Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on October 14, 2009

Click here to view bill details.

YES! This is awesome--babies need to breastfeed much more often than bottle-fed babies because breastmilk is so easy for the body to absorb, and that means that breastfeeding women are put at a disadvantage if they are anywhere longer than an hour.  I remember crouching in a dirty bathroom stall to nurse my newborn--it's disgusting and unsanitary.  There are many ways to discreetly nurse a baby in public, and many times the casual observer won't even realize the mother is nursing.  This law is very importat and highly welcome.  Thank you for indroducing this.

 

 If some mothers were discreet, this bill would probably never have been introduced. It's not discreet nursing mothers the bill is aimed at, it's those that wish to make a public display of the process, or of their breasts. If this bill is passed you can bet you will see more indiscretion as they can continue their exhibition with impunity.

 Didn't see a definition of child in the legislation.

Whether a mom is discreet or not, she's feeding her baby.  And its HEALTHY.  Most people have seen a *** before...so it doesn't make any sense that some people get uptight when a mom is using them to feed her her baby.  This law is very important for ALL breastfeeding moms and Michigan is one of the only states in the US that doesn't have a law like this.

If the site of a mother nursing her baby offends anyone, they have the option of turning their head, and looking for a good therapist.

gypsy:

If the site of a mother nursing her baby offends anyone, they have the option of turning their head, and looking for a good therapist.

Likewise, the nursing mother has the option of being discreet and demure.  That's the way it worked with my dear wife when she nursed our sweet child more than 30 years ago.  It should work today.

There is no need to include breastfeeding women as a civil rights law protected class.  While nursing at the *** certainly is a natural act, like, say, urination, it also is an optional choice on mommy's part.  Civil rights protected classes should be reserved for people who simply have no control over their appearance or situation or -- in cases like this -- behavior.

 

I certainly would not make urination analogous to nursing.

Being "discreet and demure" is a value judgement made by the observer.

I see no reason why protecting the rights of a woman to nurse her child in public should not be protected, against those who see it as somehow offending. It would have the added, and positive effect of encouraging more women to breastfeed.

I support this legislation.

gypsy:

I certainly would not make urination analogous to nursing.

Both are perfectly natural human functions.  Where the analogy fails, though, is that in this age nursing is an option, but not a necessity.  As far as I know, urination is a necessary bodily function.  And for many, the latter is a matter of, when you gotta go, you gotta go.  We don't approve of public urination, though.  The idea is that some bodily functions of a very personal or intimate nature ought to be performed out of public view.

Being "discreet and demure" is a value judgement made by the observer.

Despite the tilt toward let-it-all-hang-out in society these days, I believe there are some essential and generally understood norms as to what constitutes "discreet and demure" behavior in public.  Else we would not even be having this discussion. 

I see no reason why protecting the rights of a woman to nurse her child in public should not be protected, against those who see it as somehow offending. It would have the added, and positive effect of encouraging more women to breastfeed.

First of all, this is not a matter of those who are offended by the act of nursing against those who aren't.  For example, I am not offended by nursing, but I don't particularly appreciate it being it done openly in public, either.  Where I come from is that I doubt there is any fundamental right of a woman to nurse her child in public that should transcend reasonable restriction based on expectations of discretion.  Nor am I persuaded that the act is so necessary that it must be protected from reasonable restriction, as dictated by societal norms of what constitutes discrete, demure behavior.

I support this legislation.

I do not support this legislation, for reasons stated above.

 

Apparently Mackinac Center is censoring my responses.

Maybe I can squeeze by the censors if I don't use the "b" word. Wouldn't want to offend anyones delicate sensibilities.

My I remind you freespeaker that we do approve of public urination, in public restrooms for sanitary reasons. Men urinate in front of other men, and they don't seem too offended by it.

Eating is also a natural bodily function, and adults love doing it in public.

My censored reply listed 41 states that protect a woman's right to nurse in public, Michigan is not included.

So it seems your sensibilities are not the norm. I assume you are male, from information you divulged in a previous post. Would that have anything to do with your not "appreciating" public nursing?

gypsy:

My I remind you freespeaker that we do approve of public urination, in public restrooms for sanitary reasons. Men urinate in front of other men, and they don't seem too offended by it.

You stretch the concept of "public" here.  But that's OK.  You also stretch the concept of civil rights protections, as applied to certain classes of people.

