- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Texas Representative Debbie Riddle’s Facebook Post Angers Breast-Feeding Advocates
After posting a Facebook update suggesting that mothers should be “modest” while breast-feeding in public, Texas representative Debbie Riddle has gotten more than 1,000 responses. Most of them have been very negative.
Riddle opposes House Bill 1706, which would outlaw interfering with or restricting the right of a parent to breast-feed in public. If approved, the new bill would permit anyone who believes their breast-feeding rights have been violated to file a lawsuit and seek damages, The Texas Tribune reported.
Riddle wrote in her post that "a bill that would allow for lawsuits if one 'interfered' with a woman breastfeeding is really going a bit far." She said that she is "all in favor of breast feeding," and that it is "important for women to be modest while feeding their baby."
"Most of our laws and bills being considered for law would not be necessary if people would simply be considerate and thoughtful of others," Riddle wrote in the post. "Needless to say — I am not supporting this bill."
Riddle’s colleague, Jessica Farrar, authored the legislation. She said Riddle's post "illustrates the problem" that she was attempting to address. "Lingerie commercials reveal more than women actually trying to do good for their children and their families," she said. "... Some people think that breastfeeding is somehow obscene."
Some examples of the Facebook comments the post received:
"There is nothing immodest about a nursing baby, no matter how much breast you see!"
"Please ban cleavage first."
One woman went so far as to post a picture of herself breastfeeding.
Source: (The Texas Tribune)
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Riddle is essentially
Riddle is essentially correct.
There should not be a need for a law to protect women's rights to breast feed, they should have that right per se. This is a bill to address a cultural issue that some people don't like it seeing tits, this should be addressed with education.
What will happen if this bill is passed is that people will get sued for commenting on breast feeding, watching or even offering the women a seat.
@Dataferret, this is TEXAS
@Dataferret, this is TEXAS House Bill 1706. Why would anyone outside the State of Texas care what the lactating women in Texas want? State laws are State business, we do not need nation forum discussions on every piece of legislation proposed in every State & US territory.
@gem, Well-said.
@gem, Well-said.
@Gem, Respectfully, is there
@Gem,
Respectfully, is there a reason why people shouldn't have and express opinions about what happens in other areas of the country/world? Certainly the opinions expressed here will not have any effect on the proposed Texas legislation, but the same can be said for many (most) things discussed here. The general topics of breastfeeding in public, civil litigation, and responsibilities of business owners are ones that can be pertinent to people living anywhere.
@ Savannah "is there a reason
@ Savannah
"is there a reason why people shouldn't have and express opinions about what happens in other areas of the country/world?"
I deserve a green card, for the effort that I have put into thinking about the issues raised on Opposing Views, with its preponderance of stories from the Americas, since I joined. And I'm not even any kind of American. So, well said. Many of the issues raised here are indeed pertinent to the whole of humanity.
I came to the conclusion that this Bill was OK, but that the rep. who got spammed with criticism (allegedly much of from out-of-state) was also probably right, that, in practice, bullies telling mum's to stop breast feeding, wasn't a widespread problem, even in Texas. And there's nothing wrong with requesting "modesty" either.
What a storm in a tea cup!
Since our society has
Since our society has sexualized women's breasts, this type of issue is coming up in a lot of places.
Asking a mother to "cover up" when breastfeeding does not interfere with her right to feed her child. Any mother not respecting the wishes of a property owner by feeding her child discreetly is just being contrary to push an agenda. She shouldn't need to, but we have made it that way by treating women's breasts as sex objects and legislating and educating to that attitude.
@ gregandrene "our society
@ gregandrene
"our society has sexualized women's breasts"
How very "White Knight" of you to say that. However, I don't think that women's breasts *need* to "sexualized", by "society" or anybody else. I think that women's breasts are *already* about as sexual as can be, without any need for them to be "sexualized" further (e.g. by "society"), to make them more sexual than they already are, quite naturally, all by themselves.
I have only once in my entire life heard an anecdote, of what somebody else claims to have seen, a woman who violated the local dress code, in order to breast feed, rather finding a "discreet" way of breast feeding, without violating the dress code.
