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:
The purpose of this bill is to declare a child's right to nurse and making a statement by the Legislature that nursing in a public place is socially acceptable.
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:
ARTICLE 1. STATE PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM.
§16-1-19. Child's right to nurse; location where permitted; right protected.
(a) The Legislature finds that breast feeding is an important, basic act of nurturing that is protected in the interests of maternal and child health.
(b) A mother may breast feed a child in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are otherwise authorized to be.
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.
Q. In any earlier interview you said you hadn't received an apology from the TSA but the TSA claims you accepted an apology from it. Did you receive an apology from the TSA?
A. In March of this year, TSA sent me a statement. It stated that they were responding to my report that on “numerous occasions [I was] urged to put the breast milk through the x-ray machine and [was] subjected to additional screening.” They stated that the “screening workforce [had] been briefed regarding this situation.” The letter also stated that it was their “understanding that…the issue has been resolved” and they “extend [their] sincere apologies to [me] for the discomfort and inconvenience [I] experienced during the screening process.” The letter concluded by stating that TSA “appreciate[d] that [I] took the time to share [my] concerns with [them].” Of course, the complaint that I sent over to TSA on 2/2/10 addressed many important issues this letter did not acknowledge at all including being retaliated against, harassed, humiliated, degraded, threatened with arrest, held in security for an hour, among other things. Frankly, I disregarded this letter from TSA in March as a standard form letter they would issue to any complaint and did not view it as an apology for what happened on 2/1/10.
Q. The TSA states in its blog response: "The passenger has flown since these events occurred and has provided TSA a written confirmation that she no longer experiences issues." Is this true?
A. The following week (2/9/10), I was ‘shadowed’ by a TSA authority assigned to me by Phoenix Airport to see what I go through each week. As soon as I asked for an alternate screening, I was told to put the milk through the x-ray machine. The TSA authority had to immediately make herself known to the TSA agent and said to give me an alternate screening. It was clear that any briefing or training that had been done was futile. In the weeks following that, after speaking with a Phoenix TSA customer service manager, I traveled out of a completely different gate. I didn’t experience any more harassment or retaliation thereafter. After a few more weeks, I resumed travel out of my original gate mindful never to encounter the four or five agents I had dealt with on 2/1/10. If there was a choice between two lines, I would pick the one with agents that were not part of the incident. I resumed travel out of my original gate fearful that I would encounter the same agents as on 2/1/10. I literally would start sweating wondering who I would encounter and how I would be treated.
On 4/22/10, after one of the final trips I took with breast milk, I emailed the Phoenix TSA customer service manager. I wanted to make sure he knew that every week since 2/1/10, I had been instructed to place the milk through x-ray and had to ask again for an alternate screening…every single time. I brought this to his attention so he knew the agents still had no knowledge or, possibly, no regard for the breast milk screening rules. The response back to me was they were okay with that so long as, at some point, the agents remembered that my request [for alternate screening] was allowed.
Q. How do you think the TSA should have responded to your complaint and how did its response fall short?
A. My attorneys have advised this I do not address specifically how the TSA should have responded. It may jeopardize my current tort claim against them, especially if they try to limit my relief to what I put in this response. After we exhaust all administrative remedies, we will file a lawsuit in federal court that addresses exactly what should have been done by the TSA.
What do you think about how the TSA has responded to Stacey Armato? Is the TSA "apology" and a "refresher" to TSA staff enough?
Stacey Armato, the mother who was detained by TSA agents in Phoenix last February when she asked for "alternate" screening for her pumped breast milk, has filed a TSA Tort Claim Package, the last step before she can file a lawsuit against the government employees who she claims detained her in retaliation for filing a complaint against them. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, in order to sue the United States government or its employees for certain claims one must exhaust all remedies available to you by the relevant government agency. Armato, who is due to give birth to her second child on December 25th, plans to file a lawsuit against the TSA and the individual agents as soon as it is legally possible.
According to Armato's complaint filed with the TSA concerning what happened when she presented her pumped breast milk for screening at the Phoenix airport on February 1st:
All the same TSA parties were present from the week before surrounded [stet] me . I was demanding an explanation and wanted to speak with the manager but was refused. I was told to be quiet and do as I was told or I wasn’t going anywhere. I felt like a caged animal, stared at by multiple TSA agents and other travelers. After 15 or 20 minutes, my anger turned to tears. I couldn’t stop crying. I felt harassed, degraded, violated, falsely imprisoned, and retaliated against.
Finally, three Phoenix police department officers came. One … came in to tell me that I needed to calm down or TSA could have me arrested. He instructed me to go through alternate gates for security on my following trips because they seemed to have it out for me. He said these TSA agents saw me coming, remembered me from the week before, and wanted me to play along with their ‘horse and pony’ show or they would have me arrested.
