You don't have to stop when someone asks no matter what state you're in. You have the right to NIP anywhere in the country. When a state passes a law declaring it to be legal, they are simply clarifying a right that already exists.

You don't have to stop when someone asks no matter what state you're in. You have the right to NIP anywhere in the country. When a state passes a law declaring it to be legal, they are simply clarifying a right that already exists.

But if a business owner asks you to leave/cover up and there is no law telling him he cannot do otherwise, then you have no choice but to comply. Business owners have a right to decide who they will and will not accept as customers so long as there is no law specifically telling them they cannot, like the Civil Rights Act or a state breastfeeding law.

But if a business owner asks you to leave/cover up and there is no law telling him he cannot do otherwise, then you have no choice but to comply.
You do have a choice. You can politely decline.

Business owners have a right to decide who they will and will not accept as customers
No they don't. They don't have the right to kick out breastfeeding mothers any more than they have the right to kick out formula-feeding fathers. A business would not be legally able to kick someone out by saying, "Sorry, sir, we don't allow fathers to feed their babies bottles in here." Same goes for breastfeeding mothers.

No they don't. They don't have the right to kick out breastfeeding mothers any more than they have the right to kick out formula-feeding fathers. A business would not be legally able to kick someone out by saying, "Sorry, sir, we don't allow fathers to feed their babies bottles in here." Same goes for breastfeeding mothers.

Yes, they do. They have the legal right to refuse service to anyone, unless there is a law specifically protecting a particular class of people.

There's no law specifically protecting blue-eyed people. Do you think a business could legally kick people out by saying "We don't serve blue-eyed people here" ?

I don't need a law specifically telling me I may breathe, or be 5' 4", or breastfeed, or tie my shoe, or smile, or wear a green shirt, etc, etc, etc, while I'm shopping in the corner grocery store. I'm perfectly within my rights doing any of those things in a movie theater or anywhere else, and a business person would not be legally allowed to kick me out for doing any of those things.

There's no law specifically protecting blue-eyed people. Do you think a business could legally kick people out by saying "We don't serve blue-eyed people here" ?

I don't need a law specifically telling me I may breathe, or be 5' 4", or breastfeed, or tie my shoe, or smile, or wear a green shirt, etc, etc, etc, while I'm shopping in the corner grocery store. I'm perfectly within my rights doing any of those things in a movie theater or anywhere else, and a business person would not be legally allowed to kick me out for doing any of those things.

Yes, they could! It's private property. That's one of the most foundational concepts of our legal system. I know it sounds outrageous to think that banning people for wearing a green shirt or whatever is not illegal, but unless there's a specific law about it (and I believe in California that dress is one of those protected categories) it IS legal for the business owner to do so. The fact is that business owners typically don't make these types of arbitrary policies because it's bad for their business--why would they want to exclude people (and their money) just because they are wearing green shirts? But when it comes to breastfeeding in public, the very existence of this forum shows how controversial an issue this is for the general public. If a business owner thinks s/he's going to lose more customers who don't want to see someone breastfeeding in public than breastfeeding mothers who might be offended, then s/he'll try to appease the larger constituency. Hence the need for breastfeeding laws.

There are different laws for private properties such as personal residences than their are for what are known as "places of public accomodation." In a person's private house, they can make up any fool rule they like. They can say they won't allow redheads in their house. But if you open a business up to the public, you're not legally allowed to say things like "If you've ever played the saxophone, you can't come in. We don't serve your kind here." People have to be allowed into places of public accomodation. They have the right to shop in the store that everyone else is allowed to shop in. It would be ridiculous to have to protect that right by passing individual laws like "alright, no one's allowed to discriminate against brown eyed people. And no one's allowed to discriminate against receptionists. And no one's allowed to discriminate against people who like astronomy." By default, you have the legal right to do things like breathe and breastfeed, even if you go in a store. You don't surrender all your rights when you walk through the door. If you go in a restaurant, they're not legally allowed to say "sorry, people between the ages of 40 and 50 aren't allowed to eat in here."



From http://www.llli.org/Law/Bills4.html

"Mothers have a right to breastfeed where they go with their baby, even if that is out in public. It does not matter whether the mother goes to a public or a private place, or even whether they are in a state with legislation. No one has the right to tell a mother how to feed her baby, especially a way that increases the risk of illness to both mother and baby! Legislation has been enacted in nearly one-half of the states in the U.S. because they want to clarify this right, and in some cases, provide a remedy for mothers told to stop breastfeeding. It is hoped that legislation will help to change society's attitudes that breastfeeding is something indecent and should not be done in public. Underlying this, is the goal to increase the rates and duration of breastfeeding recognizing that this is an important health choice that must be encouraged.

