Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DBassett
 I just came here looking for this because my rep emailed me. She said she was proud to vote yes but it without the amendment
 I do feel that it's a step in the right direction however the fact that the owner of a business can still have you removed because of this is disheartening. I have a question though- if you are asked to leave based purely on the fact that you are breastfeeding, do we not have the rights to fight it because it IS discrimination? I mean, if a person is going to have a BFing mom removed they NEED to remove EVERY SINGLE bottle feeding mother as well OR it's discrimination. I realize that bottle feeding mothers aren't potentially exposing breast BUT BFing moms don't really expose that much skin nor should THAT be an issue. Both BFing and bottle feeding are forms of feeding a child and if one is cause for removal than the other should be as well.I understand what was passed I'm just confused on a discrimination stand point. I understand that with the way it's written business owners still have the right to revoke the authority to be there BUT don't they have to have a legitimate reason? Isn't revoking the authority to be there because of breastfeeding (but not bottle feeding) discrimination? |
This has always been the case and the new law does not alter that. The law did not create this situation, it just didn't change it.
The important thing for PA moms to do now is to plan ahead of time what they will do in the still unlikely event that they are asked to cover up or leave. Women should feel as free to breastfeed in public as they always have. But they should understand what options they do and do not have.
Education is the key now. Women need to know what options they have. Because of the huge amount of disinformation being disseminated about the new law, it is vital that PA women know that their options now are the same as they always were.
Legislators do need to know when there are examples of harassment while the law is in force so they will understand the need for a stronger law. But the legislative fight is over for the foreseeable future. One of the reasons I fought so hard for an actual change in the law is because I knew this was the last shot we would have for at least three or four years, probably longer. The legislature is not going to get involved in this for at least a few sessions. They don't consider the same issue in successive sessions. Theoretically they could, but in real life they don't.
Jake