Civil rights protection laws are intended to prevent discrimination against people for matters in which they have no personal choice or over which they have no personal control:  gender, race and ethnicity, and physical disabilities are customary examples.  Sexual orientation is, although controversially so.  There is no protection for overt sexual behavior in public, however, because that is something individuals can control, just as can mothers who are nursing their babies. 

Further, the exercise of our civil rights -- even the most personal of them -- is not entirely unbounded by law and rules.  While we believe people are entitled to hold their own religious beliefs, for example, we nonethless do place some restrictions on religious practices.  Similarly, our right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to some limitations.

I believe that protection of civil rights under the law is tremendously important for certain classes or groups of citizens burdened by characteristics that are beyond their control.  I do not wish to see it confused and diluted by trivial whims such as the matter of publicly nursing babies, which are matters of choice by individuals.

 

FreeSpeaker:

There is no protection for overt sexual behavior in public, however, because that is something individuals can control, just as can mothers who are nursing their babies. 

Quite a telling statement, to make an analogy of nursing a child to an overt sexual act.

FreeSpeaker:

Civil rights protection laws are intended to prevent discrimination against people for matters in which they have no personal choice or over which they have no personal control

civil rights  
pl.n.  The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
//-->
adj.   or civ·il-rights (sĭv'əl-rīts')

One does not need to be disabled or of color to deserve civil rights. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

FreeSpeaker:

There is no protection for overt sexual behavior in public, however, because that is something individuals can control, just as can mothers who are nursing their babies. 

Quite a telling statement, to make an analogy of nursing a child to an overt sexual act.

FreeSpeaker:

Civil rights protection laws are intended to prevent discrimination against people for matters in which they have no personal choice or over which they have no personal control

Civil Rights, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship.

One does not need to be disabled or of color to enjoy civil rights. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

FreeSpeaker:

Civil rights protection laws are intended to prevent discrimination against people for matters in which they have no personal choice or over which they have no personal control

Civil Rights, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship.

One does not need to be disabled or of color to enjoy civil rights. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

FreeSpeaker:

There is no protection for overt sexual behavior in public, however, because that is something individuals can control, just as can mothers who are nursing their babies. 

Quite revealing, to compare overt sexual behavior with a mother nursing her child.

It really shouldn't matter where or when (or how) a women feeds her baby (nursing or bottle feeding).  If someone doesn't appreciate it being done in public, then they can just turn and look the other way.  Breastfeeding may be an "option"...but it is not equal to artificial baby milk...and it is a "necessity" to the baby that is being fed.  Last time I checked, women had the right to choose how they feed their baby...why shouldn't that right be protected in public settings?  I would rather see a woman nursing in public, than listen to that baby cry (although the vast majority of nursing mothers hide in a corner to feed their baby anyway).  Again Michigan is one of the only states in the US that does not have a law like this to protect nursing moms.

babybaby:

It really shouldn't matter where or when (or how) a women feeds her baby (nursing or bottle feeding).  If someone doesn't appreciate it being done in public, then they can just turn and look the other way.

No.  It is the nursing mother's obligation to be discrete and demure about nursing, and not my obligation to avert my gaze.  It is as simple as that.

Breastfeeding may be an "option"...but it is not equal to artificial baby milk...and it is a "necessity" to the baby that is being fed.

Because there are reasonable options to unbuttoning a blouse and having the baby suckle at mommy's bosom in an open public setting, that behavior does not warrant protection as a "civil right." 

Last time I checked, women had the right to choose how they feed their baby...why shouldn't that right be protected in public settings?

The whole point is that this is a choice -- an option -- and not something over which the nursing mother has no control.  Let's not trivialize our important anti-discrimination laws by adding this to them.  Those laws were properly intended to protect the civil rights of those who might be discriminated against because of things over which they have no control, such as gender, race and ethnicity, or disability.  

I would rather see a woman nursing in public, than listen to that baby cry (although the vast majority of nursing mothers hide in a corner to feed their baby anyway).

I don't have a lot of use for bawling brats, either.  But the fact (that you cite) that the vast majority of nursing mothers do their nursing discretely and demurely drives home the point that this legislation is totally unnecessary.  They don't need protection, since their activity typically goes unnoticed and unchallenged.  This bill proposes to protect only exhbitionist mommies.  

Again Michigan is one of the only states in the US that does not have a law like this to protect nursing moms.

I've never been a fan of monkey-see-monkey-do behavior.  It isn't very constructive.

