Why? You can get those for free at any health unit or free clinic along with birth control pills or shots... of course it hasn't reduced the numbers much...

You know, prescription birth control is deductible (as well as IUDs)... I DO wonder why condoms aren't. It's a pretty easy way to get people to be responsible about NOT getting pregnant when they don't wanna be.

Any prescription medication is tax deductible.

Birth control pills are also used to treat other things besides preventing pregnancy.

I'm not disputing that breast feeding is a good thing. But anything positive gets a tax deduction? Why not my gym membership? Or running shoes?

Why do so many people have no problem giving continual tax breaks to the corporations and wealthiest (with no regard to the rising deficit), yet when it comes to deducting a device that helps keep babies healthy suddenly you want a good reason (which I think is obvious)? I still want an answer why the tax break to the wealthy were so important to some people and I'll bet they would be the same ones to complain about this.

Exactly what lib50 said! If you are gonna bitch about tax deductable stuff... start elsewhere.

And I hate hearng people say...if you can't afford a baby dont have one. First of all getting a deduction doesnt mean you can't afford it... second would you rather people go abort - kill- their baby if they happen to be able to not afford a $300 breastpump? Guess who will likely be paying for the abortion? And third...breastpumps arent simply for baby...if a breastfeeding mother cant pump when baby can't or wont drink she can get a breast infection. Mastitis. If this isn't treated properly, in the worst case scenario, can be life threatening. And since you can't choose just not to lactate when you have a baby almost all moms will have one issie or another regarding their breasts...

really, how much is a breast pump, $50? I think thou doth protest too much!

How much value can I attach to my hands so I can deduct them?

Actually Rod, breast pumps can cost upwards of $300, if you get a good one. Which if you plan on using for a long period of time you need a good one. Mine cost $278 or around there...mine was covered by insurance though, but it will be nice for others to use this benefit.

They'd feel different if women were corporations. That tax break would be a done deal.

cant wait to see women being hooked up like dairy cattle.

Having a baby is a life changing event which allows you to change your elections - you know the same way that it allows you to add your baby to your policy when (s)he arrives.

I expected to have a second baby this year, but didn't want to way overshoot my FSA contribution in case it didn't work out. Well, I am so when he gets here, I'll just jack up my FSA amount for this year so I can get reimbursed for my out of pocket expenses including my new Medela!

Get over yourself. Child rearing is for the good of society as a whole. Our children will pay for your retirement.

You get over yourself.. I'm sick and tired of being told that I continuiously have to "suck it up and take one for the team".

Last year I bought a toothbrush head for my Sonicare using my flex spending card. Two weeks later I am notified that I have to pay that money back because that was not a covered item. But of course, men could pay for Viagra with it and that was a covered item.. What makes the arrseh0les that make up these rules think that some mans peni$ is any more important than my teeth?

I'm tired of "sucking it up" for the betterment of someone else's children. I pay local, county, state and federal taxes as my portion of the betterment of someone else's children.

BTW.. you should probably let some parents know that child rearing thing being good for society, some of them think that society should be raising their child....

Norsita: Oh MERCY is right...who raised you to whine about 'not getting mine'? Not spending money on your own children isn't enough for you? I hate to tell you this, but other people's children are going to be paying YOUR social security (no, you did NOT and will not contribute enough to pay for yourself if you live any kind of a decent life span.) You are not "sucking it up" for other people's children--you are "sucking it up" for yourself (and you better HOPE they are learning well in those schools we all pay for, because they are going to be performing your surgeries, flying your planes, making your laws, discovering your new drugs, and otherwise keeping the economy going long after your whining is over).

Well Kamity and Ap, unfortunately both of your arguments are null because IM from the generation that social security will burn out before. I'm tired of this country being run by f**king breeders. I agree with the people that agree that tax credits should be on wider items instead of excluding people who don't want to have children. It's not every sole persons obligation to this world to breed, the world has enough unholy, self-absorbed parents like some of the people on this message board.

Norsita, you will earn your tax break when you do something that contributes to our society that is worthy of a tax break. BTW being selfish and not having children is not contributing...also, you are welcome for the SSI check you will be receiving during your retirement. Thanks for playing in the game of life, just a hint, it isn't always fair.

