Parenting links: Michelle Obama and Michele Bachmann battling over breast-feeding tax credits
On Feb. 10, a change in IRS tax code made it possible for citizens to use pre-tax dollars, like flexible spending accounts, for breast pumps and other breast-feeding expenses. This change met the demands of many individuals, legislators, and advocacy groups who had argued for the change, including the American Academy of Pediatrics.
At a roundtable discussion with reporters, first lady Michelle Obama said she supported the change in support of breast-feeding moms, because "kids who are breast-fed longer have a lower tendency to be obese," according to the Washington Post.
Within days, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) blasted the Obama administration for trying to impose a "nanny state" on mothers. According to Time.com, Bachmann told a radio show, "to think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump — you want to talk about nanny state, I think we just got a new definition."
Sarah Palin later weighed in, mocking the first lady for trying to compensate for high milk prices.
Reactions have crossed political lines, noted the New York Times, with some liberal bloggers resisting the extra pressure on working moms to breast-feed, and conservatives standing up for Mrs. Obama for promoting what they said was a healthier choice.
Read about the Top 10 breast-feeding controversies over at Time.com, and then tell us what you think:
Pam Stout coordinates Parenting coverage for AnnArbor.com. She can be reached at pamstout@annarbor.com.
Comments
Dog Guy
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.
The proposal would discriminate against those of us who do not lactate.
HaeJee
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
Heaven forbid that their be a benefit for women that does not include men.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.
By this logic, every product should be taxed based on its presumed medical value. I'm against this simply because I'm against using income taxes for social engineering. This is more appropriate and effective at the purchase level. Since poor people pay no taxes, this is a regressive tax change and only benefits the wealthy anyway.
HaeJee
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
I don't understand you point. A breast pump is considered a class II medical device by FDA and falls under the same classification as a heart catheter. I guess you are saying that no medical devices should be eligible for tax deduction?
johnnya2
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 12:18 a.m.
Consistency would say end all tax deductions and credits. Giving tax deductions for having children is "social engineering". Allowing joint tax returns is "social engineering". Mortgage interest deductions is "social engineering". Charitable contributions are "social engineering". Property tax credits are "social engineering". Every single tax deduction or credit is social engineering.
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
then I presume you are against *all* write-offs for medical expenses, so that's fair, if unstated...that's the only way breastpumps can be assumed to be related to 'social engineering' but Viagra being acceptable for medical savings accounts not be. Because you know ED just is part of nature's way of telling old men they ought to find other pursuits ;-)
bunnyabbot
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.
While some mothers choose not to breast feed their babies and others cannot sucessfully breastfeed for a number of reasons, breast feeding is an option/choice for a mother/parents to make for thier children and not have it opposed upon them, one should not feel bad about not breastfeeding or high and mighty for breastfeeding. I didn't read Palins or Bachmanns comments as being anti or pro breastfeeding, simply that the government shouldn't favor breastfeeding on the population by allowing a tax credit for a normal expense. breast pump supplies, bottles and formula (ETC), and every single thing you buy to take care of your child is part of the expenses of having a child. These should be taken into consideration when budgeting for baby.
HaeJee
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
You are missing the argument and the point of discussion. Breast pumps and all its accessories are considered a medical device by FDA. Therefore, it should have the same benefits as other over the counter medical supplies. If you did any research about medical technology and women, you would know that medicine is geared towards men. Women's health is low priority. How do you justify that Viagra is covered by insurance, but a FDA regulated medical device as the breast pump is not?
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
It's not "favoring breastfeeding on the population",it's counting a breast pump as medical-equipment, just like you can count acne medication or hypoallergenic bedding if you have allergies. It's about allowing women who make the *healthier* choice to breastfeed their babies pay for their pumps with pre-tax dollars, like people who choose to reduce their allergic symptoms (and breastfeeding btw has been shown to reduce the occurrence of allergies in babies ;) ) get to pay for their gear with pretax dollars. Nobody seems to have a problem with helping people 'choose' to reduce their symptoms via air purifiers or whatever, but breastpumps become politicized.
Theresa Taylor
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.
I am due in mid April and I was THRILLED to find out that my breast pump will become a tax write off. If people cannot/will not understand the benefits of breastfeeding then that is their problem. If they want to talk about money then fine - let's talk about money. Women DRIVE this economy and we need to get back to work. Breast pumps allow us to make a smoother transition back to the work force and statistically speaking, women tend to miss LESS work as our breast-fed babies are not as likely to get sick. This is a WIN/WIN situation for infants, for women and for all businesses that have valued employees facing Maternity Leave.
engGEEK1988
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 7:55 p.m.
