Author: Scarlett SaysNo

  • Scarlett Says Humans Aren’t In Charge

    Scarlett Says Humans Aren’t In Charge

    There are places in the world that remind us how small we really are.

    Pilanesberg National Park in South Africa is one of them.

    Most of us spend our lives in environments designed for human convenience. Roads. Buildings. Grocery stores. Air conditioning. Traffic lights. Cell phones. Social media arguments with strangers we’ve never met.

    We’ve become so accustomed to controlling our surroundings that we forget something important:

    Nature never agreed to the arrangement.

    The moment Scarlett entered Pilanesberg, the balance shifted.

    Out here, humans are not the main characters.

    The elephants don’t care about your itinerary.

    The lions don’t care how much your camera cost.

    The giraffes aren’t impressed by your social media following.

    And the rhinoceroses certainly aren’t interested in your political opinions.

    For a few hours, humans become what we actually are:

    Just another species moving through the landscape.

    And honestly?

    It’s refreshing.

    Modern life encourages us to believe everything revolves around us. Our deadlines. Our careers. Our elections. Our endless notifications. Our belief that we’re the smartest creatures to ever walk the Earth.

    That last one might deserve a second look.

    Scarlett’s guide, “Answer,” seemed perfectly named for the job. He had answers for nearly everything — tracks, animal behavior, where to look, when to wait, what a movement in the distance might mean.

    But what made him interesting wasn’t just what he knew.

    It was that he still asked questions.

    Answer also talked about behavior.

    Animal behavior.

    Human behavior.

    And the hard rule of the bush: you do not interrupt nature.

    You watch.

    You wait.

    You respect the fact that you are not in charge.

    That may sound simple, but for humans, apparently, it is advanced coursework.

    We are a species that interrupts everything.

    Conversations. Ecosystems. Elections. Peaceful afternoons. Comment sections. Entire countries.

    In the bush, that instinct has to be put away.

    Nature is not asking for our opinion.

    It is asking us to shut up long enough to learn something.

    He still watched carefully.

    He still treated the landscape as something to learn from rather than something he had already figured out.

    That’s a quality more humans could use.

    Answer also explained the difference between white rhinos and black rhinos in the kind of plain, memorable way good guides do.

    Both are rhinos.

    Both are enormous.

    Both could absolutely win an argument with a rental car.

    But they are not the same.

    White rhinos are grazers. They eat grass, keep their heads low, and are generally considered more passive.

    Black rhinos are browsers. They eat leaves, shrubs, branches, and bushy plants. Some black rhinos also eat euphorbia, a plant with a toxic milky sap that most animals wisely avoid because, apparently, they have read the room.

    Black rhinos, however, can tolerate it. And use it for strength and power.

    Answer said that sap may be part of why black rhinos have their famously cranky reputation.

    Scarlett cannot personally verify the rhino mood chemistry, and she is not about to walk up to one with a clipboard and ask follow-up questions.

    But the larger point still stands.

    Same family.

    Different diets.

    Different temperaments.

    Different ways of surviving.

    Nature, once again, refusing to fit neatly into human categories.

    At one point, someone in the jeep couldn’t resist making the obvious comparison.

    White rhinos.

    Black rhinos.

    Humans being humans, the conversation briefly drifted toward people.

    Answer tilted his head, smiled, and seemed to acknowledge the comparison without fully taking the bait.

    Because the interesting part wasn’t their color.

    The interesting part was that they were different.

    Different diets.

    Different temperaments.

    Different ways of moving through the world.

    And yet somehow they managed to share the same park without spending all day obsessing over those differences.

    The white rhinos weren’t demanding the black rhinos change.

    The black rhinos weren’t campaigning against the white rhinos.

    Neither group appeared particularly interested in convincing the other group that they were doing rhinoceros life incorrectly.

    They simply existed.