Proud Breastfeeding Mom - Choosing not to have children is hardly selfish! I'd really like to know how you justify that statement. Accusing someone of not contributing to society because they didn't have children is ridiculous. There are plenty of ways to contribute to society without spawning a ton of kids. My sisters have no plans to have kids but they volunteer their time with many organizations. What do YOU do besides have sex and breast feed?

kamity, AP-1414006 & Proud Breast Feeding Mom -

I was surprised to see that you found me to be "whiney," "selfish" & "non-contributory". Thus, I feel the need to clarify a few things for you... First and foremost, I DO NOT expect something for nothing... I never have and never will. I was not RAISED that way! I work hard for a living and live paycheck to paycheck like so many others. For that reason, I do not overextend myself to keep up with anyone else - my reward for that is a near perfect credit score and minimal debt. I take pride in the fact that I, have never bounced a check, missed or been delinquent on a payment for anything, declared bankruptcy or expected anyone to be responsible for my actions but me! That is not me being boastful, just an explanation of how I was RAISED... so if you found my statement "whiney" I hope you stand corrected. I was not whining, just asking a question and stating an opinion. Non-contributory? For the record any "extra" monies I might have, I send to varying charities - humanitarian, health-oriented (I am a monthly donor to St. Jude's CHILDRENS' Hospital), animal welfare (monthly to the ASPCA as well as other local shelters), military and environmental. Yes, I can get a deduction for them... but I do not do it for the deduction... I do it because as tight as things are financially for me, I know there are others in need worse than I am and if my $5 here, $20 there helps someone else or makes up for someone who can't donate.. than that is the reward enough for me! As far as selfish... since you seem to have focused solely on my "Oh Mercy" post... I have re-posted my other from yesterday in response to a different "kamity" post here as well:

[Thank you for your response to my other comment... albeit brusque... it is appreciated! Seeing this post, I would like to congratulate you for staying home and raising your children! And I am not being sarcastic! The reason I don't have children - I made the choice to not have them because I could not afford to stay home and raise them - and in my opinion, you are to be commended for doing what should come naturally to a mother! I have to live with the choice I made, but I thought it best for the child I might have had... I would have wanted to be there for everything, not just the drop off and pick up on the way to and from a job! So... you see we are of somewhat different mindsets, but we do agree as well! Keep up the great work! You are right... it is a job and more than a 40 hour a week one at that... you should have the deduction for childcare as well! BTW... tell your kids thanks for taking care of me in my old age! ;O)

#9.1 - Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:11 PM EST]

Perhaps, I'm not really those labels you referred to me as after all?

Thank you for your response to my other comment... albeit brusque... it is appreciated! Seeing this post, I would like to congratulate you for staying home and raising your children! And I am not being sarcastic! The reason I don't have children - I made the choice to not have them because I could not afford to stay home and raise them - and in my opinion, you are to be commended for doing what should come naturally to a mother! I have to live with the choice I made, but I thought it best for the child I might have had... I would have wanted to be there for everything, not just the drop off and pick up on the way to and from a job! So... you see we are of somewhat different mindsets, but we do agree as well! Keep up the great work! You are right... it is a job and more than a 40 hour a week one at that... you should have the deduction for childcare as well! BTW... tell your kids thanks for taking care of me in my old age! ;O)

Norsita - this comment kinda makes you the coolest person I have ever seen on Newsvine!

I stay home with my child, and I do not expect a tax deduction for it. I am not "punished", I have made a choice to do what I think is best.

I feel more sorry for women who would like to stay home, but can't afford it.

You already get a deduction for your children--whether you stay at home or work outside of it is irrelevant (and if you provide a home for them, you get a deduction for that mortgage interest too.)

I stay home with my child as well. I am not looking for a tax deduction for child care, although it would be nice to allow for parents to have the choice of having a parent stay home with the children instead of giving them to a care giver to go off and work all day just to pay for that care giver. It isn't an easy job, but it should be an option for those who want to do it, but again can't afford to. It is a sacrifice, one that I was happy to make after having our first, but not one that I jumped at doing before hand because I saw what a financial strain it was going to put on us. But in order to make it work, we have exclusively breastfed and cloth diapered. I think there should be a tax write break for those who choose to stay home and raise their children, not the other way around, but it's not a perfect society and there is on one answer...but at least we all have the freedom to choose how we want to raise our children.

Kamity - I am a working mother and I make just as many "necessary sacrifices", if not more, than you do staying at home, My children are being raised in a very healthy, happy and safe enviroment. What makes your way the best or only way to raise children? My children are very happy and outgoing so clearly I'm doing something right as well.

It is impossible for a child to be allergic to a mother's milk. Mother Nature is not that stupid. Human babies have trouble when we give them non-human milk (including formulas made with non-human milk - including Enfamil Nutramigen). Human babies are not allergic to human milk. They are allergic to bovine/cow/sheep/goat (non-human) proteins contained in bovine/cow/sheep/goat (non-human) milk. We are not supposed to suckle a cow. Just as cows do not suckly a human. It is also not possible for a newborn to be lactose intollerant (horribly misdiagnosed and misunderstood subject). Lactose is the number one sugar in human breastmilk...and it's impossible for a baby to be allergic to a mother's (or really any human woman's) milk. ALL humans become lactose intollerent around age 7, some sooner, some later...it is the "age of weaning" and is the point where milk is no longer a priority in one's diet. Humans are the only mammals that drink other mammals' milk and drink any milk past the age of weaning. No wonder we all have digestive problems! So...if human mothers were given the info, support, and resources to breastfeed the first year of life (after which point most babies can go on solids, water, and/or continue nursing) it would solve for many cases of cow/bovine-protein-allergic babies.