This Bill (which I have quoted from extensively on this page), doesn't stop a shopkeeper from asking a woman please not to strip to the waist in his shop. It does stop him from banning her from breast feeding discreetly. That's how I read it.
I have noticed lots of women breast feeding over the years. None of them have been the exhibitionists you seem to envisage, courting opportunities to litigate.
( . ) ( . )
Not sure I get your "White
Not sure I get your "White Knight" reference, but pretty much only in "developed" countries are woman's breasts anything but child feeding organs. Unless I am just reading too much National Geographic.
@Greg "pretty much only in
@Greg
"pretty much only in 'developed' countries are woman's breasts anything but child feeding organs"
Can you give an example of a "country" that you do not consider to be "developed"?
("White knight" wasn't the right term.)
No, you are correct. Except,
No, you are correct. Except, during sex, many of the cultures consider breasts to be sexual and when the activity ends they go back to seeing them as organs like any other part of the body.
It is a huge misconception that breast are purely sexual and every culture sees them this way because they are "visible sexual organs". This is an excuse to keep it socially appropriate to stare at women's breast.
@ theponytoes "This is an
@ theponytoes
"This is an excuse to keep it socially appropriate to stare at women's breast."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbeAsiPOj4
Ohhh, that's why you don't
Ohhh, that's why you don't care about women's rights. Because you have no respect for them. Thats why your all "Go rapist go" and "WAT ABOAT TEH BABIES/?!?!1"
I see nothing wrong with what
I see nothing wrong with what Ms Riddle said: what or where did she say anything amiss? She didn't. In fact, she did admit support for both breastfeeding and the idea that mothers who breastfeed should show respect for others. It is not hard to do both. This is simply another incidence of rabid liberals going crazy, then trying to push a law to make themselves overreaching "rights" & criminalize decent behavior. It will probably backfire.
Some exhibitionist women really seem to go all out in an effort to show themselves off during breastfeeding. Consider about a woman in a YMCA or little league park showing her boobs to all passersby -- kids, men married to other women, etc. Sure, maybe the kids could do with seeing more boobs, so they learn that girls grow up into women & boys into men, so they learn to identify with males as they should & not be turned gay by a society bent on making sissyboys. However, the men who have wives don't need too much temptation, and little boys probably don't need TOO much "stimulating" ideas about boobies at a young age (unless with parental approval & appropriate talks).
Then, to see that the "flasher-babes" want to make it a crime & sue if they get in trouble for militantly flashing their boobs...is horrific! Sure, God made their boobies, so their is nothing shameful about them, in themselves. Yet, the provactive flashing, naughtiness, & the intent to domineer others by it, take over public areas to flash people without anything people can do about it, etc. is all going way too far.
( . )( . )
( . )( . )
Very respectful. How old are
Very respectful. How old are you, 7? Or did you just figure our you can make breast out of text? Guess what? You can also spell "boobs" on your calculator, ooooooh, exciting night for you!!!!
LOL! The Ascii graphics were
LOL!
The Ascii graphics were for Holysmokes' benefit though, not yours.
I've posted much of the text of Bill itself below. Are you for it, or against it yourself?
I've seen plenty of women
I've seen plenty of women breastfeed in public completely uncovered. Never bothered me.
The Bill is published
The Bill is published at
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB01706I.htm
The important provisions seem to be as follows.
Sec. 165.002. Right to Breast-Feed.
(a) A mother is entitled to breast-feed her baby in any location in which the mother is otherwise authorized to be. A mother's authority to be in a location may not be revoked for the sole reason that she begins to breast-feed.
(b) A person may not interfere with or restrict the right of a mother to breast-feed in accordance with this section.
SECTION 2. Subchapter A, Chapter 165, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Section 165.005 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.005. STATE AGENCY "MOTHER-FRIENDLY" WORKSITE.
To the extent reasonably practicable, each state agency shall develop a policy supporting the practice of worksite breast-feeding under Section 165.003.
Sec. 165.102. Civil Cause of Action.
(a) An interested person whose rights were violated under Section 165.002 may bring a civil action in the appropriate state court.
(b) In any civil action alleging a violation of this chapter, a court may:
(i) Afford injunctive relief against any person, entity, or public accommodation that commits or proposes to commit a violation of this chapter; and
(ii) Award compensatory damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.