    Meanwhile, humans — allegedly the most intelligent species on Earth — have spent an astonishing amount of time finding reasons to divide ourselves into teams and then arguing about which team matters most.

    Standing in Pilanesberg, surrounded by animals that seemed perfectly capable of adapting to one another’s existence, Scarlett found herself wondering whether intelligence and wisdom are two very different things.

    The more Scarlett watched the animals, the more that thought kept creeping in.

    For creatures we proudly describe as “wild,” they seemed surprisingly good at coexistence.

    The zebras knew where the zebras belonged.

    The giraffes knew where the giraffes belonged.

    The elephants understood their role.

    The lions understood theirs.

    Nobody was demanding exclusive ownership of the watering hole.

    Nobody was launching a disinformation campaign against antelope.

    Nobody was trying to convince everyone else that the real problem facing the Mankwe River was a neighboring species simply existing.

    Humans, meanwhile, have the internet and still can’t manage most of that.

    Perhaps intelligence and wisdom aren’t exactly the same thing.

    Travel has a way of teaching lessons you didn’t know you needed.

    Sometimes those lessons come from museums.

    Sometimes they come from conversations.

    And sometimes they come from watching animals who have been adapting to their environment for thousands of years while humans spend their afternoons arguing about things that won’t matter next week.

    A herd of elephants crosses a road.

    A giraffe quietly reaches into a tree.

    A rhino continues eating exactly what a rhino has evolved to eat.

    No committee meeting required.

    No strategic plan.

    No opinion poll.

    No billionaire funding a misinformation campaign.

    Just life.

    Pilanesberg is often promoted as a safari destination, and it absolutely is one.

    But the wildlife isn’t what stayed with Scarlett.

    What stayed with her was the perspective.

    The reminder that the world is bigger than us.

    Older than us.

    And far less interested in our drama than we imagine.

    The animals seemed perfectly content getting on with the business of survival.

    Humans, on the other hand, appear determined to complicate absolutely everything.

    After spending time in Pilanesberg, Scarlett wasn’t entirely convinced we’re the more adaptable species.

    We’ve built remarkable things.

    We’ve walked on the moon.

    We’ve mapped the human genome.

    We’ve invented artificial intelligence.

    And yet a group of rhinos with different diets and different personalities somehow manage to share a national park without creating a constitutional crisis.

    Maybe there’s a lesson in that.

    Maybe the smartest thing humans could do once in a while is stop talking, start observing, and remember that the world doesn’t revolve around us.

    Pilanesberg has been teaching that lesson for a very long time.

    We just have to be willing to listen.


  • The Great American Bathroom Panic

    The Great American Bathroom Panic

    When a Country Loses Its Mind Over Toilets

    America has done some genuinely impressive things.

    Sent people to the moon. Built the internet. Developed life-saving vaccines. Invented approximately 9,000 ways to order coffee.

    And yet, somehow, this same country keeps melting down over public bathrooms.

    Scarlett would like everyone to take a breath.

    Not a press-conference breath. Not a “concerned parent group funded by suspiciously well-organized political operatives” breath. A normal human breath.

    Because this is still, unfortunately, a national conversation:

    Who gets to pee where?

    That’s it. That’s the grand moral crisis.

    Not poverty. Not gun violence. Not healthcare. Not underfunded schools. Not people working full-time and still unable to afford rent.

    Nope.

    Toilets.

    Bathrooms have become one of America’s favorite culture-war battlegrounds because they are useful. Not useful to ordinary people, obviously. Ordinary people use bathrooms for the same reason everyone else does: to get in, do what needs to be done, wash their hands — hopefully — and leave.

    But politically? Bathrooms are very useful.

    They let people turn fear into policy.

    They let politicians pretend they are “protecting children” while doing very little about the things actually harming children.

    They let cable news hosts fill hours of programming with outrage over a public facility nobody wanted to spend time in anyway.

    And they let people avoid the harder question:

    Why are some Americans so invested in controlling who is allowed to exist comfortably in public?