Further, this legislation does not propose to "protect nursing moms."  It proposes to protect exhibitionist nursing moms.  Nursing moms don't need that, any more than does the general public.

 

 

FreeSpeaker:

It proposes to protect exhibitionist nursing moms

Who makes that judgement, in your world?

 

gypsy:

Civil Rights, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship.

One does not need to be disabled or of color to enjoy civil rights. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Actually, your argument is fundamentally flawed. 

This legislation seeks to provide special protection against discrimination for a particular class of people.  Such laws have been enacted in the past to provide partcular protection for the civil rights of people who may be discriminated against on the basis of personal characteristics over which they have no control, specifically, their gender, race or ethnicity, or disability status.  (Sexual orientation is another such characteristic, albeit much more controlversial than the others.) 

Nursing a baby in public is something over which the mother does have control -- she can choose to do or not.  To add nursing mothers to specially protected classes of people only trivializes the purpose of those laws.

 

 

gypsy:

Quite revealing, to compare overt sexual behavior with a mother nursing her child.

And what, exactly do you think it reveals?

The point is that overt breastfeeding and overt sexual behavior in a public setting both are either demonstrations of lack of reasonable self control or acts of simple exhibitionism.  There are discrete alternatives for both activities.

 

FreeSpeaker:

This legislation seeks to provide special protection against discrimination for a particular class of people. 

Actually, although I respect your opinion, I am inclined to accept the dictionary's definition of civil rights. That is, they apply to all citizens, not just the ones who don't have a choice. One has a choice about his religion, yet civil rights protect him from discrimination because of the choice he has made. 

FreeSpeaker:

Nursing a baby in public is something over which the mother does have control -- she can choose to do or not. 

Being a Catholic is also a choice, but a person is free to make that choice. A nursing mother is also free to choose to nurse her child. If occasion arises she needs to in public, her right to do so should be protected.

FreeSpeaker:

This legislation seeks to provide special protection against discrimination for a particular class of people. 

Actually, although I respect your opinion, I am inclined to accept the dictionary's definition of civil rights. That is, they apply to all citizens, not just the ones who don't have a choice. One has a choice about his religion, yet civil rights protect him from discrimination because of the choice he has made. 

 

FreeSpeaker:

Nursing a baby in public is something over which the mother does have control -- she can choose to do or not. 

Being a Catholic is also a choice, but a person is free to make that choice. A nursing mother is also free to choose to nurse her child. If occasion arises she needs to in public, her right to do so should be protected.

FreeSpeaker:

Nursing a baby in public is something over which the mother does have control -- she can choose to do or not. 

Being a Catholic is also a choice, but a person is free to make that choice. A nursing mother is also free to choose to nurse her child. If occasion arises she needs to in public, her right to do so should be protected.

FreeSpeaker:

And what, exactly do you think it reveals?

It reveals, to me at least, that you may be viewing nursing in a sexual context, because of your gender, rather than as a natural and normal part of child rearing.

gypsy:

FreeSpeaker:

And what, exactly do you think it reveals?

It reveals, to me at least, that you may be viewing nursing in a sexual context, because of your gender, rather than as a natural and normal part of child rearing.

Well, as usual, you surmise incorrectly.  You should stick to facts rather than form your argument around conjecture and coy insults.

Both sexual behavior and nursing are perfectly natural acts.  The other thing that makes them comparable is that those who engage in those acts do have a choice and control over when and how they do so.  They can be either discrete and demure, or overt, narcissistic and even exhibitionist about it.  I think society has a reasonable expectation that people will be discrete and demure about such activities.  We, as a society, need not empower narcissists or exhibitionists or promote narcissism or exhibitionism of this sort.

 

 

FreeSpeaker:

Well, as usual, you surmise incorrectly.  You should stick to facts rather than form your argument around conjecture and coy insults.

I meant no insult, coy or otherwise. I merely concluded your statements, in my opinion, show a high level of sensitivity to a woman exposing her b*****, especially when it is done not to intice the opposite sex, but to feed her child.

I myself, and most women and men I know, see nothing narcissistic or exhibtionist about nursing. You give the best reason why this needs to be protected by civil rights legislation. To protect a womans right to nurse in public from those who feel their hyper-sensitivity should restrict the freedoms of others.

 

 

gypsy:

I myself, and most women and men I know, see nothing narcissistic or exhibtionist about nursing. You give the best reason why this needs to be protected by civil rights legislation.

