive and what is not? What criterion will be used? None are set forth in this bill. Normal farming practices may seem cruel to someone who has always resided in a city and has only owned pets that live with them inside their homes as many animal control investigators have. Because this law is so badly written and poorly defined, its enforcement will cause the inevitable abuse of power by those who choose to do so.

Clearly, this bill will unavoidably lead to the criminalization of innocent farming and animal raising California citizens.

Families will be prohibited from raising rabbits and other animals for food. Children participating in 4H and FFA will become instant criminals upon their 18th birthday simply because they raise animals. Small farmers, under the weight of such a draconian and ill-conceived law, will be forced to abandon farming in California and flee the state resulting in a massive loss of tax revenue and a vital food supply.

All wrongly convicted farmers and animal raisers caught in this ill-conceived dragnet will be incarcerated in California‘s already over-populated penal system. Rest assured, there will be legal challenges to this law which again will be borne by the California taxpayer. Additionally, this is an unfunded mandate whose implementation will be paid for by already critically cash-strapped local governments. .

During these fiscally challenging economic times, California simply can not afford to make SB 917 a law. Please stand with our innocent farmers and animal raisers of California by opposing this draconian legislation.

The last thought I would like to leave you with is- what will happen to California‘s meat supply should this bill go into effect? We are one of the largest food producing regions in the world. How many people will be adversely affected by this law when the cost of meat escalates beyond affordability? Already cash-strapped families will no longer be able to provide their children with meat-based protein which is absolutely essential for normal human development. The ultimate costs of SB 917 are grave and far reaching.

Thank you so much for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

(Your name/ position and/or organization here)

Project Success

Our beans and rice project went well. Our goal had been to raise enough money for one well, which with a matching grant would dig two wells in Nicaragua. Instead, we were able to raise enough money for 4 wells, which with the matching grant will be 8! Praise the Lord!

We learned a lot during the week about how people in poverty live, about the people group we're helping with the wells, and about the Lord. The kids did really well with it, and it was a great experience.

Beans and Rice

This week, we're eating beans, rice and water. All week long, for every meal. It's a project our church is doing together as part of our current sermon and activity series.

We've been having a lot of messages about loving God and others, and passages like the Good Samaritan. Last week we heard a message about the passage where Jesus said that when we give a cup of cold water or help someone in need in His name, we do it for Him. This week the entire church is being asked to participate, at whatever level is appropriate for their abilities, age, health issues, etc. in a beans, rice and water fast.

The rice and beans project is to help us learn about, empathize with and pray for those who live in poverty around the world, appreciate what we have and be willing to share in our blessings. The best part is that we're all taking the money we save on groceries and sending it to Forward Edge International to dig a well (hopefully two wells) in a desperately needy village in Nicaragua.

The kids and I are doing a slightly modified version, allowing ourselves a few vegetables along with the beans and rice. DH and NLASS are sticking to just beans and rice, although seasonings are allowed. So far, it's going well.

The kids aren't a big fan of beans, but they're learning to appreciate some dishes they otherwise would have been hesitant to try.

We've spent quite a bit of time talking, learning about and praying for the people who get very little to eat, and who would be thankful to have such a quantity and variety of beans and rice as we're getting. The girls were very touched by reading and seeing videos about the kids living in the dump in Managua (note: Some of the videos touch on some topics that may be sensitive for children--you may want to prewatch it and note any places where you'll want to mute the video).

We joined this project to contribute to blessing others. But we're getting blessed through it ourselves as we learn about the people and projects in Nicaragua, take our eyes off ourselves, and gain a greater appreciation for God's blessing in our lives.

Election Day, USA

Don't forget to vote. Please.

And I want to mention that I am voting NO on our assisted suicide bill.

One big reason is that in Oregon, virtually the same bill has in some cases become more the "duty to die" law than anything about a "right to death with dignity". Some people with terminal illnesses are now getting letters from the state health plan saying that their treatment (basically any treatment that has less than a 5% chance patient survival after 5 years) will not be covered by health insurance, but that the state WILL cover their assisted suicide. Hint, hint.

Nobody should be forced or pressured to make that choice.

Even if you think assisted suicide should be legal, the law up for vote right now has little to no safeguard against abuse as currently written, and has other major problems.

######################

Here's a page with quite a few links from reputable sources pointing out problems that Oregon has had with their assisted suicide law.