Armato alleges as well:
The incident on February 1, 2010, was an obvious retaliation against me for lodging a complaint with the TSA the previous week. It is absolutely unforgiveable that these TSA agents would hold me like a caged animal in an apparent act to “teach me a lesson.” The TSA agents knowingly, and willfully, disregarded their own rules and regulations. I was placed in a glass enclosure, in full view of all the other passengers. I was continuously yelled at, talked down to, and threatened with arrest if I did not adhere to the TSA agents’ demands. The TSA agents, as well as the TSA itself as employers of these individuals, is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, battery, assault, trespass to chattel, false imprisonment, and civil harassment, among other causes of action
While news agencies have reported receiving a statement from the TSA claiming that Armato accepted its apology concerning the incident, Armato maintains she has received no apology.
Amato's story and the TSA video of her detention has gotten a great deal of press. Has the TSA's treatment of Armato changed your plans for travel? How do you think you might behave if you were in Armato's position?
Sustainable Mothering will continue to present the latest on this case, as well as other incidents involving the TSA that impact parents. Stay tuned.
There is an interesting discussion over at PhD in Parenting in a post called Approaching Heaven, Mummies and Infinity about raising kids without religion. As happens to me a fair bit, I began to leave a comment that became so long I brought it over here and turned it into a blog post of my own. Thanks to Annie for the nudge.
My boys are now teens and tween and I have been shocked that "is there a god?" and related questions simply never came up. My boys never asked me "whether" questions about religion. They have only asked me "why would anybody think?" questions. "Why would anyone think there is a man above the clouds? Why would anyone think you go somewhere after you die?" Lots of "why would anyone think X is the answer to that question?"
To my knowledge, none of my boys ever even considered the existence of a god. They came home from time to time telling me what religious beliefs friends had. My main job has been to teach them to be respectful of beliefs with which they disagree unless the beliefs are hurtful. I could easily deal with "Jimmy thinks there is a heaven" with "that belief doesn't hurt anyone and you can disagree without being disrespectful." But "Jimmy thinks god says gays are bad" needed a discussion about when religious tolerance must stop because religious behavior is hurting people.
I fully expected at least one of my kids to give serious consideration to whether there is a god and am surprised none of them ever did. It seemed to me that children would be predisposed to think of magical answers to difficult questions. But my children have always wanted scientific answers to questions. My children want facts and if there is only theory, the theory needs a basis in reason and what we do know.
I happen to like magic. Fairy tales are lovely and it has been disappointing to me that my kids have shown so little interest in them. I also really want my children to think things out for themselves. I don't want them simply adopting my or their father's views on anything. And somewhere I read that it was normal for children to believe in god. That it made them fear uncertainty and death less. Well, definitely can't prove that by my kids. That mysteries could be explained by a higher power always seemed just plain dumb to my kids. Go figure. I didn't teach them that.
As younger children, religion didn't come up much but when it did I was always careful to say that, while I don't believe in a god, I am not necessarily right and they may choose to believe in god. When they went to school, they went to Quaker schools. My youngest went to mandatory "Meeting." If you haven't been a Quaker Meeting, there is no formal service. Members sit in silence and speak if they have something to say. I went to lots of Quaker meetings when I was involved (for many wonderful years) with the American Friends Service Committee. With great respect to Quakers (with the notable exception of Richard Nixon), I have to say I was really bored. But when my then-four year old went to Meeting, he found it calming and peaceful which makes perfect sense because it can be largely meditation. I suck at organized meditation but my son didn't. But there was no god involved for him. It was peaceful quiet time and he liked it.
When we started homeschooling, religion came up a lot because most of the organized homeschool groups in my area are dominated by fundamentalist Christians who believe it is their duty to make me feel unwelcome. I have not accepted Jesus as my personal savior so they don't want their kids playing with my kids. Yeah, I am bitter. I have no respect for that attitude. But I hid it from my kids because I didn't want them to know there are people we have never met who exclude us out of bigotry.
So my contribution to the discussion concerning what struggle one might have raising kids without religion is … well, there may be no struggle at all.
So what has your experience been? Did your kids ask religious questions without any prompting from you?
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.
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.
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.
I woke up this morning shaking from a nightmare. My jaw hurt from grinding my teeth. My palms were sore from clenching my fists.