...

"It is important to remember that women have a right to breastfeed in public whether there is a law or not. The purpose of legislation is NOT to legalize it, but to clarify the fact that women have the right to breastfeed in public, or that it is not a criminal offense, such as indecent exposure. Thus, if you are in a state that does not have legislation, you still have the right to feed your baby where you go. Breastfeeding legislation often exempts breastfeeding from any criminal statutes, such as amending an indecent exposure or nudity law. More progressive legislation creates a new law that sets forth a woman's right to breastfeed. Some of the laws provide mothers with legal recourse if they are told to stop breastfeeding, such as New York, which has the strongest law in the nation, where a right to breastfeed as one of a person's civil rights was created."

As an attorney, I am well aware that there is a distinction between public accomodations and private residences; however, a public accomodation is still private property if it is privately owned. The distinction is one largely created by laws such as the Civil Rights Act that restrict the rights of private business owners to exclude whomever they choose from their premises. Such laws apply only to places that hold themselves open to the public and not to personal residences or private clubs. But that doesn't mean that places of public accomodation can no longer discriminate. It just means they can't discriminate on the basis of those characteristics that are protected by law.

I have no idea what legal theory the attorneys above are basing their statements on, but it is definitely an extreme view. I think they may be using "right" in the moral sense rather than the legal sense, especially when they make such sweeping statements as the one in the first sentence of the first quote.

In general, you do not have a right to enter or remain in a place of public accommodation. That is the default. You only have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of those characteristics that are protected by law. You don't need a law to tell you can breathe, walk, etc. in the grocery store because no grocery store is going to prohibit you from doing those things; it would be a bad business decision to exclude so many people arbitrarily from their store. But if one did, you would essentially have three choices: comply, leave, or become a trespasser. Of course, public backlash would then follow against the grocery store and a law would probably be passed prohibiting public accommodations from telling customers they cannot breathe, much as breastfeeding discrimination has inspired protests and laws protecting it. You may have had the moral or natural right prior to the law's passage, but you did not have the legal right until it was enacted. But perhaps that's getting too theoretical for this thread?

Standard disclaimer: This is the law generally. I am only licensed to practice law in one state, so I cannot speak to the minutiae of every state's laws. In doing a bit of digging for contrary opinions I discovered that California has a law that has been intrepreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of characteristics other than those expressly listed in the law. But it's still a law that had to be passed to overcome the general common law principle that a private business can choose to exclude whomever s/he desires from his/her business. There could be some states that habe taken a different approach from the one I described but they would be in the minority.

"Mothers have a right to breastfeed where they go with their baby, even if that is out in public" does not seem at all like a sweeping, extreme statement to me. On the contrary, it seems very very basic, like "you have the right to breathe where you go." Certain things are fundamental and don't require specific laws to protect their legality. Breathing. Breastfeeding. One of the dangers of passing specific laws to protect specific rights is that people like you think that that means that anything there isn't a specific law about is not a legal right.

The default is that you do have the right to enter and remain in a place of public accomodation. I doubt you could find a judge that would uphold the "right" of a business owner who had kicked out all the female customers with brown hair, or all the customers who were breastfeeding mothers, whether there were specific laws protecting people about whom such things are true or not.

The reason that I don't need a law telling me I may walk, breathe, and breastfeed in a store isn't that it would hurt businesses to make rules against such actions, nor is it that businesspeople would not want public backlash. The reason is that I have a basic, fundamental right to do such things. Not just a moral right, but a legal right by default. Property ownership is not so strong a claim that property owners have the right to limit such basic functions of people who are on their turf. No law would ever be passed prohibiting business owners from banning breathing. The business owner would simply be informed that people already have the legal right to breathe when they're in his store, even if it's not written down in the law books.

The default is that you do have the right to enter and remain in a place of public accomodation.



This statement is just flat out wrong, legally. It just is. Clearly there is nothing else I can do or say to convince you otherwise, so I'll have to leave it at that.

