Wisconsin Senate vote on Tuesday for breastfeeding bill

[laurdsed]

Hello everyone,

(posted in WI/MN tribal area, too)The Right to Breastfeed Act, SB 16, is scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, Feb. 24th, starting at 3:30pm. This is the entire Senate that will be voting yes or no on the bill. I spoke with Senator Risser's (original sponsor of the bill) aide, Sarah, on the phone. She mentioned that there will be no opportunity for public comment; however, it will be good to have a community presence
there given the events this week. There's still a possibility that the
"modesty" amendment will be up for debate. We need to remain vigilant so that there's not a repeat of what happened in ND this week.

If you plan to come to the Capitol to observe, you might want to reserve time to visit your representatives offices there in the building, too. It would be good for them to hear your thoughts about the modesty amendment.

Thanks!

Laurel

[mamajake]

bump.

[meganmarie]

Please be sure to dress in your favorite Victorian gown and bonnet, as is appropriate for attending any debate on a "Modesty Amendment"

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by meganmarie

Please be sure to dress in your favorite Victorian gown and bonnet, as is appropriate for attending any debate on a "Modesty Amendment"

Thankfully, I have heard nothing to indicate that legislators have responded to the call from Wisconsin Family Action for a "modesty" amendment. My understanding is this bill is being voted in as originally introduced. So I don't think there will be any discussion of this "modesty" business.

If anyone hears anything has changed, please let us know.

[SuburbanHippie]

It has passed apparently.

Dear Samantha,



Thank you for your email on Senate Bill 16. Senator Wirch asked that I respond to you as he is currently on the Senate floor, in session. This bill is currently before the Senate and has passed – with out any amendments. Senator Wirch voted in favor of this bill.



Again, thank you for your email.


Sincerely,



Jennifer

Office of Sen. Wirch

[laurdsed]

Yes, the bill passed the Senate without the amendment. Woo-hoo!

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by laurdsed

Yes, the bill passed the Senate without the amendment. Woo-hoo!

::

Laurel, link please.

And Wisconsin you rule! I would love a link so I can send the results over to the people fighting the good fight in North Dakota.

[laurdsed]

The link hasn't been updated yet, but here's the link to Senate Bill 16's history. It will probably be updated by tomorrow.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB16hst.html


I'm so sad that I was misinformed about the time of the Senate vote. I would really like to know if there was debate about the amendment, etc.

Oh, well, at least, it was great news in the end.

Laurel

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by laurdsed

The link hasn't been updated yet, but here's the link to Senate Bill 16's history. It will probably be updated by tomorrow.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB16hst.html


I'm so sad that I was misinformed about the time of the Senate vote. I would really like to know if there was debate about the amendment, etc.

Oh, well, at least, it was great news in the end.

Laurel

Thanks Laurel! [Jake needs to go blog but has sick kid ]

There never was any amendment introduced so I don't think there could have been any debate. But as a C-SPAN devotee (a peculiar subgroup of news addict geek), I know the pure joy of watching the votes be cast. :

[mamajake]

http://www.wrn.com/gestalt/go.cfm?ob...B2764F60C87C06

"There was no debate on the bill, which passed the Senate on voice vote and now heads to the Assembly. Governor Jim Doyle says he'll sign the bill if it passes both chambers. "

:

[happyhousewife06]

I was thrilled to hear that this has passed!! I have been approached a handful of times while out and about and I would love to have some backing on why I can do what I'm doing!!

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by mamajake

http://www.wrn.com/gestalt/go.cfm?ob...B2764F60C87C06

"There was no debate on the bill, which passed the Senate on voice vote and now heads to the Assembly. Governor Jim Doyle says he'll sign the bill if it passes both chambers. "

:

Apparently the press got this wrong. There was an amendment. I am working on getting copy of it.

[angela123]

Hi Jake,

The amendment was not the modesty clause, but it did take a little thrust out of the law I think, because it changed the text from talking about not interfering with breastfeeding to not prohibiting it. I posted about it here along with a discussion of North Dakota and Washington:

http://www.breastfeeding123.com/brea...nd-washington/

Angela

[Rhianynn]

Looking for an update

Does anyone know anything about the leg just passed in WI regarding Breastfeeding protection? I don't seem to have the assembly bill number.

