http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050619/COLUMNI
STS03/506190310&SearchID=73211735638695

Sorry, mother's milk belongs under wraps
By JONNA SPILBOR
June 19, 2005

If I could be a cop for just one day, I wouldn't arrest people for
minor infractions like rolling through traffic lights at desolate,
late-night intersections. Instead, I would drive around in a paddy
wagon, filling it up with people who engage in activities that are
perfectly legal, but so utterly annoying they ought to be outlawed.

For example, there ought to be a law against making noise while
chewing soft foods, holding up a grocery line because you forgot the
milk and reclining your seat on trains and planes, unless the person
directly behind you is either (1) a stuffed animal or (2) completely
invisible.

Yet, it's simply a fact of life that humans will engage in a long list
of legal yet torturous behavior, leaving the rest of us little choice
but to scowl and bear it.

I'm here to say unequivocally, wholeheartedly, and with every ounce of
maternal instinct washing over my being like a prickly rash —
breast-feeding in public should not be one of them.

Bloated bosoms took to the streets of Manhattan en masse recently when
200 lactating women, calling themselves "lactivists" collected their
hungry infants and staged a "nurse-in" in front of ABC's television
studios to protest a passing comment made by famed journalist Barbara
Walters.

Walters, while chatting with her coffee klatch on her daytime talk
show, "The View," casually mentioned how she felt "uncomfortable" on a
recent flight, having been seated next to a woman who was nursing a
baby at her seat.

Other than cashing in her first-class ticket, there wasn't a darn
thing Babs could do about it. Federal law, as well as laws in at least
35 states, allow nursing mothers to breast-feed wherever they are
otherwise lawfully situated. Restaurants, retail stores and yes,
airplane seats included.

Public suckling may be perfectly legal, but should it be?

In New York, for instance, which happens to be a very breast-friendly
state, exposure laws make it a crime for a woman to bare that portion
of her breast that is "below the top of the areola" unless she is
exposed for the purpose of breast-feeding.

The implied expectation of the law is this: The public has every right
to be uncomfortable, indignant and even call the police at the sight
of a bare-breasted woman basking in her bareness. But once a woman
adorns the same bare breast with a 10 pound hungry person, the rest of
us must gushingly accommodate her, or get the hell out of the way.

Just because you give a boob a job doesn't magically change society's
long-ingrained attitudes about public nudity. Why then, does the law —
and nursing mothers — expect the rest of us to embrace a stranger's
desire to express milk from her bosom while seated six inches from our
burrito?

I know what you're going to say. A baby's gotta eat. Sure. But until
your child can chew, he doesn't need to eat with the rest of us.

Look, I'm no prude, but I do think there are certain, perfectly
healthy activities that are simply too private for public consumption.
Pap smears do a lot of good too, but you won't catch me having one in
Macy's window.

One "lactivist" in attendance at the protest was quoted as saying,
"People don't want to see it because they feel uncomfortable with it,
and they feel uncomfortable with it because they don't see it."

Apparently, circular reasoning is the one negative side effect of
breast-feeding that "lactivists" don't talk about much. Personally, I
no sooner want to observe a woman breast-feeding her baby in public,
than I would want to witness her conceiving her baby in public.
Forcing me into becoming an audience to a public showing for which I
didn't buy tickets, is an invasion of my rights — is it not?

Perhaps baby isn't too happy about it either. I imagine the bond
between mother and child, especially during the first year of life, is
a beautiful, magical force like none other.

If breast-feeding contributes to that bond, why would a mother want to
detract from the experience by doing it while walking the dog or
having her hair done? Just because the law allows you to, bonding with
baby is not something that should be multitasked.

Jonna M. Spilbor is a Rhinecliff-based attorney. Write her in care of:
Poughkeepsie Journal Opinion Page, P.O. Box 1231, Poughkeepsie, NY,
12602-1231. Or in care of: [log in to unmask]

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

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(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html