Breastfeeding Legislation News for Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Washington

There are several breastfeeding bills making their way through the state legislatures at the moment. Here I discuss three such bills that illustrate how the text of each bill makes a huge difference in the quality and enforceability of the breastfeeding protection. Breastfeeding advocates in Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Washington state need to follow the legislation closely to ensure appropriate measures are passed.

Wisconsin

On February 24, 2009, the Wisconsin Senate passed the Right to Breastfeed Act (SB 16). If it becomes law, it would affirm a woman’s right to breastfeed in any public or private location where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, and would provide a penalty of up to $200 for interfering with that right. The organization Wisconsin Family Action had been pushing for the senators to vote against the bill or to add a “modesty amendment” requiring mothers “to be discreet (e.g. use a blanket or a towel) to preserve modesty.” A law requiring women to be discreet or modest would be a setback for breastfeeding women! Those terms are terribly subjective and would make nursing women feel less protected rather than more! Fortunately the Senate Amendment 1 that passed was not a modesty clause. Here is the text with the original line struck through and the amendment added:

253.16 Right to breast−feed. A mother may breast−feed her child in any public or private location where the mother is otherwise authorized to be. No person may interfere with the right of a mother to breast−feed her child as provided in this may prohibit a mother from breast−feeding her child as provided in this section.

I would rather have seen the bill passed as originally written, because the amended bill appears to open the door for someone to ask a mother to cover up: “I wasn’t prohibiting her from breastfeeding, I just asked her to cover up or move to a different location!”

Governor Jim Doyle has said he will sign the bill into law if it passes the Assembly. Currently it has been referred to the Assembly committee on Public Safety. I hope Wisconsin mothers and other breastfeeding advocates keep a close eye on this bill and urge the members of the Assembly to pass the bill as originally written, or at least pass the current version without any modesty amendment!

North Dakota

Unfortunately the North Dakota Senate passed a bill with a modesty clause on February 18. The relevant portion of Senate Bill 2344 says:

Right to breastfeed. If the woman acts in a discreet and modest manner, a woman may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be.

Here’s my really insightful one-word analysis of this text: YIKES! Who gets to decide what would be “discreet” and “modest”? This bill isn’t a “right to breastfeed” it’s a “right for people to police breastfeeding mothers”! It screams for people to interfere with breastfeeding. “Excuse me ma’am, but you’re not being discreet according to my standards and I want you to put a blanket over yourself and your baby or get out of here!”

The bill now goes to the House. North Dakotans need to contact their legislators and urge them to pass the bill without the modesty clause. North Dakota is one of four states without breastfeeding legislation on the books, but it would be better to remain one of those four states than to pass the bill as it stands! There is a Facebook group “Got Mom’s Milk? in North Dakota” that discusses the legislation and keeps track of some of the contacts with state legislators.

Washington

Washington state is also contemplating a bill to protect breastfeeding. House Bill 1596 treats breastfeeding as a civil right:

(g) the right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

Now that’s more like it! It’s a strong bill that would create an enforceable right, unlike many other breastfeeding laws. Under such a law, if a woman were a victim of discrimination for breastfeeding, she could file a civil action to enjoin further discrimination and recover damages and attorney’s fees.