 |
I saw this painful photograph in a museum in Los Alamos, New Mexico, birthplace of the bomb that the U.S. dropped on this woman and her children in Nagasaki, Japan. Karleen Gribble shared both this copy of the photo with me and this article about what happened to the mom and her children. Only three U.S. states have no public breastfeeding law – West Virginia, Idaho and Nebraska. Unfortunately the majority of state public breastfeeding laws don't do a particularly good job of stopping harassment of women who breastfeed in public (this is where I tell you again to go read my feature in Mothering magazine called Lactation and the Law, remind you that "a right without a remedy is no right at all," and tell you I have an update feature on U.S. breastfeeding law coming out in Mothering in probably the May/June issue). On January 7th, Legislative Bill 197 was introduced in the Nebraska Legislature. The text is:
Introduced by State Senator Annette Dubas, it does not appear this bill, if passed, would confer any right, enforceable or otherwise. As written, this is a permission law. Women may breastfeeding in public and, it seems, other people may interfere with her ability to do that by telling her to leave or cover up. And it doesn't appear there is anything the nursing woman would be able to do about it. Since breastfeeding in public is not currently illegal in Nebraska, one must wonder why women need permission. They don't. They need protection. And this bill doesn't give protection. Senator Dubas may not understand this is how public breastfeeding laws work. And it may be helpful if Nebraskans tell her what kind of public breastfeeding law Nebraska really needs. The latest "sorta famous women sitting in a semi-circle talking about things they know little about" daytime show is called "The Talk." You probably know lots more about it then I do. It looks like "The View" which I have seen only in clips – the clips that arrive couched in "can you believe [insert semi-famous women I probably have never heard of] said this about breastfeeding!" outrage. Barbara Walters' comments in 2005 on not wanting to sit next to a woman breastfeeding on a plane is probably the most famous and led to protests outside the network studios. I think Babs learned her lesson. Personally, my favorite part of that whole incident was Jimmy Kimmel's take on it: Well, "The Talk" is clearly handling discussion of breastfeeding very differently. Thanks much to the great Karen Gromada for giving me a "heads-up" on this clip. Since its passage in 2006, Tennessee's public breastfeeding law has been trouble. It reads:
The only state breastfeeding law with an age limit, Tennessee's statute isn't just problematic because it reserves whatever protection it might provide to children twelve months or younger. It also creates the possibility that public breastfeeding of a child older than twelve months is unlawful in some way. Breastfeeding in public is legal in every state. However, it is not protected in every state. Most U.S. states now have some law stating that a woman may breastfeed in public. However, women continue to be harassed and evicted from public space when they do. That is why state breastfeeding laws must have enforcement provisions – a legal recourse available to women who have been prevented from breastfeeding in public space. Tennessee's public breastfeeding law doesn't have an enforcement provision. And this continues to be a problem. However, placing an age limit on the provision of the health code I quote above both creates the possibility that a store owner or police officer will assume public breastfeeding of children over twelve months is illegal but also creates a fear among women that they aren't legally allowed to breastfeed older children in public. A bill has been introduced in the Tennessee state Senate that would resolve one of these issues. Senate Bill 0083 states:
Introduced this month by state Senator Mike Faulk, I haven't seen much press on this bill. If you live in Tennessee, it is important you contact Senator Faulk's office and find out what support this bill needs. While you are in touch with his office, adding that Tennessee's public breastfeeding law needs an enforcement provision as well would help bring attention to this problem. But eliminating the age limitation is urgent and long overdue. I'd love to hear from anyone in Tennessee who has had experience with this law or who can share her experience nursing in public. Are you a nursing Tennessean? West Virginia is one of only three U.S. states (along with Nebraska and Idaho) that has no law whatsoever protecting breastfeeding. So I was glad to read that this month not one but two bills were introduced in the West Virginia Senate concerning breastfeeding. Unfortunately, one of the bills could result in a law that helps breastfeeding mothers and the other … well, not so much. West Virginia Senate Bill Number 80 adds "currently breast feeding mother" to the list of people disqualified from jury duty. If I had my choice I would add breastfeeding mothers to those who can be exempt if they choose and who are given accommodations if they wish (as people with physical disabilities are under current West Virginia law) but if this bill results in getting breastfeeding women out of having to serve on juries when their babies need them or they need to empty their engorged breasts, this is a good thing. Senate Bill Number 82, a public breastfeeding bill, needs some work. The bill has a "note" attached to it that is not actually part of the law. It states:
I know this looks good (other than the awkward wording and visceral response I have to a statement that nursing in public is "socially acceptable" – just makes me want to scream "I don't give a damn if it is socially acceptable!"). Breastfeeding advocates love the idea of a child having a right to nurse. I love it too but it is problematic. Why? Because adults have protected civil rights in the U.S. and children, generally speaking, do not. So the U.S. legal system as it is renders the note empty. But remember, this is not actually part of what the law would say if it passes. What the law would say is:
