Breast Intentions
[Pardon the cliché title.]
Starting today, women of the Commonwealth can breastfeed in public without fear.
Massachusetts moms who want to breastfeed their children in public won’t have to hide from the law any longer.
A new state law that goes into effect Thursday gives mothers the legal protection to breastfeed in public without fear of facing charges of indecent exposure or lewd conduct.
The law, “An Act to Promote Breastfeeding,” was passed last year and signed earlier this year by Gov. Deval Patrick.
Bill supporters say the law prevents moms from being forced to register as sex offenders had they been prosecuted before the legal protection.
State Representative David Linsky says now police officers won’t have the right to prevent a woman from breastfeeding her child.
I can just imagine that in some cases, a woman breastfeeding may cause a bit of a disturbance, perhaps to the magnitude of jeopardizing public safety. I hope these women consider that, but I hope that this now public “beautiful act” doesn’t lead to a sharp increase in fender benders and pedestrians walking into sign posts.
Has anyone gotten a comment from Jane Swift?
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
TAGS: breastfeeding, David Linsky, Deval Patrick.
Aaron Margolis is a life long resident of the Bay State, and works at an architectural firm north of Boston. Aaron has a Master of Architecture Degree from Boston Architectural College and is currently in the process of becoming of a Registered Architect.
As I wrote in the Herald comments section today, first off, no rational person really cares about where women breast feed. Second, any woman who doesn’t find a comfortable out of the way place to feed their child is a moron. Sure, when the poor nipper needs to eat, he/she needs to eat, but a little planning would prevent mommy from having to do it on the T.
Third, oh brother…..This is the most non-issue issue I have seen in a long time. Tell me, has a cop EVER arrested a woman for breastfeeding? Or stopped a woman from breastfeeding? I seriously doubt it.
And, I just love how all the feminist groups who fight tooth and nail to allow abortions are fighting to get this “protection” on the books.
I generally agree that this is a non-issue, but at least the government is taking the right side on it!
As a mom who nursed her two kids, I can tell you that I did feel weird out in public; a little publicity in this direction reminds everyone that babies really do need to be fed and that women who choose to breastfeed should be supported by our society.
V, you say that “a little planning” would allow a woman not to have to breastfeed publically. Do you know that newborns nurse EVERY 2 – 3 HOURS, AROUND THE CLOCK? Each “session” can take 45 minutes. Do the math. If you nurse the baby, you’d have perhaps only an hour to get out, do your errands, and be home again for the next feeding. People who haven’t lived it don’t realize that when you are breastfeeding a newborn (who might not have gotten the memo and decide he’s hungry only a half hour after a feeding), you really are a slave to the kid and his appetite.
That being said, there’s a way to do it privately (facing the wall, with a shawl over youself) and there’s flaunting it, which strikes me as unecessary. And, in case you were thinking it, don’t EVER say a woman should use a public restroom. That’s gross…would you want to eat in one?
It’s sort of a silly law; I’ll give you that. But, it’s not a bad law.
Jeanne;
As a father of a son who was nursed, I’m well aware of what the needs are. And, I never said (or thought) to use restroom (frankly, there are a lot of public restrooms I’m hesitant to use for their intended purpose, let alone feeding a child).
Let’s be clear Jeanne, what I said was “a little planning would prevent mommy from having to do it on the T”, not a little planning would allow a woman not to have to breastfeed publically”. Not the same thing.
As you said, there is a way to do it privately. I suspect that those who do it privately have no need for this law. This law is designed for those women who feel the need to show us all what they are doing.
We have enough silly laws, we don’t need another one.
Okay, V, I stand corrected. When you said, “a little planning would prevent mommy from having to do it on the T” I took you to mean that a little planning would prevent mommy from having to do it in public. I didn’t realize that your entire objection is women who end up nursing on a train or bus. Just out of curiousity, what do you find so objectionable about women who don’t plan and end up nursing on public transit, as opposed to women who don’t plan and end up nursing in other public places?
I do see your point, though. It is a silly law. But, it does not harm and might do some good, so what the heck? I just can’t get upset over it.
if women are now allowed to whip their boobs out to breastfeed (you know, because an infants desire to eat is not exactly easy to work into a set schedule), is this precedent so a law can now be passed so that if a man has to go to the bathroom (sometimes even the urge to go to the bathroom can not be planned around) and has to pullover and walk into the woods and by rare chance gets caught that he doesn’t have to register as a sex offender either?
Jeanne,
You have fallen into the same trap that you accused Mr. X of falling into on another post.
Let ME state what I mean, shall we?
My “entire” objection to this silly law is that it is silly. We simply don’t need it. We are being told that we need it because some women feel that being told to have some class or decorum “feel” that being a lady is a draconian ideal.
