PA Breastfeeding Bill Gutted - Page 3

[mamajake]

Final Version of SB 34

Originally Posted by moderngal

Do we have a copy of the actual wording of the Bill that passed?

Here is a link to the final version: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=0034&pn=1045

Reproducing it here does not do justice to the amendments which you can see in the all the strike-throughs at the link.

[My4Boys]

That's really sad.

My 9yo was even able to tell the HUGE difference between "permiting the freedom" and "protecting the right". It's completely condescending the way the bill is written now. I'm not from PA, but did email Senator Williams my dissapointment.

[PiePie]

Originally Posted by mamajake

There is some confusion about the fact that the local ordinance prohibition was removed. It was removed because it is unnecessary since state law will preempt any local ordinance prohibiting breastfeeding.

I am confused -- does the bill as written contain a safe haven for local ordinances, or is it silent on the issue? I am not familiar enough to with local law to speak to the scope of their home rule powers.

[PiePie]

I haven't had time to research this thoroughly, so I apologize in advance for the stupid question, but is there no private right of action? If so, that would mean that a nursing woman whose rights/freedoms were violated would have no means of enforcement. Not good.

In the end, I am not so concerned about the freedom vs. right language. I do not always think half a loaf is worse than none at all. So throw my lawyer hat into the ring with SPOpa's. However, without private right of action language, it really IS useless!! :

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by PiePie

I am confused -- does the bill as written contain a safe haven for local ordinances, or is it silent on the issue? I am not familiar enough to with local law to speak to the scope of their home rule powers.

The partial quote you used from me makes it more confusing. That is the rationale the senator used. The final version of the bill is silent on the issue. That would not be so bad if in fact there were state law protecting public breastfeeding. Since there is none (Pa has NO state law concerning breastfeeding) and the bill would not create any, local governments can pass ordinances in this area. Philadelphia, ten years ago, passed an ordinance protecting public breastfeeding. Another municipality could pass an ordinance which forbids it.

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by PiePie

I haven't had time to research this thoroughly, so I apologize in advance for the stupid question, but is there no private right of action? If so, that would mean that a nursing woman whose rights/freedoms were violated would have no means of enforcement. Not good.

In the end, I am not so concerned about the freedom vs. right language. I do not always think half a loaf is worse than none at all. So throw my lawyer hat into the ring with SPOpa's. However, without private right of action language, it really IS useless!! :

We had a written agreement with Sen. Williams that if we remained silent on the lack of enforcement provision, she would support our efforts to get one in the House, and then support the amended version when it returned to the senate. So much for good faith. Bill 34 NEVER had an enforcement provision of any kind. No private right of action. Nada. The senator insisted she could not get one passed (after months of providing her with research and being put off on her final decision).

Respectfully, the "rights" vs. "freedom" is not a half a loaf - it is no loaf. You can't get an enforcement provision for "permit a freedom." "Rights" get enforced. "Freedom" (see the Bill of Rights, for example) take years of litigation and more laws so that "freedoms" become "rights" and can be enforced.

Really, this is not semantics.

[mamajake]

Time to turn to House Bill 1072

Just wanted to give you a heads up that I am about to start a thread on Pa House Bill 1072. No clear word from the sponsor about his plans, but it is time to get to work nonetheless.

[moderngal]

I'd also like to make sure HB1073 gets through, too. As a WOHM, pumping was my nursing connection to DS while at work. This issue is near and dear to me because I did face discrimination at work.
I plan to write to as many Reps as I can asking for support... what else can we do?

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by moderngal

I'd also like to make sure HB1073 gets through, too. As a WOHM, pumping was my nursing connection to DS while at work. This issue is near and dear to me because I did face discrimination at work.
I plan to write to as many Reps as I can asking for support... what else can we do?

The first step really is to get Senate Bill 35 (identical to and predating HB 1073) out of the Labor and Industry Committee. Info on the status of SB 35 and contact info for the committee can be found here: http://www.birthwithoutboundaries.com/bill35.htm

These are good bills with enforcement provisions. But this is Pennsylvania and they face a hard road.

Remember, it is always important that your own Senator or Rep. know your views, but while a Bill is in committee, a Senator or House Rep. not on the committee (who is not a sponsor of the Bill) is usually not all that interested. I always recommend targeting the committee with a cc to your own Sen. or Rep.

Hope that helps.

Jake

[paquerette]

This is horrible. Without legislation, we're assumed to have the right because it doesn't say anything one way or another in any law. The default is that things are legal unless law specifies otherwise, am I right? This is actually more restrictive than we were with no legislation! :

Way to encourage young families to want to stay in PA. : I think we're looking at finding greener pastures.

[shan]

[QUOTE=mamajake;8192114]Just one or two things - only one senator publically expressed discomfort with the pro-breastfeeding language. It was the one senator who voted against the bill (I am assuming the "nay" vote was Jane Earll) so I guess taking the language out really accomplished something?

Jane Earl was not the nay. Eichelberger was. I viewed this at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...y=S&rc_nbr=130

I am the LC who was interviewed in the KYW report. To me the SB35 is very important and as disappointing as it maybe the wording was changed in SB34, I am glad it passed and I support Connie Williams. I think it will be difficult to find a PA senator more supportive of breastfeeding than she is. A few years back she was awarded a breastfeeding friendly employer award by Maternity Care Coalition because when her staff needed to pump she would give up her own office so they could have privacy. As a lactation consultant SB36 would be a dream come true and I will support Connie Williams anyway I can to get it passed.

