Breast wars and the law

As I said earlier, I missed the “nurse-in” at the Benbow Inn on Friday, and the subsequent KMUD news coverage thereof. I have been told by the grapevine that over a dozen mothers showed up to suckle in protest of the previous incident. I understand that the text of Civil Code section 43.3 was read over the air once again.

I’ve already said everything I can on the subject. While I am sympathetic to the needs of mother and child, I also believe that common courtesy requires that breastfeeding moms take reasonable steps to address the feelings of those around her in public who may view the display of a breast for any purpose as inappropriately sexually provocative. By “reasonable” I don’t mean to forego feeding, but simply to be as discreet as reasonable under the circumstances. No, I don’t believe that breastfeeding is something to be ashamed of, and yes it is a natural non-sexual biological process. So is peeing. But I’m certain that everyone on any side of this issue would agree that a restaurant has the right to ask me not to pee in the dining room. The law allows them to do that. And if the law did not, common courtesy should restrain me.

As to whether the law prohibited the Benbow Inn from asking the mother to cover up or take it into the lobby (also public by the way), I’m not certain that’s evident in the code’s wording.

Cal. Civ. Code §43.3, >1997 Cal ALS 59; 1997 Cal AB 157; Stats 1997 ch 59.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, except the private home or residence of another, where the mother and child are authorized to be present.

My question is whether when it comes to private property, the law would apply if a restaurant revoked the authorization to be present. There is not yet any case law on the subject that I can locate, however, I did find an article that may shed some light on the wording. If the statement of Governor Pete Wilson in signing the Bill has any value as “legislative history,” then the breast activists may be right.

“By signing this bill,” he said in a statement, “I am removing barriers of embarrassment, harassment and charges of indecent exposure when a mother breast-feeds her child in public.”

And if Nancy Solomon of the California Women’s Law Center is right, it prevents businesses from even asking the mother to cover up, the logic being:

“If a woman is going to function in society during the time she is breast- feeding, she is going to have to do it out in public,” Solomon said. “A woman can’t control where she is going to be when her baby wants to eat. Asking women to cover up is inhibiting, and it makes mothers feel like they are being obscene — like there is something indecent about showing your breast while you are feeding a child.”

However, Solomon is an advocate, not a legislator, and I seriously doubt any law that prevented business employees from merely asking a woman to cover up or move would survive a First Amendment attack. There’s nothing in the text of the law that protects anybody from mere embarrassment, and as the manager of the Jewish Community Center referenced in the article notes, the mother can always refuse. However, if the manager at the Benbow Inn threatened her with removal in order to obtain compliance with his request, they may have been in violation.

As the comments section in the post below indicates, this is yet another major sore point in the culture wars. Who is imposing what values on whom? Who is the aggressor? “Boob nazis?” Women haters? I doubt this will be the last incident to raise the issue, and sooner or later it will end up in court. And whatever the results there, the issue will be far from over. One more issue that divides the country into “red” and “blue.”