There are no real effective safeguards in place in this law. For instance, doctors are only required to recommend counseling for depressed or mentally ill patients ONLY if the doctor feels that the person's condition is causing "impaired judgement". There is no safeguard in place and no evaluation required to try to make sure that the person's depression isn't causing their desire for suicide.

Another thing worth pointing out is that the law up for vote in our state on this issue actually requires physicians to lie about the cause of death on the death certificate. For instance, if a person with cancer takes an overdose of barbituate, with a doctor's help, to kill themselves, the doctor is required by this law to write on the death certificate that cancer was the cause of death.

Page 7:

24 (2) The attending physician may sign the patient's death
25 certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the
2 6 cause of death.

Please check out this website if you want to know more about why to vote NO on this law.

Fireproof?

Are any of my readers planning to see Fireproof? Or did you go and see it today? Some of the people in our homeschool group were talking about it and seem to think it's going to be a really great movie.

The official blurb is, "A heroic fireman (Kirk Cameron) in a failing marriage takes up his father's challenge to be part of a 40-day experiment designed to teach both husband and wife the real meaning of commitment."

If you've seen it or have read about it, let me know what you think (no spoilers, please).

Communicating, not Manipulating

This is a follow-up post to Can Infants Lie?

This article discusses a study that supposedly showed that babies as young as 6 months have the capability to lie:

Dr Reddy said: "Fake crying is one of the earliest forms of deception to emerge, and infants use it to get attention even though nothing is wrong. You can tell, as they will then pause while they wait to hear if their mother is responding, before crying again.

"It demonstrates they're clearly able to distinguish that what they are doing will have an effect. This is essentially all adults do when they tell lies, except in adults it becomes more morally loaded."

To me, this says that the baby is beginning to develop an understanding of cause and effect, not that they're lying. The fact that they listen to see if you're coming in answer to their cry doesn't have anything to do with deceitfulness, IMHO.

###########################


The fact that a baby may sometimes cry more when they have an audience doesn't necessarily mean they are faking it, either. This blog post by Carrie had a great take on this idea, I think. The whole post is very much worth the read, but I'll quote a sentence or two:

If a friend who is upset calls me and I answer the phone, she will likely tell me what’s on her mind. But what if she gets my machine? Will she pour out her heart and cry into the voicemail? Likely not. That means she’s “lying” if she cries on my shoulder in person, right?

Another article about Dr. Reddy says,

The researcher defines "fake" crying as being more calculated than the usual "I'm tired/hungry/wet/hurt/lonely" cries. . . .

"If crying is normally closely connected to some discomfort or distress, and this is its typical use, then disconnecting it from that typical use and using it more deliberately or instrumentally to get attention constitutes its fakeness."

That's what I was responding to with the comment that if your baby just wants Mommy, what do you expect them to do--send a telegram? Why decide that a cry is "fake" just because they don't have an easily-determinable "discomfort or distress"?

The article also mentioned that there was a different quality to the cries they judged as "fake". To me, that's not the baby "fake crying" . . . that's the baby using a different type of cry to communicate different things. The fact that the pitch and intensity of the baby's cries varies with different circumstances seems an argument against lying, not proof of dishonesty.

Babies live very much in the moment. They have no concept of time, and they know very little beyond the fact that they are uncomfortable. To them, it seems as though they've been hungry forever and will continue to be hungry forever. So they often cry with great urgency when they have a need.

But I don't think "selfishness" is the best way to describe this. Webster's dictionary defines selfishness this way:

"Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others."

The baby isn't taking someone else's food and eating it, or forcing the parent to feed it right now. It's just crying. It has no ability to deprive anyone else of anything--the parent could just as easily choose not to meet the baby's needs and let it cry. A baby has no way of knowing that it might be inconveniencing anyone.

It's not caring "unduly" for itself, because it has no ability to do otherwise. That level of concern for its own needs is necessary and appropriate for an infant. An infant who waited until it wouldn't be inconveniencing anyone before it cried might die of hunger. So I wouldn't connect the baby's crying with a motivation of selfishness.

Someone else made this comparison, which I thought was apt: What if you were in a terrible accident and you couldn't talk or move your body? Would it be selfish or manipulative of you to use the nurse's call button when you were hungry or needed to go to the bathroom, or the sun from the window was in your eyes, or you wanted the channel changed on the television?

As we discussed a bit in the comments of the last post, babies might be egocentric in the sense that they have no concept of time or of anyone else's needs, but they are not "selfish" in the sense that they are disregarding someone else's known needs in favor of their own or caring "unduly" for themselves. They are doing exactly what they are designed to do.

