Natural Family Planning International

“In my 30 years in Brazil, I saw many promising apostolates rise and then fall as they abandoned the charisms of their founders.”—Bishop Karl Jozef Romer, Pontifical Council for the Family, 2002 CCL Convention.
__________________________

Ecological Breastfeeding and CCL

If you have wondered why I am writing these blogs, I make no apologies for saying that my primary reason for co-founding CCL stemmed from my interest in promoting ecological breastfeeding as a form of natural child spacing. For 35 years the advocacy and teaching of ecological breastfeeding as a form of NFP made CCL unique in the natural family planning (NFP) movement. It attracted couples who had never thought about breastfeeding. The practice of eco-breastfeeding also brought couples to the NFP movement. So it is understandable that I am disappointed with the new direction CCL seems to be taking.

Individual Reaction to the Likely Changes on Breastfeeding at CCL
Below are comments of individuals who have expressed their concerns about what appears to be a new direction of CCL with regard to eco-breastfeeding. Each individual’s comment(s) is contained within the lines.

_____

If CCL is dropping entirely the teaching of ecological breastfeeding with its extended infertility, this is truly a step backwards.
_____

That the term “ecological breastfeeding” has not been generally adopted by the medical profession cuts no ice with me. All the more reason to promote it. If we adopted what the majority of doctors think, we would be promoting contraception, abortion, etc.
_____

Your blog is sorely needed.

_____

I have seen your blogs. Please keep them up.

_____

Several friends and I miss “the old CCL.” I found it interesting during our conversation some months ago that several friends had individually come up with that phrase. We miss the type of support from the old Family Foundations. My husband and I really appreciate all that you and John sacrificed and worked on to help couples see the beauty of God’s plan for marriage and family. What you both wrote resonated with us and made a lot of sense. It’s what we have tried to do for our family. We wrote CCL a long while back regarding breastfeeding and the new materials. CCL’s new approach doesn’t resonate with us beyond Church teaching, but I pray that CCL will be able to reach a lot of couples with it.
_____

I will do everything I can to continue to promote ecological breastfeeding. CCL also said they doubt that very many people use ecological breastfeeding to space their babies anyway, but I can tell you from experience that almost every woman I know who uses NFP has used ecological breastfeeding once she was made aware of it and loved it!!
_____

EEEEEEYYYYYYYAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
I AM RUNNING SCREAMING FROM THE ROOM!!! I AM HOLDING MY HANDS OVER MY EARS!!! TELL ME IT’S NOT TRUE!!! TELL ME IT’S NOT TRUE!!!! Okay. I knew it was true. Or I suspected it from what I read. I just don’t want to face it. ;)USING a baby?! USING a baby? And anyway who nurses solely to suppress ovulation? It’s a blessing!! Charting and abstaining is so much greater?! Ai yi yi.
What do they mean in the objectives about how a breastfeeding mother could “use” her baby? Are they going to argue that doing ecological breastfeeding for natural child spacing is “using” the baby as an object? I’ve heard recently that you can try to push a baby to continue to breastfeed beyond the time the baby really needs to. This is not true. You cannot make a baby nurse. Babies need to nurse. Continuing to nurse them frequently is good for them and the natural-child-spacing effect is a good benefit for both baby and mother.
I know tons of people who space their children only through ecological breastfeeding. I am one of them. Do we do it ONLY for the child spacing effect? Of course not! So then all the arguments about improving your relationship and your sex life through the practice of NFP “ONLY” to delay fertility make charting and abstinence illegitimate? CCL is now only about periodic abstinence and their advocacy of breastfeeding is just more of the culturally mainstream “breast is best but…” message.
_____

I have been saddened that CCL will be replacing the term ecological breastfeeding with either exclusive or extended (I am not sure at this point which they will use). The whole point of ecology is necessary and their argument that it hasn’t been taken in by the medical community is of no concern. Many things have not been taken in by the medical community—specifically NFP itself and we have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
_____

It doesn’t make too much sense to say that breastfeeding could ever be irresponsible. It doesn’t make sense that choosing to breastfeed in order to space children is irresponsible and a form of using the baby as an object. Wouldn’t bottle-feeding a baby, for no matter what “responsible” reason, be more prone to abuse than breastfeeding? I am no philosopher and so I must keep these matters on the practical level. I sense that the author behind these statements is not much of one either.
_____