    Because that is what this is really about.

    It is not about bathrooms.

    It is about permission.

    Permission to be seen. Permission to move through the world. Permission to use a public space without being treated like a threat, a debate topic, or a political prop.

    Transgender people are not lurking in stalls plotting the downfall of civilization. They are people. They are students, coworkers, neighbors, travelers, parents, friends, and strangers trying to get through the day like everyone else.

    The panic depends on making them sound mysterious and dangerous.

    Reality is much less dramatic.

    Most people have probably shared bathrooms with transgender people many times and never noticed. Because, shocking as this may be to the professional outrage industry, most people in public bathrooms are not conducting identity investigations between stalls.

    They are trying not to touch the door handle.

    Scarlett has traveled enough to know that many places manage this issue with far less hysteria. Gender-neutral bathrooms exist. Family bathrooms exist. Single-stall bathrooms exist. Shared public facilities exist. Somehow, society continues.

    No thunderbolt. No collapse of civilization. No emergency alert from the Ministry of Toilet Morality.

    Just people using the bathroom.

    Imagine that.

    The American obsession with bathroom policing says less about safety and more about discomfort with change. Some people want the world sorted into clean little boxes: blue, pink, male, female, normal, not normal, acceptable, suspicious.

    But human beings have never been that tidy.

    And trying to force everyone into those boxes does not create safety.

    It creates fear.

    It tells certain people they are always being watched. Always being judged. Always one complaint away from public humiliation.

    That is not protection.

    That is control.

    Meanwhile, the country has real problems stacked to the ceiling. Housing costs are brutal. Healthcare is a mess. Schools need funding. Climate disasters are getting worse. Families are exhausted. Workers are stretched thin. Communities are struggling.

    But sure, let’s gather everyone around the national campfire and scream about restroom signage.

    Very serious country, apparently.

    Scarlett is not saying public spaces should not be safe. Of course they should.

    She is saying safety should be based on actual risk, not manufactured panic. It should protect people from harm, not single out vulnerable groups so politicians can score points with people who have been trained to fear them.

    Because that is the ugliest part of this whole thing.

    The bathroom panic is not happening in a vacuum. It is part of a larger pattern: find a marginalized group, exaggerate the threat, demand laws, claim moral victory, repeat.

    Different decade, different target, same tired machinery.

    And honestly?

    America should be embarrassed.

    Not because people disagree. Democracies are built for disagreement.

    America should be embarrassed because this is what passes for leadership in too many places: adults in suits writing laws about bathrooms while ignoring the collapsing systems right in front of them.

    Scarlett has one humble suggestion.

    Let people pee in peace.

    Then maybe we can get back to solving problems that actually require more than a bathroom sign and a little basic human decency.

    Scarlett says no to the Great American Bathroom Panic.

  • Trump’s Name Is Being Removed From the Kennedy

    Trump’s Name Is Being Removed From the Kennedy

    Turns out you cannot just slap your name on a national cultural institution because your ego needs more square footage.

    Workers are removing Donald Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center after a federal judge ruled that the Trump-controlled board did not have the legal authority to rename the building.

    That’s right….A national memorial honoring President John F. Kennedy was renamed after Donald Trump.

    Not by Congress.

    Not by the American people.

    Not because of some overwhelming public demand.

    Just because people with power decided that apparently every building, airport, golf course, and flat surface in America should eventually have Trump’s name on it.

    And now the letters are coming down.

    This Is About More Than a Sign

    The Kennedy Center does not belong to Donald Trump.

    It does not belong to his board.

    It does not belong to whichever political party happens to be in power.

    It belongs to the American people.

    That is why the court stepped in.

    Because public institutions are not personal trophies.

    Imagine if every president simply renamed national landmarks after themselves.

    The Lincoln Memorial becomes the Obama Memorial.

    The Washington Monument becomes the Bush Monument.

