Another example of badly drafted legislation. I suspect what they were getting at was the problem of women being in a public place that is privately owned, such as a shopping mall, while feeding their babies. What they should have done is to identify natural feeding activities as an inherent characteristic of womanhood and that any prohibition on such feeding constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. As written, all a property owner has to do is to tell them woman that she has to leave at once, and if she remains, she is a trespasser and thus not "lawfully present". I've been watching the legislative process for some years, and I'm always amazed at how badly written statutes are. Then, when the courts get ahold of these things, they can "interpret" them to mean whatever the members of the court think they ought to have said, precisely because they're badly written to begin with. Where do we get these people we send the legislature, anyway?
(Btw, all five of my kids were naturally fed until naturally weaned, which in humans generally occurs at around age 2 or 3 years. I'm a strong supporter of La Leche League, and am constantly horrified at the self-important self-absorbed ways in which people short-change their kids by lack of proper care and discipline.)
)
