Events
Clients
Guests
Prizes
When attorney Stacey Armato arrived at the TSA inspection at her usual gate at Phoenix International Airport for her weekly return flight home to Los Angeles on February 1st, she felt a bit of trepidation. The week before she had been held for 40 minutes while TSA staff researched whether she had a right to refuse to allow her pumped breast milk to be x-rayed. She had requested "alternate" screening – something to which she has been entitled since the summer of 2007 when the TSA exempted breast milk from the 3-1-1 rule and reclassified it as a medical liquid. Under current TSA policy, breast milk may be carried on-board in any reasonable quantity, as long as it fits in carry-on luggage, and it can be screened either through the x-ray machine or by hand (the "alternate" screening for medication which may consist of a visual inspection or a wipe of the container's exterior that supposedly detects explosives). While the TSA website is far from user-friendly on this point, the "alternate" screening in place for medications is available to those traveling with breast milk because breast milk was reclassified as a "medical necessity."(scroll down to the Q&A).
After her negative experience the previous week, Armato had filed a complaint with the TSA. Now she was about to be screened by the same staff about whom she complained. But she could have no way of knowing what they had in store for her.
When Armato asked once again to have her breast milk (which she was bringing home to her 7 month old son) screened without an x-ray, she was held in custody by TSA for an hour and a half. She was given no explanation. She never knew how long she would be held. As her flight left without her, she stood trapped in a plastic box weeping while her pumped milk – now out of its cooler – was played with by TSA staffed. Seriously, watch the TSA staffer in the foreground of the video below. She picks up, puts down and tosses about the containers of milk as if they are toys.
Below is a YouTube video made by Armato's brother-in-law. The footage presented in this video was obtained by Armato through a Freedom of Information Act request and is the official recording made by the TSA. However, approximately 25 minutes of video – what happened after what you can see here – was destroyed by TSA as not relevant to her complaint.
If you would like to see all of the video Armato obtained without being sped up as it is below and without the graphic commentary, you can see it here, here, here, and here.
So let's take a break right here and give Armato a hand. This mother returned to full-time work outside the home 13 weeks after her first son was born. Her son was fed exclusively with breast milk despite her work requiring she travel from Los Angeles to Phoenix once every week. She flew early morning and return in the afternoon, pumping approximately 12 ounces of breast milk during the day. It was this milk she was trying to bring home to her son.
Since this YouTube video went viral last week, many have asked whether she filed a complaint with the TSA about her treatment. The answer is "yes," however to her knowledge nothing was done to discipline the TSA staff involved in this incident. Armato has taken this same flight many times since February and she has seen all of the TSA staff members at work. Armato has yet to find an attorney willing to represent her in a lawsuit against the TSA.
So what happened in the twenty odd minutes after this video ends? Armato was forced by TSA staff to divide her breast milk into more containers. Yeah, that's right. Armato had 12 ounces of breast milk in four 3 ounce containers despite the fact TSA policy does not require breast milk be carried in 3 ounce containers. After being held in custody for an hour and a half, TSA staff forced her to sit on the floor and pour her breast milk into new containers so that each container held no more than 2 ounces.
Does any TSA policy or regulation require that breast milk be carried in 2 ounces batches? No. There is no explanation for what happened to Stacey Armato other than that she was targeted for harassment by vengeful TSA staffers against whom she had filed a complaint the previous week. And those staffers still work for the TSA. They not only got away with holding Armato hostage, they are free to do the same to you.
What are your thoughts about what happened to Stacey Armato? Have you been harassed while trying to carry breast milk through a TSA checkpoint? During this holiday weekend in the U.S., how are you treated by the TSA as you traveled with your children?
There is an interesting discussion over at PhD in Parenting in a post called Approaching Heaven, Mummies and Infinity about raising kids without religion. As happens to me a fair bit, I began to leave a comment that became so long I brought it over here and turned it into a blog post of my own. Thanks to Annie for the nudge.
My boys are now teens and tween and I have been shocked that "is there a god?" and related questions simply never came up. My boys never asked me "whether" questions about religion. They have only asked me "why would anybody think?" questions. "Why would anyone think there is a man above the clouds? Why would anyone think you go somewhere after you die?" Lots of "why would anyone think X is the answer to that question?"
To my knowledge, none of my boys ever even considered the existence of a god. They came home from time to time telling me what religious beliefs friends had. My main job has been to teach them to be respectful of beliefs with which they disagree unless the beliefs are hurtful. I could easily deal with "Jimmy thinks there is a heaven" with "that belief doesn't hurt anyone and you can disagree without being disrespectful." But "Jimmy thinks god says gays are bad" needed a discussion about when religious tolerance must stop because religious behavior is hurting people.