I've seen many people recommend that if a baby has been recently fed and changed, then the parent should not feel it necessary to pick them up when they cry. I definitely think there's a place for prioritizing other needs over that of the baby at times when the need does not seem urgent, but I think this should be done with caution and forethought, and I don't think it's a preferable method for teaching a baby anything. I can't picture leaving a baby crying alone for hours, as is done in the extreme cry-it-out methods.

Dr. Luther Emmett Holt, the first major promoter of the cry-it-out approach in the USA with his book, The Care and Feeding of Children, wrote,

"How is an infant to be managed that cries from temper, habit, or to be indulged?"

"It should simply be allowed to 'cry it out.' This often requires an hour, and, in some cases, two or three hours. A second struggle will seldom last more than ten or fifteen minutes, and a third will rarely be necessary."

On Becoming Babywise, which puts great emphasis on not allowing the baby to run the household with their selfish demands, says,

"When your baby awakens, give him a chance to resettle. You really do not need to rush right in right away. Any crying will be temporary, lasting from five to possibly forty-five minutes. Remember, this will be temporary!" ( pp 124-125 in 2001 edition, p. 123 in 1998 edition [the '98 edition is the one I have here]; emphasis mine) and, "Just remember, sometimes the best action is no action at all." (p. 151, 1998 edition)

One problem with this is that it necessarily requires an assumption on the part of the parent that they know what the child's needs are and that the baby doesn't need anything at a given moment. I think it's important to consider is that a baby's needs are not always obvious or easy to determine.

There were a number of times when one of my babies would wake up crying in the middle of the night and I would go pick them up, only to have them let out a huge burp and then settle back to sleep. Simply picking them up relieved their pain almost instantly. The "don't pick the baby up because then they won't learn to sleep on their own" school of thought would have let the baby continue to cry in pain for many minutes, or perhaps hours, alone in her crib.

I remember when AJ was still quite a tiny baby, and she began screaming and screaming, the intensity of her cries escalating as we tried to figure out what was wrong. It wasn't hunger or need of a diaper change, and picking her up and holding her didn't lessen the cries. It seemed that "there was nothing wrong."

Then I noticed a hair in her mouth and removed it rather absentmindedly, still trying to figure out the reason for her cries. Immediately, she stopped crying.

She was crying because of the hair in her mouth. She had no other way of telling us what was wrong or asking for help.

I don't believe that babies cry for no reason. Sometimes we can't figure out what the reason is, or sometimes we can't fix it. They might have an earache, or an itch they can't scratch, or just need emotional comfort and want to be held. Sometimes they may even just need to blow off steam by crying. But that doesn't mean there is no reason for their cries, or that they're "lying" or being "manipulative" or "selfish" by crying.

How can we as adults just decide that because we can't figure out and fix whatever is making the baby cry, it must not be important?

In my experience and opinion, when a baby cries a lot, nurses constantly, and is difficult to put down, it is likely to be the result of a physical issue such as reflux, tummy pain, inadequate food intake, an allergy or food intolerance, teething, ear infection, or some other type of health issue rather than the result of a "spoiled" baby.

Many complaints, including ear infections, sinus infections, and reflux, cause direct and specific discomfort when a baby is laid flat. A baby who cries when put down may actually be in pain. Being held can literally ease an infant's pain. The fact that a baby cries when put down and stops crying when picked up is not, as some writers would have us believe, instant proof that the baby is being manipulative.

I found that my children were actually more content and happier to be put down for longer periods of time when they were not in pain, had all their needs met consistently, and were as a rule promptly picked up when they cried. This fits with what other parents have shared, and a number of studies have shown. Being held and cuddled--not just when they "need" something--is an actual physical need. Babies cannot thrive without this nurturing.

In Preparation for Parenting, Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo discourage parents' spending too much time holding and interacting with their babies. They do encourage parents to interact with the babies while giving basic care, but otherwise the baby is expected to spend much of the day (while not sleeping) playing alone ("playpen time" is very important in the GKGW program):

"One thing is certain: Your baby doesn't need to be carried or entertained by you all day long" (page 130) . . . "In addition to feeding, changing, and bathing your baby, you might have at least one playtime a day when the baby has your full attention for 15 minutes or so." (page 132)

I'm certainly not saying that everyone should hold their baby all the time. There's a large range of variations between holding the baby constantly and limiting them to 15 minutes a day of interaction beyond basic care.

