... This really began in response to
>word from the committee members that most of their mail was critical of bf
>in public.  We heard that that mail came from a conservative Christian group
>that had a letter-writing campaign to defeat the bill because it was
>"disgusting and immoral" for women to expose their breasts in public.

I was told by someone close to the governor that the conservative group
headed by Phyllis Shafly, "Eagle Forum," would shoot down any attempt to
pass bf legislation in our state.  For a year I sat and stewed, then I went
to a legislator and said "Here's what I have heard, but here's why more
Utah babies should be breastfed and this legislation would help.  Will you
support it?"

The first draft we drew up combined both the New York and Florida bills.
New York is the only state where bf is a civil right.  The Eagle Forum said
they would indeed make sure the bill was killed with civil rights language
in it.  We compromised (I can feel LactNet shudder) and used just the "not
indecent" amendments (same as Florida).  When I testified, the Eagle Forum
always testified right after me, in support of my bill.

> I haven't heard of any more action on the bill in Texas, and fear it will
>never come up for a vote before the end of the session.

A good way to kill a controversial bill, I understand.

>  The wording change from "infant" to "child" is critical, I would think, as
>most people mean "birth to 12 months" when they think of infant.

Unfortunately our bill got titled with the word "infant," (someone from my
legislator's office did that, and it was inadvertent) and then it was too
late to change it without drawing attention to it.  BUT the bill itself
does not say "infant," so it protects all breastfeeding mothers/children.
Luckily it's the bill and not its title which counts.  Be careful to watch
for that.

Arly Helm in Utah

[log in to unmask] (Arly Helm, LC)