"The bill passed in 2005; the law is active now.

I gave the general cite Dr. Sears gave at his website, but there's plenty of other places. Our HR confirmed it to me, as well as our legal person here. If I want to breastfeed in an airport, federal building, whatever, I can. From Breastfeeding.com

"The good news about breastfeeding in public is that in the United States, women are gaining more breastfeeding rights. In 1998, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (a Democrat from New York) introduced legislation (The Right to Breastfeed Act, H.R. 1848) to protect a woman's right to breastfeed on federal property where she and her child have a right to be. The bill was signed into law on Sept. 28, 1999 when President Clinton signed the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill, which included Rep. Maloney's Right to Breastfeed Act. http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/advocacy_bfinpublic.html"

HR 2122 was an amendment expanding the rights to breastfeed at the federal level, and built on the 1999 law. HR2122 was passed in 2005. So yes, you have the right to breastfeed on federal land, in buildings, etc. The 1999 HR 1848 established the right and 2005 HR2122 expanded it. Both are passed and in operation"

I'm sorry but your advocacy is clouding your reading comprehension and you're conflating several issues. To back up a bit, this started when one poster stated that breastfeeding was part of and protected under the Civil Rights Act and, as such, federal law. That sounded odd so I checked it out and found out that it's not part of the CRA and therefore not federal civil rights law. There is a proposed amendment to the CRA (HR 2122) working it's way through the system. Why you keep insisting that the amendment "has passed in 2005" despite the evidence that it hasn't yet is beyond me. I posted the entry from govtracking which showed that the Bill was just introduced in May 2005 and is currently in a House subcommittee and the sponsoring Congresswoman hasn't even announced it's passage. But, you just know it passed, right? Your "HR and legal person" told you, huh? But, I'm sure they're okay and just working off the bad question you probably asked them.

Also, HR 2122 is NOT an amendment to the rider that was attached to Treasury Postal Apprpriations bill (HR 1848). It's a proposed amendment to the CRA. Here it is:

"5/5/2005--Introduced.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act Amendments of 2005 - Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include lactation (breastfeeding, including expression of milk) as protected conduct under such Act.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow employers a business tax credit for breast pumps and other equipment to assist employed mothers to breastfeed or express milk for their children and for consultation services relating to breastfeeding.

Safe and Effective Breast Pumps Act - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) put into effect a performance standard for breast pumps irrespective of the class to which the breast pumps have been classified under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and (2) issue a compliance policy guide which will assure that women who want to breastfeed a child are given full and complete information respecting breast pumps.

Expands the definition of medical care in the Internal Revenue Code to include qualified breastfeeding equipment and services."

HR 1848 established that women can breastfeed on FEDERAL PROPERTY where the mother and baby have a right to be blah, blah, blah,. Actually, that's not surprising, and in fact, it mirrors several state/city laws about breasfeeding on STATE or CITY property (most public use airports). HR 2122 is not an expansion of that allownace. It's about trying have breastfeeding categorized as protected conduct under the CRA as opposed to expanding what you can do on federal property. IOW and IMO, it would elevate breastfeeding to a "civil right" that one could do pretty much anywhere. It's an attempted tactical end run around private property rights, and if you stop and think about the implications for a minute without the emotional baggage, it's passage would raise some very thorny questions.

"Some people may not like it, but that really doesn't matter. Delta was probably legally in the wrong here."

People are funny. Putting aside for the moment the PRIVATE property part of the issue, what EXACTLY would she sue Delta for under either or both amendments/laws?

Delta allowed her to breastfeed on their plane.

Delta didn't stop her from breastfeeding on their plane.

Delta asked that she cover herself while she breastfeed on their plane.

She refused and Delta had her and her family removed from their plane.

What is her complaint under the law and proposed amendment above? The plane's not federal property and I don't see how asking her to cover up on the plane while she breastfeed violated her proposed "civil right" to breastfeed. But hey, as "A Lawyer" said, if she has enough money, I'm sure someone will take the case.

Run!! It's amazing how quickly you turn into a caricature.

The largest mainstream Muslim advocacy organization donates money to a promising Muslim candidate for public office. Sounds like business as usual. Damn evil bastids! What will they think of next?