I walk into a store, I'm within my legal rights. Period. The owner can't just throw me out for being right-handed. No court or judge would accept such an action. But you're right about the fact that you and I have completely different interpretations of law, and the argument isn't getting anywhere, so we might as well just drop it. :rainbow

I walk into a store, I'm within my legal rights. Period. The owner can't just throw me out for being right-handed. No court or judge would accept such an action. But you're right about the fact that you and I have completely different interpretations of law, and the argument isn't getting anywhere, so we might as well just drop it. :rainbow

Deal. :)

Deal. :)

I know you guys agree to disagree, but I had to chime in in agreement with Evie. SOme examples:

No Shoes. No shirt, no service: Public yet privately-owned businesses have the right to kick anyone out who violates their rules, so long as they are not protected BY LAW. There's no reason to ask you to leave for having brown hair or blue eyes - but if you wearing a controversial shirt or not wearing shoes would turn off other customers, they can ask you to leave - and you would have to leave or be removed by the police, whose job is to protect the rights of property owners

Jim Crow laws - in the 1950's and 1960's, people were regularly kicked out of public spaces b/c of their race - the ONLY thing that forced private property owners to stop this practice was the passing of the Civil Rights Act - without that protection, businesses could still restrict who comes into their space and the police would have to back them up. Nursing mothers are NOT protected by law except in those states that have specific laws protecting them.

Laws protecting guidedogs - businesses have the exception for service dogs b/c they are required to do so by law - otherwise they could just deny all dogs/animals and people who needed service dogs wouldn't be allowed.

Protections of the civil rights act are NOT extended to gay/lesbian/transgender/queer people unless a specific state has passed such laws. So the Cracker Barrel, for example, has fired employees for being gay and asked queer people to leave the restaurant - and it is their RIGHT to do so in my state, where there are no specific protections for queer folks(which is but one reason I boycott the place). The business can't tell them not to be gay, but can make them leave. and the fact is that most people in my state would either not care about that discrimination or would support it ("I don't want my kids to see that!") - so there is no real economic incentive for the business to change it's practice (unlike discriminating against blue eyed people which would hurt them financially) and there is no legal incentive either (unlike trying to kick out someone for being Black, which is illegal).

Mothering had a great feature a few months ago on breastfeeding and the law - BF is NOT protected in every state, and there are many levels of protection, so a president who supports protecting BF and NIP under the law can support meaningful change in the lives of women.

Of course, we all have the right to refuse to stop NIP if asked - but depending on the laws of YOUR state, if the police come they may side with the business owner and ask you to leave or even cite you for indecent exposure (not in most states, but possible in a small minority)

Certainly they can require shoes. They have the right to protect themselves from lawsuits if someone steps on something sharp. They can refuse people service if they have a reasonable basis for doing so. But they can't exclude people based on absurd rules they've made up. They can't kick people out arbitrarily. They can't say "sorry, people who wear their babies instead of using a stroller aren't welcome here" or "sorry, people who wear glasses instead of contacts aren't welcome here." They can't discriminate against groups of people, whether it's librarians or breastfeeding mothers. They can't kick people out for doing something they have a right to do and which doesn't cause anyone else harm, whether it's breastfeeding or blinking.

They can refuse people service if they have a reasonable basis for doing so. But they can't exclude people based on absurd rules they've made up. They can't kick people out arbitrarily. They can't say "sorry, people who wear their babies instead of using a stroller aren't welcome here" or "sorry, people who wear glasses instead of contacts aren't welcome here." They can't discriminate against groups of people, whether it's librarians or breastfeeding mothers.

Yes. They can. The ONLY THING preventing racist business owners from saying "no people of color allowed" is the Civil Rights Act. The ONLY THING allowing people with disablities access to so-called public places is the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Teenagers get asked to leave places ALL THE TIME b/c restaurants and businesses don't want them near. The Home Depot makes day laborers leave the parking lot because they don't want them there - there is no law protecting the right of day laborers from Home depot parking lot discrimination. Some Tatoo parlors do not allow children period - the law allows children to be there supervised, but the business has the right to say no and there's no law protecting the right of a child to be in a tatoo parlor. And YES you can be asked to not bring children in strollers or carriers places - ever been to a consignment sale on a friday morning?

