NAP (Nursing at the Pool), Anyone? - Page 3

[MiaMama]

Originally Posted by ramama

Using your logic, it wouldn't be discrimination to prohibit service dogs, since the no-dogs rule applies to everyone.

Not my logic.

http://www.iaadp.org/court.html

When Robin Pool and her service dog tried to visit her fiancee in a Kansas emergency room, the hospital staff refused to admit the dog. Pool sued the hospital for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. She lost.

The hospital did not ban assistance dogs generally, but prohibited them from going into "non-public" areas. The area Pool wanted to enter with her dog was marked with a sign that said "Patients Only Beyond this Point."

[ramama]

You're reading into the law something that is not there. The law simply states that a mother may BF where she otherwise has a legal right to be. It says nothing about discrimination, or that interfering with her is explicitly discriminatory, or that prohibiting BFing is innately discriminatory, or that her rights are dependent upon others' rights.

[ramama]

Originally Posted by MiaMama

Not my logic.

http://www.iaadp.org/court.html

Thank you. You made my point. The pool is a public area where the BFing mother has a right to be, just as the waiting room is a public area where a service dog has the right to be (well, the owner has a right to be In that particular case, the woman did not have a right to be in a patients-only area, and it had nothing to do with the dog.

[MiaMama]

Originally Posted by ramama

You're reading into the law something that is not there. The law simply states that a mother may BF where she otherwise has a legal right to be. It says nothing about discrimination, or that interfering with her is explicitly discriminatory, or that prohibiting BFing is innately discriminatory, or that her rights are dependent upon others' rights.

We are both guilty of the same thing. No where in the law does it say that it is against the law to infringe upon someone's breastfeeding rights.

In other states, where th law does explicitly prohibit it, it is classified as discrimination.

[MiaMama]

Originally Posted by ramama

Thank you. You made my point. The pool is a public area where the BFing mother has a right to be, just as the waiting room is a public area where a service dog has the right to be (well, the owner has a right to be In that particular case, the woman did not have a right to be in a patients-only area, and it had nothing to do with the dog.

From what I understand from reading this, she was a visitor, and was allowed to enter the area, just not allowed to bring her dog.

[ramama]

Originally Posted by MiaMama

We are both guilty of the same thing. No where in the law does it say that it is against the law to infringe upon someone's breastfeeding rights.

In other states, where th law does explicitly prohibit it, it is classified as discrimination.

What?! Then why is there a law giving mothers the right to breastfeed?! It's against the law to go against the law!

[ramama]

Originally Posted by MiaMama

From what I understand from reading this, she was a visitor, and was allowed to enter the area, just not allowed to bring her dog.

What I get from it is that the woman did not have a *right* to be in a patient's only area, as it is not a public area, but that she was given permission in exception. Therefore the dog is not implicitly covered under the woman's "rights." The dog was seen as a safety violation. Had OP been asked to not block the steps/ladder/exit to the pool, that would be a different matter, and more similar to the cited case. As it is, she was told not to breastfeed, not that she was a safety hazard, as the dog was.

[khaoskat]

Originally Posted by ramama

Seriously? Let's not resort to silliness. There are other statutes governing those things. As I stated way upthread, there are no statutes or health regulations governing food or drink in the pool. It is merely a pool rule, and rules don't trump law. Ever.

Exactly where in CO statute is this right located, and that will tell you even more.

In Ohio, our is part of our Civil rights/anti discrimination laws. Hence, in Ohio, to violate the law (which is worded exactly like what you are saying), you would have to show that it was only applied to her.

[ramama]

In Colorado, BF laws are under Title 25 (Health), article 6 (Family Planning), section 3 (Breastfeeding). Therefore, BFing rights do not appear to be contingent upon proof of discrimination. They stand on their own.