Parents should be able to use pre-tax dollars to purchase formula, as well.
HaeJee
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.
Formula is not considered a medical product. Breast pumps ARE FDA regulated as a class II medical device. Formula follows the regulations as food product.
Silly Sally
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.
Medical stuff is only deductible if the total amount for the year is more than 7.5% of one's income, or bought via a medical savings account.
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
right, so this is totally about allowing women to use their health savings accounts to cover breastpumps, when acne medication and allergy supplies and so on are already on the list...I can buy an air purifier with medical savings account pretax dollars lol, but not a breast pump, which is a piece of equipment that would be totally needed for me to go back to work while staying committed to doing the healthiest thing for my baby?! Doesn't make much sense to me really...
FattyJ
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
Breast feeding is a choice that women make in hopes that they are creating the most natural environment for their child. Why must this be a government issue? It is your choice to do it or not. if you don't want your child as healthy, then don't breast feed...
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.
It's *not* a government issue, it shouldn't be treated as different from other medical equipment that people can deduct currently from their taxes or buy with medical savings account dollars, so clearly this is just correcting a prior *impediment* to doing the healthiest thing for one's child.
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 5:01 p.m.
I agree with @PersonX! I think it just titilates, you know, breasts. It's the same reason that breastfeeding is generally controversial in any way, when it shouldn't be, because while yes yes it's a "personal choice" and all, did it used to be lol? You know, before we had access to formula and bottles and all that? I mean, great for the (small percentage, very small) mothers who cannot breastfeed for some reason that these exist now, but used to be much greater support and far less odd reactions to breastfeeding, back when it was the only option for getting nutrition to babies, right? There are too many obstacles to breastfeeding and those who argue there aren't are not paying attention to the numbers. Too few women breastfeed for as long as is healthy for both mom and babe, and anything that stops women from continuing with it--like the cost of a pump which would be needed if she were to go back to work while baby is still nursing age, so why any 'liberal' groups would be against it is beyond me--should be eliminated if possible. Our society makes it hard for breastfeeding in so many ways, from the negative reactions to public breastfeeding to the constant contemplation of breasts as sexual equipment that contributes both to the stigma of public breastfeeding and to the resistance to it on a personal level. I guess it's not surprising then that if the teaparty types can get the words "Obama" and "breast" in the same sentences, they'll do so and the media will cover it endlessly...
tracyann
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
Maybe I used the wrong wording, judging by the posts aimed towards me. I guess it's not so much of personal choice as it is a personal matter. Choice was the wrong word to use; some women don't have a choice on whether they can successfully nurse or not.
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
Yes, a tiny tiny percentage. Like 1-2% truly cannot, for reasons like a problem with the development of milk glands in their breasts. Do a larger percentage than that have troubles with getting breastfeeding started well? Undoubtedly. But we don't really have great systems of help in place for that.
PersonX
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:18 p.m.
I completely agree with Mr. Briegel, but would also like to ask why, of all the national issues ripe for discussion, this blog chooses to highlight the loopy, anger-driven anti-Obama ramblings of two marginal undereducated publicity hounds. There are millions of people in this country--why does the media obsess about these two? Ms Palin quit public office to tour signing a book she did not even write. Why is it that whenever she issues some twit, the pseudo-journalists have to react? Just ignore her--she makes enough money and will survive quite well. The country has more important things to worry about and there are hundreds of thousands of smarter people out there to pay attention to, not to mention my cat.
HaeJee
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.
Breast pumps are monitored and regulated by the FDA as a medical device for the safety of the public. Why shouldn't it be categorized as a medical supply and allow the same tax deductions? Viagra is covered by insurance, yet breast pumps are not. Bachmann and Palin will oppose anything that the Obama's suggest, nothing new there.
Jen Eyer
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
From the IRS: "The Internal Revenue Service has concluded that breast pumps and supplies that assist lactation are medical care under ยง 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code because, like obstetric care, they are for the purpose of affecting a structure or function of the body of the lactating woman." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/a-11-14.pdf Also, the New York Times article referenced above notes that: "the federal government is now one of the biggest buyers of baby formula, through its nutritional programs for women and infant children. So giving a tax break for breast-feeding might actually help reduce government spending, as Ms. Bachmann advocates." Just more food for thought!
