I feel the emphasis has to be on what's in it for BABY; why the BABY needs to be with mother or at least get her milk; what the BABY loses by separation etc.  After all, the baby is completely innocent regardless of the crime for which its mother has been incarcerated.  While the value to mother is important to us, as soon as we speak of any benefit to mother, the naysayers will grab onto that and talk about "coddling the criminal"  "she has to pay for her crime and we shouldn't give her any extra benefits" etc. etc. etc.

The letter stated "allowing new mothers who are incarcerated or in the process of being sentenced to either remain with their infants" which in my opinion may do more against the proposal than garner support for it.   Better to say, "allowing babies whose mothers are incarcerated....to remain with their mothers.."  After all, it's harder to speak against cute little babies than it is to "nasty, evil, bad, etc, women".  Not the way it should be, but we have to deal with the existing attitudes.  When trying to improve policy may not the best time to try to change social attitudes, no matter how much we may feel they need changing.  

This is what has happened with nursing in public.  As soon as we talk about a mother's right to feed her baby anywhere she can be, the critics feed on that.  We need to talk about the baby's right to be fed when needed.  
Winnie Mading, retired LC

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome