The Legislative power couple of Rapid City fringe conservatism, Senator Phil Jensen and freshwoman Rep. Lynne DiSanto, whose every move in Pierre ought to arouse the suspicion and scrutiny of all good liberals, have floated a bill I find I must support.
Senate Bill 77 is titled "An Act to allow nursing mothers to breastfeed in certain locations." Actually, it would permit moms to breastfeed their kids in darn near any location. SB 77 reads, in its glorious one-sentence simplicity, "Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are otherwise authorized to be present."
Football game, public library, Perkins, the sidewalk in front of Pat Powers's house, the front pew—if Mom feels like going out, and if baby's feeling noshy, Mom can feed that baby the way only she can.
Well... at least someone in Pierre supports raw milk.
I do have a question about the reach of this proposed law. As written, SB 77 sounds pretty absolute. "Notwithstanding" seems in one swoop to fell every possible legal restriction (though I skim through statute and find no legal restrictions on breastfeeding). "Public or private" seems to declare pretty much any location as the proper domain for moms to carry out that blissful natural function. "Otherwise authorized" seems to say that if you own a restaurant or a rifle range and a customer breaks out the homebrew for Junior, you can't say, "Excuse ma'am, your lactation is bothering other guests, I must ask you to leave;" try it, and your customer may have grounds to haul you to court for infringing on her legal right, enshrined in Senate Bill 77, to feed her child. No breastfeeding rooms, no segregation—Senate Bill 77 makes the right to breastfeed absolute.
...which is fine, right? Kids gotta eat. Moms gotta feed. And that's what breasts are for, right?
Unless someone can conceive of the exceptions to which this policy should be subject, Senate Bill 77 is the real pro-woman, pro-baby, pro-life legislation I've been waiting for, the sort of bill that may boost South Dakota's ranking for truly family-friendly policy... but I can't shake the feeling that Senator Jensen, Rep. DiSanto, and the mostly conservative caucus signed on as sponsors are up to something. Let moms do their thing, and keep your eye on Jensen and DiSanto.
P.S.: The only South Dakota statute I can find dealing explicitly with breast feeding is SDCL 16-13-10.4, which exempts breastfeeding mothers from jury duty. This statute also lets expecting parents and parents of newborns, up to six weeks, skip jury duty. The Legislature passed this law in 2012.
C.H. Pat powers house awesome.Speaking of houses where did Gant go.
Breasts are like toy trains,meant for kids but guys like them,too. Ladiesd\,please don't give me grief about bad jokes.
Or my spelling. It is way past my bedtime in god-forsaken iowa.
With the pictures that I have seen that are not "adult oriented," the nipple is either censored, or covered with a pastie.
With this law if a woman who is preparing to start, or discontinues to feed the baby, and it takes a bit of time to cover her nipple, she will not be accused of porno if someone takes of picture of her with her nipple exposed, and it is later posted on Face Book or some other media?
This is really surprising that the 'Pubs would support women.
Hmmm! I'll have go along with Cory, Jensen and DiSanto must have ulterior motives. What are they?
By the way, speaking of women's rights, did those that watched the State of Union speech last night notice that when President continue his rally for equal pay for women, Biden stood and applauded, Boehner sat on his hands.
South Dakota is one of a handful of states who have not enacted breastfeeding protection. Wisconsin law is almost the exact wording of SB 77.
I don't think there is anyone up to anything on SB 77. In Wisconsin most of the co-sponsors were liberal Democrats, included a gay Assemblyman who is now in Congress.
Thank you for the link. This is what it is really all about (I took it from the linked information.)
"Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 (29 U.S. Code 207) to require an employer to provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to express milk. The employer is not required to compensate an employee receiving reasonable break time for any work time spent for such purpose. The employer must also provide a place, other than a bathroom, for the employee to express breast milk. If these requirements impose undue hardship, an employer that employs fewer than 50 employees is not subject to these requirements. The federal requirements shall not preempt a state law that provides greater protections to employees."
Mr. Sibby and I both stand behind this law with our eye glasses on.
Grudzie, I am surprised that you approve either with or without your roving eyes glasses on, considering that it is based on the ACA, also known as Obamacare:
"President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on March 30, 2010. (See the combined full text of Public Laws 111-148 and 111-152 here.) Among many provisions, Section 4207 of the law amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 (29 U.S. Code 207) to require an employer to provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to express milk."
Supporting the rights of a woman to breastfeed her child anywhere? Major Libertarian Republican issue. Makes the moderate establishment "Republicans" like "Troy's" head explode!
JeniW, interesting porn question! The definitions under the Child Pornography chapter in South Dakota law explicitly exclude images of "a mother's breast-feeding of her baby." Mom's act of nipple-exposure is not prosecutable under current law. Creepos taking pictures of moms exercising their right to feed their children in public—hmmm, could that count as harassment?
"but I can't shake the feeling that Senator Jensen, Rep. DiSanto, and the mostly conservative caucus signed on as sponsors are up to something."
Cory and now Roger are exhibited paranoia and are promoting unfounded conspiracy theories. Where is Fleming?
I'm here, Sibby. I have no opinion on this except to quote Sigmund Freud who once cautioned, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Can you do anything with that? If so, have at it, buddy. :-)
Unfounded conspiracy theories, oh boy, is there anyway we can get the Federal Reserve involved?
I spent 49 years of my life nursing babies and I have done it everywhere, but common courtesy demands:
If you want to nurse in a corner booth of a restaurant, you should at least order a drink for yourself and leave a tip for the waitress whose station you occupied.