David Briegel
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
This money is from pre-tax dollars in Health Savings Accounts (HSA). It is your money. You earned it! These funds are used to pay for all sorts of medical, dental, optical and other health related expenses. Tracy, it sounds like you should lobby the American Academy of Pediatrics for formula coverage! They're professionals, they know babies! And Tracy, yes, it is YOUR choice! Walker, I don't think anyone could figure out the "logic" of your post. Ms Palin, babies don't drink dairy milk! Michelle, believe me, nobody wants to buy your breast pump! It takes a nanny state to correct the silly misinformation spread by you TeaPublican geniuses! Conservatives used to have "family values". What happened?
klatte
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
There are a lot of medical items that are tax deductible, why can't breast feeding supplies just be that? It's like saying wheelchairs shouldn't be included because they force people to choose mobility.
Stephen Landes
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.
Government has no business being involved in personal decisions like this. We just have no room in a society built on Liberty for government involvement like this.
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
If Uncle Sam will cover your Viagra, it should certainly cover my breast pump! The only thing that government is doing by making breast pumps covered just like other medical devices is helping women to stay in the workforce while keeping their babies as healthy as possible. Why that should be a controversy speaks volumes about what the teaparty agenda really is...
HaeJee
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
Breast pumps should be a deductuble like any other medical device. Breast pumps are considered a medical device according to the FDA, yet they are not reimbursed by health insurance. So, government is already involved.
tracyann
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
This is ridiculous. How to feed your child is personal choice. Yes, breast feeding is considered "ideal", however, some mothers, try as they might, are just unable to breast feed. So we make them feel worse by telling them "you get nothing"? Bottle feeding isn't cheap either. Have you seen the price of formula?
johnnya2
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 12:12 a.m.
If you want to get really ridiculous lets talk., I rent and don;t get a mortgage tax break,. I CHOOSE not to have children, and do not get the tax break that those that CHOOSE to have them do. It is not my concern how much it costs you to have a child. I have to fund your CHOICE to have a mortgage, or even have children in the first place. If the right wing want the end of the "nanny state" then start getting rid of EVERY item that encourages specific behavior. Filing jointly, children deductions, mortgage interest, charity giving. Until I hear that, Michele Bachman needs to shut her pie hole
dotdash
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.
Women who have trouble buying infant formula can easily get WIC dollars to pay for it, which has to be a better deal than being able to deduct a breast pump. The governments is on the side of babies getting fed, however that gets done. As should we all be.
tracyann
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.
You do have a point. Breast pumps are expensive, if you buy them. Was just voicing an opinion. Feeding an infant is expensive no matter which way you do it.
say it plain
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.
@Tracyann, breastfeeding *via the breast only* is surely cheaper, but if you're pumping then obviously you need to buy bottles and storage supplies and the pump supplies, and decent pumps are very expensive indeed! It is a piece of medical equipment, a breast pump is, and there is absolutely no way a woman who isn't choosing to breastfeed should feel they're being made to feel worse about their choice because they aren't getting a tax deduction for a breastfeeding-related medical supply. I notice that there is a very strong tendency for some folks to get all unhappy when people try to advocate for breastfeeding, claiming they are somehow being made to feel 'less than' and they won't stand for it. All that mommy-war vibe about parenting choices needs to stop. It's very very difficult to work and breastfeed, which is what the whole pumping scene is about, so if we can make it easier for women to do it by covering the significant initial outlay of the cost of a good pump than let's not be obstructionist about it in the name of some imagined inequality about the cost of formula. Breast-milk is better for babies, it's better for moms to breastfeed for as long as possible, so gee, can't we just without controversy let pumps be considered a piece of medical equipment like so many other health-related stuff is and let *that* choice get some needed support?! As it is so few women breastfeed for the amount of time recommended by doctors' groups, why not help as many women who need to or want to *work* and still breastfeed their babes do so?! It should be a "liberal" cause celeb to encourage this deduction for goodness-sake, because it helps to allow women to stay in the workforce and still breastfeed! I couldn't get pumping to work well for me, actually, so my commitment to breast-feeding made it so that *working* fell by the wayside in my babes' early years...I totally applaud women who can make pumping work well for them and would want to encourage that!
tracyann
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
So, do you think I'm jealous of those who are able to breast feed their children? No, I'm not. I think it's great. I'm just saying that, overall, breast feeding is less expensive than bottle feeding and to offer a tax credit for those who are able to successfully nurse a child is almost punitive to those who cannot. That's just my opinion, though. As for your analogy, not everyone has to have a mortgage to survive, however, all babies need to feed, regardless of the method of delivery.
Bob Martel
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.
I don't understand your logic?? I don't have a mortgage so I don't get the deduction on my taxes. Somehow I don't feel jealous of everyone who does have a mortgage and thus does get the deduction.
David Briegel
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.
Just further proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of the TeaPublicans! Not to mention their moral failings!