A little-discussed nugget of law tucked into the federal health care reform act directs businesses that have more than 50 employees to give lactating mothers a private space in which to pump milk or breastfeed, as well as a “reasonable” amount of (unpaid) time to do so.

This Free Press article forwarded to me this morning discusses it in more detail, and got me reminiscing about all the gross places in which I struggled to pump milk for the short six weeks I breast-fed my newborn baby girl.

Bathrooms, mostly. I was struggling to wrap up my journalism degree at the time, and if the University of Montana had a dedicated lactation room, I was not aware of it. I was also working at the Kaimin, and have fond memories of sitting with my back against the door (because it didn’t lock) of the old editor’s office – a room so filthy I had to scrape what looked like crusty old macaroni and cheese off the windows just to get a little natural light – praying no one would barge in.

The article also got me looking around the Missoulian, pondering places I might pump if I were lactating now. Hmm. Looks like the bathroom again.

Which brings me to my favorite quote from the article. Here’s what Michigan Breastfeeding Network cochair and Children’s Hospital of Michigan pediatrican Rosemary Shy had to say about breastfeeding in bathrooms: “I want every employer who says (pump in a bathroom) to be forced to eat his lunch in the bathroom for a month.”

The law creates a lot of questions – how will this work for non-office staff? – and will no doubt lead to many more as the details are hashed out. But I think it’s a positive thing that the nation is acknowledging its lactating labor force at all, and I, for one, welcome the long overdue discussion.

- MM

1 Comment »

The big news in Montana today is, of course, the state Supreme Court’s ruling that a woman who helped care for her former partner’s adopted children shares parental rights.

To recap the case: One-half of a lesbian couple adopted two children (because in Montana, it’s illegal for two people of the same sex to marry) and they all shared a household for about 10 years. During that time, they both assumed parental responsibilities.

Then, the couple separated, and that’s when things got complicated. One of the women married (a man) and the other sued for “parental rights to the children and for an interest in the property they shared.”

The case eventually wound its way to the Supreme Court, where one side successfully argued that adults who establish a parent-child relationship have a compelling parental interest in those children.

The legal director for the Montana ACLU calls it “a victory for families in all shapes, sizes and colors.”

On the other side, the only dissenting Supreme Court justice said the ruling meant that “Consequences of geometric proportion will fall in the future upon many fit parents” because “Now, even parents who are fit and capable … are potentially subject to the claims of third parties for rights to their children.”

What say you?

- MM

No Comments »

The Missoula Independent’s cover story – Guiding the Guardians – this week is an in-depth look at the state’s method of approving guardian ad litems, or GALs, to represent the interests of children in some divorce cases. Or rather, Montana’s lack of a method.

The story centers on a group of Missoula parents, called the Montanans Supporting Guardian Guidelines, who are working to change the regulations concerning GALs in Montana.

Going through a divorce when there are kids involved in hard enough, and GALs have a tough job. Anything this group can do to make sure the GALs assigned to divorce cases know what they’re doing and aren’t unnecessarily hindering the proceedings is a good thing.

- MM

No Comments »