If your local supermarket decided tomorrow that they didn't want a certain group there - so long as it is not a "protected class" under the law, it is their right to do so. You can't be discriminated against in that manner by race, religion, age, sex - the things covered by law. But BF status is NOT protected by law in all states, neither is sexual identity or transgender status in many places. We feel a sense of confidence b/c of the civil rights act - but 30 years ago, as a woman you would have easily been kept out of otherwise public places, and people of color were segregated out of many public (both state owned and privately owned) places. The only difference, legally, between then and now is laws like the CRA - without such laws, the property owner would retain the right to say "sorry, woman, this place is only for men" or "sorry, African American person, you cannot come in this store" and the police would defend the property owner. Every identity is not protected.

And while the shoes law is "practical" - why the no shirts rule (for males)? B/c some people find it offensive or trashy and the business wants to seem more upstanding.

Common sense and profit motive prevents most discrimination of this kind - but a mother was kicked off a plane LAST YEAR for breastfeeding - and she only has the right to pursue legal remedy because of where the plane was landed (vermont) - had it been in another city, she would have just been kicked off a plane with no legal recourse, and the business would have been within its rights.

Teenagers get asked to leave places ALL THE TIME b/c restaurants and businesses don't want them near. The Home Depot makes day laborers leave the parking lot because they don't want them there - there is no law protecting the right of day laborers from Home depot parking lot discrimination.
Sounds like you're talking about loitering, not customers.

Some Tatoo parlors do not allow children period - the law allows children to be there supervised, but the business has the right to say no and there's no law protecting the right of a child to be in a tatoo parlor.
Obviously children are not allowed in tatoo parlors, nor are they allowed in strip clubs. This is apples and oranges.

And YES you can be asked to not bring children in strollers or carriers places - ever been to a consignment sale on a friday morning?
They can't tell you that you can't use a sling and that you must put your child down in a stroller instead. Have you ever heard of a single instance of a store owner telling a mother she must take her child from her sling and put the child in a stroller immediately, or leave the store immediately? Even if it happened, the law would be on the mother's side.

without such laws, the property owner would retain the right to say "sorry, woman, this place is only for men" or "sorry, African American person, you cannot come in this store" and the police would defend the property owner.
That's not true. Even if the police did do that, the courts would rule in favor of the customer.

a mother was kicked off a plane LAST YEAR for breastfeeding - and she only has the right to pursue legal remedy because of where the plane was landed (vermont) - had it been in another city, she would have just been kicked off a plane with no legal recourse, and the business would have been within its rights.
No it wouldn't have. She would have had legal recourse. The fact that there was a state involved that had a specific law simply made it easier for her.

In the July/Aug issue of mothering they have the map listing if a woman is protected while nursing in public. I can't seem to bring up the link. Anyhow, this is what I was referring to. In PA it says there is no law protecting the right to nurse in public. So if I/or anyone else were to refuse the request to leave an establishment/or stop nursing, there could be legal consequences? That's how I interpreted it.

bbrandonsmom, if it's Pennsylvania you're concerned about then you don't need to worry. That state enacted a breastfeeding protection law last year, just not in time to make it into the July/August issue of Mothering. You can read the text of the law here (http://www.llli.org/Law/Bills33.html).

No. Read this article from the La Leche League organization's website:

http://www.llli.org/Law/Bills4.html

"Mothers have a right to breastfeed where they go with their baby, even if that is out in public. It does not matter whether the mother goes to a public or a private place, or even whether they are in a state with legislation.

"Legislation has been enacted in nearly one-half of the states in the U.S. because they want to clarify this right... Underlying this, is the goal to increase the rates and duration of breastfeeding recognizing that this is an important health choice that must be encouraged."

"It is important to remember that women have a right to breastfeed in public whether there is a law or not. The purpose of legislation is NOT to legalize it, but to clarify the fact that women have the right to breastfeed in public"

"Thus, if you are in a state that does not have legislation, you still have the right to feed your baby where you go."

Look, I know we agreed to disagree, but I can't just let this be out there as the *official* position of the law, because it simply isn't. In those states without public breastfeeding laws, you do not have the *legal* right to breastfeed on private property. If a private business owner asks you to stop or cover up, you have three options: leave, comply, or become a trespasser.
From a practical standpoint, if the police were called in such a situation they would side with the business, because the business owner has a right to refuse service. (And this happens even in states WITH breastfeeding protection laws, though clearly it shouldn't.) Are you going to get arrested? Probably not, as I've never heard of a case where that happened, but it's a possibility. Especially if you continue to assert your non-existent right to the police.

I agree with Evie and Yo Becca on that off-topic topic...ever hear of requiring a dress coat and tie in a nice, fancy restaurant?