NFP without breastfeeding (and LAM) as an integral component seems an oxymoron.
_____

This blows me away!
_____

That makes me very sad.
_____

I read this and I am stunned. Interesting that just when everyone is getting on the breastfeeding bandwagon they are getting off.
_____

This is terrible since they are missing the whole point that exclusive breastfeeding for six months is not only an NFP tool, it is a health issue for babies and mothers in this country. It seems that someone has not gotten the breastfeeding message that has been coming from Health Care Providers, the US government, HHS, etc. concerning the health of this nation. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. What can we do? Sigh!!!!!!
_____

I am very sad about this. I think it’s a HUGE mistake for them to drop ecological breastfeeding. Only ecological breastfeeding has the long-term infertility benefits, as research has shown. There are just some at the top making decisions who seem determined to completely turn the ship around and take it in another direction.
_____

How so very sad! It sounds to me like this is a way for someone who did not breastfeed to give themselves permission not to and to not feel guilty about it. I have many moms in my homeschooling group as well as my La Leche League group that have been wanting me to teach them a mini class on NFP and ecological breastfeeding. I have already printed out the info on ecological breastfeeding from your website.
_____

CCL wants to be in the NOW. They want the young clueless couple to “like” them. Instead of meeting couples where they are and then LEADING them to the truth, CCL wants to massage the truth to keep their numbers up and the memberships rolling in. They have become more like work projects for the employees and less like apostolates. To promote ecological breastfeeding is to promote mother-baby togetherness, and to promote mother-baby togetherness is to DEMOTE the validity of a two-income household with babies and young children. If you never LIVE cue-nursing and mother-baby togetherness, you are never going to EXPERIENCE lactational amenorrhea, and if you never experience lactational amenorrhea you aren’t likely to have that light-bulb moment where you realize BREASTFEEDING IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING!
For most of my married life I practically rolled my eyes at all the fuss over teaching the newly married mucus and temperature taking! Please teach them how to breastfeed and how to live off one income!!!! When a mother experiences lactational amenorrhea, she will want to learn systematic NFP for the time when she needs it.
_____

I was thinking how CCL is throwing out its emphasis on ecological breastfeeding. Therefore, Catholic Nursing Mothers League (CNML) is needed even more. Now CNML and NFP International are the only organizations promoting ecological breastfeeding.
_____

I am so sad that CCL has made this shift in philosophy. If breastfeeding and natural mothering is NOT the natural God-given plan for spacing human babies, may I seriously ask what is? Our bodies have a wonderful built-in plan already in place for spacing babies.
_____

Why does CCL say that breastfeeding cannot be considered NFP? In the training elsewhere, CCL defines NFP as ONLY the knowledge, and add the term “responsible parenting” to mean the APPLICATION of NFP “knowledge.” I need help sorting through this and to make sense of it!
_____

What nonsense! All this wishy-washy talk about responsible vs. irresponsible. Lord, have mercy! May Catholic Nursing Mothers League take over to spread eco-breastfeeding through all the parishes of America!
P.S. John’s article for New Oxford Review (March 2007) was excellent. We need such clear thinking more than ever!
_____

Astounding!
_____

Horrible! We did not expect this from CCL. We heard about the natural spacing of breastfeeding years ago; that was the first thing we learned about breastfeeding. So I guess we were interested in breastfeeding at first only for the natural infertility. And I guess that makes us irresponsible!
_____

It seems Catholic Nursing Mothers League is a true prompting of the Holy Spirit because God knew what changes would be made in CCL. It seems CCL is trying to modernize itself, so as not to offend anyone and their circumstances. Kind of like “I’m okay; you’re okay” sort of thing if that makes any sense to anyone.
_____

It seems that Mr. Alderson is saying that there is no moral obligation for a mother to breastfeed. If that is the case, I think we can be spinning wheels. If women were blessed with this gift and if it is so beneficial to children, family and mothers, why wouldn’t anyone use this gift from God?
_____

I’m not sure CCL should rush to change their position. You have served everyone so well for years. Yes, breastfeeding is part of God’s delay of fertility. It’s legitimate to “use” this; that’s not use of the person. You might as well say one shouldn’t “use” the monthly cycles of NFP to delay conception because NFP is “using” the person as fertility is part of the human person. (cf Humanae Vitae, n 10).
_____