If you want to nurse in a ladies room you should not occupy a stall while other women are waiting in line to use the toilet.
If you are at the mall, you should not ask to use a store dressing room unless you are also trying on and purchasing clothing. The dressing rooms are for customers.
If you are truly out in the open, it is better for everybody if you cover up. Most nursing mothers cover up at home, because babies can become easily distracted while nursing and will jerk their heads, while still latched on, to look around. Nursing is more comfortable for mother if baby doesn't do that.
Finally, if visiting in somebody's home, it is just out of politeness to ask "do you mind if I nurse her?" Nobody minds, but they do want to be asked, if only to suggest that other children go outside to play for a while, or to give gentlemen in the room time to excuse themselves.
" Etiquette is the lubricant of a civilized society" -Arianna Huffington
Months, not years! Ha
Most modern malls have nursing rooms for moms and their babes. They're very comfortable and come will all the amenities - big screen TVs, plush sofas, toys for children. It's cute, there are even small potties for toddlers.
There are nursing blankets that cover babe and breast up also that one can buy.
49 years of breastfeeding babies?
Anne, I think it is really about places of employment, and what employers have to adhere to.
By making it very wide as to where women can nurse their babies, it covers all potential work sites.
Social situations are different. If a woman wants to nurse her baby in my home I can say "well, no, I would rather you not," or say "how about you feeding your baby in the privacy of my bathroom," and not face a lawsuit.
Y'all ever read Gloria Steinem? She wrote if men menstruated there would be mandatory paid work leave every month. She said some other funny things, but I have to agree with her on a lot of it, since men write and pass the bills. I'm sure there would be several months of paid paternity leave if men birthed babies. It would be macho for men that they were able to produce blood, funny things like that she wrote.
mike from iowa
2015.01.22 AT 08:52
Sibby found conspiracy theories so that shoots his idea of being "unfounded" in the butt.
For Sibby at 8:23
Reputable studies show that breast feeding is immensely beneficial to the baby. It is a natural and wonderful thing that should not be allowed to be subjected to the idiocy we have seen. This idea that a woman should go to the bathroom to nurse? Tell the jerks who assert this to go eat their meal in the bathroom!
Correct me if I am wrong, the vilification of breast feeding was a cause taken up by feminists on the Left.
I'd want proof of that claim DD. Personally I suspect Victorian prudes.
Mike, the exposure of agendas by secret societies by former members who have direct knowledge is not a conspiracy theory. We call it whistle blowing. Now which conservative member has come out and stated that there is a hidden agenda on breast feeding in public, and what exactly is that agenda?
I like the concept and think it most appropriate. I couldn't care less of public decorum concerns. Mothers being mothers is beautiful. Cory asked for some examples I assume because people don't always exercise good judgment. I could only think of two.
A crowded city sidewalk where people are walking. Can the mother decide to stop walking and breastfeed creating flow issues and a policeman not ask her to keep moving?
Or in the workplace, where the owner thinks it creates a safety issue for the mother, baby or others because the owner can be held legally and financially responsible for the safety of those on his property.
Somehow I think there should be a public safety exception where either a business owner or uniformed officer reasonably determines either the general public or the baby might be in a hazardous situation. Its just a gut reaction. I always get nervous when something is permitted without exception as it seems to be interpreted without regard to anything else.
Nick, conservatives support the traditional family. Breast-feeding is as old as mankind and has been an integral part of healthy development of babies.
Plenty articles out there pointing the finger towards the root of the vilification to the newer age feminists who see breast-feeding as tying a woman down: http://observer.com/2012/09/time-for-feminists-to-stop-arguing-about-breastfeeding-and-fight-for-better-formula/
Zell has frozen over: Troy said something meaningful. My youngest nursed for 40 months and became a goddess. If sin exists formula manufacturers commit it millions of times a day.
Interesting, DD. Perhaps feminists were slow to adopt breastfeeding as an empowerment issue, but it certainly seems to fit in the feminist agenda of helping women exercise their natural autonomy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chantal-molnar/breastfeeding-and-feminis_b_3547679.html
Anne, I was going to ask. 49 years would qualify you for goddess-hood.
DD is trying to pick a fight, Cory, nothing more.
Okay, there's your Sibby connection, Larry.
Anne Beal is perhaps channelling Artemis.
Rock and roll, Sibbomopolis.
"feminist agenda of helping women exercise their natural autonomy"
Cory, the feminist agenda is about exercising unnatural autonomy.
DD, liberals support not only the traditional family but ALL families - single parent, blended, same sex, childless. We believe in all people.
So Fleming is charging Anne with paganism?
Cory, the original feminist efforts were high-jacked. The original feminists like Susan B. Anthony, we're militantly AGAINST abortion and the taking of life from the unborn.
New age feminists pushed formula milk over breast-feeding claiming that formula put women on a more equal footing as men, mitigated work related issues raised from women needing time away from work schedules to nurse, etc., etc.
@Larry Not picking a fight. If the facts make you angry or incite you, blame those responsible, and refrain from shooting the messenger. :-D
No Sibby, not at all. Just giving you an ancient Greek starter kit so you can give yourself a nosebleed over it if you want to.
Anne's "49 year" word slip, and Cory's reference to goddess-hood provided the context. I was just following through with a suggested archetype.
But you have my permission to do whatever you want to with the resultant information, since I know you probably will anyway. The link will maybe keep you from having to do so much "research" so you can just cut to the chase with your off-the-wall rant.
p.s. Sibby, do you know why men have nipples?
