 |
| Drop that baby and get back out to the fields. |
Corporations are parents, with parental rights, to decide the "best interests of the child", too, which is why the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into this.
That is why being a wet nurse is no longer considered to be socially responsible.
From Nu Skin With Love: How Child Welfare Fraud Funded Political Campaigns & Human Trafficking
Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: From Nu Skin With Love: How Child Welfare Fraud Funded Political Campaigns & Human Trafficking http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2017/07/from-nu-skin-with-love-how-child.html#ixzz5Kgwq2vTX
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare
Breastfeeding in the U.S. impedes the industry of child welfare productivity, where poverty is the crime of abuse and neglect, subject to removal of the child by Child Protective Services, placed in Foster Care, then Adopted, with tons and tons of services billable to Medicaid.
If the U.S. promotes and promulgates breastfeeding, then it would have to stop snatching kids, and, in the event this happens, how are all those child welfare NGOs going to be able to launder money into those political campaigns?
It is financially savvy to keep those infant mortality numbers high to justify that Faith Based Initiative Funding to demonize the breastfeeding mother and keep those child welfare Social Impact Bonds producing dividends.
Children of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) are now being codified throughout the States as a condition of disability, for the purposes of assigning a corporate parent through guardianship, which results in an automatic asset forfeiture and any inheritances or legacy.
The rest of you can pull yourselves up by the bootstraps and become a foster parent!
Depopulation policies at its best, but let us just sit back and see how these so-called child welfare NGOs are going to respond to this.
U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials
A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.
Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.
Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.
American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.
When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.
The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced
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.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