I do think that there are times when it may be necessary for a parent to put a baby down in a safe place and let them cry for a short time. A parent should never feel guilty about doing this if they are at the end of their patience and have been unable to soothe the baby (it's always better to put the baby down in a safe place for a few minutes than to punish or yell at it), or if they need to do something they cannot safely do while holding the baby.

When Baby E would scream for hours or days at a time, there were times when I had to put her down and let her cry while I helped another child with the potty, cooked dinner, or took a couple of minutes to calm my nerves in another room.

But I never saw it as teaching her not to be selfish. I saw it as balancing everyone's needs the best I could.

Quite possibly there are some babies and/or some times when babies do need to cry, and parents can be sensitive to that. I loved Moxie's theory about there being at least two different kinds of babies: those who release tension by crying, and those who increase tension by crying.

Some kids may just need to fuss a bit before falling asleep, and will do that even if they're being held. Some kids may be fine being put into the crib and allowed to blow off steam for a few minutes. Others will work themselves into a frenzy and end up traumatized if left to cry. There is no "one size fits all" method that works perfectly for every baby.

All in all, I think the bottom line comes down to figuring out the baby's needs and what works for the family--while, hopefully, treating the needs and desires of everyone in the family with value and respect.

One thing that really impacted my parenting was something my sister-in-law shared with me after her beautiful 3-month-old son died of SIDS.

SIL said that an older mother had encouraged her to relax and enjoy the time her baby was small, and just enjoy all the cuddling. Babies grew up quickly, she said, and the time for holding and cuddling them is short. Relish that time that they want to be held in your arms, and are small enough to carry around. Enjoy their babyhood before it's gone.

She never knew how precious that advice would be.

My sister-in-law shared with me that she was so thankful this more experienced mother had given this advice, and that SIL had followed it. He was a baby who liked to be held a lot, and SIL felt the freedom to hold her baby as much as she wanted to without worrying that she was going to "spoil" him.

In the three months that little William was on this earth, his mother lavished love and affection on him--holding him, playing with him, loving and cuddling him, often carrying him while she tended to her other children and tasks.

He responded by pouring out more exuberant love and connection than I think I'd ever seen from a baby that young. His entire body convulsed with joy when his mother walked into the room; his eyes lit up and his gaze followed her with delight. He was an exceptionally happy and interactive infant. I loved holding him because he would look straight into my eyes and smile and coo with such joy and enthusiasm.

When he died, SIL had so many wonderful memories. There were no regrets about how she'd chosen to spend those three months with her baby.

I think that was one of many things God used in my life to prepare me to mother Baby E, with her health issues and constant crying. Somehow, after that, I simply could not resent having a baby who needed to be held almost constantly.

Elemental Formula: now out of committee

The Elemental Formula bill passed committee at our state capitol. Unanimously.

It appears that it has a pretty good chance of being approved by the state Senate.

That's good news.

Elemental Formula

The girls and I drove about 2 hours each way to the state capitol today. We went to show support for a bill that had public hearings today. If passed, the bill would require health insurance companies to cover elemental formula when medically necessary.

Every one of the feeding formulas on the market (including the "hypoallergenic" formulas) contains corn, soy or both. A child highly allergic to soy and corn, or either of those plus milk, has no options other than elemental formula if supplementation is necessary or if they for some reason can't breastfeed.

In some cases the child can't tolerate an element in breastmilk itself (something that can't be fixed by changes in the mother's diet). Without elemental formula, these children with multiple severe allergies would languish or even die.

The ultra-hypoallergenic elemental formula with no intact proteins is used for babies with severe allergies who can neither breastfeed nor tolerate other formulas, older kids in the same position who need some extra nutrition, and kids with eosiniphilic esophagitis.

However, the cost of elemental formula is astronomical. One family on a food allergy support group I take part in shared that her daughter's elemental formula costs about $800 per month. Obviously, many families simply cannot afford such a cost.

In many cases, paying for the elemental formula would be less expensive than paying the extra medical costs incurred by parents who, out of desperation, must continue feeding formula that causes health problems for their children. Yet health insurance plans in our state refuse to cover it--unless it's fed through a tube.

The formula is covered if fed through a tube, but not if fed by mouth. Medicaid covers it both ways, but not private health insurers.

I really hope the bill passes. So I wrote e-mails to all the senators and went to the hearing.

Unfortunately, between traffic and the weather on top of underestimating the drive time (thanks, mapquest), we got there just after the hearing ended.

At least we got to briefly meet some of the other kids and parents before they dispersed. And we got to see the capitol, which my girls found very exciting.