News

More Teeth

City's New Breast-Feeding Regulations Would Fine Prudish Businesses

More Teeth

Kelly O

BREAST FRIENDS Council Member Bruce Harrell (center) with (from left to right) Mergitu Argo, Marta Idowu, Jamila Johnson, and Jacque Larrainzar.

"Who wants to feed their child in a bathroom stall?" That was the question of the hour at an April 4 meeting of the Seattle City Council's civil rights committee—a question posed by Leticia Brooks, a young mother. Behind her, a crowd of mothers discreetly nursed their children and patiently awaited their chance to speak. "Would you eat your lunch in a public restroom?" Brooks then asked committee chair Bruce Harrell, along with Council Members Nick Licata and Mike O'Brien. The men were silent. O'Brien meekly shook his head. But, as Brooks explained, she was recently forced to do just that—feed her hungry son in a public restroom—after someone complained about seeing her nursing in a restaurant. "When I think back to that moment, sitting on that toilet and feeding my child, my heart breaks," she said.

Brooks is just one of many mothers who shared stories of being kicked out of restaurants, malls, even public parks by strangers who felt entitled to tell them when, and where, they could feed their children. "I was told by a stranger to go nurse in my car," another mother said. She didn't own a car. "It was humiliating—it made me want to give up on breast-feeding."

In recent weeks, these mothers, along with a crowd of doctors and nutritionists, have pushed the council to make breast-feeding in public a protected civil right by arguing that nursing lowers child obesity rates, infection rates, and chronic diseases, while improving a mother's mental and physical health (lowering breast- and ovarian-cancer risks, for example). They also pointed out that breast-feeding has been linked with reducing infant mortality rates.

On April 9, breast-feeding advocates scored their victory, as the council unanimously approved legislation making breast-feeding mothers a protected class in Seattle. Harrell, the legislation's sponsor, has dismissed scattered opposition from sexed-up residents who squawked about the salaciousness of seeing a woman's bare breast, saying simply, "This is a civil rights issue."

While its passage is certainly great news, the ordinance doesn't cover new ground. Forty-five states have breast-feeding laws that allow women to breast-feed in public, including Washington, which passed such a law in 2009. However, as the women's testimony has proved, most people aren't aware of the law or complaints go unresolved. Abigail Echo-Hawk, a spokeswoman for Seattle Women's Commission, estimates that she's heard of at least 70 local discrimination complaints from mothers simply while lobbying for the new city ordinance.

Where state law has come up short, Harrell's legislation gives local government new authority to enforce the rules.

The new ordinance, which will likely take effect in May, will allow mothers to lodge discrimination complaints with the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, which will then investigate the alleged discriminatory businesses and collect statements from the mothers and witnesses. If the city finds a violation, it could impose fines of $750 or more, consistent with any other city discrimination charge (such as discrimination based on gender, race, or sexual orientation), and require that a business complete sensitivity training. In addition, a mother could seek claims of up to $10,000 in Seattle Municipal Court.

"It's not a sexy issue," says Harrell, but it's absolutely necessary. "It's our job to educate people, to make them see that this is the original purpose of the mammary glands—of the breast."

Clearly, people need that education: "I do not wish to sit in a public place for which I am probably paying such as a restaurant and have someone breast-feed without being covered up," one woman wrote in an e-mail to city council members, while comparing breast-feeding to indecent exposure. "What is the big deal about covering up?"

The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), which is tasked with investigating state claims of breast-feeding discrimination, has received only three complaints from nursing mothers since 2009, who say they were ordered to stop breast-feeding while in a physical rehabilitation office in Mill Creek, at Sol Duc Hot Springs, and, bizarrely, at a day care center in Long Beach (lest the sight of a woman's bare breast spark an infant orgy). Only one of those cases has been resolved, with a $5,000 savings bond in the baby's name and training for the business. And more than anything, the low complaint rate speaks to the commission's current cash-strapped state. The WSHRC has recently laid off workers and closed its Seattle office; numerous calls to contact a spokesperson either reached disconnected numbers or went unreturned. (I can only imagine that lodging a complaint with the commission would be equally trying.)

