After her negative experience the previous week, Armato had filed a complaint with the TSA. Now she was about to be screened by the same staff about whom she complained. But she could have no way of knowing what they had in store for her.
When Armato asked once again to have her breast milk (which she was bringing home to her 7 month old son) screened without an x-ray, she was held in custody by TSA for an hour. She was given no explanation. She never knew how long she would be held. As her flight left without her, she stood trapped in a plastic box weeping while her pumped milk – now out of its cooler – was played with by TSA staffed. Seriously, watch the TSA staffer in the foreground of the video below. She picks up, puts down and tosses about the containers of milk as if they are toys.
Below is a YouTube video made by Armato's brother-in-law. The footage presented in this video was obtained by Armato through a Freedom of Information Act request and is the official recording made by the TSA. However, approximately 20 minutes of video – what happened after what you can see here – was destroyed by TSA as not relevant to her complaint.
If you would like to see all of the video Armato obtained without being sped up as it is below and without the graphic commentary, you can see it here, here, here, and here.
So let's take a break right here and give Armato a hand. This mother returned to full-time work outside the home 13 weeks after her first son was born. Her son was fed exclusively with breast milk despite her work requiring she travel from Los Angeles to Phoenix once every week. She flew early morning and return in the afternoon, pumping approximately 12 ounces of breast milk during the day. It was this milk she was trying to bring home to her son.
Since this YouTube video went viral last week, many have asked whether she filed a complaint with the TSA about her treatment. The answer is "yes," however to her knowledge nothing was done to discipline the TSA staff involved in this incident. Armato has taken this same flight many times since February and she has seen all of the TSA staff members at work. Armato has yet to find an attorney willing to represent her in a lawsuit against the TSA.
So what happened in the twenty odd minutes after this video ends? Armato was forced by TSA staff to divide her breast milk into more containers. Yeah, that's right. Armato had 12 ounces of breast milk in four 3 ounce containers despite the fact TSA policy does not require breast milk be carried in 3 ounce containers. After being held in custody for an hour and a half, TSA staff forced her to sit on the floor and pour her breast milk into new containers so that each container held no more than 2 ounces.
Does any TSA policy or regulation require that breast milk be carried in 2 ounces batches? No. There is no explanation for what happened to Stacey Armato other than that she was targeted for harassment by vengeful TSA staffers against whom she had filed a complaint the previous week. And those staffers still work for the TSA. They not only got away with holding Armato hostage, they are free to do the same to you.
What are your thoughts about what happened to Stacey Armato? Have you been harassed while trying to carry breast milk through a TSA checkpoint? During this holiday weekend in the U.S., how are you treated by the TSA as you traveled with your children?
The November Carnival of Breastfeeding poses a question I have thought about a lot: what is my family history of breastfeeding and how were the decisions concerning breastfeeding made in the generations of mothers before me. Check out the other posts in the November Carnival of Breastfeeding linked below.
I have no memories of my mother breastfeeding. I have one picture of my mother breastfeeding my younger brother. It is black and white, very grainy, and hand torn around the edges. My grandfather took up photography as a hobby for a while and he never mastered it. In the dark, somewhat haunting photo of a four year old me standing on one foot looking at my infant brother in my mother's arms, I can see my brother is at the breast. My mother is wearing a bathrobe and so am I. From the series this shows up in, and the infrequence of visits from the grandfather, I think this was taken the morning of my brother's bris. No surprise that I have no member of the breastfeeding but remember the bris very clearly. I watched the circumcision in horror and did not for a minute believe he wasn't in a lot of pain because he screamed and screamed.
Based only on this picture, I thought it was possible my mother breastfed her five children, at least for a little while. But I wasn't sure and it wasn't information easy to acquire.