Cory said to keep your eye on Jensen and DiSanto, I suggested they had ulterior motives, how does that translate to a conspiracy theory? Seems like an extreme reach, but on the other hand you are used to extremes.
DD is a loose cannon.
"Sibby, do you know why men have nipples?"
Because that is what God decided to create.
"I suggested they had ulterior motives, how does that translate to a conspiracy theory?"
Roger, well that is what I am accused of when I say there are ulterior motives.
For example, we have Fleming teaming up with Cory (ought to arouse the suspicion and scrutiny of all good liberals) saying Beal, Jensen and the conservative movement is some pagan cult worshipping Artemis.
Sibson, you haven't texted me the number of your dealer: you're smoking better stuff than what I have. You've got my number.
Excellent. Sibby seldom disappoints. He screwed that up just like I thought he would. I can almost hear the wax in his ears melting.
p.s. here's the real answer, Sibby, but I bet you're not gonna like it.
My wife is a liberal who breast fed four children. Before this thread I've never seen or heard anyone claim breast feeding was either liberal or conservative. Some folks can politicize anything.
Good point on the public safety exception Troy. I wouldn't want a woman breast feeding while driving or operating heavy machinery and I'll bet the sponsors don't either and would not fight a public safety exemption.
I never even thought about driving but the bill does say "notwithstanding other provisions of law" which to me means this overrides even a prohibition when driving. Of course, I'm not a lawyer.
Most employers get it but some don't allow women enough time to pump at work and that really complicates eliminating formula.
Troy's point brings up a question I've been having. Why do we need this law? Isn't it already legal to breastfeed your child wherever? Has there been a lot of controversy over the that I've somehow missed? I've been around a lot of breastfeeding mom's and kids over the years (family, office, friends, etc) and I've never heard anyone challenge any moms about it ever. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but is it common enough to warrant clarification in state law? Are there other state laws that work against and somehow frustrate and/or compromise a mothers' biological prerogatives?
Nick, pointing out others on your bench politicized this does not confer ownership of the politicizing to me. The difference between us is I am unwilling to provide cover for Republicans who betray Republicanism. Case in point, "Troy" advocating enacting prohibitions into law dictating when it is not appropriate for a nursing mother to nurse.
That is a great point. We don't need bills to enumerate what is allowed when and if a mother is told to stop feeing she can currently tell the person to kiss off without this law. If the law is silent, there is a presumption it is allowed unless it violates another law like "unsafe driving" or "unsafe in the workplace." Kill the bill.
I hate to point this out, but I suppose I probably should. It's actually a "conservative" point, isn't it, Troy? Oh, dear. Now what have I done? LOL
Bill, I had the same question. I checked our indecent exposure laws and they seem to deal only with genitals and the anus. Our statutes include a part of the breast, the nipple, in the definition of nudity.
My best guess is that some, if not most, SD towns have enacted ordinances restricting breast exposure. For example, it is my understanding that Sturgis has an ordinance prohibiting female nipple exposure, so the females who want to go topless during the rally must wear pasties or have their chests painted. Either remedy would certainly make junior's lunch less tasty.
So you are saying this bill's only purpose is to overrule local control?
I was thinking along the same lines as to why this law is needed or not needed, I admit that rereading the thread brought more clarity.
SB77 appears on the surface to give women more discretion as to where to breastfeed their children by mandating employers provide a place for them to do so.
It doesn't bother me in the least where women breastfeed children, but apparently they do need protections from overzealous prudes and nosy Nates.
As to exceptions to SB77, I also question those needs. Someone will have to cite for me the instances where a breastfeeding mommy was driving her Corvette down the Blvd. and caused a threat.
Or, how common is it that a breastfeeding mommy is driving a bulldozer taking down a building while breastfeeding junior?
There are likely some reckless mothers that would endanger themselves, the baby, and the public. Are those number significant enough to write it into law? Shouldn't laws of this type, if needed in first place, be covered a reckless driving statute?
To answer your last question, it says "notwithstanding any other provisions of law" which my understanding means this takes precedence over even reckless driving laws. Goes to my original comment that I get nervous when something says "notwithstanding. . . ." as we don't get to see all the sections of the law impacted.
Your nervousness about withstanding correlates with my nervous about exceptions to the law.
How about if they pass a law that makes it illegal to gawk at a mother breastfeeding her baby? Give people a time limit to avert their glance. Be generous. Five seconds maybe. After that, you're violating their privacy and she and her kid can have you thrown in the slammer. Children under 7 are exempt. Name the statute "SD_MYOB_101"
(Just kidding of course.)
Only in SD would you find 'pubs be worrying about moms breastfeeding while driving. What is it with republican men wanting to control women?
Now that sounds like a worthy bill, Bill
Bear (since I suspect you are a lawyer),
IF there is even need for the law (We don't need laws to tells us what is legal so much as what is illegal and breast feeding is legal), doesn't it appear the only possible clarification would be saying that public decency laws don't apply to breast feeding.
Thus, we don't get into worrying about exceptions like public safety, worker/customer safety liabilities and reckless driving.
And, while I got you on the line, can I get some free legal advice? Do I understand correctly what "notwithstanding" means?
"He screwed that up just like I thought he would."
Fleming, it is statements like that which make you a master of deception.
I didn't bring up driving. Nick did who is a liberal. That said, unless Bear tells me otherwise, because of the "notwithstanding" language, this would trump carseat laws and it would not be illegal for a mother to take the child out of the carseat while another is driving and breastfeed.
You guys are providing the reasons why the liberal Republicans and the liberal Democrats will team up and kill this bill. You people can't stand women having the right to use her body for what God intended.
Wingnuts are the new and old Puritans rolled into a mish-mash of laws that won't apply to themselves.
Maybe wingnuts shouldn't force these on pregnant women and then force them to watch when considering an abortion.
Sibby, pay attention.
Do you think we need to pass a law that makes it legal to for you to walk down the sidewalk in front of your house on a Thursday morning with a red shirt on?
Of course not, it's already legal for you to do that.
The point we're addressing here is why should it be necessary to pass a law to "legalize" something that's already legal?
Troy, typically the language used in statutes is to interpreted or construed in its most normal sense. While there are some words that have a technical legal meaning that differs from the standard dictionary definition, I don't think "notwithstanding" is such a word.
That said, the application of the term "notwithstanding" in a statute is naturally limited to the subject matter of the statute. I don't think this statute could be read to stop a careless driving while breastfeeding prosecution. For example, sleeping is lawful, but if you fall asleep at the wheel and crash your car into the ditch you still get a careless driving ticket and the fact that you were sleeping is the aggravating circumstance even though no law prohibits you from sleeping. Your crime is based on careless driving just as a breastfeeding mother's crime would be based on careless driving. Now in contrast, if it was illegal to expose your nipples while driving, then I think this statute would provide a defense.
State law trumps conflicting local ordinances so the proposed bill could be considered a challenge to local control.
Mary Elizabeth Williams posted an article in Salon today that intersects nicely with Cory' thread. It argues that the female nipple, and pubes escaping the bikini edges, should not be considered obscene just as male nipples and wild male pubes are not considered obscene. To quote Ms. Williams, "It not about cultural sensitivity; it’s about gender equality. It’s about understanding that women’s parts aren’t inherently any less appropriate than men’s."
Fleming, you liberals are making very clear that you think women are too stupid to breast feed in a socially responsible and/or safe manner.
Or is the thought process more like only conservative women would want to breast feed their babies. Liberal women abort them. And the only purpose for liberal women to expose their breasts is to subdue men into worshipping them as goddesses.
you need help Steve
...or at least a cold shower.
Hey, Jenny! On Steinem, men, and menstruation—if men produced milk, we wouldn't be talking about a bill like this... and guys would be out in the park seeing who could squirt milk the farthest.
Thanks. I'm still confused. Then what is the point of saying in this bill, "notwithstanding other provisions of law?"
FYI: Full text: Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a mother may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are otherwise authorized to be present.
Does it mean:
1) It overrules a state law on public decency?
2) It overrules another state law that says a child must be in a carseat if the car is moving yet the mother wants to breastfeed?
If the "overrule" applies on #1 but not on #2?
(For the record, I'm with Bill until someone shows why this is an issue. It is a bad thing for freedom if we have declare things legal instead of a presumption of legality unless specifically declared illegal)
Sidenote: Somehow this reminds me of the time 30+ years ago, I'm at a wedding of a high school friend. I end up walking the very pregnant wife of another friend to the reception. She gets halfway there and begs we rest. She then asks me to rub her feet so she can go on. I very reluctantly agree (not a foot person). Anyway, a lady walks by and says "You and your wife should get a room." I respond, "She isn't my wife" and my friend's wife told her to stuff it The lady really walked off in a huff.
Which is making me come to another conclusion. This bill is starting to sound condescending and insulting to women. If some busy body says for a mother to go somewhere else, she doesn't need a law to give her permission. She can just tell the busybody to stuff it and go about her motherly business.
Sibby, you are trolling again, and although I know better, I find your last comment to be particularly mean spirited and dismissive of women.
The statement "Liberal women abort them" is simply incorrect. You have no idea of the political views of women who decide to terminate a pregnancy, the health issues that might be at play, nor why any woman might make that difficult decision.
"Liberal women" advocate for safe health care for those women who make the difficult and painful decision terminate their pregnancies, regardless of their political views. You would have these women attempt to self-induce abortions or rely on unqualified individual at great risk to their health and safety. While your claimed desire to support life could be commendable, it rings quite hollow when your concern stops with a pregnant woman in trouble and needing safe health care.
Troy, as I indicated earlier I saw nothing in state law preventing any woman from breastfeeding her child in public. Hence my speculation that the author of the bill may have been concerned about local indecent exposure ordinances. Or perhaps the author mistakenly assumed state law treated female nipples as obscene. It does seem that we often see proposed bills in this state that come from non-resident groups advocating for favored causes (such as ALEC) rather than from research of the current laws and needs of South Dakota.
Perhaps a constituent ran into a problem due to a local law and asked for the bill. Perhaps Rep. DeSanto or Sen. Jensen could shed some light on why they think the bill is necessary. I can only guess.
Great story about the foot rub!
Per Troy's observation, the state's going to need a new ad campaign from Lawrence & Schiller: "Don't Lactate and Drive!" I look forward to proofing the graphics.
Bill, you make a good point about whether the law is needed. There may be some public pressure, lingering embarrassment about bare breasts properly used in public, but I'm not aware of a rash of police calls, arrests, or lawsuits against public lactators. If this bill is creating a clarification, it's not creating one for law enforcement; it's trying to engineer public sentiment and craft a new concept of a right.
But "Kill the bill"?! Troy! Bill! That's it! That's Jensen's and DiSanto's trick! They're trying to lure us liberals (Bill and me, not Troy) opposing the bill so they can whack us as anti-woman and leave us only able to defend our position by espousing the conservative principle of minimal legislation! It's a perfect double bind! Aaaarrgghh! :-D
Bearcreekbat, I'm intrigued by the suggestion that this bill targets local laws. If such local ordinances exist (off someone goes Googling "breast" in every city's online ordinance book—have fun with that!), are local ordinances included in "any other provisions of law" that do not withstand SB 77?
I do challenge Bearcreekbat's sleeping example. There is no law banning sleeping, but there is no law like SB 77 declaring that you can sleep anywhere, regardless of any other law. Not having a law outlawing a practice and having a law explicitly authorizing a practice are significantly non-synonymous.
Cory, it's not something we Dems need to handle. Let the GOP herd their own cats. I just brought it up because I think passing laws to make legal things legal is stupid. If that makes me "conservative," tough. I've been called worse things. ;-)
I'm with my good friend Bill on this. I think his libertarianism is rubbing off on me.
Cory is right, the sponsors of the bill hold the answer and hopefully someone in committee will ask where the inspiration for the bill came from...or are Issac and Jenna holding off on a big announcement....inquiring minds want to know.
Cory, I agree that my "sleeping while driving" analogy is far from exact. And I add that the observation that whenever I have seen the phrases like "notwithstanding any other law" in statutes, the statute usually established a new prohibition rather than expressly granting a right to do something such as breastfeed a baby. That makes it somewhat difficult to find a more analogous situation.
grudz, virtually all of Bill's comments here and on other threads suggest to me that he is no libertarian. Instead his comments show that he cares deeply about other people and rejects the libertarian idea of every man for himself.
And Bill, there is nothing wrong with being "conservative." The problem only arises when individuals or group try to restrict ideas that "conservatives" can support, you know the RINO argument. Conservative people, like liberal people, can come up with outstanding ideas for public policies aimed at helping our fellow residents of this planet and making our world a better place. Similarly, liberals and conservatives can advocate for bad ideas and bad public policy. I am quite sure you and I agree that, whether conservative or liberal, the point is that we all should think about the policy in question before supporting or attacking it based on a political label.
"I find your last comment to be particularly mean spirited and dismissive of women."
Take that to the liberals on this web site searching for any reason to prevent women from breast feeding their babies. The hidden agenda is with you folks, not us conservatives.
"They're trying to lure us liberals (Bill and me, not Troy) opposing the bill so they can whack us as anti-woman"
Right Cory, it is a conspiracy to expose the truth about liberals...they hate the idea of women being women.
Sibby, your agenda is anything but hidden - your comments have consistently argued against providing women safe health care when they want or must terminate a pregnancy, regardless of their reason or political affiliation.
Yes, BCB, we do agree on that. We should think about the policy regardless of whose idea it is or what party they belong to. That's why we both keep reading Mr. Sibson's comments. Because sure as we're born, if we start just dismissing him out of hand, he just might hit on something brilliant and we'll miss it. ;-)
Regarding libertarianism, if I ever figure out what they mean when they call themselves that, I'll be able to say if I agree or not. For the most mart, I find those so self-described to be in conflict, not with others so much, as with themselves. Witness your recent exchange with Mr. Evans.
Sibby makes lane wandering a fine art.
for the most mart....
BCB, I do not consider killing another person without due process an act of health care. I suppose those that favor genocide would.
Sometime ago I read or watched a news program about local or state jurisdictions it was legal for women to go topless in public, New York City was one of those places, I believe.
If a guy pumped full of silicone with breasts can strut through the park, why can't a well endowed woman? What is the difference?
Bill, I was really disappointed in Kurt's retreat. I suspect he is a smart individual with many defensible positions. I used to identify more completely with libertarians. I backed off as I read libertarian arguments that adopted Ayn Rand ideals and suggested a willingness to toss one group of people, such as indigents, under the bus to protect another group of people, such as folks who could easily afford to pay sufficient taxes to fund programs, but don't want to contribute in this way. This view is troubling - objectively happy safe humans appears more important and a greater good for all of society, in contrast with a right to hoard unneeded excess money and property.
But, I am still in their camp when it comes to protecting individual rights, such as opposing laws restricting freedom of individuals to behave as they choose as long as they do not directly harm others. I was really hoping to find common ground with Kurt and that he might open his mind to the moral and social benefits of using public policy to help those in need, coupled with protecting and defending the human rights of all.
White genocide: let us pray. Oh, Lord: abort the Muslims, the indigenous and the infidels but spare the white child from the ACA.
But being the extreme right winger that you are Steve you talk about abortion and genocide but you're ok with cutting food stamps and welfare that feeds the kids AFTER they're born and against healthcare for people you can't get insurance or can't afford it. In other words they die!
You are the perfect example of a Republican and a hypocrite.
Sibby, you say "BCB, I do not consider killing another person without due process an act of health care."
You have missed the point. The other person (fetus) is going to be killed one way or another, by a qualified doctor who will protect the pregnant woman's health and life, or by dangerous back alley procedures that can kill or cripple her.
Your comments suggest that you are so mad that the pregnant woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy you want her to be punished by denying her proper medical care.
Owen, Mr. Sibson is not representative of the SD GOP. You know that, and he says it all the time. He is of that party that Mr. H calls the Mugumps or something like that. And to be clear, I am OK with all of Mr. Sibson's choices for he has the right to make them and to speak his mind. I am not a christian so I don't really love Mr. Sibson but I have a lot of deep manly affection for him. Sibby, I will not hold your hand in public.
It's as if one of Sibby's partners chose not to carry a foetus he fathered to term after learning he is an incurable nutcase.
Larry, I can never believe it when I make a typo like that. The m isn't even close to the p on my keyboard, and I'm usually looking right at my %#+€¥# fingers when I type (for the most mart.) Go figure. :-)
The EARL cartoon today had him talking to his pastor. Earl's belly was hanging over his jeans as usual. The minister said, "No, Earl. When you are born again, you will not have two belly buttons."
I guess it only seems fair that women should be able to nurse their children on company time if cigarette smokers can sneak out of the building to feed their addiction.
I wonder if the goal of this law might be to get it through the heads of employers, business owners, and others who have been ignoring current law? It's not surprising to hear that an employer fires or drives out a breastfeeding employee. Rooting out such Neanderthalic miscreants is a laudable goal.
"Plenty articles out there pointing the finger towards the root of the vilification to the newer age feminists who see breast-feeding as tying a woman down."
That's news to me, and I am well-acquainted with 1st Wave Feminists (Gramma), 2nd Wave Feminists (myself and contemporaries), and 3rd Wave Feminists (Gen X, Millenials, etc). Undoubtedly there is a very small percentage of women who have felt that way. Their feelings probably served as fodder for misogynists to exaggerate and distort.
I wonder if we should all just wait and hear what the people who brought this law have to say about it when it gets talked about in the legislatures. Perhaps they will tell us what problem this fixes or what mischief they are trying to foist upon 3rd wave feminists.
Jana, we do indeed need to hear from the sponsors. The committee discussion and floor debates could just be "Yay breastfeeding!" sessions, but they could also provide an opportunity to expand on the debate about the proper role of law opened here. Do we need a law to declare an activity legal when there is no law on the books making it illegal?
Deb, would SB 77 simply serve as a cultural marker sending a message, or would it lay the foundation for women to sue employers for adverse action based on breastfeeding? Are these conservatives creating laws to generate more litigation? That litigation may be justified; I just want to get the conservative sponsors on the records saying that.
Based on Bear's analysis of "notwithstanding", this bill would have no effect on workplace situations. Only possibly local ordinance and if there is no such local ordinance, it appears to me it is useless legislation. The symbolism is bad as it appears to then be a giving women permission to do something legal, inferring they need permission.
Let the record show that Troy Jones has submitted the feminist critique demonstrating that SB 77 is really anti-woman and anti-conservative. By presuming to give women permission to breastfeed, SB 77 assumes that women need permission to breastfeed. Patriarchy! Brilliant!
Seriously,all this hubbub is about strait-laced wingnuts talking about lady parts in a setting where they won't get penalized for admitting women have said parts. Pretty sure if they could get a volunteer to show them how to breastfeed, they would all volunteer to show her how they used to milk cows. Most of these wingnuts have prolly never seen a real breast before. Like kids in a candyshop.
Cory, Troy is a member of the liberal SDGOP Establishment and he is providing fellow liberals propaganda whose purpose is to undermine the effort allowing women to breast feed without governmental interference. But of course you want the government not to exercise due process and interfere when women decide to kill their children via abortion. You can call us anti-woman, but your policies are anti-human, which include women.
Steve S., to prevent abortions, do what you can to encourage men and women to use methods to prevent conception, including providing financial assistance for men to have a vasectomy.
Jeni: trying to reason with Sibson is futile.
I know, but every once in a while I cave in, especially when it seems like he seems to be blaming women for becoming pregnant.
"Mr. Sibson is not representative of the SD GOP"
You are right. And may I add that Troy is representative of the SDGOP Establishment. Like I said earlier, based on past experience, bills like this are killed by the liberal RINOs and the Democrats...all in the name of bipartisanship. What that actually is is the application of Hegelian synthesis which moves the government to the left.
JeniW, where did I blame women for getting pregnant? I am only pointing out that liberals of both parties are anti-woman when the woman is a conservative.
"The other person (fetus) is going to be killed one way or another, by a qualified doctor who will protect the pregnant woman's health and life, or by dangerous back alley procedures that can kill or cripple her."
No BCB, my option is the person would be killed by the state after due process had been exercised and the death penalty has been given as the remedy. Unfortunately that can't happen if Hickey is successful in banning the death penalty.
Sibby, but you're the one that's anti-woman when the woman is a lesbian.
You really really had a had time on the playground growing up didn't you, Sibs.
It is just the impression that I receive from your comments about abortions.
You comment about abortions, which is your right, but you do not seem to ever mention anything about preventing conceptions, which would mean fewer abortions.
When it comes to abortion, I am pro-life that will not vote pro-life Republican because they exploit abortion for fundraising and getting elected. Politians know it is the Supreme court that ruled on abortion 42 years ago. People should not get fooled into voting on one issue. They play on your emotions. Statistics show when Democrats are in power the abortion rate and un-wanted pregnancies go way down. So why vote Republican. It just doesn't make sense to me. I have some good pro-life Republican friends who I have this conversation with a lot.
I meant had a bad time on the playground.
Jenny, I put a practicing lesbian in the same category as a man who cheats on his wife, one who is practicing sin willfully. How is that anti-woman?
Good lord, Sibby......you need to get over those anti-human Catholic beliefs.
Were you made to pray fifty Hail Mary's or something freaky like that?
I'm sorry, Cory.....Sibby is kind of like entertainment for us, nothing to be taken seriously.
"you do not seem to ever mention anything about preventing conceptions"
OK Jeni, here you go:
Promote practicing principles found in the Bible. When done, conception is considered a blessing, not an inconvenience that takes all the fun out of sex and thereby needs to be reversed by killing a person.
Jenny, you are not answering my question. Instead you mock.
In the future men will be able to have babies and be able to breastfeed them naturally. I know it sounds insane, but a lot of research is being done especially with hormone therapy.
Stem cell research is the future. Cory, let's get some articles going on stem cell.
Sibby, do you work in Mitchell, and what do you do?
Jenny, sorry that you want to make your hatred personal. It is not my fault that your worldview is illogical and an embarrassment to you.
Steve S., then you would be telling men and women to prevent conception, they should not engage in sexual intercourse, correct?
By preventing conception, there is no need/desire for abortions, agreed?
No Jeni, the conceptions percentage within a normal family structure should increase. Reducing conceptions outside of marriage would decrease. Perhaps the total would increase. Sexual activity may even increase. True love (based on Biblical morality) is an amazing experience.
Read Tara Volesky's comment again.
I did read it and it is word salad of nonsense Mr. Wiken. Always good to see a real blue dog come out and bark.
Why do you think it's nonsense Jerry?
What are you talking about Tara? You puzzle me.
Steve, to your 08:28 comment: what government interference? Hasn't this discussion led to the realization that, under state law, there is no prohibition on breastfeeding?
Cory, I thought the discussion said there was government interference at the local level.
The discussion raised the question as to whether or not there was any government interference at the local level. No one as yet has established that there in fact is. I think everyone here would be interested in knowing that answer and finalizing their thoughts in the bill accordingly.
"The discussion raised the question as to whether or not there was any government interference at the local level."
And then that raised the argument that the bill should be killed for the sake of local control which could then ban breast feeding within their local jurisdiction.
What I sometimes see Tara, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is what blue dogs and republicans call messaging issues. See that is when claims are made that you may be pro-life as a Democrat when actually you are a pro-life blue dog, or republican lite. Which is just fine as long as you never claim to be progressive or liberal in your thinking. Here is another example of that.
“It’s a messaging issue,” said North Carolina GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers, whose objections to the restrictive rape language helped scuttle the bill and whose office later drew dozens of protesters who had wanted the stricter approach. “I believe our heart is in the right place, and we’re standing up for what is right. But I think in order to be able to have that conversation with the American people, we have always got to be speaking from the perspective of the individual and … having compassion for women in all situations.”
Ellmers has basically made the claim that she is pro-choice and I salute her for her courage. In my opinion, as a man, I think that women need to understand their importance regarding the protection of all women in a society that is stacked against them. The breast feeding everywhere should have never been disallowed in the first place as it is as natural as breathing itself.
You poor bastards.
Imagine Phil Jenson and his fellow earth haters reading Madville just to reinforce their confirmation bias then ploughing civil rights into the dirt.
Do you believe in reincarnation? Good.
Sibson is a reincarnation of an aborted fetus.
I found the Pennington County public nudity ordinance. It prohibits public nudity, which definition includes "the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of the entire areola and nipple."
The ordinance contains the following exception:
"The prohibition set forth in subsection (A) (2) hereof shall not apply to: Any female individual exposing a breast in the process of breastfeeding an infant under two years of age."
Thus mother who breastfeeds a child over two years old would be subject to prosecution as a "public nuisance" in Pennington County. I have known a few mothers who did breastfeed children older than two. Perhaps that is the reason for the use of "notwithstanding" in the proposed state law.
BCB so, do the toddlers get 'carded'?
Bill, who knows? You could also ask whether under the proposed bill an adult with an Oedipus complex could suckle an agreeable mother in public?
BCB, you mean like they do in Sturgis?
Bill, good question! I also found the Sturgis indecent exposure ordinance. It prohibits public nudity and uses a similar definition to Pennington County, which includes bare breasts. I did not see any exception for breastfeeding for any child of any age.
Bill, if I stop responding it is because I lose access to the internet for the next 9 days, starting about 2:30 p.m. today.
Hmmm... so maybe the bill in question is going after Sturgis. Interesting. Who would have guessed?
Okay, BCB, see you on the other side, mon.
Jerry, this probably isn't the right thread to talk about my position on abortion. I guess I agree with most everything you said. I am an Independent but people have labeled me so many different things, I thing it just depends on the issue.
Thank you Tara and you are right, this one seems to be about another part of a woman's anatomy, all should be left up to the owners of those parts.
Just wondering now if there have been any arrests/tickets/fines, etc. in Sturgis for indecent exposure that involve women breastfeeding their children. Or anywhere in SD for that matter. Surely Mr. Jensen and/or Ms. DiSanto will have some supportive evidence for such instances to support their need for this bill won't they, Sibby? Cory? Anyone?
"all should be left up to the owners of those parts."
So who owns the body parts that end up in the trash during an abortion?
Good question, Sibby. Who owns your body parts? You? Or the State of South Dakota? Or the United States of America? To whom do you belong?
Oh snap Bill Fleming, ya kicked him right in the nads. He will froth at the mouth for a while and then go off to some other rabbit trail. But in the meantime, hilarity ensues.
Bill, you didn't answer my question. The correct answer destroys the equal protection argument in Roe v Wade, that is based on the 14th. That is why you did not answer the question. Sadly people like Jerry believe your deceptive tricks.
The idea for the turnout started when Woodbine, Ga., mother Nirvana Jeannette was sent out of church for breast-feeding and told by law enforcement she could be arrested for indecent exposure.
