A duty of care can be loosely defined as the responsibility that one person or entity has over others. The meaning is flexible, considering the context and the situation. For example, a builder has a duty of care to construct an office building that is not going to suddenly collapse under normal, non-earthquake conditions. And that duty of care extends forwards indefinitely, so someone is responsible for maintaining that building as long as it’s being used.
A duty of care in a medical setting requires all health professionals to care for patients in a manner that confers the greatest benefits, while avoiding as many harms as possible. It also includes an obligation to treat patients who may have different beliefs or lifestyles than the practitioner holds.
Teachers have a duty of care to children attending the schools where they are working that extends beyond the classroom. So, children in their care should not just be learning the curriculum, but should also be safe from physical hazards on the school grounds and from bullying from other students.
A duty of care can be hierarchical in nature. Parents clearly have a duty of care to their children until they are grown, and independent, and then later children take over that duty to care for their elderly parents.
What about volunteer groups? Does a duty of care run both ways?
Clearly, volunteer workers have a duty of care for those they are supporting and helping. That’s why they are volunteering their time and money (it costs money to volunteer, even if that is just the cost to drive from home to another location).
Some sort of governance structure in nonprofit groups is useful for keeping everyone on track, for avoiding problems that can arise from differing opinions and for keeping money matters legal and transparent.
A normal governance structure in a nonprofit group would be some sort of Board of Directors, most of whom are also volunteers. According to this source, this sort of Board has three legal responsibilities:
1. Duty of Care: Take care of the nonprofit by ensuring prudent use of all assets, including facility, people, and good will.
2. Duty of Loyalty: Ensure that the nonprofit's activities and transactions are, first and foremost, advancing its mission; Recognize and disclose conflicts of interest; Make decisions that are in the best interest of the nonprofit corporation; not in the best interest of the individual board member (or any other individual or for-profit entity).
3. Duty of Obedience: Ensure that the nonprofit obeys applicable laws and regulations; follows its own bylaws; and that the nonprofit adheres to its stated corporate purposes/mission.
LLLI is already in breach its duty of care to its volunteer Leaders
LLLI has squandered the good will of its Leaders by making it necessary to pledge allegiance to supporting “everyone” to breastfeed. This has been written about here and here, and here by a former Leader who resigned rather than buy into the lies that gender ideology is built on.
Consider the LLLI Mission Statement that centers mother to mother support. This in no way commits Leaders to supporting the impossible aspiration of lactating men and women with no breasts. However, the paradoxical instructions from the LLLI Board make it obvious that Leaders are being squeezed into impossible and compromising positions. Many Leaders are understandably just giving up and leaving as they feel unsupported and even attacked by those who call them “transphobic”, “bigoted” and “non-inclusive” when they point out that they signed up to support mothers, not men with a sexual fetish.
The LLLI inclusivity policy also breaches the long-understood concept of what we call mixing causes. Here are a few examples of where the duty of loyalty to the LLL mission has been ignored.
Leaders in several countries are considering pointing out to the authorities where their own Direct Connect Entities (the designation for subgroups of LLLI) are not adhering to the relevant charities’ bureaucracies. Many countries have criteria that mean that nonprofits can lose their charity status if they are not following the guidelines they signed onto.
LLLI is not a social justice tool for the rainbow community
In the gender free parenting world that LLL is currently imposing, some seem to believe that its progressive, Western values are the very enlightened, best the world can do and it’s our duty to drag “backward” countries to the bright side of civilization. I have already written about the effects of colonization of women’s bodies and spaces.
And why is it not cultural imperialism when we declare that every sexual and gender preference must be embraced and celebrated in every country? Inclusivity is not a human right, but has always been subject to cultural interpretations.
Leaders will be endangered by LLLI publications and websites
At least 65 countries have legislation around the sexual preferences and behaviors of those who live there. At least 41 countries have laws specifically relating to women and same sex practices. Twelve countries may put you to death for disobeying their legislation around sexual activities. Fourteen countries criminalize “gender identity” and or transgenderism specifically.
As of December 2020, at least 41% of countries with criminal law statutes about sex/gender on their books also have an LLL presence.
Leaders do not have to be lesbians or claiming a trans identity to break the laws in most of these countries; just showing support to gay or trans parents is considered to be illegal as it is interpreted as “supporting criminal activity”.
According to this source in Uganda, “Anyone advocating for the rights of LGBT people, including representatives of human rights organizations or those providing financial support to organizations that do so, could face up to 20 years’ imprisonment for the “promotion of homosexuality.”
Two former Leaders now living in Uganda resigned from La Leche League and provide breastfeeding support under another name because as one of them stated, “It is clear to me that I would go to jail for supporting a gay parent. And this country that inherited the legacy of Idi Amin is not a place you want to go to jail to, even for a few hours.”