It is impossible for a child to be allergic to a mother's milk. Mother Nature is not that stupid.

While they cannot be allergic to your milk, per say. They can be allergic to things that end up in your milk because of your diet or medications. For example, a woman who is epileptic and on medication to prevent seizures cannot breastfeed because the medication will be transferred to the babe.

Good point. Always have to find exceptions to pretty much everything imagineable. Would depend on the medication and whether it is contraindicated. Also depends on how the medication is administered. Meds taken intravenously verses orally have different outcomes when it comes to percentages that wind up in breastmilk. There is a book called Medications and Mothers Milk by Tom Hale that provides info on thousands of drugs as pertains to pregnancy and breastfeeding, and provides safer alternatives to many drugs (not sure if you are speaking for yourself and would have interest in looking up a particular drug). I have to assume an epileptic woman has already considered many things before even becoming pregnant, and hopefully breastfeeding is one of those things she discusses with her doctor. Formula is an amazing scientific invention and is largely viewed as a medicimal product (by physicians and lactation consultants). It is a back up plan in case breastfeeding is impossible. Unfortunately formula companies have made formula a choice (of lifestyle) instead of a medical necessity. So you are correct that formula is a blessing for someone like your example who may be advised to not breastfeed because of vital medication they are taking. I can certainly see how this person would deserve a tax break. But I don't think formula should receive a tax break in general. Even though it is sometimes the only option formula causes/contributes to poor health. Worldwide approx. 5% of women have a medical reason/condition that rules out breastfeeding. It is lack of info and support that causes low percentages of breastfeeding, especially in this country.

Excellent point weRdoomed. I have a painful chronic illness and in order to have a child, I will have to forgo medication at least six months before conception until after birth. By the time I'm in my third tri-mester, I will probably not be able to walk. You can bet women like me are going to find be able to function and take care of our child more important than breast-feeding, and will start medication again right away.

Formula is based on cow milk or soy. Cow milk is made to feed baby cows. It's not intended for human consumption any more than cat milk, dog milk, goat milk, llama milk, etc.

If a baby is allergic to breastmilk, then they will probably be allergic to everything under the sun.

Formula is owned by pharmaceutical companies and made in factories not even in our country. Therefore, our own government has very little control over what is in it even though American companies own them. Because of their huge lobby, they've made the entire Western world believe it's a necessary item, when in fact it's not. If every mother did what their body was made to do and breastfed, then not only would children be healthier but it would prevent the unnecessary expense of formula. A can of formula costs $20, which lasts what? A week. A full breast is free and lasts as long as you want it too.

Money is so much better spent encouraging this lifesaving (in some cases) option instead of what is essentially an artificial product full of bug parts, stored in cans with salmonella (yes, that's why it had to be boiled up until about 20 years ago), and even poison.

Formula is usually available with WIC vouchers for those who can't afford it. That comes out of taxpayer dollars and drives the cost of formula up. If the government would stop funding formula period then we'd all be a lot better off.

Hilariously WIC was supposed to be a breastfeeding program. So how about funding more pumps and PRENATAL breastfeeding education at WIC?

Everybody that I work with that has had children recently is on WIC and uses formula, instead of breastfeeding, usually because they are too lazy to try to breastfeed and they know formula is covered so they won't have to pay for it. One girl actually told me that she doesn't want to breastfeed because she wants to be able to drink alcohol.

Actually WIC has recently started a big breastfeeding campaign, including providing prenatal education, peer support, breast pumps, and an excellent food package to moms who breastfeed. It's a slow process, but they really do want to get more moms breastfeeding. For the babies, for the moms, and for society/taxpayers.

Sam,

Breast Milk is what a baby human needs. And if the baby is allergic to BM, then it is most likely something the woman is eating and can easily be remedied by changing the way the mother eats. I am a perfect example of this, as my child is allergic to: Broccoli, Bananas, Apples, Dairy, Gluten, Caffeine, Tomatoes and Avocadoes. Guess what, I just don't eat them and she is fine! :)

There is no reason a child should be put on formula, unless the mother is unable to produce or is absent, but in that situation there are milk banks and mothers that would donate. I know that some of those types of formulas are covered by some insurances...check with them before you start asking the government to pay for the choices you guys make on how to feed your babies.