As a result, events similar to the one in Evans were held Monday in Atlanta, Woodbine, Savannah and Warner Robins.
“When women are under attack, we look out for one another,” said Andrea McPherson, who also helped organize the Evans event.
The women hope to change state law to protect mothers nursing in public from being harassed or arrested.
Anyone caught nursing in public now faces charges of indecent exposure and a maximum fine of $1,000.
Oh, but I did answer it, Sibby.
Preventing conception = 0 abortions.
Cory said, "if men produced milk, we wouldn't be talking about a bill like this... and guys would be out in the park seeing who could squirt milk the farthest."
Roger said, "Sibson is a reincarnation of an aborted fetus."
I still think it has more to do with employers who don't want to give female employees the time and place to breast feed or express milk. The women don't report the problem because they don't want to lose their job. Madizens, males especially, may not be aware that such employer behavior is not rare.
What are the penalties for violating this act? Are there any protections for women who report their employers? Or is this somehow related to keeping women at home in the kitchen - where they belong? The latter doesn't seem to fit in my mind.
And if that behavior is not rare, Deb, and if that is the discrimination that SB 77 l tackles, then rock on. If women want and need help fighting this fight, and if granting them explicit legal authority to do something that isn't illegal to start with won't trigger the feminist critique Troy laid out, then I'll be happy to help women with this law.
But your questions point out something interesting, Deb: there are no penalties written into this law. No protections or reporting procedures are laid out. The bill seems to be a simple declaration of a right, leaving the application to litigants and the courts. Is that enough? Maybe that's why Troy's conservative position is important. If breastfeeding needs no legal authorization, then what we really need to make clear is not a simple restatement of fact and right but an explicit declaration of the penalties folks will face if they infringe upon that right. Is that our hoghouse: strike Jensen's text and insert, "Abridging a woman's right to breastfeed a child in any public or private place where she is otherwise authorized to be shall be a Class 2 misdemeanor"?
"Oh, but I did answer it, Sibby."
Your initials should be BF, but they are BS.
Deb, you are still making yourself into a fine false teacher. Why do you hate men so much?
"Maybe that's why Troy's conservative position is important. "
Troy, see how the liberals use you to put a conservative face on liberal positions? The simple minded believe all Republicans are conservatives.
Deb: I think Sibby wants you.
Not even in my very worstnightmares.
(Psst, Larry: Once in awhile I actually do skim one of his comments, being vaguely curious that he might have had an attack of sanity. But mostly I laugh.)
"Troy, see how the liberals use you to put a conservative face on liberal positions? The simple minded believe all Republicans are conservatives."
I'm sure they're moderate Republicans out there somewhere Steve, they're just in hiding. Keeping low from the far right
Well, Bill, I Google "arrested for breastfeeding" and find...
Tasha Adams of Toad Suck, Arkansas (a dry town!), was arrested last year in the next town over (evidently not dry!) for child endangerment after a waitress saw her breastfeeding after drinking. "“We had a pizza, and then we had a big old thing of spinach dip,” Adams said. “Then, I had a beer with that, and then I had another one later on after.”
Turns out Arkansas has no law addressing booze and breastfeeding. Charges dismissed.
Some websites say that the New York Times reported in 2004 that 12,000 women are arrested across the U.S. each year for breastfeeding. I search NYTimes.com for "breastfeeding" and "arrest" and get six articles, none mentioning 12,000 arrests. I search NYTimes.com for articles mentioning "breastfeeding" in 2004 and get three articles; none mention 12,000 arrests.
According to Huffington Post, a female intruder entered a Brookings home and breastfed some other woman's baby. The woman who lived in the house found the intruding lactator at 5 a.m. and called the cops. Brookings police arrested the intruder not for breastfeeding, but for unlawful occupancy. I'm not even sure breastfeeding someone else's child is illegal, and SB 77 certainly doesn't swing a club on a similar intruder.
And holy cow: turns out SB 77 is South Dakota once again playing catch-up: 46 states, D.C., and the Virgin Islands have laws "that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location." Fifteen other states plus Puerto Rico join us in exempting breastfeeding women from jury duty.
larry-i thot yer comment 175 posts ago pretty much handled this thread! too bad.
sorry to barge in on another issue, but-pls provide a cite for the homestake 1962 tails into oahe and janklow's part, if avail. thx
Well to the degree that there is any question of breastfeeding being legal, it's a right we would all want to be unquestionably secured, right? I've not heard anyone here object to that. As long as the proposed law doesn't somehow limit or otherwise compromise those rights as per your discussions above.
I read you, Deb.
leslie: abed now and using iPhone whilst recovering from eye surgery, will get back to you.
About violations, you cross a breastfeeding mom and you get called out pretty quickly on social media. In Madison, WI, a pizza shop violated the Wisconsin statute two years ago. Holy hell broke out on social media, and the local TV and print outlets all did stories. It was very bad publicity with threaten boycotts. The owner did a heartfelt mea culpa and offered free pizza for nursing mothers.
That probably cost him more than whatever penalty the state could have levied against him. There's nothing worse than being shamed by a bunch of moms.
Never had a problem breastfeeding 3, but only 2 at a time.
Take care of those eyes Larry.
wow, bcb and Kurtz down at the same time! sumpthin not right in the madville universe
After YAG laser right eye back to perfect! Cataract and retina surgeries suck but miracles of modern medicine. Thank you, ObamaCare!
@ACLUSD 11m11 minutes ago
SB 77 bill passed with amendment watering down legal protections for women who breastfeed. #sdleg
Comments are closed.