You and John had made ecological breastfeeding a pillar of the CCL curriculum. Maybe a little comfort can be had in knowing that often “founders” have been at odds with those who have followed in their ministries. That said, since you and John have a good internet NFP course online, why not consider a completely electronic teacher training program to go with it? Getting the program approved by the USCCB is a real possibility.
_____
From Sheila:
A good outreach ministry is Catholic Nursing Mothers League (CNML) which promotes eco-breastfeeding with spiritual and practical support in the hope that mothers at the parish level will nurse their babies for at least one year. Many of you have had successful breastfeeding experiences, but statistics show that many breastfeeding mothers quit during the first few weeks after childbirth for lack of support. This organization is sorely needed in our parishes. CNML uses the Seven Standards for longer duration of breastfeeding as well as natural child spacing. This organization supports NFP and Church teaching and will give referrals to all NFP teachers in the area when a woman or couple need NFP instruction. Likewise, CNML will give referrals for breastfeeding-management problems. The facilitators of this organization are volunteers. This organization is in its beginning stage, but the founder, Pam Pilch, is encouraged by the interest shown by women who want to start chapters in their area or parish. For more info on CNML, go to www.catholicbreastfeeding.org.
This parish or religious approach is occurring in some Protestant churches where they have a “breastfeeding cafe” at church and mothers meet there once a week to discuss breastfeeding and its spiritual aspects and to offer support to breastfeeding mothers. In addition, there are two mothers who have written books on eco-breastfeeding for their faith; one is Protestant, the other is Mormon. Jenny Silliman’s Breastfeeding and Fertility book for Protestants is mentioned at our website (see “Not Just for Catholics” in the “and More” section of the Home Page). The Mormon mother, Celestia Shumway, believes that “it [eco-breastfeeding] and NFP are God’s way of family planning.” She is in the process of finishing her book on ecological breastfeeding and hopefully I will see a copy at the La Leche League Convention this summer. She and her husband are going to start an organization similar to the former CCL for the Church of Latter Day Saints for the promotion of eco-breastfeeding, systematic NFP, whole foods, leadership education, and their religion.

Among our fellow Catholics, there is also hope. One NFP director read John’s article in New Oxford Review on the USCCB’s “Married Love & the Gift of Life“, March 2007 and, you might say, she had a “conversion.” She became convinced of the importance of eco-breastfeeding as a form of NFP and decided to look for ways to incorporate the promotion of eco-breastfeeding into her program.

It is exciting to see such enthusiasm for eco-breastfeeding in these various endeavors.
Sheila Kippley
NFP International
http://www.nfpandmore.org/
Author: Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood (Sophia, 2005);
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book (e-book
at this website, 2005)

“In my 30 years in Brazil, I saw many promising apostolates rise and then fall as they abandoned the charisms of their founders.”—Bishop Karl Jozef Romer, Pontifical Council for the Family, 2002 CCL Convention.
__________________________

Ecological Breastfeeding and CCL
The dropping of ecological breastfeeding
About three months ago, early in 2007, Andy Alderson, CCL’s Executive Director, called a CCL teacher and said that CCL is no longer using the term ”ecological breastfeeding.” The reasons given for this decision are that the term is only specific to CCL, no one has heard of it, and it is not respected in the medical community.

During this phone conversation Mr. Alderson added that there is no moral underpinning for breastfeeding. There is too much guilt felt by bottlefeeding mothers, so Fr. Virtue’s writings on this subject will be dropped.

Has anyone heard of ecological breastfeeding?
First, let’s examine the allegation that no one has heard of ecological breastfeeding or eco-breastfeeding outside the CCL circle. That certainly piqued my curiosity so I searched on Google and Yahoo. That day (April 16, 2007) I found 107,000 Yahoo hits and 350,000 Google hits for ecological breastfeeding and 1600 Yahoo hits and 711 Google hits for “ecological breastfeeding” in quotation marks. I found 20,900 Yahoo hits and 123,000 Google hits for the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding and 34 Yahoo hits and 36 Google hits for “Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding” in quotation marks.