I look forward to hearing more of what people learn about the candidates' views on bfing, nip, and legislation.

In those states without public breastfeeding laws, you do not have the *legal* right to breastfeed on private property.
You've already said this, and I still maintain that people have the legal right to breastfeed everywhere.

I know we agreed to disagree, but I can't just let this be out there as the *official* position of the law, because it simply isn't.
That's your interpretation. Your opinion. The article that I quoted, from the La Leche League website, was written by a lawyer.

If a private business owner asks you to stop or cover up, you have three options: leave, comply, or become a trespasser.
As I said before, you have the option of politely declining. Remaining in a place of public accomodation after a business person has harassed you is not traspassing.

From a practical standpoint, if the police were called in such a situation they would side with the business, because the business owner has a right to refuse service.
I think they would be more likely to side with the mother. Even if they didn't, I believe the court would side with the mother. The business owner does not have the right to refuse service on the basis of a mother nursing her child.

Especially if you continue to assert your non-existent right to the police.
As I said before, the right to breastfeed where one goes does exist, whether it is written down or not. It is fundamental.

ever hear of requiring a dress coat and tie in a nice, fancy restaurant?
Fancy restaurants require fancy clothes because they are fancy restaurants. Someone who harasses a breastfeeding mother has no such excuse.

Fancy restaurants require fancy clothes because they are fancy restaurants. Someone who harasses a breastfeeding mother has no such excuse.

this is completely circular. i could just as easily say, "non-breastfeeding establishments require not breastfeeding because they are non-breastfeeding places." it's the same thing as what you've said about fancy restaurants.

the point is, if the people being excluded from the establishment are not a protected class, or their behavior is not a legally entitled behavior, they can be excluded. period.

personally, i would like to see breastfeeding mothers added to a civil rights bill saying people can't be discriminated against because of race, sex, creed, color, disability, etc. etc., breastfeeding status. yes, i'm serious. probably lots of other groups should be added, too!

some would say BF status is implied under "sex," and i suppose it is, but that hasn't done us a whole lot of good so far.

this is completely circular. i could just as easily say, "non-breastfeeding establishments require not breastfeeding because they are non-breastfeeding places." it's the same thing as what you've said about fancy restaurants.
No it isn't. There's no such thing as a "non-breastfeeding establishment." Nobody ever says "Hey honey, it's a special occasion, let's go to the non-breastfeeding establishment tonight." It would be illegal to open a cafe called the Breastfeeding-free Cafe.

the point is, if the people being excluded from the establishment are not a protected class, or their behavior is not a legally entitled behavior, they can be excluded. period.
Breastfeeding is a legally entitled behavior.

Okie dokie, here is the new thread. Have fun! :D

Sorry Sustainer, this has been brought up here before. You are misinterpreting the article from the LLL website. Yes, you can choose to decline to leave a public accomodation when asked to by the owner but then you are a trespasser. Evie and others are correct and there really isn't any room for debate about how discrimination law in public accomodations works. Yes, unless a law (as civil rights laws do with race and sex) specifically lists "breastfeeding" among the statuses that are protected against discrimination in public accomodations, you can be asked to leave. If you refuse you are a trespasser and can be arrested. You can be asked to leave a public accomodation for having blue eyes or wearing a green shirt. Unless a state law specifically says that the right to breastfeeding supercedes the right of the property owner, the public breastfeeding law will not prevent arrest for trespass.

Originally, breastfeeding activists thought that passing laws that clarify that public breastfeeding is not a crime would be sufficient to discourage discrimination. Unfortunately, that has turned out not to be the case. Everything that does not violate the legal rights of another is legal unless a law makes it illegal. You can not be arrested for breastfeeding because it isn't in and of itself illegal, anymore than you can be for breathing. But breastfeeding or breathing do not give you the right to be in private space - even if that space is open to the public. The trap in most public breastfeeding laws is that they purport to create a legal right where a women "is otherwise authorized to be." Her authorization to be in a space is controlled by the property owner. Withdraw the authority to be there, and the right is gone.

For the pp who was looking, the link to the state law map is http://www.mothering.com/resources/map.pdf . It has been updated to reflect the PA law, which like so many other states merely restates what was already true but provides no remedy when the right to breastfeed in public is violated. The map does not reflect which state laws are drafted in such a way as to prevent arrest for trespass.

