As a new mother I have just one wish for Mother's Day -- forget the candy, forget the flowers, forget the balloons. This Mother's Day, give something mothers could really use: respect.

We give a lot of lip service to the sanctity of motherhood in this country, but our laws and social norms reflect just the opposite.

In 1994, when filling out her Congressional candidate ballot application, Zoe Lofgren reported that she was a San Francisco City Supervisor and a mother. The Office of the Secretary of State informed her that she could not list motherhood as an occupation because it was not a "real job." What happened to the sentiment that raising the next generation was the most important job in the world? Do we really need to produce a paycheck to prove our job has value?

Most mothers put in longer hours than the most dedicated executives. They must manage time efficiently, divert crises and deal with the most unpredictable "clients" on earth. And, the quality of their work has the greatest impact on society. It is easy to say motherhood is sacred, but harder to support this idea with direct action and public policy.

After failing passage previously, California's public breast feeding bill was just enacted this year. The measure authorizes a mother to breast feed her child in any location where she is otherwise permitted to be. Despite the fact that breast feeding provides significant health benefits to both mother and child, park directors and restaurant managers have been able to enforce policies prohibiting even the most discreet feeding.

Children who are breast fed show lower rates of death, meningitis, childhood leukemia, cancer, diabetes, respiratory illness, bacterial and viral infection. Breast feeding provides maternal protection from osteoporosis, breast cancer and other life-threatening diseases. The health benefits alone should be an incentive to eliminate archaic moral taboos that ostracize women who breast feed publicly. Who really deserves legislative protection -- infants or those who are squeamish at the sight of a nursing baby?

Were those who fought to defeat this bill offended by women's breasts in general or just the ones that were not on display for their titillation? When the bill finally passed, did its opponents mourn their defeat by nursing a few beers at Pacer's?

Until the Newborns' and Mothers' Health and Protection Act is enacted in 1998, insurance companies continue to force women and their newborns out of maternity wards within hours of delivery. A federal law was needed to end what has been labeled "drive through deliveries." In a society that truly values motherhood, health benefits to women and infants would override economic concerns of insurance companies. Legislation would not be needed to ensure common decency.

Though I appreciate the State of California managing the insurance program which allows me six weeks to care for my newborn at my reduced salary, I resent that it is classified as "disability" payments. After carrying a pregnancy, delivering a baby and serving as her primary caregiver, I have ability unknown to more than half the population. Mothers are not disabled; they are superabled.

Due to cataclysmic shifts in our nation's economy, many families must generate two full-time incomes to meet their basic needs.

Child care is no longer a choice; it is a necessity. Yet our country has no public child care. It is the rare company that provides on-site child care or assistance for families.

The "personal responsibility" crowd might ask why government and private industry should get involved in family matters. After all, in the good old days families were able to get by without child care. In the last 20 years, wages have remained relatively stagnant when compared to skyrocketing inflation. The 1994 U.S. Census Bureau reports that, when weighted against the consumer price index, the average two-income family makes $1,000 less than it did in 1973. Since government and business helped create a problem, they should help families resolve it. In one fell swoop, they could demonstrate real commitment to personal responsibility and family values.

Some say feminists devalued motherhood when they suggested women should have the choice to work outside home. In fact, the women's movement of the 1960s is rooted in the homemaker's rights movement which fought for many important laws to protect the economic interests of at-home mothers. Because of feminist activism, today's wives no longer need their husbands' permission to open a checking account, line of credit or purchase property. Women's rights activists were among the first to acknowledge that motherhood is real work and should be valued as such.

The women's rights movement simply asserted that women who work outside the home should have the same opportunities as their male counterparts. It was not long ago when a company could decide not to hire a woman because it believed a mother should be home with her children -- or thought family obligations would prevent her from fulfilling her commitments at work. Feminism worked to return the choice to the woman, who is, after all, most familiar with her circumstances.

As our nation celebrates Mother's Day this year, let's do more than just talk about how much we value and appreciate the work of mothers. Let us make a commitment to truly supporting motherhood every day of the year.

Breastfeeding Recommendations Fall Short

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently strengthened its support for breastfeeding by urging mothers to continue nursing for at least one year, instead of weaning after six months. Citing significant health, social and economic benefits of breastfeeding, the Academy further recommended that insurance companies cover the expense of lactation specialists and breastfeeding consultants. Additionally, the AAP suggested that workplaces equip themselves with breast pumping stations so working women may express milk for their babies in daycare.