You see, my mother left me when I was a year old or younger – no one seems too sure. When I was growing up it was something we weren't allowed to talk about and is now something no one will talk about. My older siblings were far too concerned (justifiably) about their own survival to keep much track of me though it is my understanding my then-12 year old sister did all the child care after my mother left and when she went to school I stayed with a woman I came to think of as my mother. From what I can piece together I was born bloated from likely alcohol use by my mother. She is an alcoholic. And then sometime within the next year she decided to leave my father and her four children.
By the time my younger brother was born four years after me, my mother had a new husband and had come back for me and one other of my siblings.
So I am fairly sure my mother didn't breastfeed me and given her alcoholism I am likely better off. But that one photo of my mother breastfeeding my younger half-brother always had me wondering. I have only spoken to my mother twice in the last 34 years but I did ask her that question. She told me that she had started breastfeeding all of us but she never had enough milk. She said she thought breastfeeding was best for babies and that it was great I was breastfeeding my children (who she has never met). I don't know whether to believe her or not. I am inclined not to.
My grandmothers are dead so I can't ask them whether they breastfed. Knowing what I do about them, if formula or wet nurses were available options, there is no way either of my grandmothers breastfed. Both of them wanted as little to do with their children as possible.
One of the many reasons I was committed to breastfeeding my children was the lack of attachment in the mother-child relationships in my family for as many generations as I can trace. Mother after mother who handed her kids off to paid help if she could afford it and just ignored her children if she couldn't. Each woman's inability to attach to her children led to more people who couldn't form healthy attachments. This was a cycle I was, and am, determined to break.
Extended breastfeeding of my three sons isn't the only reason I believe the abuse of my childhood won't continue on to future generations through my children. Breastfeeding is not the only reason I have relationships with my sons that my own mother could not even conceive of. But breastfeeding was my first experience of deep true love. Breastfeeding gave me my first attachment. Breastfeeding is now a family tradition.
Last year Julia Acevedo-Taylor claimed she was rudely asked to leave a Manhattan chocolate shop because she was breastfeeding her five month old. Last month, she filed a lawsuit against the shop. I'll be following that case – the first suit filed under the 1994 New York State public breastfeeding law – but watching a recent news report on the case I am struck most by the lack of discussion of the law.
Instead, there is a painful debate between a purported etiquette expert and a La Leche League Leader. Neither is talking about the law: what a woman is legally allowed to do. The debate is what she should do, followed up by a poll about whether women should be allowed to breastfeed in public. So did I miss something? Is the New York State legislature considering a bill to rescind current civil rights law that states a right to breastfeed in public? If not, why are these people having this discussion? If Julia Acevedo-Taylor has a legal right to breastfeed in public accommodations in New York State (which she does), why is there a "news" story about whether she should?
What other civil rights are people asked to forego to make restaurant patrons more comfortable? If Acevedo-Taylor were a man, would there be public debate about whether exercising her civil right is rude?
So have a look at this "news" story and tell me what you think. The beginning is a report on the original incident. It will probably make you really really angry. The owner denies Acevedo-Taylor was kicked out but said women could not breastfeed in his establishment without being "discreet" and covering up.
But then comes the "what should she do" discussion. The Countess of Etiquette thinks it is impolite to make people uncomfortable by feeding your baby with your breasts in public. And, by the way, her 13 year old son is very upset seeing breasts. Hmm. The La Leche League Leader is trying to avoid the question by saying breastfeeding isn't actually disruptive. Nice try but not the reason she was there. Were I interviewed on this question (and I have been many times, even by Fox News), I would insist on discussing the real issue. When you have a legal right, you can exercise it regardless of whether it makes people uncomfortable. What you should do is whatever legal act you feel comfortable doing. Those made uncomfortable by seeing breastfeeding are free to retreat to private space.
Please let me know what you think about how this news story is presented? Should we even be talking about nursing "discreetly"?
Much of my work as a breastfeeding advocate/lawyer is about securing a right for mothers to be in public space. That means having a protected legal right to engage in the act of mothering in all the places people get to be. Mothers must own the public space along with all other citizens.