Shannon Lilienthal, IBCLC: :

[mamajake]

[QUOTE=shan;8214405]

Originally Posted by mamajake

Just one or two things - only one senator publically expressed discomfort with the pro-breastfeeding language. It was the one senator who voted against the bill (I am assuming the "nay" vote was Jane Earll) so I guess taking the language out really accomplished something?

Jane Earl was not the nay. Eichelberger was. I viewed this at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...y=S&rc_nbr=130

I am the LC who was interviewed in the KYW report. To me the SB35 is very important and as disappointing as it maybe the wording was changed in SB34, I am glad it passed and I support Connie Williams. I think it will be difficult to find a PA senator more supportive of breastfeeding than she is. A few years back she was awarded a breastfeeding friendly employer award by Maternity Care Coalition because when her staff needed to pump she would give up her own office so they could have privacy. As a lactation consultant SB36 would be a dream come true and I will support Connie Williams anyway I can to get it passed.

Shannon Lilienthal, IBCLC: :

Yes, my original post about the "nay" vote went up before the roll call was available. So removing the pro-breastfeeding langauge got her Earll, though no one else is on record as having objected to the language.

I think it is very important to separate Williams the senator from SB 34 and what it accomplishes. They are two separate issues. SB 35 (the workplace pumping bill - not SB 36) is also separate. If SB 34 does nothing to improve the legal position of breastfeeding women, why support it (though "supporting" it is a moot point now since it passed)?

Is the rationale that a vote for SB 34 increases the liklihood for a "yay" vote for SB 35? Is one then saying that the rights of breastfeeding women in one context should be sacrificed for the possible benefit of breastfeeding women in another? Aren't we then buying in to the "mommy wars"?

This is dangerous territory here. Saying that the final version of SB34 is good means that changing HB 1072 to match it is also good and that ending up with the weakest public breastfeeding law in the country is also good. How is this defensible? Whether Sen. Williams is a good or bad senator is not the issue. Ending up with a Pennsylvania law that truly protects the rights of breastfeeding women is the issue. Let's not lose sight of that.

[mamajake]

As an additional clarification to my earlier post, SB 35 (and its House version HB 1073) are good bills with solid enforcement provisions. The need for workplace pumping protection in Pennsylvania is great and I whole-heartedly support both of these pieces of legislation, and encourage others to do so.

[AEMOMMY]

Has anyone heard any responses from their sen. or rep.? Also, has anyone contacted Rep. Solobay?

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by AEMOMMY

Has anyone heard any responses from their sen. or rep.? Also, has anyone contacted Rep. Solobay?

Sorry for the delay in responding but I have been out of the country.

Solabay's staff has been very nice but the Rep. himself has not returned my many phone calls. Not a hopeful sign but perhaps it is too soon to tell what his plans are.

[annettemarie]

I have a quick question. In a LLL email I received, it said the local ordinance provision was removed because a statewide law would supercede all local ordinances, and thus it wasn't necessary. Is this not true?

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I have a quick question. In a LLL email I received, it said the local ordinance provision was removed because a statewide law would supercede all local ordinances, and thus it wasn't necessary. Is this not true?

Which list did you get that on? Some LLL lists just sent out the senator's press release. On the official PA Leaders lists (for Eastern and Western Areas) I was able to follow that up with an e-mail explaining how the senator is wrong about that (I am AAPL in Eastern PA and on the LLLI Legal Advisory Council). So it is important if a LLL list is not correcting the senator's press release.

How it works is this: state law does supercede local law but a state law must exist in the first place. Currently in PA there is no state law that would prevent local governments from legislating against breastfeeding. If the bill (and any law that resulted from it) created a state right to breastfeed in public, the senator would be correct that it would prevent local ordinances. But the bill as passed by the senate would not create a state right. If the "right" language had stayed in the bill, then the local ordinance prohibition would not be necessary. The bill as originally drafted was redundant (which isn't always a bad thing when trying to make a point). But by removing the "right," the senator created the need for the local ordinance prohibition.

Hope that helps.

Jake

[mrswilson]

I received a reply yesterday from Patricia Norcott, Jane Earll's Chief of Staff (I am a consitiuent of Earll's). I originally emailed Earll on April 24th, when she voted NO on the bill in committee. Not sure if I can reprint it here in its entirety, but all it said was that Earll voted for the bill on its final passage, and she explained how I can verify this information for myself via the Internet.

[mamajake]

Originally Posted by mrswilson

I received a reply yesterday from Patricia Norcott, Jane Earll's Chief of Staff (I am a consitiuent of Earll's). I originally emailed Earll on April 24th, when she voted NO on the bill in committee. Not sure if I can reprint it here in its entirety, but all it said was that Earll voted for the bill on its final passage, and she explained how I can verify this information for myself via the Internet.

Yes, she did. To my knowledge Earll never made a statement about why she changed her position on the bill but Sen. Williams' explanation for removing the pro-breastfeeding language of SB34 was that some senators had expressed concern that the pro-breastfeeding language was offensive to formula feeding mothers. As far as I know, the only senator who ever expressed that concern was Earll. My conclusion is that Williams removed the "benefits of breastfeeding" language of the bill to get Earll's vote. I could be wrong but it is the only rationale that makes sense to me.

The pro-breastfeeding language was in the bill's preamble, which is not actually law, so removing it has no legal significance.

Hope that helps.