__________________________________________________________
I notice the clause "to the extent reasonably practicable" in the provision obliging the government itself to allow its employees to breast-feed at work. I question why there isn't a reasonableness provision anywhere *else*, e.g. for other employers.
I can see another thing wrong with the Bill straight away. A mother should NOT be entitled to breast-feed her baby in a location where SHE was entitled to be HERSELF, UNLESS the BABY was entitled to be there too! We don't want female steeplejacks taking their babies aloft, and claiming the protection of this Act.
I cannot see any reason why a mother, who is lawfully holding her baby near her breast, should suddenly be in the wrong, because the baby latches onto her nipple. So, if the grumbles I've mentioned are fixed, the law wouldn't be a big deal.
But is the law necessary? It seems to be aimed at (say) malls with signs reading "no breastfeeding allowed in this mall". Are signs like that a common sight, mums? Who is going to know that a mother is breast feeding her child in a mall, unless the child let's go of the nipple, and stares around the mall, leaving the nipple exposed, and the mother doesn't react "modestly" with sufficient speed?
On balance, I'd probably vote for the Bill, if it were amended as I have suggested. But I see Riddle's point of view too.
Texas representative Debbie
Texas representative Debbie Riddle is a perfect example of the American Taliban trying to impose its mores on the rest of society. My goodness, this woman comes across as ugly and hateful as some extremist Islamists and the whole crowd of busy-body Fundamentalists and Evangelists who are a statistical minority in this nation and have, for years, imposed censorship on movies, go around and ban books, and other activities that violate the rights of individuals to make personal choices for themselves. These are issues that should not require legislating if people behaved in a rational and mature manner. As a Legislator she should be focusing on genuine issues concerning creating jobs for the unemployed, preventing hunger and homelessness in these United States instead of diverting attention to these trivial matters.
@kerryberger, the Taliban
@kerryberger, the Taliban would simply behead a woman breast-feeding anywhere outside her home. STATE REPRESENTATIVE Debbie Riddle is not paid by the taxpayers of District 150 in Texas to discuss ANY national legislation. She was elected to represent the opinions ONLY of the voters of her district on pending STATE legislation. I do not know how many of the approximately 1000 nasty comments she got on her Facebook were from anyone in Texas, let alone her own constituents, but unless those who elected her have a different view she should stand her ground. Riddle said she will NOT approve a bill that allows a breast-feeding woman to sue a business or anyone else who "interferes" with the breast-feeding of a child. I AGREE, I do not want any such law in my own State, but since I do not live in Texas this really isn't any of my business. I don't care what marriage laws, gun laws or breast-feeding laws the people of Texas want for their own State. Unless you are a Texas resident, plan to move to Texas, or buy into a business in the State of Texas this law has nothing to do with you. If American voters would spend more time focusing on their own elected representatives & how they are being represented by them they might actually create the government they want.
You can already sue people
You can already sue people for anything you want, though odds are small that you'd win or even not have your case thrown out.
Again, legislating morality (i.e. they should be modest!) is a can of worms that should never be opened, this representative is just a prude.
There is nothing in the
There is nothing in the legislation requiring "modesty". Have a read of it.
Riddle is NOT sponsoring or
Riddle is NOT sponsoring or advocating for ANY breast-feeding law. She was simply stating why local business owners want the right to ask someone breast-feeding to step into another room, leave their property or cover-up. Riddle is refusing to create a breast-feeding law in Texas. She is not trying to create ANY breast-feeding laws of any kind. As long as she is representing the major opinion of district 150 in Texas, I applaud her. After all, that is her job.
"House Bill 1706, which would
"House Bill 1706, which would outlaw interfering with or restricting the right of a parent to breast-feed in public. If approved, the new bill would permit anyone who believes their breast-feeding rights have been violated to file a lawsuit and seek damages...."
I agree with Riddle on this one. The provisions of the law, if stated accurately, is going to open a floodgate of spurious litigation. They need to tone down the law and remove the civil suit provision altogether.
-- Data Ferret
@ DataFerret "The provisions
@ DataFerret
"The provisions of the law, if stated accurately"
I have taken the trouble to paste the important bits of the Bill into a comment on this story here.