This striking photograph vividly represents the position breastfeeding women are forced into by a definition of public space that excludes mothers as mothers. In order to mother, she must hide in dark corners. Society views her as refuse – necessary but to be kept where no one has to look at it.
See other photos from this extraordinary exhibit on Facebook – at least until the areola police takes it down (see here and here).
So is the photograph shocking or beautiful or does it elicit some other response from you? Anyone ever make you feel like you should breastfeed by the dumpster?
After much speculation on the impact of a new federal law requiring certain employers to give unpaid pump breaks to certain employees (and my advice to Curb Your Enthusiasm), the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a Fact Sheet.
Fact Sheet #73: Break Time for Nursing Mothers under the FLSA restates the requirements of the amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act which went into effect this past March and which requires unpaid breaks for certain employees to pump breast milk and private space in which to pump.
While the text of the Fact Sheet provides little clarification of the new law – the penalty to employers for violating the law is still unclear – and is not an official position statement or regulation, it may indicate the Department of Labor is better prepared to accept complaints than it was in March.
Employees seeking more information should "call [the DOL] toll-free information and helpline, available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243)." While there have been no public reports of employees using this new law, I have also seen no reports of the DOL rejecting complaints. Any nursing mother having trouble with employer compliance with the federal workplace pumping law should feel free to write about it here.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Department on Womens Health, is having a contest to choose the cover photo for an update of its Easy Guide to Breastfeeding. I popped over there when I saw the notice on Twitter and thought the choices weren't very interesting. They are generic photos, none of which clearly show a latched baby. I decided not to vote because I didn't like any of the three choices. There was something just plain vanilla about all three.
Elita over at Blacktating has a great post on why I saw vanilla. Mother and child in all three photos are white. Not only do I agree with her on the impropriety of having only white babies to choose from but I find some of the comments to her blogs disturbing. Go over and have a look.
Even if one thinks it is legitimate to chose a representative baby by the skin color of the majority of babies born in the U.S (a questionable criteria, in my opinion), take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau data on the "race" of women who have given birth in the previous twelve months for 2006-08. Add up all the people who identify as non-white in some way and compare that number to the number of those who identify as white. "Average U.S. mom" is not "white."
In the three photo choices, both mother and child are white. I don't have the statistics (I don't find either the U.S. Census or the website for the Census Bureau particularly user-friendly), but I suspect the number of non-white babies born in the U.S. is even higher than the number of non-white mothers. So making both mom and baby white is even more inaccurate if we are using the "average dyad" criteria for choosing the appropriate government document cover photo.
I am not arguing that there is any particular physical characteristic that makes one photo a better choice than another. I don't think the mother or child have to be part of the majority race (if indeed the U.S. still has one). I would vote for the photo I think is more beautiful or most what I associate with breastfeeding. I would chose the photo that seems most realistic or perhaps even most interesting or most compelling. But if the U.S. government is truly asking people to make a choice, we have to be given choices. "White, white or white"? No contest.
The workplace pumping provision of the federal health care bill sounds like great news for women who pump breast milk in the workplace. Who could complain about a federal requirement that all employers give reasonable unpaid breaks to employees who need to pump for their nursing infants? On closer examination of what the law actually does, I think many of you will complain.
On its face, the new law, Section 207 (r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA), requires unpaid break time for employees to pump breast milk for a child under age one. In a country that truly supports breastfeeding mothers and their children, women should be paid for pumps breaks. Children should breastfeed until at least a year so mothers can pump for as long as their children need them to. The new federal law has a hardship exception for employers of fewer than 50 employees. It is still unclear how many employers will evade the new requirements under an as yet undefined hardship exception.
But the problem with the new federal workplace pumping law is much bigger than all that. The problem is that there may be no way for most women to use it at all.
Go back to the FLSA. To be covered by new Section 207 (r) you have to be an employee to whom the FLSA applies in the first place.
