Exercising their First Amendment right Monday, almost 200 nursing mothers congregated on the… Exercising their First Amendment right Monday, almost 200 nursing mothers congregated on the lawn in front of ABC headquarters in response to a comment made on the morning talk show, “The View” a few weeks ago. The protest, which ended up being the largest in the past year, was prompted by Barbara Walters mentioning that the sight of a mother nursing her child who was sitting next to her on a plane made her feel uncomfortable.

While Walters questioned whether her remarks warranted the aforementioned demonstration, “lactivists” all over the United States deemed it necessary to pursue legislation to simply feed their offspring when they happen to go hungry in train stations, museums or eating establishments.

All over the Internet, there are blogs upon blogs written by women recounting their stories. For some, it is simply the glares from strangers, but others are censured and impolitely asked to leave establishments in which they would otherwise be welcome.

Something must be done about this blatant discrimination from strangers and employers against mothers in the United States.

The resurgence of the “lactivism” movement can be attributed to the fact that in the past 10 years the number of mothers who breast-feed has increased to 70 percent. Research done by statisticians and physicians affirms that breast-feeding protects against illnesses, infections and allergies and that it enhances overall development and intelligence in newborn babies.

Not only is it best for the child, but also in the long run, breast-feeding has its advantages for society as a whole. As stated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, it is recommended that mothers breast-feed for the first six months to one year of the child’s life. Breast-fed babies are generally more healthy and their medical care is significantly less expensive than that of babies on formula. Thus, if all mothers followed this advice, families could end up saving almost $4 billion in health care costs annually.

Still, hypercritical business owners and legislators insist that breast-feeding is tantamount to indecent exposure and that Walters is not the only one offended. But clearly an exhibitionist or public nudist is not in the same category as a woman feeding her child at a Fifth Avenue bus stop.

“Lactivist” opposition has also been fueled by an inability to reconcile the juxtaposition of breast-feeding with society’s sexual objectification of the breast. But what are we really saying here? Does sex, or the slight inconvenience of averting your gaze take precedence over the health of a child or of our nation? And furthermore, what are these negative attitudes doing to child bearers who contribute to make the world a better place, one breast-fed baby at a time?

The Food and Drug Administration says that the way a mother feels about breast-feeding has more potential to negatively impact her decision to do it than household income or the length of one’s maternity leave. In other words, society’s disdain of this selfless act is starting to have deleterious effects on a woman’s psyche.

But let’s travel back in time to that anatomy course of yesteryear. Make no mistake, breasts are intended to feed babies, not our sexual partners. We owe it to the health of mothers and the children of the future to realize that.

One can only shudder to think what is next. If babies — the most innocent and infallible of creatures — are forced to starve in public because of squeamish attitudes, what does the future hold for us?