;)
;)
;)
Don't Pregnant Women Have Rights Too? Woman Booted From Bar for Having a Baby Bump
January 17, 2011 One evening late last week, Michelle Lee was at a suburban Chicago bar with some friends, drinking a glass of water and eyeing the pizza menu. It was a seemingly calm, normal night out with the ladies. And yet, 15 minutes after Lee and her friends arrived, a bouncer approached Lee and asked her to leave.
"He just said, if anything happens, if a fight breaks out and you get hurt, we are responsible," Lee told the Chicago Tribune.
Why was the bouncer so concerned about being "responsible" for Lee? Because she is eight months pregnant.
Though shocked and humiliated, Lee agreed to leave the bar. "I thought maybe there was some sort of pregnant woman ordinance," she said in an interview with ABC.
There is no law barring pregnant women from entering bars, pubs or other establishments that sell alcohol, just as there is no law against serving alcohol to pregnant women. (Lee was not consuming alcohol at the Coach House.) Among many reasons why such a law would be problematic, there is the obvious issue: how do you enforce such a law if it is impossible to determine with the naked eye that a woman is pregnant? Some pregnant women "look pregnant" by traditional standards, while others, including women who do not yet know they are pregnant, do not. So should there be mandatory pregnancy tests for all women before they're served a drink? Or should the law only apply to women who "look" pregnant? You get the idea.
Over the weekend, as Lee discussed the Coach House incident with family and friends, she became increasingly angry. She's now thinking of hiring an attorney. Lee's potential legal battle would center around whether the Coach House had the right to refuse service to her on the grounds that she is (visibly and admittedly) pregnant. Although there is no "pregnant woman ordinance," private establishments do have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish, unless -- and this is critical -- the establishment is being unconstitutionally discriminatory.
So the real question is whether the Coach House was acting unconstitutionally when it kicked Lee out of the establishment. The American Civil Liberties Union thinks it was. "There are certain things for which you are not able to discriminate against someone, and one is their gender," ACLU spokesperson Ed Yohnka told the Tribune. "And only women can have babies. You can't discriminate against a pregnant person."
Furthermore, Lee has on her side the Illinois Human Rights Act, which states that "it is unlawful to discriminate in the full and equal enjoyment of facilities and services by any place of public accommodation."
Even so, the fight might not be an easy one, considering the right-wing faction of our nation's Supreme Court. The National Organization for Women pointed out those challenges on its blog this week:
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated his belief that the Constitution does not prohibit sex discrimination....Let's say that Michelle Lee takes her case to the courts. Let's say that case makes it all the way up to Justice Scalia. Given his stated interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which states all persons are entitled to equal protection under the laws) as not including women, and the text and legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's not crazy to imagine him saying it was just fine for the [Coach House] to kick her out.
Which is why, NOW argues, an equal rights amendment for women should be added to the Constitution:
[I]t remains more urgent than ever to ensure our Constitution includes an explicit guarantee of equality for women. Sex discrimination is not a joke, and the results of sex discrimination are often far worse than getting turned away for a slice of pizza -- it can include getting turned away from health care that only women use, or getting paid less, or not having proper recourse for rape or sexual assault.
The incident at the Coach House is about more than being allowed to socialize at a bar while carrying a fetus. It's about the broader rights of women, including those who are pregnant, to have control over their own bodies. As NOW president Terry O'Neill observed, "We live in a country where people feel increasingly empowered to make decisions for pregnant woman."
Reader Comments (1)
This is not a discrimination issue but a safety issue. The bar never refused to serve Michelle Lee because she is pregnant. They merely
warned her that if she was injured while in the bar she cannot hold them liable. Michelle decided to leave on her on, when she could have stayed. It would have been foolish to stay.
It is nice to be PC but common sense must prevail. As an Attorney at Law I would recommend that the Bar inform any pregnant woman of the dangers of drinking, and being in the bar.
I would also inform the bar to get the woman to sign a general release and waiver if she decided to stay. Why dioes the Bar have
to chance a lawsuit if a pregnant woman gets injured? Bars are
where drunks hang out and fights erupt often. It would be negiligence for the barkeep not to warn Michelle Lee about the environment she is in.
This non-issue is very similar to when a person has drunk too much in a bar, the bar has the right to cut them off. The Dram shop law applies to bars and heavy drinkers to prevent innocent parties from getting hurt.
It appears that now we need a Pregnant Woman's Law to prevent
woman from being stupid and allowing Bars to refuse to serve them to protect their innocent fetus.
Believe me, if Michelle Lee substained any type of injury while in this bar she would find an Attorney and sue the bar.
If I were her husband or mate I would be very pleased that the bar used common sense when she failed to do so.
Does she hang around door entrances where people are smoking,
exposing herself to second hand smoke and then contend that she has the right to do so?
This is safety towards the baby over a denial of the execise of rights.