Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving (followup on idiot)

WKYC-TV/DT Cleveland ^ | 6.17.03 | Vic Gideon

[mhking]

Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving

Reported by Vic Gideon
POSTED: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:06:15 PM
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:20:52 PM

PORTAGE COUNTY -- A mother traveling from Detroit to Pittsburgh got into trouble in Portage County while trying to drive and breastfeed her baby at the same time.

Twenty-nine-year-old Catherine Donkers had fed the baby before she left Detroit but said her seven-month-old daughter was hungry again.

"I knew I was doing nothing wrong when I was breastfeeding her," Donkers said.

Donkers doesn't consider her actions excessively dangerous.

"I think there are lots of things we do when we put ourselves at risk, just by the very fact that I'm in a car and there's lots of car accidents every single day," she said. "I think it would be reasonable to say even that's a danger."

A truck driver apparently saw it as a danger and called the highway patrol. But Donkers wouldn't pull over for police until she got to a tollbooth.

"I've directed her to, that when she doesn't feel safe, she goes to a public place," said her husband, Brad Barnhill.

At the tollbooth, Donkers didn't give the trooper a driver's license. She instead pulled out an affidavit as identification and got cited for not having a license.

The couple also claims she did nothing wrong, saying Michigan law has an exemption to its child restraint law for nursing mothers.

They claim that since the turnpike is an interstate, drivers can follow the laws of their home state. But the highway patrol says that as long as the stop occurred in Ohio, they have to abide by Ohio laws.

The couple has done extensive research on the law and believes in a strict adherence to them. Donkers is facing child endangering and child seat violations among other charges. Her and her husband say they plan to fight all charges and will file a counter suit.

[bvw]

I think an equally pertinant sketch in that movie occurs a bit farther on. Castle Anthrax -- "Bad Zoot!"

[PhiKapMom]

What a chauvanist pig! I didn't know people like this existed!

Still waiting for him to answer how he pays Income Tax if he doesn't have a SSAN! Would be interesting to see if he gets paid and pays NO Income Tax which means the rest of are picking up his tab so he can file frivolous lawsuits it seems!

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting that! Wonder if IRS would like this thread to find out he doesn't believe in the Rule of Law but chooses to interpret himself!

[bvw]

Absent the knowledge she was breastfeeding her infant, was his wife driving the car safely or not? Thta is the ONLY real question.

Actual reckless, careless operation of a vehicle in the public way, or just more nanny-statism?

[RgnadKzin]

Back, but going out the door again.
Gotta get to the airport and fly without ID yet again.

There is no statutory requirement for showing ID to fly.
The requirement is to consent to a search.
ID is required by the airlines, but they cannot require government issued ID because some folks just ain't got no.

I thank you for your kind consideration.

I have made the points that I wanted to make here.

Whether or not you agree with me, fine.
I am accustomed to being called names.
It is my hope, however, that I gave no offense.
If I did so inadvertantly, please accept my apologies.

After folks take the time to reflect upon what the law actually says, rather than what they think it says, they may come to the realization that they have been betrayed by those that presume to govern.

Don't shoot the messenger.

If you care to contact me privately, you can do so via
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PersonalOdyssey

In His Service,
Brad Lee Barnhill
The Falsely Accused

[FourtySeven]

A MOST interesting thread.......it always gets so much more interesting when the actual participants of these whacky stories we sometimes go over here show up.

Reading your posts, I can see that, I believe, you have a legal point. I think you may be able to win the case, and I wish you luck, only because no one needs the hastle of more legal troubles (especially given your wife's already trying past!)

That said, bottom line, I really don't see how you can defend someone driving while breast feeding, that is, I don't see how you could defend the concept (putting aside the debatable legality of the act). Simple mechanics state that anything between the driver and the steering wheel is a hinderance! Haven't you ever driven with a dog in your lap? Same thing. Perhaps the baby may be a bit more behaved, but I can't believe it would just lie there, still, for 50 minutes straight. So just imagine the worst case scenario in this situation: Just as your wife is distracted by the baby squirming (as they will occasionally), a car cuts in front of her, and she doesn't have enough time to react. An accident ensues. Now that may be the other driver's fault (for cutting her off), but that doesn't really matter if your baby and maybe even your wife is dead, does it?

If you really do have the type of "control" you claim to have over her, I would really advise telling her to never breast feed while driving again. Illegal or not, anyone with half a brain can see that it's a danger! You seem like an intelligent man; I think you can at least agree with that.

(no need to respond to that last sentence, as I realize this case is still ongoing, and you don't want to post/say anything that may jeopardize such a proceeding....I'm just saying this because I think you can reasonably see that I'm right about the inherrent danger of such a practice, and no sense in putting onself in danger when it can be easily avoided, right?....again, rhetorical)

[Howlin]

Good grief! Do you think this will be enough for everybody???

[Catspaw]

Well, he appears to have his own "Rule of Law."

[Catspaw]

Double the order--naw, quadruple it. We're going to need enough to make the beanies, full foil body armor and line the walls, floors and ceiling.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This guy sounds like a "twofer" - likely a lurker, and most likely a Constamatooshin Party member.

[Howlin]

[Howlin]

I tried to count, but I believe he just may be breaking the law in four states...........LOL.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Sorry, pal, its reckless per se. I don't want to be on the road with ignorant, likely uninsured, reckless, camo clad trailer trash, and I sure as hell don't want my family out there with them either.

[Carolinamom]

Any details on ONE of the charges.....obstructing official business?

[jriemer]

It must be Friday...

[bvw]

Mark yourself down in the proud "Nanny-Stater" column, then.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Hey, can we assume that your bride was driving around recklessly and uninsured as well?

[Howlin]

Well, this is what it means in Michigan:

Ordinances

47.00 OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS

.01 No person shall hinder, oppose, obstruct or resist any police officer or any other law enforcement officer performing law enforcement duties as such, or aid or abet any person doing the same.

Enacted: December 10, 1994

[Poohbah]

Absent the knowledge she was breastfeeding her infant, was his wife driving the car safely or not? Thta is the ONLY real question.

Absent the knowledge of whether she was driving the car "safely" (as you choose to define it), was this the action that would be taken by a reasonably prudent individual?

Actual reckless, careless operation of a vehicle in the public way, or just more nanny-statism?

The former. She was GAMBLING her baby's life on everyone else not making a mistake. If it were just her life, I'd be inclined to let it go. But

[RgnadKzin]

I am sorry that my faith offends you.

I pray that you realize that my wife and I believe what we believe, and it is not that I "lord" over her in this matter, it is simply because it is my responsibility to protect her and my family from the Beast.

I assure you that we love each other deeply and that I treat her as an equal partner in my private life. She accepts that I must be the public face in our relationship, however, and know that I often seek her wise counsel.

As for paying taxes for which I am not liable, you should remember that Christ did not say: Render unto Caesar that which is NOT Caesar's.

The fact of the matter is that I do not have foreign or possession earned income, I do not work for the government, and I do not want to participate in your National Socialism. We are not eligible for federal benefits and I would have to break 4 of the Ten Commandments to participate. Placing a false god before Him (I must depend upon divine providence, not upon government handouts), Stealing (from my children and yours, because there is no trust fund), Coveting your property (because no one saves for themselves in this program), and dishonoring my own parents (by turning my back upon what they taught me).

There is no need in this country for any income tax at all, not a dime of your payment goes to fund any federal program. It all goes to "transfer payments." Look for the Beardsley Ruml speech and the Grace Commission Report.

Besides, they can print all the money they like. The only reason for the tax is to siphon off the excess to reduce inflation.