I fully expected at least one of my kids to give serious consideration to whether there is a god and am surprised none of them ever did. It seemed to me that children would be predisposed to think of magical answers to difficult questions. But my children have always wanted scientific answers to questions. My children want facts and if there is only theory, the theory needs a basis in reason and what we do know.
I happen to like magic. Fairy tales are lovely and it has been disappointing to me that my kids have shown so little interest in them. I also really want my children to think things out for themselves. I don't want them simply adopting my or their father's views on anything. And somewhere I read that it was normal for children to believe in god. That it made them fear uncertainty and death less. Well, definitely can't prove that by my kids. That mysteries could be explained by a higher power always seemed just plain dumb to my kids. Go figure. I didn't teach them that.
As younger children, religion didn't come up much but when it did I was always careful to say that, while I don't believe in a god, I am not necessarily right and they may choose to believe in god. When they went to school, they went to Quaker schools. My youngest went to mandatory "Meeting." If you haven't been a Quaker Meeting, there is no formal service. Members sit in silence and speak if they have something to say. I went to lots of Quaker meetings when I was involved (for many wonderful years) with the American Friends Service Committee. With great respect to Quakers (with the notable exception of Richard Nixon), I have to say I was really bored. But when my then-four year old went to Meeting, he found it calming and peaceful which makes perfect sense because it can be largely meditation. I suck at organized meditation but my son didn't. But there was no god involved for him. It was peaceful quiet time and he liked it.
When we started homeschooling, religion came up a lot because most of the organized homeschool groups in my area are dominated by fundamentalist Christians who believe it is their duty to make me feel unwelcome. I have not accepted Jesus as my personal savior so they don't want their kids playing with my kids. Yeah, I am bitter. I have no respect for that attitude. But I hid it from my kids because I didn't want them to know there are people we have never met who exclude us out of bigotry.
So my contribution to the discussion concerning what struggle one might have raising kids without religion is … well, there may be no struggle at all.
Have a look at this piece in Britain's Daily Mail about Parental care of gambling online iGaming bitcoin real money casinos in Italian EU Parliament member Licia Ronzulli casting a vote with her infant daughter in a sling. Apparently EU Parliament rules allow parents to bring their babies to work.
While this Daily Mail piece is quick to point out the baby might have have disturbed the other parliament members had she awoken, it describes (and shows in photos) that cradled in a sling, with mom leaning over now and then to kiss her head, 2 1/2 month old Victoria slept peacefully. To which us veteran baby wearers say, "Like, duh!"
So can you bring your baby to work with you? Would you like to?
Share your stories. And if you would like some help creating a child-friendly workplace, head over to the Parenting in the Workplace Institute which has all the resources you might need.
Last year Julia Acevedo-Taylor claimed she was rudely asked to leave a Manhattan chocolate shop because she was breastfeeding her five month old. Last month, she filed a lawsuit against the shop. I'll be following that case – the first suit filed under the 1994 New York State public breastfeeding law – but watching a recent news report on the case I am struck most by the lack of discussion of the law.
Instead, there is a painful debate between a purported etiquette expert and a La Leche League Leader. Neither is talking about the law: what a woman is legally allowed to do. The debate is what she should do, followed up by a poll about whether women should be allowed to breastfeed in public. So did I miss something? Is the New York State legislature considering a bill to rescind current civil rights law that states a right to breastfeed in public? If not, why are these people having this discussion? If Julia Acevedo-Taylor has a legal right to breastfeed in public accommodations in New York State (which she does), why is there a "news" story about whether she should?
What other civil rights are people asked to forego to make restaurant patrons more comfortable? If Acevedo-Taylor were a man, would there be public debate about whether exercising her civil right is rude?
So have a look at this "news" story and tell me what you think. The beginning is a report on the original incident. It will probably make you really really angry. The owner denies Acevedo-Taylor was kicked out but said women could not breastfeed in his establishment without being "discreet" and covering up.
But then comes the "what should she do" discussion. The Countess of Etiquette thinks it is impolite to make people uncomfortable by feeding your baby with your breasts in public. And, by the way, her 13 year old son is very upset seeing breasts. Hmm. The La Leche League Leader is trying to avoid the question by saying breastfeeding isn't actually disruptive. Nice try but not the reason she was there. Were I interviewed on this question (and I have been many times, even by Fox News), I would insist on discussing the real issue. When you have a legal right, you can exercise it regardless of whether it makes people uncomfortable. What you should do is whatever legal act you feel comfortable doing. Those made uncomfortable by seeing breastfeeding are free to retreat to private space.