Basically that means that if you get a salary, you are probably not covered by the FLSA and not entitled to whatever new federal workplace pumping benefits there are. Well then, the exempt workers should at least be happy for the nonexempt – the hourly workers, those women covered by Section 207 (r), right? Well, hang on.
The first thing I researched about the new federal workplace pumping law was whether there was a penalty for employers that don't comply. Finding the answer is much harder than it would appear. Go back and read the text of the bill. No, you didn't miss it. There is nothing about enforcement, penalties or remedies.
But you can't stop there because new subsection (r) is an amendment to Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. (I know this is confusing but ride along with me.) So you need to go to the FLSA and read Section 207. See if Section 207 has some enforcement, penalties or remedies. Hmm. Nope. So then you read the entire FLSA. (Actually, you don't need to unless you want to. I reread it for the first time since law school.)
There are lawyers who do exclusively FLSA work but, fair warning, I am not one of them. You can find the penalties though. Section 216, which is long and convoluted. From what I can tell, penalties are available if the employer's violation resulted in lost wages or unpaid overtime pay. But Section 207 (r) specifies that pump breaks are to be unpaid. So it appears that an employee would have to get fired to have lost wages. And women don't want to get fired over needing to use a breast pump at work.
In the real world, if an employee can't get pump breaks or a pump space, she needs an order, either from a court or a government agency, requiring the employer obey the law. What she needs is an injunction. But for injunctive relief under the FLSA, you need to look at Section 217. Did you read it? No mention of it applying to Section 207.
So what will happen to an employer who refuses to comply with the new federal workplace pumping mandate? So far, I haven't been able to find a labor lawyer who can tell me. And that makes me wonder whether the answer is "nothing at all."
The Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, has the ability to issue "Administrator Interpretations" which clarify what the FLSA means. However it is unknown when any will be issued concerning employer obligations under Section 207 (r). Unless there are complaints filed, Wage and Hour will have no reason to issue any "Interpretations."
Now, some employers are going to provide break time and pump space to all employees who need them. Some employers already do. As I wrote in Pumping 9-5 in Mothering back in 2008, 26% of all U.S. employers provided some sort of lactation support in 2007. But the study from which that figure comes does not specify how much lactation support. It is unlikely that a quarter of all U.S. employers give both unpaid break time and a place to pump that meets the requirements of the new FLSA Section 207 (r): "a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public."
So what should you do if you are an hourly worker whose employer is not complying with FLSA Section 207 (r)? Contact the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division at 1-866-487-9243. Look around the Wage and Hour website. Have a confidential conversation at the toll free number. And then, if you would like to share your story with others, e-mail me. I am currently collecting information from workers whose employers refuse to comply with FLSA Section 207 (r). Until we know whether this new federal law can actually help women pump in the workplace, I will be writing the stories of women whose employers fail to comply with it.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Jennifer and Scott Spiegel are suing the hospital in which Ms. Spiegel gave birth because she was accidentally brought the wrong baby to breastfeed. I haven't found a copy of the legal Complaint seeking damages in excess of $30,000 for the couple, but in every interview with the Spiegels I can find there is no allegation that their baby was harmed in any way.
Switching babies is a serious matter. If babies are not properly identified, they can be given the wrong medication or sent home with the wrong family (lest we forget Kimberly Mays). All the more reason for babies to be born at home whenever possible and to room-in with their mothers when they are born in hospitals. And I believe that Jennifer Spiegel
If someone brought me the wrong baby, I would wonder whether my baby was with someone else. However it appears that baby Logan Spiegel was not harmed in this mix-up. Jennifer Spiegel was brought a baby other than her own son, breastfed him, the error was discovered, and Logan Spiegel (who was never nursed by anyone other than his own mother) spent the rest of the stay in his mother's room.
Let's examine that sentence for a moment. If we remove the part about her passing disease to the baby, would we still be talking about even a "slim chance"? Isn't the "slim chance" of disease transfer from her to the baby and not from the baby to her? And she is the one suing for damages?
But wait for it. The lawsuit needs to state the damage.