I have seen many, many women feeding their children in public. I have never been offended by it. However, when a woman sits down on the floor of the baby clothes section of Sears to breast feed, I think that is just tactless.
Oh, and one more thing:
Voodoo makes an outstanding point.
V – It’s a silly law, but I think it might have some benefits and it does no harm. It obviously bugs you.
You state that, “…some women feel that being told to have some class or decorum ‘feel’ that being a lady is a draconian ideal.” I have a few problems with this line of thinking.
First, you can’t legislate “class” or “decorum.” Some people treat those around them with respect, some don’t. No law will change that.
Second, in America, no law should. While there are ways of public nursing I approve of more than others, I consider it a good thing that women have the right to feed their children. While I might not approve of how some women do it, I’ll defend to the death their right. Unless you can prove that a certain method of public nursing harms you or society, there shouldn’t be rules limiting it. That’s what this country is all about.
Third, who is to define “decorum” or “class”? I have my opinions, but they are my opinions only. I’ll impart them to my children. I want to be the one determining what “decorum” means in my family, not you or the law.
I don’t find the substance of Voodoo Daddy’s point “outstanding.” A hungry infant does not have the intellectual capacity to understand delayed gratification (I’m straving, but we’ll be home in fifteen minutes, so Mom will feed me then…). His comparison of an infant’s needs and a grown man’s needs is apples and oranges (unless grown men are the intellectual equivalents of infants).
I agree that we should encourage (not legislate) decorum in all areas of society. I would also argue that this encouragement should apply equally to men and women. It sounds like you would agree. If so, how did you feel about VooDoo Daddy’s use of the phrase “whip their boobs out.” I found it to be a graphic and ugly description. Clearly “expose their breasts” would have worked just fine. I wonder, was this a lack of decorum in your opinion?
Jeanne;
While I wouldn’t personally utilize the term “whip their boobs out” in this forum, I did not feel that it was my place to “legislate” Voodoo’s use of the term. Maybe there should be a law against that.
That being said, I doubt Voodoo would be offended by my disapproving stares.
I’m not here to defend or make Voodoo’s point, but my assertion that his argument was “outstanding” stands. I believe he was exaggerating to make a point.
That the law “does no harm” is not a valid defense of it. Nor is it a good reason FOR it. Plenty of things we do seem to be of no harm at the time we do them. But, later, upon reflection, are shown to be harmful. The “slippery slope” argument.
Also, you seem to contend that prior to this law, women did not have the right to nurse in public. That is most certainly not the case. As I pointed out in an earlier post; show me proof that a police officer was EVER called to the scene of a nursing woman to prevent her from doing so.
There are plenty of laws on the books that mandate that people be treated with “class” or “respect”. Decorum is legislated all the time. You can’t have sex in public. You can’t walk around in the nude in public. Sure, these seem silly things to have to write laws about, but at some point, as a society, we agreed that these things were detrimental to society. And you know people still do both.
“I” am not trying to determine what decorum means in your family. If you want to teach your daughter that it is okay to nurse in a very public place, I’m fine with that. That’s your business. BUT…..the law shouldn’t prevent a store manager from asking a woman to move to a more appropriate location if she decided to nurse in the electronics section of Wal-Mart. Once the law prevents the store manager from doing so, that is the law legislating MY sense of decorum.
What’s next? Do we need a law that says it is okay to clip your toenails in public. Now before you go off on me about that, tell me you haven’t seen someone perform random personal hygiene procedures on the T or at a restaurant. I don’t think we need a law FOR it or against it. I think if someone wants to clip his/her nails in public, they should be prepared for the disgusted looks from passersby.
I am NOT comparing the two things. I am simply illustrating how silly we could get if we wanted to continue to pass laws that “do no harm”.
I am fine with a woman who nurses at a restaurant. As long as it is discreet and not “in my face”. But if I’m in the produce department at Stop & Shop, it’s just something I think crosses the line.
It boils down to this; This law wasn’t proposed because women were not permitted to nurse in public. At some point, somewhere, some woman felt harassed because she deemed it appropriate to nurse in a very public place and didn’t like the disapproving stares.
Okay, fair enough. I enjoyed that exchange! I am okay with legislating things that are harmful to society (the sight of a woman nursing can be explained to a very young child. The sight of a nude person wandering around creates a situation that is potentially harmful for a young child. Therefore, one is okay, one is illegal). Public toenail clipping presents a public hygene issue. Breastfeeding in public does not. If something is harmful to society, a law to prevent it is okay. If something is not harmful (nursing in the electronics department is not harming anyone), it shouldn’t be illegal.
I don’t want a store manager to be the determiner of where a woman can feed her baby. That being said, I’m the first one to glare at a woman who is clearly using her body to make a scene without regard to other people or for the sake of making a scene. I think peer pressure is the best and only appropriate response to rudeness.
