|
|
|
|
#1
08-08-2002, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Breastfeeding Mom is asked to drink her own milk--WTF??
I was just watching The O'Reilly Factor and lo and behold, airport security is at it again! Now they are trying to save the world from lactating mothers! They have kept us safe from women who've had double mastectomies, and old men who question having their wallets searched. NOW we can all breathe a sigh of relief that we are safe from expressed breast milk!
I can understand that security must be tighter since 9/11, but there has GOT to be a limit! Strip searching grannies and throwing an old man in jail because he asks if security personnel expect to find a rifle in his wallet is bad enough. But asking a woman to stand there and drink her own breast milk just makes me go  !!I am really starting to think that some of these people are getting off on the power generated by the need for heightened security measures. Some of the people they are "randomly searching" are easy marks for intimidation and humiliation. It really pisses me off, because it's so absurd and it trivializes the job that they are SUPPOSED to be doing!  At least this particular woman that O'Reilly featured was a lawyer and she held her ground and refused to do what they wanted. But there is apparently another case where the lady went ahead and drank the milk, because she was so intimidated. You know what? I think these turdburgers working in security ought to have to taste test their own stool samples!!!!! That might not be too difficult, seeing as how so many of them have their heads up their asses anyway! Disclaimer: Yes, there are some in airport security who do a terrific job and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. But what is going on here is, quite simply, ridiculous! 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
08-08-2002, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's just appalling isn't it? Are they making parents who formula feed drink the bottles as well?
What on earth could be in a bottle of breastmilk that makes it so dangerous? I think the whole thing is really creepy in a sexual way.
|
|
#4
08-08-2002, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
08-08-2002, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A little back ground that might explain some of this:
Airport screeners require you to take a sip of any open container to prove that you aren't concealing some sort of volatile or dangerous chemical in it. I don't have a problem with the general policy, but this particular application does have a little bit of a gross-out factor attached. Maybe they could require you to feed a small amount to your kid instead?
__________________
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right. --Lyndon B. Johnson
|
|
#6
08-08-2002, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, Reeder.
Now I just have to say WHAT THE EVERLOVIN' HELL were they thinking? EVEN if it wasn't breast milk in the bottle, even if, let's say, it was some deadly liquid poison that would kill the drinker instantly, did these security people think she was going to be able to force someone on the plane to drink it? Three BOTTLES of it? Or maybe she'd kill one guy with her Baby Bottle of Doom, but the other two guys she tried to get to drink it somehow wouldn't notice? Seriously, how humiliating, pointless and truly abusive. Not to mention they would also be depriving an infant of nourishment.
|
|
#7
08-09-2002, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-09-2002, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, a nauseated, vomiting, sick, incapable terrorist is certainly better than one who isn't right?
Yeah, a policy got stretch to it's very end, but it isn't quite such "fucked up logic" at the very beginning. You could certainly put something harmful in a Nalgene, and I have no problem taking a sip from my water bottle as I go through security. I'm not totally sure as for what to do in this specific case, mothers carrying breat milk for their infants.
__________________
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right. --Lyndon B. Johnson
|
|
#9
08-09-2002, 12:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Airport security is all bullshit anyway. If I really wanted to I could hijack a knife type weapon on board a plane with no problem. Glass, plastic, bamboo even.
Hell, I'm sure if you knew enough about explosives you could still smuggle an effective bomb onto a plane.
|
|
#10
08-09-2002, 12:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, that's probably true Goldfish. What do you wanna' do? Get rid of it entirely so that any jackass a little off his rocker with a half-assed plane can hijack any plane in the country?
__________________
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right. --Lyndon B. Johnson
|
|
#11
08-09-2002, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well it IS silly, but it's our own dang fault, after all. Since we've bent over backwards six ways 'till Sunday not to "profile" anyone or "discriminate" against anyone, this is the result.