    The Statue of Liberty becomes whatever billionaire happened to be writing checks that week.

    Most Americans would immediately recognize how ridiculous that sounds.

    Yet somehow we are supposed to pretend this situation was perfectly normal.

    The Ego Never Stops

    This is the part that always amazes me.

    There are more than 600 Trump-branded properties around the world.

    Hotels.

    Golf courses.

    Residential towers.

    Resorts.

    Licensing deals.

    Merchandise.

    Books.

    Coins.

    NFTs.

    Shoes.

    Apparently that was still not enough.

    At some point the question stops being “Why are people taking the name down?”

    And becomes:

    “Why was it there in the first place?”

    The Workers Deserve an Award

    Somewhere in Washington, workers showed up with scaffolding, tools, and a court order.

    Honestly, they may be the heroes of the week.

    Because there is something beautifully symbolic about watching actual working people undo something powerful people never should have done.

    One letter at a time.

    One bolt at a time.

    One giant ego adjustment at a time.

    The Lesson

    Rules matter.

    Laws matter.

    Public institutions matter.

    And no matter how powerful someone becomes, they do not get to turn national landmarks into vanity projects.

    The letters are coming down.

    The court has spoken.

    The building survives.

    The republic survives.

    And somewhere, a tarp is doing the Lord’s work.

    What in the flip?

    Scarlett says no.

  • Two Bad Voting Ideas. One Very Obvious Goal.

    Two Bad Voting Ideas. One Very Obvious Goal.

    There are two different ideas being floated here, and both are bad.

    They are not exactly the same.

    They are just bad in different ways.

    Bad Idea #1: “One Household, One Vote”

    This is the idea that a household should vote as one unit.

    Sounds cozy, right?

    A family meeting. A dinner-table discussion. A little civic togetherness.

    Except households are not governments.

    Households are made up of individual people with individual rights.

    A wife does not lose her political voice because she got married.

    An adult child living at home does not become a footnote.

    A grandmother in the guest room does not get absorbed into someone else’s ballot.

    And let’s not pretend we don’t know how this usually works.

    The “household vote” almost always points back to the old “head of household” model — meaning one person gets treated like the decision-maker, and everyone else gets told to be agreeable.

    That is not democracy.

    That is disenfranchisement with curtains.

    Bad Idea #2: The “Family Vote”

    This one is different.

    The “family vote” says parents should get extra voting power because they have children.

    So instead of one adult, one vote, parents would also vote on behalf of their kids.

    A couple with four children could potentially have six votes.

    A single adult gets one.

    A childless couple gets two.

    An infertile couple gets two.

    A retiree gets one.

    A young worker gets one.

    A person caring for aging parents gets no extra votes.

    See the problem?

    This does not give children a voice.

    It gives parents more power.

    Children are not filling out ballots.

    Children are not weighing tax policy, reproductive rights, education funding, foreign policy, healthcare, climate policy, or Supreme Court appointments.

    Their parents are.

    And parents already vote with their children’s futures in mind if they choose to.

    They do not need bonus ballots.

    The Real Problem

    Both ideas attack the same basic principle:

    One person. One vote.

    Not one household.

    Not one family unit.

    Not one adult plus bonus votes for dependents.

    Citizenship is not supposed to be weighted by marriage, fertility, household structure, religion, income, or whether someone has reproduced.

    Because the second we start saying some citizens deserve more political power than others, we are no longer protecting democracy.

    We are redesigning it for the people who already want control.

    And somehow, the people pushing these ideas always seem very confident they will be the ones holding the extra votes.

    Funny how that works.

    Scarlett says no thank you.

  • The Internet Didn’t Create Idiots.

    The Internet Didn’t Create Idiots.

    It Just Introduced Them to Each Other.

    Going around on threads ….

    A teacher once told me:

    “Being hated by idiots is the price you pay for not being one of them.”

    At the time, I thought it was funny.