I knew immediately that it had been a bad dream but it has been difficult to shake off. In it, I was in a hotel room in a foreign city with my eldest son and a man from my past. An abusive, disturbed man who remembering still makes my skin feels as if it is not my own. In the dream I was struggling to find all of my son's and my clothing so that I could us sneak away. For some reason, my son and this man were going somewhere together and, again inexplicably, I thought this would help give me a chance to gather all of our things. But when the man returned my son was not with him. He said that my son had taken too long to get in the car so he had left my son on the street. During the rest of the nightmare I was screaming my son's name out of the window and walking the streets searching for him, bellowing his name in hysteria. Finally, in despair, I went back to the hotel where I found my son had returned. He didn't know I had been looking for him and he just wanted to tell me what a good time he had had meeting new people and seeing new things. It was a reenactment of a conversation I have had with him many times in real life but in the dream I could not stay calm as I hollered about not disappearing without telling me where he is going, not staying away for more than twenty minutes without calling, how frightened I had been, how dangerous the world is.
And then I woke up. Realizing my son was safely asleep upstairs and that this man from my past is long dead did not help me with the panic attack I suffered for several hours.
No consultation with Freud is necessary to understand why I had this nightmare and why I had it when I did. Tomorrow my first born, my baby, will turn fifteen.
My son is bright and engaging. He chats up anyone who stands still long enough. He wants to know what you are passionate about and he wants to tell you about his favorite architect, the local community feud about the election of township commissioners, the quality of programming on BBC (we live in the US). My son trusts people until they show they can not be trusted.
When I was fifteen, the long battle between my divorced parents over who wouldn't have custody ended with both refusing to keep me. I was on my own, hiding from the social workers who would put me in foster care if they knew. From the age of fifteen, until my son was born sixteen years later, no family member gave me shelter. Most of the time no one in my family even knew where I was and, as far as I can tell, none of them cared. My children are the only blood relatives I have lived with since I was the age my baby boy will be tomorrow.
I don't spend much time feeling sorry for myself or dwelling on my childhood. It was, I am, it is (thankfully) over. But it has been difficult comparing myself at fifteen to my son at fifteen. He is a curious and independent child (like I was). He can do his own laundry and cook himself most meals (as I could). But he has not seen pure evil. He has never had to worry about where he would sleep. He has never … many things no child should do or see or know.
Most days these differences between us make me feel relief. I have spared him these things. But on days like today, covered with the sense memory of dreams like last night's, I fear for him. Who will he trust in his innocence? Have I, in keeping him safe, left him exposed?
Like many mammals, my son's trips away from me are in larger and larger circles. He proudly reports the miles on his bike odometer and I pretend I can breath. Tomorrow he will be the age I was when I was utterly abandoned by the people who were supposed to keep me safe. We will have cake and go out to dinner. And I will continue to worry how safe he really is.
Top Hat over at Its All About the Hat suggested a Breastfeeding Blog Carnival called "This is What a Nursing Toddler Looks Like." [This is my first blog carnival so I will link to the other participants as soon as I figure out the rules of the game - UPDATE: I have added some links at the bottom to other Carnival participants.] Luckily for me, the Carnival theme left a good bit of room for interpretation since I don't currently have a nursing toddler. I have many fond memories of nursing my kids when they were toddlers and so do they. I and they remember how important it was that they could nurse when they were sick or hurt or needed comfort. We nursed when they needed some time with mom. We nursed when they were getting used to sharing mom with a new sibling. We nursed when they were hungry. We nursed to sleep. We nursed standing up and sitting down and in positions I used to call "Olympic Freestyle Nursing."
A nursing toddler can also go hiking and he looks like this:
But with my kids getting older, I am seeing more of what a nursing toddler looks like when he is no longer nursing and is no longer a toddler. That can be someone who really understands how important it is that kids get to nurse and mothers get to nurse their kids. A former nursing toddler isn't fazed by seeing women breastfeed wherever they are.
A few years ago my then 12 year old son saw me helping to organize a nurse-in. I explained that a woman had been quietly nursing her baby on a bench in a shopping mall when a security guard ordered her to stop and move. She refused, saying she needed to finish feeding her son. Soon she was surrounded by security guards who engaged her husband in a shouting match and left the woman terrified. When the mom shared her story and the shopping mall management refused to respond to her complaint about her treatment, a nurse-in was planned.
My son was confused – why would anyone think there was something wrong with a mother feeding her baby? Then he was mad – this was wrong. He asked if he could come to the nurse-in. When he saw me making signs, he asked if he could create one for himself. I told him that we expected press coverage and there was a chance his friends would see a photo of him from the protest. He was adamant that he wanted to be seen.
Back to the Carnival theme – This is What a Nursing Toddler Looks Like. He looks like a proud breastfeeding activist.
UPDATE: Other What Does a Nursing Toddler Looks Like Carnival participants.
Recent Comments