I know full well how much time and work is involved in even introducing new legisltaion, let alone getting it passed. I fully respect the work that Marsha and others in Mass are doing. However, there is a very real concern here about the fact that this legislation may well become the template for other states. I do not at all like the idea that those with other credentials can also be licensed. When one state moves forward with such legislation, it is very important that the larger governing body take a role in determining the language, knowing full well the possible long-term implications. OTOH, I also have concern that I and other LCs (who are indeed members of ILCA) seem to have so little voice in this matter at all. Should this legislation pass in Mass and another state wants to persue legislation, you will be asked for precedents in other states. Including lesser certifications allows for more people to pay the fees and is a lure to passing legislation--legislators are less likely to support certification when the group seeking coverage is too small. I think if only the IBCLC is included from the start, we are in a much better position all the way around. 

I also think that Pam's concern that there is no protection of the name LC is an elephant in the room we are all ignoring. I do believe it is time that the larger issues were openly discusseed and that more of us were involved in the dialogue. Again, I still want to address the issue of retesting and paths to certification.
Jennifer Tow, IBCLc, CT, USA