I have been asked by my state legislator to respond to the following critique
of a bill he introduced at my request (House Bill 4455).  It would permit
parents and guardians of children under the age of 4 to defer jury service if
they care for the child in the home for at least 20 hours per week.  It is
specifically designed to protect breastfeeding mothers, who are being called in
pretty large numbers in Michigan.  In fact, it protects a wide variety of
caregivers, including at-home dads and custodial grandparents.

If anyone is in Michigan, please consider responding to me, passing this
information on to others who might be interested, or contacting your own state
legislator.  In drafting the bill, I followed Elizabeth Baldwin's recommendations
for drafting breastfeeding-friendly legislation as far as possible.  I have
passed along the critique.  I am compiling a file of other responses from other
citizens who are interested.

Here is the critique:

The proposed jury duty legislation to give the option to defer jury duty for
parents/ guardians of children under the age of 4 who care for children at
least part time during the business week has been critiqued as follows by the
Michigan 4C Association Public Policy Committee:

"1. How big of a problem is this, really, to be solved by legislation.
Usually the person scheduling jury duty is pretty reasonable about
situations where people can't serve.  Although this may sometimes be a
problem, is it really so widespread that we need a law to control it?  How
can the extent of this problem be assessed and is there some lesser measure,
such as procedural guidelines for the justice system employees, that would
ease up this problem?

2.  Consider that those required to participate in 40 hours of work per week
through FIA are not exempted because they are nursing or because they cannot
find good, safe child care.  These parents are required to work when their
child is three months old or lose benefits that sustain their family.
Exempting people from jury duty seems to set a double standard - and affects
mostly parents who are able to stay home with their young children in the
first place (who often are of middle or higher income, especially in the
Saline area).

3.  How will such an exemption affect the jury pool?  How will parents
"prove" that they can't find child care or are nursing?  If proof is
unneccessary, is this an easy thing for people to say just to avoid this
duty?

I understand the motivation behind the bill and support any effort to make
the bond between parent and child stronger.  But, I think that the above
issues are relevant, and I'm concerned about a different standard for
working vs. non - working parents, especially low income families who are
required to work regardless of their nursing/child care situation."

Any thoughts?  Please reply privately to me.  I have been asked to respond to
these criticisms by my legislator who is sponsoring the bill.

Thanks.

Pam Pilch

Here's my initial response:

Thanks for your e-mail.  I have a few thoughts, and I have requested feedback
on these criticisms of the bill from a large number of folks I know who have
expressed support for this bill statewide, and nationwide.  I will consolidate
the responses I get and forward them to you.

My initial reaction is as follows:

1)  I would be interested in knowing what kind of procedural guidelines could
be created to protect breastfeeding mothers who are nursing in accordance
with the World Health Organization guidelines (up to 2 years and "as long
thereafter as mutually desired").  I would consider this kind of solution to be a
reasonable (though far less desirable) back up solution.  Mothers who are
nursing, even an older child, incur a medical risk of mastitis (breast infection)
when they are forcibly separated from their babies.  If weaning occurs as a
result of the separation, they forego the demonstrated reduced risks of breast and
ovarian cancer associated with long-term breastfeeding, and the promotion of
their postpartum healing and loss of pregnancy weight (which is also related to
breast cancer risk).  Breastfeeding mothers of children under the age of 2
are the only members of our society who can be compelled to risk their short-
and long-term health in order to serve on a jury.

If broader legislation that protects more parents looks like it would fail, I
would support legislation that protects breastfeeding mothers (though a one
year exemption is insufficient).

I suppose that a medical exemption for nursing mothers at the procedural
level statewide would be helpful, if that is all we can reasonably hope for at
this time. I hope this is not all that can be advanced.

Regarding the extent of the problem, I have received complaints from more
than 15 mothers statewide this year who have been called for jury duty while
nursing young babies (under the age of 6 months).  While these situations are
sometimes resolved by friendly clerks, these parents are subject to clerks' and
judges' discretion, which can work against the parents if the particular clerk
or judge is having a bad day, or is personally opposed to the parent's
particular breastfeeding or parenting choice.