At the 2006 CCL Convention, attendees were told that the Roetzer breastfeeding rule or method will be taught in the new CCL program. Thus, I searched the Internet for those subjects. On April 16, 2007 I found 36 Yahoo hits and 46 Google hits for the Roetzer breastfeeding rule and 86 Yahoo hits and 294 Google hits for the Roetzer breastfeeding method without quotation marks. On two different dates I placed quotation marks around the “Roetzer breastfeeding rule” and the “Roetzer breastfeeding method” and found zero hits at Google or Yahoo. It is clear that eco-breastfeeding is much more widely referenced than is the Roetzer breastfeeding rule and/or method which can be used for only the first three months postpartum. It doesn’t make sense to say that eco-breastfeeding was dropped because only those in CCL have heard of it when even fewer have heard of the alternative.

One CCL teacher had written that eco-breastfeeding would not be used because “it confuses the general population.” If eco-breastfeeding is too unknown or too confusing to the general population, what about the Billings method, the Ovulation method, the Roetzer method or even the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) or our online Cross-Check Method? What new student has heard and knows anything about the Lactational Amenorrhea Method? All of these are unknown to the general population and therefore possibly confusing. But all of them are understood once explained.

Additional support: In an October 2005 secular women’s magazine, an article pooh-poohed the idea that breastfeeding spaces babies. Toward the end of the article, however, the author wrote that there is one form of breastfeeding that actually does space babies—and it’s called ecological breastfeeding. The author did a good job of summarizing the Seven Standards. The Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding were also promoted in a La Leche League article, “Breastfeeding and Fertility” by Christine Foster (New Beginnings, Sept/Oct 2006).

The scientific community
I don’t know how Mr. Alderson surveyed the medical community, but if ecological breastfeeding is not respected therein, that puts it in the same boat with systematic NFP.

Furthermore, I am happy to report that ecological breastfeeding has gained respect in the scientific community. H. William Taylor, Ph.D., a former CCL field representative and former CCL teacher, wrote in his doctoral dissertation that our 1972 report on ecological breastfeeding had stimulated many years of research. Our initial research was published in two scientific journals; one of those, Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, is still available today. Dr. Taylor has researched primarily ecological breastfeeding in addition to other related breastfeeding issues and has published his work in at least seven different scientific journals.

Is there an obligation to do what’s best for our kids?
Mr. Alderson said there was no moral underpinning to breastfeed.

In 1994 Fr. William D. Virtue’s dissertation resulted in this priest claiming that “the testimony of the Magisterium and moral experts confirms that it has been the constant teaching of the Church that there is a serious obligation of maternal nursing” and resulted in his 1995 book, Mother and Infant. This obligation is not mortal-sin serious, but it is not trivial either. It is a positive obligation. “The natural law obliges mothers to nurse their babies with their own milk.” (All italics in the quotes given here are Fr. Virtue’s emphasis in his 1995 book.) Apparently Fr. Virtue’s work will no longer be referenced in CCL’s future writings.

How does CCL explain the dropping of the previous CCL teaching regarding an obligation to breastfeed? There seems to be an indication, according to a reliable witness, that CCL is saying that both breastfeeding and bottlefeeding nourish and nurture an infant. If there is a further explanation, I have not heard of it.

The timing of this new announcement by the Executive Director of CCL is truly ironic. Just when the U.S. federal government has embarked on an unprecedented evidence-based campaign that stresses a maternal obligation to breastfeed, CCL abandons the notion of obligation. The federal government had tried a purely positive approach and found insufficient results, so now it is trying to make parents feel appropriately guilty if they deliberately place their children “at risk” by choosing not to breastfeed. At risk for what? At risk for a variety of unhappy effects, mostly physical health, some quite serious, both short-term and long-term. For more information on the new federal campaign, see my article, “Born to be Breastfed,” published by the Diocesan NFP Ministry (USCCB Forum, Winter/Spring 2007, p. 7-10) or it can be read easily at http://www.nfpandmore.org/bfarticles.shtml.

The winter 2007 issue of INFACT Canada newsletter stated: “It is estimated that at least 720 infant deaths could be prevented in the United States each year if breastfeeding practices were improved” (p. 5). That means that better breastfeeding could save at least two babies a day in our country. In addition, numerous diseases of both baby and mother are reduced by breastfeeding. This is demonstrated in my above article and my latest book, Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood.