And WIC is very pro breastfeeding, but they can't force a mother to do so. If you choose to do formula, it is normally for a very selfish reason, again the only reason a baby should be fed formula, is if the mother is not present or cannot produce enough, it should not just be a given that a baby should be bottle fed formula. That toxic stuff needs to be locked up in the pharmacy and a script written for it only in times of true need, not just convenience.

Breast is Best, Formula is Flawed!

I live in what I would consider a fairly backwards Midwestern state and it's pretty easy for low-income moms to get free hospital-grade breastpump rental here. Some of them just choose the WIC formula checks instead.

It's really interesting to see how many people assume that I have a child and this I'm the one doing this. Can't it be possible that I made a suggestion? I wish people wouldn't take such an accusatory tone and just have a discussion.

And for the record, it is possible to be allergic to any kind of milk. Both of my nephews had an allergy to a protein that's present in all kinds of milk. Yes, they both grow out of it.

The point of my post: Where is the limit? Who decides the line in the sand? You can't choose to give a deduction for breast milk just because some people think it's best. It's not the best in every situation.

I'm just thinking that formula that is medically required is closer to a medical deduction than breast milk. I personally think the government should stay out of the fray period, and that the IRS should be reigned in (another topic for another blog). But, we all have to live in reality, the reality is, the IRS isn't going anywhere, and the decisions they're making have more to do with who lobbies better.

John1425001... I was thrilled to hear about your local school's drama and theatre dept! The fact that the arts are more often than not the first thing pulled when schools cut back, fuels my frustration with my taxes! I was not the athletic kid, I was the quiet geek and am still thankful my schools had programs that helped build my self-esteem! As I said, I have no problem paying (would love a bit back as unrealistic as that sounds-lol), as long as I'm also supporting the kids who aren't the jocks or cheerleaders... those who need the arts to help them be outgoing and comfortable in their own skin. Sentimental? Perhaps... but I can still see the faces of those "popular" kids peering through the auditorium door at me in the 7th grade... they were pointing and whispering and increasingly gathering... but not in their usual taunting way... they were in awe of the girl on the stage that they "never knew could sing like that." That girl, found her self-esteem and a love for herself in that auditorium that day... My wish would be for any kid that is like I was to have the opportunity to find themselves as well... and if my school taxes make that happen... then I'll gladly pay 'em and quit "whining!"

Truly ignorant response - I'm not asking you to pay for a thing for my children. It's just a $500.00 tax deduction from the money I work for myself. It's a medical expense - that's why breast pumps come from the medical supply store. And for your information, it's the formula feeding moms who take money from taxpayers - have you ever heard of WIC?? Millions and millions of dollars spent out a year to give people free (paid for by the federal government - our tax dollars) formula. I would much rather someone be able to use a pump as a tax write off to continue breastfeeding instead of using my tax money to pay for their formula.

Harden-

I agree!! I only wish they had made this decision before I turned down the flex spending account I could have set up for this year!

Harden I agree.

Jphelps, you are delusional because WIC does spend millions on formula each year. $850 million in 2009 to be exact:

If you aren't pissed about the fact that tax dollars are being spent on formula then you are truly an ignorant person. A breast pump can be as cheap as 25 bucks up to 200, and if a mother chooses to feed their child real milk, then they should be able to pump it in order to provide for their child while they are away from the home earning money for the household. You are getting bent out of shape about a tax break for medical expenses when you pay much more for formula with your tax dollars.

Anon, you can probably fix it when your baby arrives. It's considered a life changing event so most group plans will allow you to change your deductions.

Dave,

Great news, you can also purchase your condoms with your flexible spending account just like a woman can purchase a breast pump to feed her child. You are ignorant for posting this without even checking your facts first. Also, the whole thing about getting to pay for your play boys, you need help, there is free internet porn for that!

Because of the societal misconception that breasts are for sex and not providing nourishment to their young.

I agree Spring...seems as though they think it must provide some life sustaining properties...when really all it does is help impregnate an egg, which we can do easily without the use of their penis. Thank you very much.

Because men equate everything with their penis!

Pumping

Well, the price of a breast pump is about $250-$300, and then there's the extra expense of buying milk storage containers or bags, as well as nursing pads. I am a SAHM, but I have many friends who work and needed to buy these things.

I nursed my three kids for a year each, and probably spent $500 total for the pump and all the supplies for all three. That is way less then formula feeding. Not to mention all the money saved by having healthier babies. Less doctor visits, ear infections, ect.

For those unable to breast feed, it can get expensive to buy bottles, nipples, formula etc. yet that's not covered (nor am I proposing that it should be). I think a breast pump is part of the cost of raising a child just as diapers, cribs, carseats and other items.

Well said, Melissa Y. !!