I'm trusting the Chicago Sun-Times for the phrasing. I really hope the Complaint doesn't really refer to breastfeeding as something one "signs up for."
What does seem clear from what is publicly available now is that this is a lawsuit about being damaged by nursing another woman's baby. And I find that offensive and implausible.
There was a mistake made here. One that had the potential to be quite harmful but in fact harmed no one. If there is an Illinois lawyer reading this, I would like to know what the state regulatory scheme does to hospitals that make such potentially harmful mistakes. But was Jennifer Spiegel damaged by having breastfed someone else's child? Or was her husband Scott, who appears to be both plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyer in this case (heads-up on that folks, when we lawyers represent ourselves it is usually because we can't find another lawyer willing to do it)?
I'll be watching this one. I'm afraid this will be a sad display of greed and the mischaracterization of breastfeeding another woman's child as traumatic.
A few days after the earthquake in Haiti, my Facebook account was flooded with suggestions to become a "Fan" of an organization I do not trust. I wondered why people who should know which organizations are actually helping breastfeeding women and their children would think I would want to support this particular organization. And fairly soon I knew: this organization had a heart string pulling photo of Haiti on its home page and a claim it was helping get donated breast milk to Haiti. My response? Not a chance.
I was dubious not only because of my distrust of this particular organization but because of the practical realities of transporting and distributing human milk in a country with no electricity, no refrigeration, and no hope of widespread access to either any time soon. I also knew that the first priority in feeding babies in an emergency is to feed from the breast. And I knew that the U.S. has a long and shameful history of harming the people of Haiti.
If you live in the United States, chances are good you know little about Haiti. I am no expert but I have some book recommendations. Look in the left hand sidebar for links (and please click through them to buy books at Powells and support this blog). The Rainy Season: Haiti Since Duvalier by Amy Wilentz is the first book I read about Haiti. I read it the year it was published, 1989, when I was 26 and a year out of law school. It is a beautiful, horrifying, well-researched book about the history of the country grown out of the first successful slave revolution in the western hemisphere. By the time Brother, I'm Dying was published I knew a good bit more about Haiti, in part having read all the previous works of that book's author Edwidge Danticat. Brother, I'm Dying is the true story of the death of Danticat's beloved uncle in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If you are wondering why there would be any issue about accepting refugees from Haiti, you need to read Brother, I'm Dying, not only because you need to learn more about how the U.S. treats Haitians regardless of whether there has been an earthquake but all of us in the U.S. need to know the nightmare a U.S. citizen of Haitian descent can go through trying to find the truth about the unnecessary death of a loved one who simply disappears into DHS custody while legally entering the U.S.
What you probably do know about Haiti is that on January 12th it was devastated by an earthquake killing hundreds of thousands of people and nearly two weeks later the death toll is still rising. You may also, particularly if you are an advocate of breastfeeding, think that getting breast milk to babies orphaned by the quake is urgent. Well, yes and no. All international aid organizations know that bringing artificial baby milk (also known as "formula") to an area without clean water is sure to lead to more dead babies. Mixing powdered formula with contaminated water is an obvious danger. So what is the problem with liquid formula? The nipple (teats) and bottles needed to feed babies other than from the breast must be sterilized – impossible without clean water, electricity, refrigeration, and fuel. Well then, donated breast milk becomes all the more important, right? No. Haiti has no milk banks and even if it had them, without uninterrupted electricity and refrigeration – something it will not have for the foreseeable future – there will be no milk banks. Donor milk is also not sustainable. An unknown number of Haitian babies have been orphaned by the earthquake, however they must be fed by Haitian women who can continue to feed them.