In contrast, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights has staff to investigate claims and educate the public. Harrell and the civil rights office deserve a lifetime supply of free milk shakes for pinpointing this weakness in state law and working hard to reinforce protections for local women. recommended

 

Comments (20) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
slade 20
@17 if you didn't get before you can stop acting like you get it now? this law allows a woman to whip out a tit anywhere and feed a baby.

Nothing against breast feeding but much against the over all intelligence of Americans who come from every nation, religion, and background?

Women have breast fed all the time about anywhere and its really not obvious as you cant really see a tit or a baby feeding unless you flop a tit out and don't bother to cover anything?

As you may need a "law" to do anything you may need a "law" to take a shit or sneeze or cough or ejaculate?

Its "legal" now to breast feed your baby?

I guess its the lack of contrast thinking deeply embedded in the Microsoft bionary code brains of the Seattle crowd that only understands 01010101 that impedes anyone from asking the questions of "why" we need law's that lets women feed baby's in public and/or in privately owned establishments? 010101?010101?
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on April 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM · Report
19
Okay so here's the deal. Breasts were invented solely for feeding infants. That's why they exist. That is what their function is all about. Cultures apply specific meanings to things like body parts, some cultures think a bared neck is sexually alluring, some an ankle, etc. These overlays of culturally defined meaning don't change the fact that the neck is designed to support and mobilize the head, the ankle to aid in walking. Just because a culture defines something in a certain way doesn't mean that's what that thing *is*. In our culture the female breast is fetishized: hidden, displayed, propped up, mashed down, made sexually important. But at the end of the day, the breast is about baby food. So if a woman wants to use her breasts "in the way that God intended," what culturally-limited human has the right to tell her otherwise?
Posted by Sje0468 on April 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM · Report
18
Does merely holding a baby legalize a bare breast? Will bare breasts now be permitted in strip clubs? Will we have bare breast bars and taverns? A new Seattle perversion?
Posted by billwald on April 16, 2012 at 7:30 AM · Report
17
@16 - please, for heaven's sake, see a therapist. Reading the Stranger is not the same as actually getting real help.

Good article. I didn't think this sort of thing would have been important because it has never impacted me, but I get why it makes a difference now.
Posted by TPS Report on April 16, 2012 at 3:13 AM · Report
slade 16
Never stops being amazing how comments reflect that people actually believe that America and Americans are so full of common sense. be it totally cool to be able to grab a child and nothing else and hit the road (no bag no formula no diapers no food no nothing) and just take your shirt off and feed your baby as its comfortable. The precedent is made that mothers may go topless. and once again it seems people are lost on the view that that relates to their age gender social status and economic ladder.

As my man boobs are bigger than Dolly Partons and the hair on my nipples rivals that of whats on the head of Don King, Can I pull my shirt off any where any time and massage them as they "need" it?

My self would the need to dawn a light fabric to cover up as I breast fed and knowing of the imbalances of mothering women who are undergoing radical changes in short periods of time I can only hope I could manage anything.

But none the less I am left with what seems to be a topples acceptance of any time any place for breast feeding mothers? Milk can squirt and milk can drip and baby's can burp up.
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on April 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM · Report
15
@13:

Pumping is a pain. It's dreary. It's also time consuming. Why would I shove one more thing into a day already full of baby-related tasks to avoid offending someone who could just look away?

To me, that's the key: You can choose to look, or not to look. Me, I don't much like seeing men in Speedos, so I don't look. I don't really like to watch frat boys hit on drunk girls, so I don't look. You also have that option. Why is your comfort and convenience more important than mine and that of my baby?