    Then social media happened.

    The internet did something humanity had never experienced before.

    It gave every bad idea a search function.

    For most of human history, the village idiot was limited by geography. They could annoy a few neighbors, embarrass themselves at family gatherings, and occasionally yell something ridiculous at the town meeting.

    Then we invented comment sections.

    Now every conspiracy theory, every scam, every piece of misinformation, every grievance, every prejudice, and every wildly incorrect opinion can instantly find thousands of people willing to reinforce it.

    The internet didn’t create stupidity.

    It created networking opportunities for it.

    That’s why so many things feel crazier than they used to.

    The loudest voices are no longer filtered by expertise, evidence, experience, or reality. They’re filtered by engagement.

    The more outrageous something is, the more attention it receives.

    The more attention it receives, the more people see it.

    The more people see it, the more likely it is to find others who already wanted to believe it.

    Suddenly isolated bad ideas become communities.

    Communities become movements.

    Movements become political platforms.

    And then the rest of us are forced to spend our evenings explaining things that should have been settled in middle school science class.

    Being hated by idiots doesn’t automatically mean you’re right.

    If it did, every conspiracy theorist on the internet would be a genius.

    But there is something revealing about living in a time when facts, expertise, and evidence are treated like optional accessories.

    The real challenge isn’t avoiding idiots.

    It’s avoiding becoming one.

    Because the same algorithms that feed them are feeding us too.

  • The Apache Crash Was Still Under Investigation.

    The Apache Crash Was Still Under Investigation.

    The Strikes Had Already Begun.

    Two American soldiers survived a terrifying helicopter crash near the Strait of Hormuz. Thank goodness. But Americans deserve to know why the military response moved faster than the public explanation.

    On June 8, a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache helicopter went down near the coast of Oman while patrolling regional waters.

    The two soldiers on board were rescued within approximately two hours. They were reported to be in stable condition.

    That is the good news.

    The deeply troubling part is what happened next.

    U.S. Central Command announced that the cause of the incident was still under investigation.

    Then, on June 9, CENTCOM announced that the United States had completed strikes against Iranian air-defense systems, ground-control stations, and surveillance-radar sites near the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM described the strikes as a response to Iran’s downing of the helicopter and to recent attacks on U.S. forces and commercial ships.

    Apparently, the investigation was still open, but the missiles did not need to wait for the paperwork.

    What Do We Actually Know?

    A U.S. official told Reuters that the Apache had been brought down by an Iranian one-way attack drone.

    Iran disputed that account. Iranian state media cited a military source claiming that the country had not conducted offensive air operations in the Strait of Hormuz during the previous 24 hours.

    President Donald Trump then added his own dramatic description, telling reporters that an Iranian “bomb” had lodged inside the helicopter without exploding.

    Perhaps every detail of that account will ultimately be confirmed.

    Perhaps it will not.

    That is precisely why investigations exist.

    The American people should not have to piece together the justification for military escalation from an official press release, an unnamed source, a presidential monologue, and conflicting accounts from a hostile foreign government.

    Questions Are Not Betrayal

    There is a predictable response whenever anyone asks uncomfortable questions about military action.

    Why are you defending Iran?

    Why do you hate the troops?

    Why can’t you just trust the president?

    Please.

    Demanding accurate information before a conflict widens is not defending Iran. It is defending American service members who may be sent into an increasingly dangerous situation. It is defending civilians who do not get to opt out when bombs begin falling. It is defending the public’s right to understand what is being done in our name.

    The two soldiers aboard that Apache deserved a rescue mission. They deserved the full weight of the United States military working to bring them home safely.

    They also deserve leaders who do not treat their terrifying experience as a convenient blank check for escalation.

    Americans Have Seen This Movie Before

    This country has learned, repeatedly and painfully, what happens when certainty is announced before the evidence is fully explained.

    A military response can trigger retaliation.