Again, looks good right? But if you have read my other writing on the practical impact of public breastfeeding law, you will know what is wrong with this bill. If a store owner tells a woman she must leave because he doesn't allow breastfeeding in his store or says only women who cover up can breastfeed, what can the mother legally do? Nothing. This bill contains no mechanism to enforce any "right," either of a child or of the mother. And, repeat after me, "a right without a remedy is no right at all." So what can you do if you are in West Virginia? Have a look at this interview with state Senator Dan Foster, one of the sponsors of both of these bills. He gets it. He understands the importance of breastfeeding, both the health benefits and the economic benefits to the state. According to this report, Foster anticipates having more difficulty getting the public breastfeeding bill passed than the bill disqualifying breastfeeding women from jury duty. The news report also erroneously states that women would be given a choice of pump accommodations on jury duty. That is actually not in the bill and should be. So if you are in West Virginia, contact state Senator Dan Foster and tell him what you think of these bills. Let him know similar public breastfeeding laws in other states leave women unprotected because they have no enforcement mechanism. If he says he doesn't think he can get such a bill passed, pledge your support for a strong law protecting a civil right to breastfeed in public. Tell him you are willing to make phone calls to other state Senators and help him get a strong bill passed. 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? 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:
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. Back in July of 2007, I gave a session on Breastfeeding and the Law at the La Leche League International Conference in Chicago. Good session, if I do say so myself, which you can buy on CD here. [Disclaimer: I don't make a cent if you buy it.] While at the Conference, I also did a podcast which has just become available for free here. So why listen to me talking about the state of breastfeeding law over two years ago? Well, sadly, while there have been some new breastfeeding laws passed – both good and bad – breastfeeding law, and the public attitude toward breastfeeding rights in general, really haven't changed much. Word of warning, the podcast is almost fifty minutes long so grab some knitting or a hungry baby or something else to do while you listen. I think there some amusing things to learn about my parenting life (how many times do I use the word "clueless" to describe myself as a new parent?) and the role La Leche League has played in it (and how I took my job as Group librarian entirely too seriously). Also I talk about the history of breastfeeding law, current laws and attitudes, and my experience working with the Ronald McDonald House moms. The Ronald McDonald House incident had happened recently and, if anyone is unclear about this, neither Ronald McDonald House of Houston nor Ronald McDonald House Charities has ever dealt appropriately with the moms. So you are going to hear a good bit of justified Jake outrage. Hope you enjoy it and would love to hear impressions. If nothing else, you have to love a podcast that ends because the interviewer's baby needs a diaper change. Stacey Anvarinia, the North Dakota women who pled guilty to child neglect for allegedly breastfeeding her infant daughter while intoxicated, has been arrested again. According to the Grand Forks Herald, within hours of Anvarinia's sentencing to 18 months imprisonment, all but six months suspended and with an option to serve part of the six months in substance abuse treatment, she was arrested for slashing the tires on a truck parked in the lot of her apartment building. No word on to whom the truck belonged but I do wonder whether perhaps it was to Delbert Harrison, the man Anvarinia said had beaten her when she called the police for help the night of her arrest for child neglect. Regardless, the police found her "hiding in a closet and appearing intoxicated." (Yes, once again it appears police did not feel it necessary to do a blood alcohol test.) She also had cuts on wrists severe enough for police to bring her to the hospital before bringing her to jail. Well, she got a hospital visit this time rather than the "go directly to jail" card dealt by police after she was kneed in the head last February. -Woman calls police for help because she is being beaten by her boyfriend as she tries to leave her apartment. -Police arrive, describe her as "extremely intoxicated" but do not question her ability to care for her six week old daughter until she "began breastfeeding her infant in front of us." -Woman is never given a blood alcohol test. -Woman is charged with felony child neglect and the man she identifies as having beaten her is never arrested or charged. In fact, the state lists him as a witness in the case against her. -Woman loses custody of her child for six months, is then sentenced to a minimum of another six months away from her child, leaves the courthouse after sentencing and slashes someone's tires as well as, possibly, her own wrists. A North Forks Herald article concerning Anvarinia's sentencing hearing last week reported that the officer on the scene in February testified:
and
However, none of this is in the original incident report by the same officer. If a six week old infant were being held upside down by one leg and shaken, would you wait until the mother put the child to the breast to arrest her for child neglect? Would the breastfeeding and nothing else be in the arrest report? If we are to assume that Anvarinia indeed has an alcohol problem, it was some solace that, though she lost custody of her daughter for at least a year and her abuser walked away with no charges, her sentence included substance abuse treatment. Well, not anymore. In today's report:
The judge has sent a battered mother who allegedly has an alcohol problem straight to jail and, as punishment for allegedly getting drunk again, won't let her go to alcohol treatment. Mothers can learn a lot of very disturbing lessons from the Anvarinia case. If you are being beaten while trying to escape an abusive boyfriend, calling the police may result in losing custody of your child. And your abuser won't be charged with any crime. If you plead guilty to charges for which the state appears to have very little evidence in exchange for a lighter sentence and substance abuse treatment, you better not abuse substances before you get treatment because the judge will change your sentence to deny you the treatment you need. So the punishment for being abused is losing your child and the punishment for being an alcoholic is not getting alcohol treatment. Please, someone tell me who this protects?  |
  
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Sustainable Mothering - All Rights Reserved |
||
Recent Comments