Today, California takes one step further supporting breastfeeding as AB 157, the public nursing bill, goes into effect. This measure permits mothers to nurse their children anywhere they are otherwise permitted to be. The AAP lobbied for the passage of this legislation and has cited the right to nurse in public as one of the ways our society can support breastfeeding.

One million childhood deaths could be prevented each year by breastfeeding. Breastfed babies show lower rates of meningitis, childhood leukemia, allergies and infections so it makes sense that the leading authority on pediatrics would support the practice. As the nursing mother of a nine-month-old, I applaud the recommendations of the AAP and will cite them often when asked, "Why are you still nursing?"

After two visits with lactation consultants at the Copley Breastfeeding Center at Mary Birch Hospital, three in-home visits from La Leche League, an appointment with a doctor at Wellstart, the local World Health Organization breastfeeding center, and two consultations with a lactation educator at my daughter's pediatrician's office, I know breastfeeding mothers need support. The cheetahs on the Nature Channel make it look so easy, but for many women, nursing can be a tremendous struggle. My health insurance did not reimburse any of the $350 I invested in lactation support. This can be a tremendous barrier to accessing services.

In order to sustain her milk production, a breastfeeding mother must either nurse or pump milk every few hours. Nursing mothers who work outside the home are often relegated to office bathrooms to pump. In more the progressive workplace, a spare office may be converted to a pumping station.

The AAP has introduced some valuable initiatives to promote breastfeeding among American women, but failed to address what pediatricians can do to support nursing mothers. Only 60 percent American women breastfeed their newborn babies; less than 20 percent are still nursing six months later. The pediatric community must ask itself what doctors can do to encourage breastfeeding.

Though the Academy supports breastfeeding as the superior method of infant feeding, pediatricians have dismal breastfeeding success rates in their practices. A study in the September 1995 issue of Pediatrics, the Academy journal, found that "residency training does not adequately prepare pediatricians for their role in breast feeding promotion." Lactation education is not part of the medical school curriculum and the only information about breastfeeding some pediatricians receive is from formula manufacturers.

My daughter's pediatrician supports breastfeeding not only in word, but in deed. Every mother has access to an on-site lactation nurse who offers counseling and information on breastfeeding. It's easy for pediatricians to say they encourage nursing; it is only meaningful when they dedicate time and resources to offer proactive solutions for breastfeeding mothers. The AAP should recommend each pediatric office have at least one staff member certified in lactation education.

In 1991, Unicef and the World Health Organization established the "Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative," a program to promote breastfeeding worldwide. Although more than 8,000 hospitals received "baby-friendly" status, the United States has only one hospital that earned this certification. The Academy should either promote adoption of the Unicef/WHO guidelines, or launch its own initiative to help mothers and newborns successfully breastfeed before they are discharged from hospitals.

Pediatricians undermine a mother's confidence in breastfeeding when they send her home from the hospital with a "gift pack" with formula samples. Many studies -- including a 1996 article in Pediatrics -- reveal that mothers who receive free formula from doctors are more likely to cease breastfeeding than if they had not been given the samples. The medical community cannot claim it promotes breastfeeding and, at the same time, employ practices known to discourage it. In doing so, it puts the economic interests of formula companies before the health concerns of children.

The three major U.S. formula manufacturers contribute millions of dollars each year to the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Medical Association. Although these medical organizations have taken public positions supporting breastfeeding, their economic stake in maintaining positive relations with formula manufacturers complicates matters.

The law now forbids formula companies from misrepresenting their product as superior to breast milk and even requires them to include the "breast is best" disclaimer. But most breastfeeding "starter kits" offered by the medical community are produced by formula companies, and contain more information on weaning, bottle-feeding, and potential problems than instruction, support and solutions. If hospitals were not receiving millions of dollars from formula manufacturers, it might be easier for them to deny requests to distribute their promotional material. The medical community says it urges women to breastfeed, but does far more to discourage nursing it when acts as the marketing and distribution arm for formula companies.

By recommending that women extend breastfeeding until at least baby's first birthday, the American Academy of Pediatrics has done a service for children in our country. The Academy should continue to address the need for breastfeeding legislation, and greater support from insurance companies and employers. But in its search for ways to promote breastfeeding among American women, the Academy should not forget to look in its own back yard.

Jennifer Coburn is the author of "Take Back Your Power: A Working Woman's Response to Sexual Harassment", which recently won an honorable mention from the National Women's Heritage Museum book awards and an Outstanding Book Award from the Myers Center for the Study of Human Rights in North America.