    Retaliation can trigger another response.

    Oil prices rise. Gas prices rise. Markets react. Families feel the consequences. Service members are placed in greater danger. Civilians thousands of miles away pay with their lives.

    And suddenly the public is being told that asking how we got here is somehow unpatriotic.

    No.

    When a helicopter goes down and American soldiers are endangered, Americans deserve the truth.

    When military strikes follow, Americans deserve even more of it.

    Not eventually.

    Not after the story changes three times.

    Before the next round of escalation begins.

    What in the flip?

  • Trump “Loves” Inflation

    Trump “Loves” Inflation

    While Families Pay 40.5% More for Gas

    Apparently, rising prices are delightful when you are not the person standing at the gas pump watching the numbers spin.

    Inflation climbed to 4.2% in May, the highest annual rate in three years. Prices rose another 0.5% in a single month. Energy costs increased 23.5% over the past year. Gasoline prices jumped 40.5%.

    And President Donald Trump’s response?

    “I love the inflation.”

    Yes. He actually said that.

    Trump later tried to explain that he believed the numbers were better than expected given the war with Iran. But ordinary people do not pay their bills with presidential spin. They pay them with actual money. And every dollar spent filling the tank is a dollar that cannot be spent on groceries, rent, childcare, medications, or the electric bill.

    Inflation Is Not an Abstract Number

    Inflation is often discussed as though it is a political scoreboard.

    It is not.

    It is the parent wondering whether the family can afford the summer road trip they already promised the kids.

    It is the worker whose commute suddenly costs substantially more, even though the paycheck did not magically grow with the gas bill.

    It is the small business owner paying more for deliveries and trying to decide whether to raise prices or absorb another hit.

    It is the retiree watching a fixed income stretch a little less every month.

    The latest government report shows that the pain is not limited to gasoline. Energy prices rose sharply in May, while shelter costs, airline fares, medical care, personal care, and recreation also increased. Food prices rose 3.1% over the past year.

    The Gas Pump Does Not Care About Political Excuses

    The White House argues that the rising costs are temporary disruptions related to the Iran conflict and that prices will fall when the situation is resolved. Perhaps they will. Families certainly hope so.

    But this administration does not get to treat a 40.5% increase in gasoline prices like an interesting little inconvenience.

    People remember being promised lower prices.

    They remember being told that affordability would improve.

    They remember hearing that everything would be fixed quickly and easily.

    Now they are being told to celebrate inflation because it could have been worse.

    That is not a solution. That is a shrug from people who do not feel the consequences the way ordinary families do.

    Read the Room

    A president saying that he “loves” inflation while millions of people are paying more for basic necessities is not merely a clumsy choice of words.

    It reveals a much larger problem.

    Too many powerful people experience economic pain as a press-conference question. Everyone else experiences it when the debit card is declined, when the credit-card balance grows, or when one more ordinary expense becomes something that has to wait until payday.

    Families are not asking for a victory lap.

    They are asking how they are supposed to absorb another round of rising prices.

    What in the flip?

  • The Generation War Is a Distraction

    The Generation War Is a Distraction

    Spend five minutes online and you’ll find someone blaming Boomers for everything.

    Housing prices.

    Student debt.

    Healthcare costs.

    Stagnant wages.

    Retirement insecurity.

    Climate change.

    Pick a problem and somewhere, someone is explaining why an entire generation is responsible.

    It’s a convenient story.

    It’s also a distraction.

    Most Boomers weren’t CEOs. They weren’t senators. They weren’t hedge fund managers, corporate lobbyists, or billionaires writing tax policy.

    They were teachers, mechanics, nurses, factory workers, office staff, firefighters, truck drivers, small business owners, and parents trying to keep food on the table.

    Just like most Millennials.

    Just like most Gen Xers.

    Just like most Gen Z workers today.

    The average person wasn’t sitting around in the 1970s plotting how to make housing unaffordable fifty years later.