This issue highlights a significant difference between the founders of CCL and its current management. When we first read Fr. Virtue’s work on breastfeeding, his emphasis on the serious obligation to breastfeed made a big impression. We asked him for clarification. By “serious” did he mean “mortal sin” type of obligation? No, he replied, but he wanted to make it clear that this obligation to do what is best for your child is not a trifle. So we brought his insights into the Fourth Edition of The Art of Natural Family Planning. Now, we understand, the CCL current management has decided to abandon any obligation talk.

In an interview Fr. William Virtue said: “While we should be sensitive to those mothers who must go to work, or are unable to nurse, it is also vital to affirm the norm God teaches in the ‘book of nature.’ When women have an opportunity to do other things, it’s tempting to give up motherhood and leave the baby in the hands of others. The basic principle of my book is that every woman need not be a mother, but every infant needs a mother. The focus is on the right of the infant to have a mother, his or her own full-time mother. By starting with the needs of the infant, we reason to the duties of the mother. It is a matter of justice. As the infant has a right to be born, to be cared for by his mother, and to be nourished by her milk, so she has corresponding obligations.” (Our Sunday Visitor, May 12, 1996)

Who does not agree that parents have an obligation to do what is best for their children within their parental abilities. In the face of all the evidence that breastfeeding is the best for their baby, how can anyone say there is no obligation to breastfeed? It just does not make sense.

Ecological breastfeeding and the Seven Standards: The principle of the Seven Standards is frequent and unrestricted nursing, not mother-baby closeness. You certainly can have mother-baby closeness without doing the Seven Standards, such as sleeping with an adopted baby or while bottlefeeding. The specific actions of a nursing mother are important if she is interested in the breastfeeding infertility that is part of God’s plan for mother and baby through breastfeeding. For example, the baby should sleep with his mother. This is important. Research shows that the baby who sleeps alongside his mother breastfeeds twice as often and nurses three times longer compared to the nursing baby who does not sleep with his mother (James McKenna, Tri-State Breastfeeding Advocates Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 25, 2006).

For those who want to learn more about ecological breastfeeding, go to Part 3 of the NFP How-To manual at our website. Pages 1 and 2 cover the importance of breastfeeding, our topic above. Most women who say eco-breastfeeding does not work have not followed the Seven Standards; the subject of why eco-breastfeeding infertility did not work is covered on pages 9 and 10 in Part 3 of the manual. (We have been getting excellent feedback on this section of the online manual.) The 14 pages of Part 3 on eco-breastfeeding can be downloaded for free.

The online manual covers everything one needs to know about systematic NFP as well as eco-breastfeeding. It is free, short (84 pages), and easy to understand. Couples are learning from this manual and teaching from it as well. The obligation to breastfeed is covered also at our website in the Question Box.

What do you think about all these changes at CCL? You are welcome to respond privately at our website below http://www.nfpandmore.org/contact.shtml or at this blog site.

Sheila Kippley
NFP International
www.nfpandmore.org
Author: Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood (Sophia, 2005)
Co-author: Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book (e-book
at this website, 2005)

“In my 30 years in Brazil, I saw many promising apostolates rise and then fall as they abandoned the charisms of their founders.”—Bishop Karl Jozef Romer, Pontifical Council for the Family, 2002 CCL Convention.
__________________________

Ecological Breastfeeding and CCL
In early 2007 we were told by a reliable source that CCL now teaches or plans to teach
1) that if breastfeeding is done only for breastfeeding infertility at the expense of baby, mother or family, then one might be “using” the baby or using the mother or family, and
2) that breastfeeding is not a form of natural family planning (NFP).

“Using” the baby
The inference that a mother could be “using” her baby has upset several mothers I know. First, the mother does not breastfeed. Only the baby does the breastfeeding! You cannot force a baby to breastfeed. Many mothers have tried without success to encourage their babies to nurse when weaning occurred unexpectedly early.

An emphasis on the possibility of using her baby may place undue worry upon a mother’s shoulders and may cause a mother to nurse less or stop altogether. Or it may discourage some mothers from nursing. A mother does not need a guilt trip for taking the time to do what is in God’s plan for her as a mother.