If there's a danger of poisonous chemicals being brought onto airplanes in liquids, we HAVE to prevent all liquids being brought onto airplanes, including breastmilk. Otherwise, it could be construed as discrimination. Ya know, PC was funny for a time, when it was the butt of late-night jokes on Letterman or SNL, but now it's counterproductive, and possibly even dangerous. As in, while Mr. Security person is occupied making Ms. Mom drink breastmilk, Mr. Terrorist is boarding the plane with plastique in his shorts. Isn't there a famous phrase about reaping what you sow?
|
|
#13
08-09-2002, 12:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it's a stupid policy in that there are plenty of substances that I wouldn't want to drink, yet wouldn't endanger anyone on a plane. The kid who got sick after being forced to drink some of his sample of pond water that he was bringing to his science class comes to mind.
That said, I know that El-Al has had this policy for years with reguard to any opaque liquids, and I tend to think that they know their stuff on the airline-security front.
|
|
#14
08-09-2002, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Run on sentences! My favorite!
|
|
#15
08-09-2002, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Am I making any sense? That being said, what kind of substance could they be carrying in an open container that would aid them in hijacking a plane?
|
|
#16
08-09-2002, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Without commenting on the article, why does a lactating mother need to bring bottled breast milk on the plane? She brought the breasts with her, I can only assume she brought the kid.....give her a window seat and let her feed the kid as nature intended. Or she can go into the bathroom and feed the kid. They're pretty clean.
Just seems wierd to me.
|
|
#17
08-09-2002, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
spooje breast feeding in public, even in a dinky ass airplane bathroom is not a thing many women choose to do...
Personally, I don't know why this has become the big deal it is. It is *her* breast milk. Yes it's meant for her baby but it comes from her body it shouldn't be seen as disgusting. If it's that disgusting (given the rules of the flying skies) they why would anyone like a baby drink breast milk to begin with, let alone that from someone else's boobs! OH THE SHOCK. It's her own milk, I don't think there could be any harm from it. It's not like they asked her to drink her own urine sample, it's human breast milk for God's sakes. We consume products from cows and goats milk and this somehow grosses people out that a woman was asked to consume some of her own milk. Huh. The human thinking sure makes me wonder sometimes. Oh yeah, had that been a COWS milk, it's okay but OMG, NOT MY OWN BREAST MILK....... HOW DARE THEY!!! < scratches head >
|
|
#18
08-09-2002, 01:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I still say it was abusive and uncalled for. Sure, breast milk is certainly fit for human consumption. But to be asked to drink three bottles of milk you've expressed for your child is ludicrous. For one thing, as I said before, you're essentially depriving this baby of its dinner, and second, if the woman expressed her milk into bottles when she knows her breasts are going to be with her, it's likely she was aware that some stupid people think breastfeeding should not be done in public, and was trying to ensure that her child got fed with a minimum of disturbance to others.
|
|
#19
08-09-2002, 01:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wry, I can understand that part but I kind of wonder how much she was required to consume.
Anyhow, I think that people are more outraged that it was human breast milk. Again, I stress, had it been cow's milk this would have never made headlines. I wonder what makes this headline worthiness. It's the fact it's HUMAN BREAST MILK not the fact that it's a child's dinner. I'm still scratching my head.
|
|
#20
08-09-2002, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whenever I hear this story I can only think of that Friends episode.
Phoebe: (Tests breast milk on her wrist then licks it off) All others: (Grossed out) Ross: Oh my god, Phoebe what are you doing? Phoebe: I'm testing the milk. <snip> Ross: That's milk squeezed from another woman's breast. Breast milk is not for adults. Chandler: Though the packing is appealing.
__________________
Straight out of London: lunatike freke namede Geoff C, From the covin callede “Kynges Affinitee.” Men who confronte me, my dagger beth killynge them Hange them on a hempe-rope lyk ther name was Tresilian-
|
|
#21
08-09-2002, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A flammable liquid A caustic acid Lye water A concentrated capsicum (hot pepper) solution Even some substances that might conceivably be used in unexpected ways as part of a larger scheme: Liquid LSD Butyric acid (stink bomb, essentially, but you can pack a whoooole lotta stink in a baby bottle) So, basically, I think it's a completely sound and sensible thing for airline personnel to do. Sure, there is a gross-out factor in this particular case. Sure, it may have felt demeaning or offensive for her personally. And of course, I suspect any hijacker, or someone who happens to greet their friend with a "Hi, Jack!" is likely to be turned into ground meat by their fellow passengers in this point in history. However, the fact remains that very dangerous liquids could conceivably find their ways onto a plane if these kind of security measures aren't carried out. Little exceptions like baby bottles are the avenues through which the system might be thwarted again. Again, the possibility of a repeat airplane attack seems slim to me, but I think it would be boneheaded to not take simple security precautions.
