Breastfeeding mom said she was kicked out of Texas City public pool

A Texas City woman said she was hurt and ashamed after being ordered to leave a city pool Sunday for breastfeeding her baby. Misty Daugereaux said she was nursing her 10-month-old son Maxx at the Nessler Family Aquatic Center.

One of my four children refused food and breast fed only for a full year. She also did not have teeth until after age one.

1. Breast pump, feeding the child from a device designed for that purpose
2. That same device can be used to deliver dietary suplements designed for young children
3. Some of those dietary supplements are very thin requiring no teeth for consumption
4. These dietary supplements stay in the stomach longer than mother's milk does, and can extend the period between feedings
5. A child provided this type of supplement just before leaving for an outing can sometimes go three hours, longer than the normal two hours between feeding sessions
6. A mother can simply keep herself covered as much as possible, and feed the child in public.

It’s also not our place to decide for other parents what, when and where their infant eats. It’s none of our business and it most certainly is none of the government’s business.

1. There are other people in public.
2. Just like any other issue when things take place in public, the other people at any given event also have rights. They have a right not to be exposed to a potential "situation" that might cause them problems. This is their business.
3. Once again, mother can simply keep herself covered as much as possible, and feed the child in public.

Older infants frequently do not like to be covered, because they want to see what is going on or wish to maintain eye contact with their mother. Breastfeeding is both food and a relationship.

1. Nobody I've seen has suggested an infant had to be covered.
2. Nobody suggested something needed to be done that would short circuit the mother/child bonding process.

The general public is just going to have to advert their eyes or leave the area. There is simply no way to write a law that wouldn’t be a gross imposition on the child’s natural right to eat.

1. The general public doesn't HAVE TO DO anything. The general public has the reasoned expectation that other people in public will keep their privates covered.
2. Fathers are there with their kids too. If you're saying fathers have no right to to be here to exercise their own bonding procees with their kids, I think you can see the absurdity in this suggestion.
3. Children need to eat. They have no natural right to feed from a mother than can't keep herself under control, avoiding putting others at risk of being falsely charged with voyerism.

Children need to eat. They have no natural right to feed from a mother than can't keep herself under control, avoiding putting others at risk of being falsely charged with voyerism.

I think this argument completely fails. The child has a natural right to eat. You don't get to put constraints on natural rights, especially those that are basic to human existence, especially based on a speculative unrealized risk of harm to others

Straight up at all levels of law and logic, an unrealized harm that has not occurred, may not ever occur and has no well known history of occurring is not ever going to be a consideration when balancing freedoms and rights.

As for your suggestions regarding alternative feeding options. Yeah, they work for some infants, sometimes and in some situations. But not for all infants, all times or all situations. And you are also ignoring the basic principle that neither third parties or government get to dictate basic parenting activities to parents.

Also you can't cover a boob without the cloth getting in or over the face of the child. When people speak of "covering" they generally mean draping a blanket or burp cloth over the mother's shoulder down to the child's shoulder covering both the breast and the child's head. This is frequently done not for privacy but to reduce outside stimulation in order to relax and soothe the child to sleep. Older infants who have higher activity to sleep ratios often refuse coverage because they are only hungry, not hungry and tired.

In this specific story, the mom in question had a tank style suit with a slit she used for feeding. This is a perfect design because the straps remain in place on your shoulders and provide maximum coverage. This is why I question whether the claims of the employees are true or if they simply made stuff up because of their own discomfort.

This happens a lot, which is why most if not all states have laws protecting public breastfeeding. Simply put, an infant's comfort is more important than everyone else's. That standard is as old as the hills because babies are helpless and needy and adults aren't.

You can grouse about the situation until the cows come home, but it's not change it one iota. Which is why the pool staff is getting re-educated, they were wrong, they violated the law and created an unnecessary scene while inconveniencing a family unit due to their own ignorance and preconceived discomfort.

Children need to eat. They have no natural right to feed from a mother than can't keep herself under control, avoiding putting others at risk of being falsely charged with voyerism.

I think this argument completely fails.

1. It doesn't fail because here are competing interests. Mom's and their babies do not become "the owners" of any space, just because they exist there. Others are also there and they have rights too.

The child has a natural right to eat.

1. Of course children have a right to eat. Nobody has argue they don'. Why you keep mentioning this is telling.
2. They do not have a need to eat from a mother who is exposing herself in public.