I know people don't want to believe that most public breastfeeding laws actually don't protect the right to breastfeed in public. It does feel like a betrayal. I also understand the general distrust of lawyers - I don't care for them much either though I have been one for twenty years. Interpreting the law regarding regulation of public accomodations is not complicated, but it is law and something for which law school prepares us. I think a little respect for that is in order, particularly since we are on the same side.

... Originally, breastfeeding activists thought that passing laws that clarify that public breastfeeding is not a crime would be sufficient to discourage discrimination. Unfortunately, that has turned out not to be the case. Everything that does not violate the legal rights of another is legal unless a law makes it illegal. You can not be arrested for breastfeeding because it isn't in and of itself illegal, anymore than you can be for breathing. But breastfeeding or breathing do not give you the right to be in private space - even if that space is open to the public. The trap in most public breastfeeding laws is that they purport to create a legal right where a women "is otherwise authorized to be." Her authorization to be in a space is controlled by the property owner. Withdraw the authority to be there, and the right is gone....

mamajake,
It looks like I had it backwards. I thought that the "Otherwise authorized" language meant that the only question was whether Mom and Baby would be allowed somewhere regardless of whether they were nursing or not; and that if they were allowed then a business owner could not create a policy against NIP since they were "otherwise" permitted to be there. A "plain reading" would seem to suggest that "otherwise" refers to everything other than BF'ing (everything else except "protected" categories: e.g. "no shoes, no shirt, no service; black tie; no ripped jeans; no food or beverage; etc.)

I also understand the general distrust of lawyers - I don't care for them much either though I have been one for twenty years. Interpreting the law regarding regulation of public accomodations is not complicated, but it is law and something for which law school prepares us. I think a little respect for that is in order, particularly since we are on the same side.

I don't think lawyers are much better or worse than any other professionals. However, there is a perception problem because they are (and should be) held to a higher standard. So when they "slip" the disappointment is greater. My gripe has more to do with Legislators in particular.

It reminds me of the old expression about people who love the law ... that as with people that love sausage, they shouldn't watch it being made. It is a messy business.

With respect to the pending legislation in Massachusetts, I hate this icky feeling that I need to keep my eye on the ball for fear that someone is going to trade this proposed law for something else. All in the name of the "greater good", of course.
~Cath

mamajake,
It looks like I had it backwards. I thought that the "Otherwise authorized" language meant that the only question was whether Mom and Baby would be allowed somewhere regardless of whether they were nursing or not; and that if they were allowed then a business owner could not create a policy against NIP since they were "otherwise" permitted to be there.
~Cath

No, Cath. Whether a woman is "authorized" to be somewhere is not affected by a public breastfeeding law. It is important that both mom and baby are authorized to be somewhere in order to breastfeed. Some moms have thought that public breastfeeding laws created a right for a child to be in a space the child is otherwise excluded from and that is wrong.

The insertion of "otherwise authorized to be" language was justified as protection for private property owners (i.e. homes) who can toss out anyone for any reason. But public accomodation owners have always used it. :(

Some state laws start out with the clause "notwithstanding any other provision of law," which I argue is legislative intent to have the breastfeeding right trump the private property right. But there has been no case using my argument so I don't know if it would hold up.

Women are threatened with arrest for trespass regularly in states with "authorized to be" language alone. We don't hear about actual arrests often because as soon as a mom realizes arrest involves separation from the child (and the child going to child protective services if mom has no adult to take the child right there), moms leave.

Agreed about the legislative process. <deep sigh> Unfortunately "pro-breastfeeding" people have thought any public breastfeeding law is good and "anti" people have thought the issue is whether public breastfeeding should be made legal. The vast majority of people think they know that public breastfeeding is either illegal or a right that can be enforced. The first position is always wrong and unfortunately the second is almost always wrong as well. Legislators have usually taken the easy way by passing laws that don't actually change the status quo.

They can't tell you that you can't use a sling and that you must put your child down in a stroller instead. Have you ever heard of a single instance of a store owner telling a mother she must take her child from her sling and put the child in a stroller immediately, or leave the store immediately? Even if it happened, the law would be on the mother's side.


I've seen stores and other locations that ban strollers.

... Legislators have usually taken the easy way by passing laws that don't actually change the status quo.

mamajake,
I guess the smoke and mirror act is worse than I realized.