Posted by sage-femme on April 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report
14
@13 Some people need to be offended.
Posted by Those pearls won't just clutch themselves! on April 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM · Report
13
Hummm, well, where I'm originally from, (Not the United States, obviously..) there are often public "baby rooms" where mothers can breast feed their babies and change diapers, etc, in discretion at malls/department stores and train stations and such, so this sort of thing has never been really an issue. (at least as long as I know.) And normally, mothers in my country prepare milk, (breast milk or not), before going out with their babies because they know some people will get "offended" by breast feeding action. I personally have never seen a mother breast feeding right in the public eye, so I'd probably get shocked a bit at first, but look away.. It's just too much of an "intimate" act to perform in public for me....Rather uncomfortable feeling, to be honest.. Well, it's a cultural difference, I guess... But, when you know that there are certainly people who will get uncomfortable with being around this intimate act, and if you care about others, wouldn't you prepare the milk before leaving the house? Or is it too much of a tedium for you? I'm just wondering...
Posted by puglove on April 12, 2012 at 11:19 PM · Report
12
@6 What could be more important than making sure people have their rights protected. Especially, considering the attacks on womens rights that have been coming from the republicans.
Posted by jacksont on April 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM · Report
11
I was shocked when I learner this was even an issue. I breastfeed my six month old everywhere and have never had anyone say a word about it.
To the person who said they've never seen a baby nursing uncovered. There's a good chance you have and didn't notice. A lot of the time it just looks like they're sleeping facing towards their mom.
Posted by jolsen on April 12, 2012 at 1:50 PM · Report
10
I breastfed my two kids for a combined total of six years. We spent a lot of time in parks, in restaurants, in stores, in coffee shops. (Hey, Trader Joe's! It's us! The wine-aisle breastfeeders!) I can't remember anyone ever saying anything, but if they had, I would have invited them not to look. If breastfeeding offends you, don't look. It's not like they have magnets. Just go eat your breakfast, and let my kid do the same.
Posted by sage-femme on April 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report
The Law Won 9
Infant mortality rates are unacceptably high in Seattle for native and African American babies. With tight government budgets, an increased number of women breastfeeding cuts down on social services (like formula through WIC)and increases health of babies in the first year. This law IS important as one part of a greater effort.
Posted by The Law Won on April 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM · Report
8
Great blog concept "The breast feeders of Seattle". Nothing beats a summer of taking public pictures of breast feeding women.
Posted by happypics on April 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM · Report
7
Great blog concept "The breast feeders of Seattle". Nothing beats a summer of taking public pictures of breast feeding women.
Posted by creampuff on April 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM · Report
6
Are you teling me Harrell doesnt have more important things to do? Really?
Posted by wc on April 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM · Report
5
I completely agree, and that's why I also advocate allowing public nudity and sex. It's just how god or nature intended it afterall! Can we poop in the street now too? It's just a natural part of the eating cycle you prudes!
Posted by sarcasmdudeitssarcasm on April 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM · Report
Brandon Arkell 4
"What's the big deal about covering up?" The big deal is that it's inconvenient, degrading, shaming, and unfair. Mothers should be able to feed their babies without hiding it. What's the big deal about seeing a breast?? They're feeding their babies, not slapping you in the face with it.
Posted by Brandon Arkell http://www.brandonarkell.com on April 12, 2012 at 12:02 AM · Report
3
| eating as nature intended

FTFY
Posted by LOLVOLUTION on April 11, 2012 at 6:31 PM · Report
2
Thanks for reporting on this, Cienna. It's worth mentioning that I don't think I've ever seen a woman breastfeeding in a public place uncovered. This can't possibly be a wide-spread problem. People who can't handle the sight of a baby eating as God intended is the actual problem, and I'm glad that's been identified.
Posted by Jesica on April 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM · Report
1
I am glad to see that someone is standing up for the rights of children and mothers alike. I personally didn't chose to breastfeed my children but take no offense when someone does. It takes all of one minute to pull your child aside - remind them that it is a natural part of how a baby eats and ask that they not stare - and urge them back to their normal activities. Kudos!
Posted by devschica on April 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in News