At age 65, in my whole lifetime I only have seen one woman who was offensively narcissitic -- that is, less than discrete about the process -- while nursing a baby in a public or semi-public setting.  And that was many years ago.  It was clearly evident she enjoyed exposing herself to the crowd, and whether this was an act of exhibitionism or some kind of misguided in-your-face defiance, I don't know.  But I do know the audience generally did not appreciate or enjoy the show she put on.

On the other hand, I have been in the presence of any number of women who went about their breastfeeding in a very appropriately discrete, demure and inoffensive manner, without hassle, while in a public or semi-public setting.

I don't believe the narcissists and exhibitionists warrant being named as a protected class of citizens for civil rights purposes. And really, they are the only ones who actually would be protected under this proposed law.  The overwhelming majority of nursing mothers do not need special legal protection -- their behavior is tolerated and accommodated already.

To protect a womans right to nurse in public from those who feel their hyper-sensitivity should restrict the freedoms of others.

The only hypersensitivity being exhibited here is by those supporting (this) legislation that really is unneeded and would only trivialize important civil rights laws already on the books.

 

 

 

gypsy:

FreeSpeaker:

Well, as usual, you surmise incorrectly.  You should stick to facts rather than form your argument around conjecture and coy insults.

I meant no insult, coy or otherwise. I merely concluded your statements, in my opinion, show a high level of sensitivity to a woman exposing her b*****, especially when it is done not to intice the opposite sex, but to feed her child.

I myself, and most women and men I know, see nothing narcissistic or exhibtionist about nursing. You give the best reason why this needs to be protected by civil rights legislation. To protect a womans right to nurse in public from those who feel their hyper-sensitivity should restrict the freedoms of others.

At 65 years of age I have only ever seen one woman nurse in a public setting who I believe was engaging in exhibitionist or overtly narcissistic behavior.  It was the antithesis of "discrete and demure."  Whether that woman was looking for attention, admiration or to shock the crowd, I don't know.  But I do know that the performance offended her unsuspecting audience's sensibilities, created unnecessary tension, was disruptive and not appreciated.

On the other hand, in my lifetime I also have been exposed to any number of women who nursed babies naturally, in quite public settings, discretely and without drawing particular attention to what they were doing.  It was not disruptive or offensive to me or others, and I have never witnessed anyone telling such a nursing mother to stop.

Tht leads me to conclude the only class of people who actually would be "protected" by this proposed law would be the narcissists and exhibitionists who for some reason wish to draw special attention to what they are doing.  I think that trivializes laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of their gender, race or ethnicity, disabilities or even sexual orientation.

 

 

FreeSpeaker:

The only hypersensitivity being exhibited here is by those supporting (this) legislation that really is unneeded and would only trivialize important civil rights laws already on the books.

I really don't see how protecting the right of a mother to nurse her child in public would somehow trivialize the civil rights we now protect. That is a stretch indeed.

 "I don't have a lot of use for bawling brats, either.  But the fact (that you cite) that the vast majority of nursing mothers do their nursing discretely and demurely drives home the point that this legislation is totally unnecessary.  They don't need protection, since their activity typically goes unnoticed and unchallenged.  This bill proposes to protect only exhbitionist mommies."

Just to that I would like to say...the bill will protect "breastfeeding women"...regardless of their decsression when breastfeeding.  Maybe it will protect "exhbitionist mommies"...but point is it will protect ALL breastfeeding women from descrimination or an embarassing scene.  You're right that many breastfeeding mommies go unnoticed, but on the opposite end they're are some rude people out there that will make a scene about a breastfeeding woman EVEN if she is being descrete...I think those moms SHOULD be protected.  I understand why you are arguing that it shouldn't be a civil right, but personally I disagree with you.      

BTW...I'm currently a well educated (although not a good speller) 26 year old breastfeeding mom.  When my baby gets hungry in public I "plug her up" with the pacifier and run home to feed her or I find a corner somewhere, because I don't want people staring .  I believe many other breastfeeding women do the same thing...this law may be one step to help make it more acceptable and easier for women to choose to feed their baby the healthiest way possible. 

I guess this one is for all the Baby Bloomers out there. It's nice that they are doing something that's different from taxes/limitations in general. Breastfeeding is very important and shouldn't be altered in any way in my opinion.

 Sex and elimination of body waste are also very important but should not be done in public. Or is that coming in the next bill.