I do take heart that the language in the current version of the proposed Mass law is similar to that in the Vermont law that protected the Delta/Freedom passenger. Actually it occurs to me that if you are correct about the significance of the word "otherwise" I have to wonder how the passenger came out on top on this one. Couldn't the airline simply say she didn't "otherwise" have permission? Or is this only because they were acting as a sub or agent of Delta and therefore Delta's "stated" BF'ing friendly policy applied? Do you think the result would have been different if the passenger couldn't point to Delta's policy?

I'll have to look at the current version of the proposed Mass. law again but I now realize that it is probably weaker than one of the recent versions which had language pre-empting other laws that might apply.

In any case,this reinforces my cliched observation about lawmaking being a messy business. Correct me if I'm wrong but at least the proposed Mass. law in its current version doesn't weaken the status quo. And I have to hope that it will make moms more aware of their rights and give them something concrete to tell someone anyone giving them a hard time.

~Cath

mamajake,
I guess the smoke and mirror act is worse than I realized.

I do take heart that the language in the current version of the proposed Mass law is similar to that in the Vermont law that protected the Delta/Freedom passenger. Actually it occurs to me that if you are correct about the significance of the word "otherwise" I have to wonder how the passenger came out on top on this one. Couldn't the airline simply say she didn't "otherwise" have permission? Or is this only because they were acting as a sub or agent of Delta and therefore Delta's "stated" BF'ing friendly policy applied? Do you think the result would have been different if the passenger couldn't point to Delta's policy?

I'll have to look at the current version of the proposed Mass. law again but I now realize that it is probably weaker than one of the recent versions which had language pre-empting other laws that might apply.

In any case,this reinforces my cliched observation about lawmaking being a messy business. Correct me if I'm wrong but at least the proposed Mass. law in its current version doesn't weaken the status quo. And I have to hope that it will make moms more aware of their rights and give them something concrete to tell someone anyone giving them a hard time.

~Cath

Now Vermont is an excellent example of many things. First, the law is in the human relations act and comes with a mechanism for enforcing it against violators like any other act of prohibited discrimination in a public accomodation - otherwise Emily Gillette would be pretty much SOL. Also the wording is: "(J) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any place of public accommodation in which the mother and child would otherwise have a legal right to be." Check out the "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause which I think shows an intent to trump the property right, as I wrote above. Despite all this, Delta is still fighting this case tooth and nail. Delta lost its first attempt to get the case dismissed but the case is not over yet. I have very high hopes but the case has not yet been won by the mom. So Vermont is also an excellent example of how hard an owner will fight for the right to discriminate against breastfeeding women.

Certainly they can require shoes. They have the right to protect themselves from lawsuits if someone steps on something sharp. They can refuse people service if they have a reasonable basis for doing so. But they can't exclude people based on absurd rules they've made up. They can't kick people out arbitrarily. They can't say "sorry, people who wear their babies instead of using a stroller aren't welcome here" or "sorry, people who wear glasses instead of contacts aren't welcome here." They can't discriminate against groups of people, whether it's librarians or breastfeeding mothers. They can't kick people out for doing something they have a right to do and which doesn't cause anyone else harm, whether it's breastfeeding or blinking.

if places like ruby tusedays can ban you having your stroller or infant seat in their resturaunt and make it hell for disabled patrons to even get into the place, then they can kick you out for nursing in there if there is no law protecting you.

My local mall has a "Youth Escort Policy." On Fri. and Sat. nights after 6pm unless escorted by an adult, you are not allowed to be in the mall if you are under 18. Security and off duty police check ID's and kick any violators out.

It does not matter if the teenagers are loitering or making purchases. They do not have to be causing problems to be kicked out. They are simply not allowed to be there with an adult. The only reason is their age.

As a privately owned business, the mall has rescinded permission for anyone under 18 years old to be there with out an escort. They are legally allowed to do this.

It's not the same as a bar or club limiting entrance by age because nothing about the mall environment during these times changes from the times when all ages are welcome.

Private businesses are allowed to limit who they welcome. It would be stupid to refuse to serve a specific group. If a business suddenly stopping serving right handed people there would be public outcry, news stories, all sorts of hubbub. The business would lose money. But business owners do have that right. That's what lactivists try to do with nurse-ins, letter writing, etc. since legally, we can't do anything because businesses are with in their legal rights.

