Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
190 . See Kellam and Lovelace 606, 612-13.<br />
191 . "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others<br />
retained by the people."<br />
192 . Mackenzie 21-24.<br />
193 . For two excellent summaries of the arguments for topfree equality, see Craft, and Grueneich.<br />
194 . People v. Santorelli, 80 N.Y.2d 875 (1992); Lyall B5; "Big Achievements" 5; et al. See also "Men's, Women's<br />
Breasts Legally the Same" 3; Glazer 128; People v. David, 585 N.Y.S.2d 149 (1991); People v. Price, 33 N.Y.2d<br />
831 (1973); Fahringer 138-40.<br />
195 . Theoretically, in 48 states--all but Indiana and, as of 1994, Michigan--"a woman can go to the beach and<br />
remove her blouse in the same way a man can, and not be criminally prosecuted." See Fahringer, 141-43. Twentytwo<br />
states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,<br />
New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,<br />
Utah, and Wisconsin) specifically confine their statutory public exposure prohibitions solely to uncovered genitalia.<br />
Statutes in Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Mississippi, and Wyoming prohibit exposure of the breasts only<br />
where there is intent to arouse sexual desire, recklessness, or intent to cause affront or alarm. Statutes in Alabama,<br />
Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio,<br />
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington prohibit acts that are done with recklessness or<br />
intent for their obscene or alarming nature, and North Carolina, Florida, and West Virginia's statutes are ambiguous<br />
with regard to exposure of the breasts. However, legal precedent nationwide interprets such exposure laws to<br />
exclude breasts. Until New York's law restricting exposure of the breasts was ruled unconstitutional in 1992, it and<br />
Indiana were the only states to specifically outlaw exposure of the breasts per se. See People v. Santorelli, 80<br />
N.Y.2d 875 (1992); State v. Jetter, 599 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio, 1991); People v. David, 585 N.Y.S.2d 149 (1991); State<br />
v. Parenteau, 564 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio, 1990); State v. Crenshaw, 597 P.2d 13 (Hawaii, 1979); State v. Jones, 171<br />
S.E.2d 468 (North Carolina, 1970); et al. Note that local ordinances prohibiting the exposure of breasts may<br />
supersede state laws. Such ordinances have been upheld in federal courts. See, for example, City of Seattle v.<br />
Buchanan (584 P.2d 918, Wash. 1978). There is also a repressive wind blowing in this nation. New laws are being<br />
proposed all over the country, often passing quietly and without review. Michigan, for example, in 1994 passed a<br />
bill permitting counties and localities to enact laws prohibiting mere nudity, and criminalizing the exposure of<br />
female breasts except for breast-feeding (Percey 14). (Breast-feeding, incidentally, has enjoyed new legal support,<br />
with progressive new laws in New York and Florida which have made it illegal to interfere with a breast-feeding<br />
mother, even if her breast is exposed. See Shields 291; "Breast-feeding Mothers" B6.)