Thanks Rhianynn:::

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by Rhianynn

Does anyone know anything about the leg just passed in WI regarding Breastfeeding protection? I don't seem to have the assembly bill number.

Thanks Rhianynn:::

My understanding is that there has been some debate on the language and a hearing was held. To my knowledge no final decision has been made by the WI legislature on the pending bill.

[laurdsed]

That is correct, Jake. The semantics is where the debate is currently. Not so much as that it's that important, but, IMO, the Republicans want to be a pain in the butt b/c they're losing on the statewide smoking ban issue, so they want everything else to be as difficult as possible.

Rhianynn, it is AB 57, the Right to Breastfeed Act.

Here is the synopsis of what has happened so far. The bill has passed the Senate; however, not without a last minute surprise amendment that changed "may be interfere" to "may not prohibit".

The Assembly Public Health committee had a public hearing last week. There was A LOT of debate during the hearing about the two versions of the wording of the bill. The co-sponsor, Rep. Sandy Pasch (who is also in the Public Health committee), I believe, is leaning toward taking out all the wording all together and just making it short, sweet and simple.

Possibly this, "A mother may breastfeed in any public or private location where the mother is otherwise authorized to be." At least, "may not prohibit" will not be in there if we can help it.

The committee will be voting on whether to pass this bill onto the Assembly THIS week. So, we'll hear something soon. I think the bill will be recommended to the Assembly for a vote, no matter what. What the wording of the bill will be is what is of interest for now.

Laurel

[laurdsed]

BTW, here's the link to AB 57's history:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB57hst.html

Here is the link to sign up to be notified of any changes in legislation:
http://notify.legis.state.wi.us/Home.aspx

You sign up with an email address to register. Then click "Add items". It's pretty slick and easy, too!

[mamajake]

Thanks Laurel! I get the feed (I sooo wish every legislature had one) but have been distracted by legislative happenings in my own state. Time for me to catch up on the Wisc. wording changes.

One relief about Wisconsin for me is that the $200 fine has not been in debate. What will be enforced is what is in debate.

[laurdsed]

I'm interested to hear about what's going on in PA, Jake. Update us on another thread if you have time?

So, actually, there was discussion during the hearing about the $200 fine. The discussion was not about that there's a fine attached with the bill (because there isn't). It was how would the fine be enforced. In WI, all bills that are in a "general provisions" category, ones that don't specify a fine, have a generic fine that becomes attached to it. This is the category our bill is in.

The committee members were a little bit aflutter about the fine. Rep. Strachota (R) was worried that "some irate breastfeeding mother is going to get someone fined for giving her a dirty look for BIP.", or something to that effect. <<sigh>>

Dr. Jenny Thomas tackled this very well by rebutting that it's not about the fine. It's about preventing incidents from happening in the first place. If a woman has a card with the law printed on it (our local LLL Chapter distributes these), then she shows it to the offender and they will most likely back down.

The next day, I asked our local county supervisor who sponsored our local ordinance (Dane County...and also got the ball rolling for the City of Madison's ordinance, too) about this $200 fine. She rolled her eyes and said in the two years we've had these ordinances, there haven't been any citations (and our ordinances can come with jail time (!) for repeat offenders!). She went on to explain that, as always, when a law enforcement officer comes to the scene of an incident, they're job is to assess the situation, help calm people down, and cite an offender if there's something he/she judges to be along the lines of disorderly conduct. Our sheriff testified at the county hearing 2 years ago and was happy to support our ordinance and stated he would be training his deputies in how to enforce the ordinance. As with any citation (like disorderly conduct), one either pays the fine, or goes to court to plead their case before a judge.

Don't you think that the Assembly committee members were over-reacting a bit about this fine business? I think so. It seems pretty straight forward to me. I can't see a law enforcement officer handing out a citation for a "dirty look", but I can for something really heinous like kicking a breastfeeding family out of a place of business.

I hope I clarified this issue. This fine business was in debate on the radio talk shows last session. If it comes up again with those "shock jocks", I hope anyone listening will call in and help clarify.

Laurel