The party line from the LLLI Board to Leaders who complain about the compelled speech of using “a variety of terms” in place of “mothers” is that countries and areas can use the language they find appropriate for them. This may sound good, but quickly deteriorates as a useless concept when you realize that to become a Leader you are required to use training materials from LLLI, including their upcoming publication The Art of Breastfeeding which is due to be published in October 2024.
LLLI’s flagship book, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, began as a course-by-mail in loose-leaf binder form in 1958. This information was revised and expanded into the first edition in 1963. More than a million copies were sold before it was revised in 1981. It is currently in its 8th edition (2010) and is available in eight languages.
But by all reports, the upcoming 2024 book is, by those who believe in “everyone” breastfeeding, not an updated edition, but a whole new book that will aim for inclusivity woven through the entire text. It won’t be possible to simply remove an “offending” chapter so it can be safely kept at your home, if you are a Leader living in a country that prohibits lifestyles considered to be “deviant” by your government.
I have been told by a Leader living in Africa that, “it can be downright dangerous for an LLL Leader living in Uganda, or any number of other African countries, to provide support to LGBTQ individuals, as well as being allied or connected in any way with an organization whose stated policy is to provide that support.”
A quick scurry though the recently launched, updated LLLI website, will not be a comforting ride for anyone concerned; it took me two clicks to get to this section where men wanting to try breastfeeding can learn some handy tips.
You don’t need to break the law to be arrested
Earlier this year in Zambia, women were arrested for holding a public meeting to protest domestic violence, but the police claimed they were “promoting homosexuality” (which is illegal). These men attending a birthday party for a gay man were arrested in Uganda for “holding a gay wedding” (which if true, would have been illegal). Iran’s morality police are infamous for their treatment of women who, in their judgement, are breaking the rule around how to wear a hijab. Women are killed as a result of their pronouncements.
What might happen to a Leader who has a jealous neighbor or a former friend who reports a “suspicious” gathering? If you read about life under the Stasi of East Germany, the USSR under Stalin or China under Mao, it quickly becomes apparent that people can be motivated to do the most appalling things to each other, if the incentives are enough.
For the LLLI Board to reassure Leaders that no one will get into trouble helping a breastfeeding parent, I say their naivete is, not charming, but profoundly hazardous for Leaders.
Does LLLI think that loyalty only runs one way?
Leaders are required to restate their belief in LLLI philosophy and practice every single year. Surely at the very least, LLLI owes its Leaders not just informational support and resources, but an assurance that they won’t be required to do anything that could put their family’s livelihood in danger, let alone their freedom from incarceration? Currently, the LLLI Board is blinded by the bright, shiny light of gender ideology to the point that they are unable to see the juggernaut of destruction that follows.
Their laissez faire attitude to the safety of Leaders living in perilous countries is unfathomable to any thinking person.
Reading this as a retired leader who left because of the issues you raised- it feels like a punch to the gut. Thank you for so eloquently expressing the thoughts & concerns that I have discussed with other retired leaders... I am glad to see this though I no longer support or recommend LLL to any moms.
LLLI's insistence on mixing causes has brought the organization to great ruin. The promotion of a personal political cause of inclusivity has created a culture of fear, retribution, and bullying among Leaders who are actually in fear of being "outed" by the board and sacrificed on the altar of public shaming for having an idea. A thought. In effect, the board has made free exchange of ideas, questions, and discussions taboo. Inclusivity is the new exclusivity. All Leaders must conform to the idea that men are women and can breastfeed babies; that surrogacy does not rip a baby from a mother's arms or cheat a baby from his loving mother. Really? I believe it is our Creator God above who made the design of man and woman and when one plots to undo His work, I believe it is a sin. Call me old fashioned if you will, disagree with me, that's fine. Because I believe in discussion and the free exchange of ideas makes us stronger. When experts––LLL Leaders–– are silenced, who becomes the arbiter of ensuring safe practices for infant feeding? Certainly not members of the board who seek to be recognized in their ivory towers of higher education as revolutionaries willing to go the distance to silence bigots. I was bullied by the board for supporting women to breastfeed. I left the organization and no one cared enough to ask me why. It has become apparent to me that this irresponsible discharge of administrative duties, sloppy policy making, and silencing of thought has not benefitted mothers or babies; the only "one" who benefits from this social movement to turn back women's rights and empowerment (rights to be a safeguard for the family, to be the final person to stop harm to children) is the infant formula industry. Ladies, I give you the current board with a few notable exceptions, (a big exception is a beloved Founding Mother who had to use her Founder's option to get back on the board to try to save LLL) that has conspired to weaken the family unit by unhinging the rightful place of mother as mother in the family. They are playing into the hands of corporate formula companies who seek to remove women from the family. The board's acts are at the very least immoral, and someday it will become clear the damage that they have caused to women and children.