The ironically nipple-like Target bullseye; Photo by TheTruthAbout...

MyFOXDetroit.com reports that on Sunday at the Target store in Harper Woods, Michigan, the mother of a 4-week-old baby was told by security that breastfeeding in the store was illegal. When the mother and her off-duty police officer husband disagreed, the police were called and the mother was so embarrassed that she felt forced to leave the store! Target headquarters issued this statement in response to the incident:

This specific situation escalated to a point where we were concerned for the safety of our guests, so law enforcement was called. We regret the incident in our store and will continue to provide a shopping environment that respects the needs of all guests, including nursing mothers.

Unfortunately this is not the first instance of alleged breastfeeding discrimination by a Target store. Back in 2006 an employee in a Minneapolis, Minnesota Target store told a mother she could not nurse her baby in a fitting room. At that time, Target issued the following statement:

Target has a long-standing practice that supports breastfeeding in our stores. We apologize for any inconvenience the guest experienced and will take this opportunity to reaffirm this commitment with our team members.

For guests in our stores, we support the use of fitting rooms for women who wish to breastfeed their babies, even if others are waiting to use the fitting rooms. In addition, guests who choose to breastfeed discreetly in more public areas of the store are welcome to do so without being made to feel uncomfortable.

Aside from the “disceetly” remark that’s an okay response, except now it’s happened again in another store.

Michigan Breastfeeding Law

Currently the Michigan state law exempts breastfeeding from the public nudity statute. Breastfeeding may also be taken into consideration in child custody cases. This most recent Target incident demonstrates exactly why Michiganders need to support the pending breastfeeding legislation, House Bill 5515. HB 5515 would allow a woman to breastfeed anywhere she may otherwise legally be. The law would amend the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act to state in part:

Sec. 302. Except where permitted by law, a person shall not: (a) Deny the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service to an individual because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status or to a woman because she is breastfeeding a child.

I have written to the office of the sponsor of the bill to make sure she knows about this latest alleged breastfeeding discrimination in time for the legislative hearing tomorrow, December 2, 2009. Michigan mothers are invited to testify at the hearing.

[Edited to add the good news that after the December 2nd hearing, HB 5515 passed out of committee by a vote of 11-2!]

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Photo by John Trainor

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Local newspaper The Mercury News also reported on the event. Because today is a Saturday there was no comment from Facebook headquarters, but Andi of Mama Knows Breast found this previous statement quoted in the New York Times:

Breastfeeding is a natural and beautiful act and we’re very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook. We take no action on the vast majority of breastfeeding photos because they follow the site’s Terms of Use. Photos containing a fully exposed breast do violate those Terms and may be removed. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children (over the age of 13) who use the site. The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.

I changed my profile photo! Did you? I have yet to see any reports of breastfeeding pictures being removed by Facebook so far and the virtual nurse-in is nearly over.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Virtual Nurse-In

Organizers explain:

Facebook continues to classify breastfeeding photos as obscene content. They continue to arbitrarily remove these photos from member albums and profiles, accompanied by warnings of account termination. This is highly discriminatory and an affront to nursing mothers everywhere. In protest of this, Mothers International Lactation Campaign (M.I.L.C.) has planned a virtual day of protest.

Not only is human lactation responsible for the very survival of our species, it is in no way a sexually explicit, lewd or despicable act. It is also protected by law in most countries, including specifically the state where Facebook is headquartered in the USA.

In protest to the discriminatory and unjust policy of Facebook administration classifying breastfeeding images as obscene content, on December 27th, 2008 M.I.L.C. is asking all of you to change your profile picture for one day, to one which includes an image of a nursing mom.

This could be a picture of you or someone you know nursing a child, it could be a painting or image of a sculpture of a breastfeeding woman, it could also be a photo or image of any nursing mammal….We ask that you include the status line of “Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!”

In addition to this ‘virtual nurse-in’, there will be other events planned around the globe. Please check this page often for regular updates and added information. We will also be including images that you can use for your profile picture on December 27th.

Live Nurse-In

If you are in the Palo Alto, California area, consider attending the live nurse-in at the Facebook headquarters!

When: Saturday, December 27, 2008, at 11 a.m.
Where: Outside the Facebook office at 156 Uni­versity Ave., Palo Alto, California

MSNBC Media Coverage

Coverage of the planned events has hit mainstream media with this video story from MSNBC.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Fearing that dozens of angry lactivists might show up at her pool, Karkouti contacted York Regional Police.

When it became clear they had no intention of sending uniformed officers, she says, Karkouti hired $400 worth of her own protection – four security guards who kept the 20 or so protesters, many of them children, at bay.

“I guess that’s what they come with,” Karkouti said yesterday of the Kevlar-clad guards. “I didn’t even notice. All I thought was, `If I have 400 people trying to force their way in, what am I supposed to do?’”

Says Longuinho: “We weren’t carrying signs or anything. The idea was to go and talk to her (Karkouti) and nurse in the pool. One of the guards even had handcuffs. I believe it was to intimidate us.”

Karkouti was so concerned the protest might foul the water, forcing a costly cleanup or shutdown, she refused to let the group in.

Does anyone else think that by admittedly refusing to let in a group of nursing mothers for fear they might breastfeed in the pool, Ms. Karkouti just violated the law again, and on a far grander scale?

Two other key points from the article: (1) the region was right in the middle of its “Anytime, Anywhere” breastfeeding campaign, and (2) after a rash of breastfeeding discrimination incidents at city pools, the Breastfeeding Action Committee of Edmonton counseled municipalities to develop breastfeeding-friendly regulations, “saying there is no evidence the practice is unsafe for babies, their mothers or others in the pool.”

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Baby Milk Action is planning Nestle-Free Week surrounding this coming October 4, 2008. For more on the why, when and how of the Nestle Boycott and Nestle-Free Week in particular, visit Baby Milk Action’s Nestle-Free Week planning page.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

As if that wasn’t enough to make me think twice about my own cows’ milk consumption, now there’s even more reason to question it. The Lactivist just posted about how the California Milk Processor Board is threatening legal action against a breastfeeding advocate who printed up 10 onesies with the slogan “got breastmilk?” The Board claims that “got breastmilk?” infringes on the trademark “got milk?” Because we all know how easy it is to confuse milk from a breast and milk from a carton at the grocery store (two vastly different kinds of milk “jugs” folks!) And because we all know how difficult (for the Board at least) it is to understand the concept of a parody. Apparently the Board did not benefit from the National Pork Board’s run-in with The Lactivist over “The Other White Milk”.

Read the original news story here. Then if you are so inclined, get in touch with the California Milk Processor Board to share your views on the matter. The board’s phone number is (949) 481-6620. The fax number is (949) 481-6680.

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Breastmilk: 100% nutrition in a handy little package.

– as seen on a CafePress.com bumper sticker for sale (no affiliation to Breastfeeding 1-2-3)

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Breastmilk: It’s not a choice. It’s a birthright!

– as seen on a CafePress.com button for sale (no affiliation to Breastfeeding 1-2-3)

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3

Affirms that exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life with continued breastfeeding for at least the first one or two years of life is the biological norm, and that all alternative feeding methods carry health risks in comparison, with rare exceptions. Recognizes that breastfeeding is viewed as a public health issue and insists that maternal and child and comprehensive public health policies include attention to breastfeeding protection, education, promotion and support. Identifies the exclusive breastfeeding rate as a leading health indicator in the goals of the nation. Denounces aggressive marketing of human milk substitutes, particularly in health care settings.

To read the full text of the policy, see “A Call to Action on Breastfeeding: A Fundamental Public Health Issue.”

Post from: Breastfeeding 1-2-3