The statute refers to the mother's conduct - it is where she has a right
to be.  It does not however expand the the areas a child has a right to
be.  Essentially, by extension the child must have a right to be there
as well (baby must get there in order to be breastfed there) but the
statutes generally state "where the mother has a right to be."

I mean no disrespect to the late Elizabeth Baldwin but she and I argued
for years about the validity of the universal right statement in the
absence of a protective statute.  I breastfed in public and refused to
cover up even though I live in a state (Pennsylvania) with no protective
legislation.  But not everyone is willing to be a test case.

HTH.

Jake Marcus (lawyer)

> > Here is the statute:  http://lalecheleague.org/Law/Bills31.html
> >
> > Looks like a good one.  She can breastfeed anywhere she has a right to
> > be :)
> >
> > Jake Marcus
> >
> >
> i just want to make sure i understand... it says anywhere SHE (the mother)
> has a right to be? so she could bf a baby somewhere babies aren't normally
> allowed? or is that just an obtuse question b/c if babies aren't allowed there she
> shouldn't have a baby to nurse there in the 1st place...?
> i just want to be sure b/c i've always worded it to the moms i work with that
> they have the right to bf anywhere their babies/children are allowed to be.

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html