|
|
#22
08-09-2002, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, and upon seeing some of the other posts that came in while I was typing and foolishly not previewing, I certainly think it is extremely unlikely that the woman was forced to drink the entire contents, and the link given presents no such impression. She was probably asked to drink a sip of each bottle, as a sip of anything useful in a hijacking is probably going to be very unpleasant. So, the baby probably did miss out on a few calories but gimme a break, depriving the baby of its dinner? Did you imagine they would make her chug down three bottles? If they were disallowing liquids altogether, she would just empty them, unless she was unusually concerned about wasting food. The bottom line her is the good ol' ick factor. I'm totally in agreement with techchick.
|
|
#23
08-09-2002, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I find it silly the press make a huge deal out of breast milk. And whats the big deal? The rules seem pretty straightforward- I for one am willing to be a little inconvenced/embrassed for the sake of security.
Terrorist 1: "Whats wrong? I thought we were going to go through with the plan of poisoning the plane?" Terrorist 2: "Well that guard over there just made that woman drink three bottles of her own breastmilk who knows what they are going to do to us."
|
|
#24
08-09-2002, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm amazed the woman didn't open the one container, glare at him/her, and slowly and succinctly pour the contents onto the security guard's shoes. That's what I would have done. . .
Tripler They can arrest ya for terrorism, but not for being an asshole.
|
|
#25
08-09-2002, 06:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The woman is on TV right now and she says that her tasting it contaminated it so they baby couldn't have any. WTF? Does she have a disease or something?
|
|
#26
08-09-2002, 06:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, that's the rule they taught us in our parenting class. Anything that touches the milk has to be considered as contaminating it, especially if the child in question is very small.
Don't ask me why. That's just what they told us.
|
|
#27
08-09-2002, 07:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I heard the woman on the radio. They only required her to take a sip from each bottle, not drink the whole bottle. She said her problem with that was that was that drinking from the bottle would contaminate the milk, so she wouldn't be able to give it to the baby. She also said she didn't get anyone's name-not the security personnel or any witnesses ( if there were any- when asked if anyone knew what happened, she said she told the woman bext to her on the planewho held a blanket up while she breastfed). I find it difficult to believe that someone whose real worry was contaminating the milk didn't have the sense to ask for a cup to pour some into and that someone who was upset enough to be calling a radio station and thinking about filing lawsuits didn't have the freakin' sense to get anyone's name or call for a suoervisor.
|
|
#28
08-09-2002, 07:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That reminds me of this story (12th paragraph down) about the 14 year old kid who was forced to drink from his science project, which was a Gatorade bottle full of water from his grandparents' pond. He ended up getting sick
 and missed two days of school due to gastric problems. I can see the reasoning, but this is ridiculous.
|
|
#29
08-09-2002, 08:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And I'd be rooting them on. They've got a thankless job, and if people are going to be assholes to them, in a way that goes beyond mere talk, just because they can't understand why their job asks them to do what they do, then bust 'em. Quote:
On the basic point, I'm in full agreement with techchick: what's so gross about this? And if she's flown since 9/11, she should certainly be aware that them's the rules - they make you drink from any unsealed container of liquid you bring through security, for the reasons other posters have mentioned. (Perfectly legit reasons, IMHO.) The point is, the guard doesn't know the bottles have breast milk; he only knows that they contain a liquid that could be breast milk.
|
|
#30
08-09-2002, 08:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
could they not have just asked her to pour a little onto her hand, or would opening tyhe container contaminate the milk?
|
|
#31
08-09-2002, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
(I am not creating a strawman. This has already happened on at least two occasions.) Profiling doesn't protect us, it just allows us to feel good that one of "ours" would never do this. I mean, look at Timothy McVeigh: obviously one of those suspicious looking, long-haired, dark-skinned, foreign-accented terrorists. We spotted him in a second.
|
|
#32
08-09-2002, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am also confused about the fuss over this. Yeah, it's kind of stupid... but given the fact that people are willing to do horrendous things to hijack planes, I feel it is justified to prove what is in a container of liquid.