Still a number of breastfeeding advocacy organizations in the U.S. – the Human Milk Banking Association of North America (HMBANA), United States Breastfeeding Committee (USBC), International Lactation Consultant Association/United States Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA/USLCA), and La Leche League International (LLLI) – issued an "Urgent Call for Human Milk Donations for Haiti Infants" on January 25th. The U.S. Navy Ship Comfort, a medical vessel currently anchored off the coast of Haiti, had been shipped frozen donated breast milk and the "Urgent Call" urged lactating women in the U.S. to donate more breast milk to HMBANA milk banks, some of which would go to Haiti. Reading this "Urgent Call," something didn't feel right to me. The donor milk was going to the ship NICU and can not be sent to any facility on land as there is no facility that can maintain and distribute it. So I did some research on the Comfort. It took seconds to discover that the Comfort NICU has two incubators. Yes, two. Any baby born prematurely on the ship will have to be able to breastfeed exclusively before leaving the ship because breast milk from the breast is the only way Haitian babies can survive conditions there.
One organization that is helping women in Haiti breastfeed is Circle of Health International (COHI). This non-profit – the one that has been getting my donations – has sent midwives, lactation professionals, and birthing supplies to Haiti for the estimated 37,000 women currently pregnant as well as the women and children who survived the quake.
So why did these U.S. breastfeeding organizations send out this "Urgent Call"? Perhaps it was ignorance. Perhaps it was well-intentioned. Perhaps it really did not occur to them that any feeding of babies in Haiti other than from the breast could decrease the total amount of breast milk available in Haiti because it discourages Haitian women from building their own milk supplies by breastfeeding babies (their own or orphaned ones) or relactating. And perhaps some non-profits see exploitation of the Haitian crisis as an acceptable way to raise funds that will be used elsewhere. There may be explanations but there is no excuse. Haitian women and children need our help urgently and we can help by sending money to aid organizations like COHI.
For some months now I have been hearing about a proposed bill heading to the Taiwan Parliament that would impose a large fine (30,000 Taiwan dollars, about 940 US dollars) on "anyone attempting to prevent breastfeeding in public." Breastfeeding advocates the world over have heralded this bill as a model for laws elsewhere. However, I have been unable to find a copy of the proposed Taiwanese law. Before I support penalties, I want to know what conduct is being outlawed. Is the Taiwan bill going to impose this fine on owners and employees of public accommodations or will anyone be subject to it? What constitutes "preventing" breastfeeding? Should a store owner who harasses a breastfeeding customer in any way be fined? In my view, absolutely. Public accommodations enjoy certain benefits from the state and are regulated so that they can be truly public. Should a passerby in the park who makes a rude remark be fined? In my view, no. Regulating speech is dangerous business. If I limit your ability to say things with which I disagree, you may limit my ability to say things with which you disagree. Down that road, I don't get to say much.
But this post isn't really about what conduct should be fined and what conduct should be endured. When I find out what the Taiwan law actually says, then I'll see if it is appropriate to go on about free speech and the need to suffer fools in order to protect our own rights. This post is about what I found in my search for the text of the Taiwan bill.
Back in 2004 the Scottish Parliament was debating the ultimately successful passage of a bill imposing a large fine on stopping a woman from breastfeeding a child under age two in licensed premises (what would be called "public accommodations" in the U.S.). Now this is my kind of law. And this was also my kind of debate. A representative of the National Childbirth Trust said:
We therefore welcome this landmark legislation, which will establish a mothers' right to breastfeed her baby whenever and wherever they are together and convey the message that breastfeeding is a positive choice to be supported by society rather than discouraged.
I admit, the little hairs on the back of my neck go up every time I see breastfeeding described as a choice. After giving birth, one can choose not to breastfeed but lactating happens when you give birth. But otherwise that statement is right on: mothers must be able to breastfeed their babies wherever they are. However, there was a statement in the Scottish Parliament that day I find more interesting and certainly more memorable. Then-Member of the Scottish Parliament Carolyn Leckie said the following; suitable for framing, T-shirt or refrigerator magnet:
All right, some U.K. friend is going to have to tell me what "advertising hoardings" are but Leckie makes a great point with a suitable amount of outrage. It isn't breasts people object to – just breasts with children attached to them.
Recent Comments