Top Baby Gear Picks

I focus so much on baby and child health on my blog, I think it is time for something a little more fun! Recently I have been asked the question of "what are your baby gear must haves?" a little too often - every week to be exact by several different people. Today that same question resounds from new moms all over Mamapedia. I am going to focus on the three baby gear items that made my life easier, and I have every reason to believe they will serve me well for a while. No, you will not see 'Graco' here or 'Bugaboo', my must have combination is a bit unconventional but I love it!

1. The Britax Companion Car Seat: Of course a car seat is a must have and many argue that they are all essentially the same and safe. Maybe at the core they are, but when comparing infant car seats side by side I could not help but notice how 'thin' all of them looked next to a Britax. I was under the impression that a regular Graco car seat has very little padding and almost no side impact protection. After some research my gut feelings were proved right, so we decided to go with a Britax Companion, after all - the company specializes in car seats and not a myriad of other baby gear products. It is a little on the heavy side and might not work for a mom who will travel with baby on her own after a c-section. A big plus, it is made in the USA - not China! Too bad the stroller I love isn't...

2. Kolcraft Contours Options Three Wheeler: I would be rich if I got paid for the time I spent researching what stroller to buy! I wanted an all-in-one stroller that would serve many purposes (what parent doesn't?) and would work for shopping, walks, jogs, rugged terrain, crooked pavement, grass, beach, you name it. At the same time I wanted all of that for no more that $160, I wanted it to look stylish, and fit comfortably folded in our Honda Accord trunk. The most important feature that guided my search was that it absolutely had to turn to face the parent.

I was first drooling over the Mia Moda Atmosferra, which is 3 pounds lighter but has a price tag of $280. Once I found the Contours stroller I was sold because not only did it look very similar, and had the same reversible seat, but at $150 it was a lot easier to convince my husband that we need it.

So here are its strong points, in order of importance to me, i.e. item # 1 is what really sold me on this full-size stroller:

1. Reversible seat so that child can either face out or face parent
2. Functions as a 'snap 'n go' (you can take out the seat and just use stroller frame with any car seat using the adapter, works well with the Britax Companion)
3. Durable with light aluminum frame and not too many plastic parts
4. Suspension system for a smooth ride
5. More or less easy fold that fits into an Accord
6. Never flat wheels
7. Cool looking and stylish, comes in green and red (unisex)
8. Large capacity storage basket
9. Reclining seat, suitable for newborn
10. The standard 5 point harness
11. Parent tray
12. Locking front swivel wheel
13. Stroller stands on its own when folded

I want to emphasize that the stroller is pretty well made and is one of the least flimsy I have tried. I can't compare it to a Graco, it is a step above. The ride is incredibly smooth and it is easy to maneuver with one hand. It is big and heavy, but not much bigger than your average full size stroller. I consider it a gem for the features it has at such a low price and good quality. Speaking of quality, you should definitely consider this...

3. Ergo Baby Carrier: I am not quite sure what I would do without the Ergo baby carrier. It calms a crying baby, it is great for walks outside in the rain with an umbrella (no bulky wet stroller), it is gentle on my back, fits both mommy and daddy, super durable, practical, safe, and just all around praise-worthy!

It is designed by a mother, everything is taken into consideration and it is extremely convenient, fits well (both on me, I am 5 feet, and my husband who is 6 feet tall), distributes weight evenly, and is overall very comfortable. It was a really windy day and the hood came in handy to block the wind even though she is not big enough to put her head in to sleep in it yet. She fell asleep in two minutes! Now that is worth a hundred bucks!

The infant insert is so handy, I use it sometimes to just lull her to sleep, that way she does not wake up when I put her down. It also keeps her from waking up when transferring from carrier to crib. Snugly warm in the winter too.

I am eager to try the front, back, and side carry as she gets a little older. The reasons I chose the Ergo over the popular Baby Bjorn are:

a) Versatility of age 0-4 (although I am not planning on using it past 2 years old)

b) 3 carrying positions

c) The much healthier sitting position of the child where the weight is distributed on the butt and thighs as opposed to all the pressure on the spine in a carrier like the Bjorn (the same reasons chiropractors advise against bouncy jumpers and walkers)

d) I was convinced by other parent reviews who said the Bjorn hurt their back but the Ergo didn't

I certainly hope that my baby gear recommendations will be helpful to someone and maybe you will love these things as much as I do!

Perchlorate, yum!