You don't get to put constraints on natural rights, especially those that are basic to human existence, especially based on a speculative unrealized risk of harm to others

1. You don't get to put unnatural constraints on men's right to make determinations of their own safety from being falsely charged with voyerism in public.
2. Children have no inherent right to be fed nutrition by a mother who is exposing herself in public.
3. Several other methods of supplying nutrition have been presented to you, and your reaction as been to simply refuse to acknowledge they exist or that they are effective.

Straight up at all levels of law and logic, an unrealized harm that has not occurred, may not ever occur and has no well known history of occurring is not ever going to be a consideration when balancing freedoms and rights.

1. You do not get to dictate to me what my perception of undue exposure to false charges can be. Those are for me to determine, not you.
2. Straight up, the pressure on men in all environments have changed drastically over recent years. That you are unware of this, really doesn't matter to me.

As for your suggestions regarding alternative feeding options. Yeah, they work for some infants, sometimes and in some situations.

1. Yeah, they work for the vast majority of infants in and the vast majority of situations.

But not for all infants, all times or all situations.

1. And other options have been conveyed to you to cover those situations.

And you are also ignoring the basic principle that neither third parties or government get to dictate basic parenting activities to parents.

1. There is no basic principle that dictates men MUST be exposed to women showing their private parts in public. Further, governments do make regulations all the time that address the rights the balancing of the rights of all parties in public situations. Being a mother of a newborn to several year old child, does not suddenly make you exempt from these types of considerations.

Also you can't cover a boob without the cloth getting in or over the face of the child.

1. Yes you can. For the most part a woman's anatomy does not need to be revealed in public. The area where he child needs to nurse can be left accessable for feeding and the rest can be covered.
2. My wife considered her breasts to be for my eyes only. She wasn't a woman who felt the need to expose hereself in front of other men.

When people speak of "covering" they generally mean draping a blanket or burp cloth over the mother's shoulder down to the child's shoulder covering both the breast and the child's head. This is frequently done not for privacy but to reduce outside stimulation in order to relax and soothe the child to sleep. Older infants who have higher activity to sleep ratios often refuse coverage because they are only hungry, not hungry and tired.

1. I have no problem with this recitation. Mom still needs to keep covered up. If that can't be accomplished in public, then mom needs to rethink going out in pulibc. We're not talking about ten years here. People who are creative and want to, find ways to be descrete. Those who aren't, want to expose themselves for whatever reason, or simply want to stake their claim to public ground, won't.

In this specific story, the mom in question had a tank style suit with a slit she used for feeding. This is a perfect design because the straps remain in place on your shoulders and provide maximum coverage. This is why I question whether the claims of the employees are true or if they simply made stuff up because of their own discomfort.

1. I wasn't there. I don't know if mom's story is solid, or if there was something going on that caused people to take action. If a mother is being descrete, I don't see a man objecting to her nursing her child, or staff, or police taking measures to address the situaiton.
2. I will tell you that if I'm out in public and a woman exposes herself near me for whatever reason, I'm not going to be very comfortable. It puts me in potential jeopardy, and I don't appreciate being put in the position of me having to leave so she can do as she pleases.
3. I would no appreciate me or my family having to vacate due to her inconsiderate actions. COVER UP!

This happens a lot, which is why most if not all states have laws protecting public breastfeeding.

1. Most people expect mothers to use discression. The women I know would never overly expose themselves in public.

Simply put, an infant's comfort is more important than everyone else's.

1. Nah, nice try but the infant's comfort does not magically dislove the rights of everyone else present. Mother still needs to be respectful towards others who are present.

That standard is as old as the hills because babies are helpless and needy and adults aren't.

1. You've been offered solutions to every circumstance you could dream up. Modesty and consideration for the impact on others is also as old as the hills. Mothers are not helpless, and the actions of them is what we are addressing. Another nice try on your part. No sale.

You can grouse about the situation until the cows come home, but it's not change it one iota.

1. There are competing rights here. An infant needs to eat. It should be facilitated witout making others in the room/area feel exposed to a situation that could cause them discomfort or legal harm.

Which is why the pool staff is getting re-educated, they were wrong, they violated the law and created an unnecessary scene while inconveniencing a family unit due to their own ignorance and preconceived discomfort.

1. Yes, ignorance does abound. Sadly mothers and their advocates venture into that territory too at times. Other people and families in the vicinity of women who wish to breast feed their children also have rights.
2. The staff at that pool may or may not need to be re-educated.
3. The mother at that pool may or may not need to be re-educated.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.