Breastfeeding is already a selfless act on the part of the mother. It is a constant commitment, a never-ending task for her. Anyone familiar with breastfeeding can’t think in terms of the nursing mother being selfish or individualistic. It’s almost contradictory. The easy way out or most selfish way out for the new mother is not to breastfeed because of the inconvenience involved. She would not have to be there to meet the needs of her baby at the breast. Breastfeeding takes time; we as parents are always told to spend time with our kids, including our babies. As I noted in Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood, in the breastfeeding relationship “It is very difficult for a mother to abuse her baby or to use her baby for other purposes.”

During a retreat talk given on April 21, 2007, my husband explained that some are now saying you can “use” the baby when breastfeeding. What was the reaction of the attendees to this new teaching? Only laughter because it didn’t make sense. This “using the baby” is such an important issue that it will be covered more thoroughly at a later date. Suffice it to say that God is the author of breastfeeding and thus breastfeeding is a moral good.

Ecological breastfeeding is NOT a form of NFP?
Obviously I disagree with the proposal that breastfeeding is not a form of NFP. In my opinion, the best way for couples to space their children’s births when starting their families is by following the Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding—with systematic NFP used only as needed.

Eco-breastfeeding is the most natural form of NFP. Steve Koob of One More Soul apostolate agrees and stated this view in his comment for one of our first blogs. God’s plan for spacing babies is breastfeeding, and this form of natural family planning has been present since the beginning of the human race.

While ecological breastfeeding does not require the daily observation and recording of systematic NFP, it definitely is a form of NFP. Further, when it is taught as a form of NFP, the breastfeeding mom will understand the meaning of both her amenorrhea and the signs of fertility when they appear. For example, a woman who has gone 18 months without menstruation can say, “I’ve been infertile because my periods have not returned yet.” Another woman might say, “I think my periods are about to return because I am experiencing lots of mucus and my child is now two years old. I usually expect menstruation or fertility to return at about this time.”

Scientifically recognized
If there is one aspect of natural family planning that has been recognized in the scientific literature since 1950, it is the relationship between breastfeeding and postpartum infertility. The research began very tentatively, but soon it was clear that a certain pattern of breastfeeding significantly delayed the return of fertility. Additional research, including our own, enabled us to describe this pattern in the Seven Standards of ecological breastfeeding. It is also scientifically established that other forms of breastfeeding do NOT significantly postpone the return of fertility.

Despite the scientific evidence that ecological breastfeeding plays a major role in maintaining a lengthy amenorrhea after childbirth and its positive impact on natural family planning via natural child spacing, it appears that CCL is now proposing that breastfeeding is NOT a form of NFP.

If what we have heard is correct, there’s an irony in the timing of CCL’s abandonment of its former advocacy of ecological breastfeeding as a form of NFP. As I write this, I am also preparing a talk to deliver at La Leche League’s 50th Anniversary Conference this summer in Chicago. My subject: “The Seven Standards: Ecological Breastfeeding for a New Generation.”

This reminds me of the time 36 years ago when Dr. Konald Prem and I were speakers on a panel on breastfeeding infertility at the 1971 La Leche League Convention. In a pre-convention private meeting with Dr. Prem in the Twin Cities area, we discussed our respective roles on that panel. Then John and I asked him if he would be interested in helping us start an NFP organization in which couples taught other couples. You know the results.

To ignore ecological breastfeeding is to abandon 36 years of tradition within the CCL organization.

To deny that ecological breastfeeding is a form of Natural Family Planning is to deny scientifically established reality and to ignore the reality experienced by thousands of CCL-taught couples over the last 36 years.

For CCL to change course now does not make any sense to us. Does it make any sense to you?

If someone says that CCL is not abandoning ecological breastfeeding but is only dropping the term, I respond that all of the substitute phrases I’ve seen (full breastfeeding, extended breastfeeding, and long term breastfeeding) are highly unsatisfactory, might lead to confusion, and will reinvigorate the old wives’ tale that breastfeeding does NOT space babies. In my opinion, that would be an injustice to the NFP movement as well as to individual couples.

Considerable research on breastfeeding infertility can be found at http://www.nfpandmore.org/nfpresearch.shtml .

Sheila Kippley
NFP International
www.nfpandmore.org
Author: Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood (Sophia, 2005)
Co-author: Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book
(e-book at this website, 2005)