Bah, here we go again...yet another thing in our food/water that should not be there. No matter how small the amount. This is really funny, hilarious, did you know that perchlorate (an ingredient in rocket fuel) pollution has been found in the drinking water of 28 states and territories? Moreover, and most importantly, a new report by scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found perchlorate contamination in 15 brands of powdered infant formula! Boy am I glad I am breastfeeding, because it seems like every week they find some more chemicals in baby formula (neither do I drink my tap).

The CDC team warned that mixing perchlorate-tainted formula powder with tap water containing "even minimal amounts" of the chemical could boost the resulting mixture's toxin content above the "safe" level set by the EPA.

Please take a moment to ask the newly appointed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to set a safe drinking water standard for perchlorate that's actually safe.

Parental Rights Amendment introduced in Congress

Yesterday afternoon the introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. Congress (H.J. Res. 42) was announced at a press conference. The following speech made by Michael Farris clearly articulates the need for the Amendment and I think it should be of interest to all my readers:

Statement of Michael Farris
President of ParentalRights.org
March 31, 2009

On behalf of ParentalRights.org and the rapidly growing number of allied organizations, I want to thank Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, and my own Congressman Frank Wolf for their leadership on this important issue.

There are two basic reasons that the Constitution has been amended throughout our history. Sometimes the need is to preserve our law and traditions from potential threats and erosion of our rights. The Bill of Rights serves as the chief example of amendments designed to preserve the existing rights of the people.

At other times, it is absolutely necessary to change the existing law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were clearly necessary to end the evils of slavery and establish the principle of equal protection for all Americans.

The Parental Rights Amendment follows the pattern of the Bill of Rights—the goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law.

Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment do nothing more than restate the time-honored doctrines of the Supreme Court on parental rights. We are simply changing parental rights from an implied right based on judicial opinions to an express right based upon actual constitutional text.

Section 1 faithfully employs the words and phrasing of the Supreme Court’s decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), to declare that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2 carefully follows the words of the Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to declare that parental rights, while very important, have limits. The government may intervene when the interest is of the highest order and not otherwise served. This section is a correct statement of current law. Today, when the government has proper evidence of child abuse or neglect, it may and should prosecute a parent who is responsible for such behavior.

Section 2 ensures that this principle remains intact. Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.

Section 3 preserves the current principle that only American laws govern the relationship between parents and children in this country. The use of international law is a rapidly growing trend in our judicial system. One federal district judge in New York has on two separate occasions ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child already binds the United States under the doctrine of customary international law. An Ohio court ruled on an obviously flawed premise that this treaty had already been ratified by the Senate, and therefore ordered parents to stop smoking because it harmed the health of their children.

Section 3 makes it clear that the only law which can be used in American courts regarding American families is the law made in America by our legislatures or the people themselves. The use of international law for domestic purposes is utterly contrary to the idea that this nation is a self-governing Republic.

This section is necessary especially in the context of international law. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are of superior rank to national law—even if that law is from the national constitution. However, there is an exception. Article 46 of the VCLT says that when the national constitution makes an exception concerning the power to enter treaties, then the national law still triumphs even in the face of an inconsistent treaty obligation.

Section 3 makes it unconstitutional for this nation to enter into a treaty that gives away our sovereignty on the subject of American parents and American children.

This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, “In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.” Every member of Congress who agrees with the President on this principle should be in favor of this Amendment.

Every member of Congress who believes that Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 1.

Every member of Congress who believes that Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 2.

And every member of Congress who believes that only American legislators should make public policy for American families should be in favor of Section 3.

On this last point, a post-election Zogby poll (sponsored by WorldNetDaily) makes it clear that virtually every sector of the American public agrees with this last proposition.
When asked if they wanted American judges to use American law alone or to also consider international law in making decisions, by an overwhelming margin, the American public rejected the idea of using international law for these purposes.

The majority of Republican voters reject international law.

So do the majority of Democratic voters.

Those who voted for McCain reject international law.

A majority of those who voted for Obama reject it as well.

Union members reject international law.

NRA members reject international law.

Every region of the nation rejects international law.

Every age group rejects international law.

Every racial group rejects international law.

This is a bipartisan issue in America among voters, and I truly hope and believe that it will become a bipartisan issue on the Hill. The gap between the values of Capitol Hill and the values of the American people has grown too large on too many issues. This is the very best place to show the American public that we all can work together for shared values.
Both political parties say they are for family values. And this will demonstrate meaningful support for the family.

This Amendment preserves two essential values: the value that good families, not government, have the right to make decisions for children; and that America, not the UN or any other nation, gets to make our public policy to govern the critical relationship between parents and children.