My dad owned and ran a small restaurant for years. He asked several people to leave for various reasons. One I remember was a man who was a regular customer and regular complainer. One day he was arguing that he deserved to be given a free replacement sandwich because "the bread was cut too raggedly" He was not breaking any laws. He was not disrupting any other customers. He was simply being a PITA. My dad asked him to leave and never return. Legally, Dad could do that because, as a business owner, he has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason not protected by law.

Some business owners see BF'ing moms as being a PITA disturbing and offending other customers. Just like my dad had the right to kick out the idiot complaining about how his bread was cut, they have the right to kick out BF'ing moms in the absence of laws protecting BF'ing.

For the pp who was looking, the link to the state law map is http://www.mothering.com/resources/map.pdf . It has been updated to reflect the PA law, which like so many other states merely restates what was already true but provides no remedy when the right to breastfeed in public is violated.

Emphasis mine. Could you please help me understand what happens where there IS a remedy available? Under the Illinois breastfeeding laws, a woman whose right to breastfeed is violated is allowed to sue for the right to breastfeed (not for damages, but for costs & atty fees and a court to say "Yep, she can breastfeed there"). Does this add teeth to an otherwise legally unhelpful "clarification"? Or does it again mean that the property owner can say "Nope, I don't want you here" and the mother can get a court to rule that she can breastfeed there, but not that she can be there, so it's still pointless? That's what I want to know. I've asked the question before here, but never gotten an answer from the lawyers among the crowd. :D Thanks!

Here is a copy & paste of a pertinent excerpt of the IL BF law:

Section 10. Breastfeeding Location. A mother may
breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where
the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of
whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during
or incidental to the breastfeeding; however, a mother
considering whether to breastfeed her baby in a place of
worship shall comport her behavior with the norms appropriate
in that place of worship.

Section 15. Private right of action. A woman who has been
denied the right to breastfeed by the owner or manager of a
public or private location, other than a private residence or
place of worship, may bring an action to enjoin future denials
of the right to breastfeed. If the woman prevails in her suit,
she shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and reasonable
expenses of litigation.

Emphasis mine.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0942&GA=093

Emphasis mine. Could you please help me understand what happens where there IS a remedy available? Under the Illinois breastfeeding laws, a woman whose right to breastfeed is violated is allowed to sue for the right to breastfeed (not for damages, but for costs & atty fees and a court to say "Yep, she can breastfeed there"). Does this add teeth to an otherwise legally unhelpful "clarification"? Or does it again mean that the property owner can say "Nope, I don't want you here" and the mother can get a court to rule that she can breastfeed there, but not that she can be there, so it's still pointless? That's what I want to know. I've asked the question before here, but never gotten an answer from the lawyers among the crowd. :D Thanks!

Here is a copy & paste of a pertinent excerpt of the IL BF law:





Emphasis mine.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0942&GA=093

What the remedy is depends on each individual state law. The map shows which states (like Illinois) have a specific remedy but there is no central place that links to each state's remedy.

Having a remedy means there is something (file a lawsuit, file a complaint) to enforce compliance with the law. Different wording can effect whether a public accomodation owner can get a police officer to help have a mom removed - if it isn't trespass or another crime, the police can't arrest. However, what about refusal to serve? What can a mom do if an owner refuses to serve her because she is breastfeeding? If the law does not give her a specific remedy for violating her right to breastfeed, there is nothing she can do under that law.

Illinois is an interesting case I have been asked about before. The way the law reads, it looks as though an owner has the right to withdraw authorization but there is a penalty to be used against store owners as well. As far as I know, there have been no lawsuits under section 15. I don't know why since the law seems to cry out for one. How Illinois' law will be interpreted won't be known until a judge actually has to interpret it. It is not that unusual for laws to be unclear but most will be interpreted by courts soon enough. As a lawyer one always checks both the wording of the law and the cases in which courts have interpreted how the law is to be applied. A big problem with most state public breastfeeding laws is that there is no way for cases to be filed (no remedy=no access to courts) so that courts will interpret the language.

This business about owners withdrawing authorization didn't occur to me a dozen years ago when these laws were first being passed. Then when state authorities in Texas supported Texas business owners' position that they could withdraw authorization, I smacked myself in the head. It was a painful "duh" moment. Business owners may not know anything about their own state public breastfeeding law, but they sure know their right to turn invitees into trespassers.

See http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/breastfeeding/lactation-law.html for a discussion of what happens without enforcement provisions in state breastfeeding laws.

Hope that helps.

[removed accidental duplicate post]