Testimony for Breastfeeding Bill

This is the testimony that was prepared by Alyse Erbele for the House human services commitee on the breastfeeding bill I told you awhile back. If you remember, the orginal wording got changed without hardly anybody knowing. It got changed and passed to something that wouldn't give BFing mothers any protection. ( http://dalaynam.blogspot.com/2009/02/very-annoyed-breastfeeding-bill.html ) I'll do another post tomorrow (Again, orginally from Alyse as she was one of the ones who was there and testified on Tuesday to try to get the house to change it back to the original wording) on how it went.

Testimony for SB#2344
Prepared for House Human Services Committee
Given by Alyse Erbele on March 17th, 3:30 pm
Who I am and why this matters to me:
I am a breastfeeding mother. I have breastfed my daughter many places around Bismarck since she was born—restaurants, the library, the mall, store—everywhere I’ve been. I wondered what would happen if I were confronted by someone who noticed I was breastfeeding. I knew that North Dakota law provided no protection for my child and me. I was very excited to hear about this law and pleased when I read the first draft.

I am in favor of the bill as it was originally drafted, but I do not support the bill as it has been amended.
I would support this bill if it provided protection for breastfeeding mothers.The words, "discreet and modest" are unnecessary. How many women have you seen breastfeeding at all, much less immodestly? In the last two years, I have rarely seen other nursing mothers. I regularly go to the play area at Gateway Mall and rarely see mothers breastfeeding, but I see mothers with bottles all the time. I know at least four women who are breastfeeding, but use formula when out in public. They are afraid to nurse in public, and that’s without a law that will make mothers worry more about someone saying something to them. It is ironic that women regularly wear clothes that are more revealing expressly for the purpose of sexual titillation, and that is acceptable. I see far more skin on billboards in Bismarck than I’ve ever seen on any breastfeeding mother.

Discreet and modest language is unnecessary, and no other state of the 47-48 other states who have laws protecting mothers contain that language. Missouri does qualify their law with the phrase “with as much discretion as possible”. I have not heard of a single incident where a mother was asked to quit because she was being immodest.

The bill as it reads currently attempts to regulate breastfeeding mothers, not protect them. This is anti-family and anti-child. As a fairly conservative state, we value family highly.

Also, currently in the law regarding 12.1-20-12.1. Indecent exposure, exposure of the breasts is not included, so it could happen anyway. Adding a modesty clause to the SB #2344 won't increase public nudity, it will only decrease public breastfeeding. I would like to know if anyone has hard statistics on increase in breast exposure in states with protective laws. I wonder why do you think ND women (your constituents) would expose more flesh than necessary and more than women in other states?

The current wording demands that a mother must breastfeed in a modest and discreet manner. If you’ve ever nursed or seen a baby nurse, it’s not all the rosy picture portrayed in most pictures. Babies wiggle and squirm. They are curious, growing human beings. If you are staring at a nursing mother, you are likely to see some skin! It happens. Breastfeeding is not a sexual activity, and breasts are not sexual organs any more than mouths are. They are mammary glands, created for the purpose of providing nourishment for our children.

The current wording provides no protection for breastfeeding mothers, for their babies or for mothers who work and pump. I cannot personally speak to pumping at work, but I have a friend whose boss made her pump in her car. She quit that job, but that is not possible for many people in our current economy.

The bill changes the focus entirely from protecting breastfeeding mothers to the issue of modesty, which is not the main issue. The main issue is the child’s right to eat. Babies do not understand wait. They have needs which must be addressed immediately. Focusing on modesty avoids the real issue—the needs of babies. Talking about modesty actually interferes with mothers successfully nursing—that there is a law that requires women to nurse modestly will make it harder for women—even those who would have nursed discreetly to begin with—to feel confident and protected about nursing in public, and that this in turn will result in fewer babies being breastfed exclusively for the AAP’s recommended minimum of 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and to reach the recommended minimum of a year.

Why We Need this Law:
Some people wonder why a law protecting breastfeeding mothers and babies is even necessary. In the last 3-4 years, there have been at least six incidents that were publicized where mothers were harassed for feeding their babies in public.How will the law help mothers breastfeed more and longer?Mothers who are not intimidated will feel more confident to breastfeed in public. If you are afraid of being kicked out of your favourite restaurant, how would you feel?
1. Benefits to the state
a. Many families who are on WIC use formula, another expense the state covers. The more WIC moms who breastfeed, the more the state saves, both immediately and in the long run because of the health benefits.
b. It is ridiculous to compromise these important public health and cost savings over squeamishness about glimpsing a breast now and then. Ask yourself, what's more important? Protecting the tender eyes of a few easily-offended citizens, or improving our children's health and controlling our state's healthcare costs?
2. Benefits to mothers’ health—reduces multiple cancers in women the longer women breastfeed.
3. Benefits to Babies
a. Human milk is made for humans.
b. Are sick less often, get less dehydrated while they are sick and recover more quickly.
c. Have less asthma, childhood and adult cancers, obesity and diabetes.In the US, 720 babies a year die because they are on formula (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121986?dopt=Abstract).This is from the Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Stories of mothers who suffered discrimination:
Texas has a law with no enforcement provision, but Jessica Swimeley had to rally public support to influence those trying to stop her from nursing her child in the Ronald McDonald House where they were staying while the baby had brain surgery. And her child desperately needed to nurse. After his surgery nursing was one of the few things that comforted him, but someone felt their right to be offended by something natural and necessary took precedence over a poor suffering child's needs. (See attached Lactation and the Law article for more details).

My personal experience:
I have been asked to nurse in a bathroom when I was using a blanket. That person was uncomfortable with the fact I was nursing. People who are uncomfortable with the fact of breastfeeding will use the modesty clause as an excuse to harass mothers and babies. ‘Harass’ may sound harsh to some of you, but to a new mom, to any mom, being confronted about feeding your baby is humiliating. I worried that some person would say something and force me to leave. This experience I did have was at a time when my daughter was two months old. I left my house for church, and this other weekly meeting; this was the only time I had to be around adults, and some overly sensitive person wanted me to spend most of that time in a bathroom essentially by myself? It was an extremely isolating and embarrassing experience.

Conclusion:
If the government wants to help mothers provide what is best for their children, then they must make a difference and protect breastfeeding mothers. The SB 2344 should be passed with its original wording.