I’m also the first one to say to a woman who is nursing discretely in public, “That’s lovely to see and brings back fond memories.” It is important that we as a society encourage the bonding and nutritional benefits of breastfeeding.
You pretty much had me agreeing with everything until “I don’t want a store manager to be the determiner of where a woman can feed her baby”.
In a store, the manager should be able to determine what is appropriate (within the bounds of law of course), and what is not. Have they not determined that skateboarding is inappropriate? Or, playing basketball in the Sports Authority isn’t okay?
And, what about the other patrons? Should they object (however silly their objections may be), under this law they would be told that the rights of the mother and child supersede their rights. The few dictating to the many.
I realize that you are not advocating breast feeding anarchy. That you will not march on Home Depot with a cadre of nursing mothers chanting “hell no we won’t go”.
Would you argue with the Stop & Shop produce manager asking a woman not to nurse in front of the lettuce? Or, how about the manager of the Weymouth I-Party who asked the nursing mother to cease nursing on the floor of her store?
I’m just saying, in agreeing with your point “the sight of a woman nursing can be explained to a very young child. The sight of a nude person wandering around creates a situation that is potentially harmful for a young child”; why do we need a law that says nursing is okay? If everyone acted accordingly, there would be no need for this law.
Describe a situation where harm was caused by not having this law (a law that we have agreed is silly).
The burden of proof in this case, that having no law guaranteeing the right to nurse in public is harmful in some way, is on the proponents of the law.
You’re right…I’m not much of a breastfeeding activist. In fact, I rarely fed my children outside our house because I was self-conscious. And I resented that. I do wish our culture was more open and accepting of breastfeeding.
So, “the burden of proof…is on the proponents” of the law. True and fair.
I did a little online research. A group of moms sued a Walmart because they were told by an employee to either use a restroom to feed their babies (I find this unacceptable) or leave. Another woman was told by a Starbucks employee to cease nursing or leave the store.
These examples suggest a law is needed. If a woman is nursing publically and someone tells her to leave, she should be able to say, “I have a legal right to feed my child. Tell me to stop again and I’ll sue.”
I have to say, the more I debate this, the more committed I am to my point.
That being said, if a woman is being an idiot, by all means, glare at her, make her uncomfortable, whatever. Again, peer pressure for decency is okay. But a parent’s right to feed their child should be legally protected.
Without knowing how old your children are, I’m guessing that you were self conscious about feeding your children outside the home was more likely reflective of where society was at the time. Also, I suspect that you were raised to believe discretion was “ladylike” and something to value.
I’m still not convinced that a woman’s right to feed her child wasn’t protected before this law. What THIS law does is create a “right” not to be made to feel uncomfortable. That being said, I’d be the first guy to intervene if I heard the Starbucks manager ask a woman to leave (if the woman was being discreet and not trying to draw attention).
If I’m not mistaken (and there may have been more than one suit) the Wal-Mart case wasn’t settled in the women’s favor.
In any case, if the woman (or women) in question were sitting in the aisles of the store nursing, I fail to see the “harm”(to cause physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration) caused by asking them to either go to the restroom (which is where a baby’s diapers would be changed – and we have agreed isn’t a good place), or to leave.
Personally, I don’t see why a car in the parking lot wouldn’t be a more appropriate place. Don’t I have the right not to be made to feel uncomfortable too?
As you said before: “that being said, there’s a way to do it privately (facing the wall, with a shawl over yourself) and there’s flaunting it, which strikes me as unnecessary”. The woman in the Starbucks incident wasn’t doing that. Nor do I suspect that the Wal-Mart plaintiffs were.
Mt previous point “at some point, somewhere, some woman felt harassed because she deemed it appropriate to nurse in a very public place and didn’t like the disapproving stares” looks like the most likely cause for the Wal-Mart suit, as well as action (although not legal) taken against Starbucks.
The Massachusetts law makes simply asking a woman to cover her breast while feeding actionable. I hope we can agree that this goes too far.
And, I find it interesting that places of religious instruction or worship are exempt from this law. I wonder why it is okay to nurse by the deli, but not in church…….
For a woman’s perspective (since I can’t provide one):
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hart051402.asp
Fantastic and thought-provoking piece from the National Review. I do believe public breastfeeding should be protected; this article discusses public pumping of breastmilk. I’m honestly going to have nightmares. There is a line, after all, and I suspect you and I are somewhere on the same side of it.
You are right – I was raised to believe in ladylike discretion. My babies are still babies though. My experience is recent. I hope they learn from me to be as ridiculously old-fashioned:)
I’m happy to be on the same side of the line as you are
I’m sure that your babies will do just fine.