    They were working.

    Raising families.

    Paying bills.

    Trying not to drown.

    That doesn’t mean mistakes weren’t made. Policies were passed. Industries changed. Wealth became increasingly concentrated. Labor protections weakened. Housing became an investment vehicle instead of simply a place to live.

    But those decisions weren’t made by millions of ordinary people acting in unison.

    They were made by people with power.

    And that’s where the conversation should be.

    Because while we’re busy arguing about whether Boomers ruined everything or whether younger generations are entitled, the people who actually shape the rules rarely face the same scrutiny.

    The generation war is useful because it redirects anger.

    Instead of asking why housing is increasingly unaffordable, people blame Boomers.

    Instead of asking why wages haven’t kept pace with productivity, people blame Millennials.

    Instead of asking why young adults are struggling to get established, people blame Gen Z.

    Everyone gets a villain.

    Nobody examines the system.

    The truth is that most Americans, regardless of age, have far more in common with one another than they do with the people making the biggest decisions.

    Most people want decent schools.

    Affordable housing.

    Accessible healthcare.

    Safe communities.

    A fair shot.

    The generations aren’t the enemy.

    They’re simply different groups of people trying to survive under the same set of rules.

    And the longer we spend fighting each other, the less likely we are to ask who benefits from the fight in the first place.

    Maybe that’s why the generation war never seems to end.

    It’s a remarkably effective distraction.

    Scarlett says follow the money.

  • The Billionaire and the Predator.

    The Billionaire and the Predator.

    Bill Gates told Congress Jeffrey Epstein tried to blackmail him over an affair.

    And somehow we are still supposed to pretend the real scandal is “poor judgment.”

    No.

    This was not a confusing social mix-up at a charity luncheon.

    Gates knew Epstein had been convicted of sex crimes. He kept meeting with him anyway because Epstein supposedly had access to rich donors.

    There it is.

    A convicted sex offender became acceptable because he was useful.

    Gates denies criminal wrongdoing, says he never went to Epstein’s island or homes, and called the whole thing a “grave error in judgment.”

    Fine.

    But his name reportedly appears more than 3,000 times in Epstein-related federal records.

    That is not “oops.”

    That is “open the damn transcript.”

    The survivors deserve answers. The public deserves answers. And billionaires do not get a special privacy curtain when the subject is a child sex trafficker and the people around him.

    Scarlett says no.


  • A Product Should Not Make It Harder for a Baby to Breathe

    A Product Should Not Make It Harder for a Baby to Breathe

    Parents have enough to worry about.

    Sleep schedules. Feeding schedules. Doctor appointments. Making sure tiny humans don’t find creative new ways to launch themselves off furniture.

    They should not have to wonder whether a nursing pillow could put their baby at risk. Simply, it should not make it harder for your baby to breathe!

    Yet here we are.

    Little Grape Land nursing pillows sold on Amazon have been recalled because they can obstruct an infant’s breathing, creating a suffocation hazard. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the pillows violate federal safety standards for nursing pillows and infant support cushions.

    About 1,430 of the pillows were sold before the recall was announced.

    What makes recalls like this so frustrating is that parents purchase products like these because they believe they are helping care for their babies safely. Nobody adds “possible suffocation hazard” to their shopping list.

    Fortunately, no injuries have been reported. But when the hazard involves an infant’s ability to breathe, waiting for injuries to happen is not exactly a great safety strategy.

    What Consumers Should Do

    If you have a Little Grape Land nursing pillow:

    • Stop using it immediately.
    • Follow the recall instructions from the manufacturer.
    • Request a refund.
    • Share the recall with parents, grandparents, caregivers, daycare providers, and anyone who may have purchased one.

    Official Recall Information

    Consumers can review the full recall notice from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission here:

    Because parents should be worrying about diaper blowouts, not whether a pillow can block their baby’s airway.

    Scarlett says no.