So she had to drink her own breast milk... so what? My father had an open bottle of Jack Daniels confiscated by airport security YEARS before 9/11... and he was pissed! Let me tell ya! But he was willing to concede that it could have been some volitile chemical meant to cause harm (he wasn't asked to take a drink, it was simply confiscated). In today's atmosphere, you need to be prepared to be inconvenienced if you want to fly. That's the way it is. Suck it up, or find a different way to travel. Had it been me, I would have taken a swig and said, "Oh yeah! That's the stuff!" Astrogirl has already been informed that if we ever have a child, one breast is for the baby... and one is for me! 
|
|
#33
08-09-2002, 09:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am also not sure what the big deal is. I've tasted my own breast milk, and if I had to take a swig, it wouldn't be a big deal.
|
|
#34
08-09-2002, 10:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't really want to break up a perfectly good rant, but Snopes says that its only sort of true. Yes, at one time this was required, but that, as of June 24, 2002, its no longer a part of federal guidelines.
__________________
Mafia- Simpleton- Win(Vanilla Town) Cecilvania- Win(Alchemist Wolf, Roleblocker) Apocolypse- Lost to Serial Killer(Fallen Angel, Doctor)
|
|
#35
08-09-2002, 10:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm also confused about this...
Security is under orders to check every open container for possible toxic substances by making the person carrying it try a litte.... Woman: "But it's breast milk! I don't want to drink it." Just because she says it's breast milk doesn't mean it can't be anything else. And off the top of my head I can think of a few dozen very useful substances for taking over a plane or storming airport security. As for the contamination part :/ I wasn't aware you could backwash into a beverage container you had to suck on.... Or she could have squeezed some into her mouth. Or washed the damn little plasitc dohickey.
|
|
#36
08-09-2002, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agreed with the previous posters about how those could well have contained caustic/flammable/explosive substances.
As for the commentary about how many new mothers are terrorists or other criminals, let's not forget that suddenly Israel was surprised by young Palestinian women becoming suicide bombers. Women with babies are sometimes used as drug-smuggling mules so they can hide drugs in the baby's diapers/formula cans. For all those security people knew, she could have been smuggling some liquid drug component in the bottles, and they might have been concerned about that possibility instead of terrorism. And as to the question of race (I don't know what the mother's race was), John Walker Lindh was white, and the "shoe bomber" was, if I recall correctly, half black and half white. If the mother was so worried about contaminating her own milk, she could have done a number of things to avoid it, as other posters have pointed out. Airports should consider carefully their policies with respect to this, but I don't see it as being a horrible violation of civil rights.
|
|
#37
08-09-2002, 10:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another point besides the contamination factor is that for some of us, expressing milk is not as easy as it sounds. I personally do not seem to be able to get much and I sure as hell don't want to waste even one drop of it on a taste test. Who knows how long it may have taken her to get three bottles full? It would've taken ME the better part of a day! Even when I was breastfeeding a 12 pound newborn full-time and missed a feeding I could not seem to get more than a couple of ounces. We aren't cows that you can get gallons from at a time, you know, even if it looks that way!
And as to drinking formula, all I can say is YUCK!! I would protest that as well! Not only does it smell unappetizing (to an adult), it is expensive as hell! One swallow, and there's a dollar gone (OK, I exaggerate. Slightly.) As to plain old cow's milk, you aren't supposed to give that to a child less than one year of age anyway, but it is far easier to replace than breast milk. It is my suspicion that people will object far less to you pulling out the extra milk to refill the bottle than they would to you whipping out the breast and pumping an ounce or two!  My point is that security is nabbing these "threats" while others have managed to board flights with knives before they were caught. I still say that many are enjoying their new power and are taking advantage of it by targeting those they feel to be easy marks. That is what gets me more than anything else. Not just that someone might have to do something slightly embarrassing or distasteful (no pun intended!), but that some security personnel seem to be becoming bullies about the whole thing.