I have asked that any mothers who have had difficult jury duty situations
contact me and I will collect their experiences.  Perhaps there is a more
scientific way to discover the scope of the problem.  I will give this some thought.

2)  Parents, including breastfeeding mothers, who return to work for 40 hours
per week have necessarily already made arrangements for pumping milk, if they
so choose, and for daytime care for their child.  Whether they report to the
office or the courthouse does not affect those arrangements in any way.  The
only possible exception to this is the mother who chooses to pump her milk
during the day at work and has made appropriate arrangements for this.  This
mother would also incur a risk of mastitis if appropriate pumping arrangements
could not be made at the court.  Otherwise, a day at court would be substantially
like a day at the office, if the parent had previously arranged for care for
the child during the work week.  This would be the case regardless of the
reason why the parent worked.  If a parent did not have day care in place prior to
the jury summons, presumably that parent would be caring for their child in
the home at least part time and would be covered by the current bill.

This bill is specifically drafted to include custodial grandparents ( a
common situation, especially among low income families),  mothers and fathers who
are only partially employed and may be receiving public assistance, and parents
who work alternate shifts (for example, mother working third shift at the
factory, or evening shift in a food establishment).  It is by no means only
valuable to upper income parents (such as those who allegedly reside in Saline).
In all of these cases, the financial outlay for temporary full-time child care
would be burdensome, if not insurmountable, even if such care were available
(which, in upper income Ann Arbor, it is not).

Frankly, regarding the income issue, it is upper income parents who would be
most likely to be able to hire a mother's helper or have a spouse take paid
vacation to hang around the courthouse to make the baby available to nurse on
jury breaks.  It would be the single mothers, and the lower income families who
would be least able to  have a spouse take time off or to pay a premium rate
for unusual child care expenses.

3)    A letter from a pediatrician attesting to the fact that a child is
breastfeeding should suffice to demonstrate this fact.  How are other exemptions
verified?  Why not an affidavit?  I believe the legislation currently states
that doubtful cases may be investigated.  I should think if we accept the threat
of a perjury prosecution for signing a false affidavit or the threat of
contempt of court in other cases, we should certainly do so here.

Regarding the effect on the jury pool, this legislation permits such a parent
to defer jury service as long as a child is under the age of four.  The right
to a jury of his or her peers is a right that attaches to the criminal
defendant.  In most cases of state action, we consider the burden on the individual
versus the benefit to the state. Parents who have cared for young children and
who serve on a jury after the child is 4 years of age bring the same
perspectives and experiences to their jury service that they had before.

At the same time, these parents feel more relaxed and free and are better
able to pay attention than they would be if their minds were turned constantly
toward whether their young child was safe and content.  Breastfeeding mothers
would be further distracted by the pain of swollen and leaking breasts, which
would occur within hours of their separation from their babies.  Within several
hours, many of these nursing mothers would develop fevers and flu-like
symptoms and require antibiotic treatment.

With a large and diverse jury pool already available in Michigan, I would
think the burden to any particular defendant of excusing a breastfeeding mother
or parent or guardian of a young child would be minimal compared to the
physical, financial and emotional burden on both the member of the jury pool and the
young child in question.

These thoughts are just my initial reaction.  I will continue to obtain
feedback from all the parents and guardians I know who support this legislation,
and I will continue to refine my responses. Peter, should I have parents send
letters describing their specific experiences directly to you?

Thank you so much for your support of families in Michigan, Peter, and
especially thank Mr. DeRossett.   I have heard from so many people how relieved they
are that this legislation is pending and there are high hopes for its
passage.

Please continue to advise me on how best to support this bill, as this is my
first experience in the legislative "department".

Warmly,

Pamela H. Pilch
529 Bennington Court
Saline, MI 48176



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

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