|
|
#38
08-09-2002, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#39
08-09-2002, 11:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
08-09-2002, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The net effect of all this new security is a major increase in the annoyance and inconvenience of flying in exchange for a minor reduction in the ability to bring some sort of weapon on board. But even if you say that minor reduction is worthwhile, you miss the point that a 9/11 type traditional hijacking is much less likely to occur now, post 9/11, for reasons that have nothing to do with increased security. Namely, of course, the fact that no planeload of passengers is going to sit still for it anymore. To me, it's not worth the hassle. But FTR, I don't think the breast milk issue is a particularly heinous example, either. It's all overboard.
|
|
#41
08-09-2002, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#42
08-09-2002, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Shayna
WTF? If the pricks wanted her to drink it all why not just ditch the milk? Why get the woman to drink it all. Not letting the baby drink the milk is strange aswell. What kinds of idiots were these guys/lassies? Sounds like they were just being pricks for the sake of it. Jumped up security guards are nothing new but these fuckers take the biscuit IMO.
|
|
#44
08-09-2002, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Something smells mighty fishy about this story. Is this the first time these guards had to search a mother with infant? I doubt it, but I've never heard of the "eat all of your child's food" thing before. Perhaps everything is exactly as it appears, but I suspect that something went on in that airport that we don't know about.
|
|
#45
08-09-2002, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Regarding the contamination, you're not supposed to let a baby drink from a partuially consumed bottle, even if it was the baby that consumed it after an hour or so. Security is taken less seriously than it should be often enough. It's not only Arab men that might be terrorists, or who might commit a mass murder on a plane for other reasons. I used to carry a firearm for my job. It was concealed, but not so well that it shouldn't have been noticed when I went into a police station on personal business. Guess I just didn't fit the profile for carrying, but I was. Now I work at a jail a few times a week. Cell phones are not allowed into the jail. My bag is supposed to be X-rayed. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But even when it is x-rayed, no one ever notices when I forgot and still have my phone. Guess I don't fit the profile. I never fit the profile. That means I am the perfect person to use to carry things where they shouldn't go. And somewhere out there, there are people who don't fit the profile, but who are sympathetic to terrorists.
|
|
#46
08-09-2002, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
1) She should make a fuss about stpid rules that can cause harm, that way they can get changed.
2)She should make a fuss about security guards being dicks, because security guards should not be dicks. Making a fuss might lead someone to teach the guards to treat people better, or someone replacing the guards with others who will treat people better. 3) If we don't keep guards in line, they will get worse. Polite guards help decrease delay and increase security. It is easier to tell if someone is agitated or nervous if you keep your objectivity and are not focused on humiliating peple and exercising your power. Power trips, like this one, mean that the screener is way too personally involved and not objective. Also, people are more cooperative and helpful if they are not fearful of being humiliated by some dick on a power trip.
|
|
#47
08-09-2002, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I saw the interviews, and what is distressing is that the guards have a variety of tests they are allowed to perform on questionable bottles, including sniffing it themselves, and examining it in a machine that checks for volatile chemicals. Yet the guards in this situation chose to intimidate the women in question into a test that was deemed unnecessary after June 24 2002. To me it smacks of some guards getting off on a power trip, and I agree with prima about the sexual undertone.
Of course, it is possible that the guards were just following orders, in which case the administrators of that security firm need to get their heads out of their asses. The mother who did drink her own milk ended up breastfeeding her child on the plane - something she did NOT want to do because of the social stigma associated with it. Both women went into the situation with an open mind, willing to submit to the inspection in the interest of general safety, and instead were humiliated and intimidated by the guards.
|
|
#48
08-09-2002, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shaynat, with all due respect, I'm gonna hold out for a better source than "NewsMax.com", whoever the heck they are.
It clearly wasn't intended as a serious story, though: "After hearing the tale, Kuby, who doubles as one of New York's most celebrated civil rights attorneys, suggested that McGanny call his office." Kuby is one of WABC's morning deejays, although he is apparently a lawyer too.
|
|
#50
08-09-2002, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Since the resources dedicated to security at any given airport at any given time are limited, wouldn't it be prudent to use those limited resources to try and stop those who would do harm, whoever they may be? Methodically searching Granny's handbag, telling a Congressman to drop trou, and harassing the WW2 Purple Heart Veteran are almost completely useless in terms of making planes safer. AND, the resources used to do so are resources that can't be directed to trying to stop the bad guys.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
