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.

[colorado tanker]

It really doesn't matter what the law says. A good parent protects her child. In an accident an unharnessed baby becomes a bullet. If the baby is in the front seat, harnessed or not, he's dead if the air bag explodes. It doesn't matter if she's a good driver; I see more crazies on the road every year.

Mom was running late for a meeting and decided to save time by risking the child's life.

[Under the Radar]

Can you say 'test case'?

After thinking about this for a few hours, that is exactly what I am beginning to wonder...

[Catspaw]

If you've read post #172, you'll see the kind of defense she's going to put on:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/932228/posts?page=172#172

[petitfour]

Woman sterilized by the state for breastfeeding baby while driving

In America????

[pupdog]

It was inherently DANGEROUS for her baby.

I disagree. Or more to the point, I don't see the evidence for this. Your argument for why it is is based on "ifs", which can be used to make any action dangerous. And the word "reasonable" is a very subjective term.

Whats insane is the fact that I'm sure given some of the posts that a good attorney could find suffcient loopholes and / or enough idiots to place on the jury who would be willing to let her walk that she probably will suffer no consequences.

If I were on this jury, I would acquit. Calling someone an idiot for this is not an effective means of persuasion.

[Rollee]

You wrote: Also, no one can punish her but me.

I must ask: how do you punish her? Is the punishment in accordance with your religious beliefs, or is it totally your own?

[Howlin]

One can only imagine what that Supreme Court brief looks like.......LOL.

[Kozak]

Imagination! You can be afraid of every dust mite too! Hey, I have a heard from *deep sources* THEY are after you! Best hide under the bed. THEY won't look for you there.

Bite me. I don't live in fear, I've done things that would probably make you crap your pants. But I didn't put my kid or anyone else at risk doing it. Ever go 600knts at less then 50 ft AGL? . But I guess the fact I buckled my flying harness and pulled the safty pins on my ejection seat makes me a P#ssy huh? And guess what, when it comes to adults I don't care if they disable the airbags in their cars, and don't wear seat belts. I don't care if they drive motorcyles without helmets, or eat a ton of crappy food, or smoke, or drink like fish ( as long as they aren't on the road) or play Russian roulette with an automatic. As long as they don't harm anyone else ( or cost them money) they can go to hell any way they please. But when they take UNREASONABLE risks with the life of a child, or put their neighbors at risk, the rest of us have a right to try and stop that behavior. The fact that this ditz got away with it doesn't justify it. I'm not calling for a lynching but she should have some consequence for this stupidity.

[Howlin]

Yes. And now she's trying to get out of her charges by claiming the law has no right to charge her.........LOL.

[Catspaw]

One can only imagine what that Supreme Court brief looks like.......LOL.

The irony is, of course, is that he claims he's not a citizen of the United States, but yet he uses our courts and our roads.

[Mrs.Liberty]

It really doesn't matter what the law says. A good parent protects her child. In an accident an unharnessed baby becomes a bullet. If the baby is in the front seat, harnessed or not, he's dead if the air bag explodes. It doesn't matter if she's a good driver; I see more crazies on the road every year. Mom was running late for a meeting and decided to save time by risking the child's life. Stop trying to make sense, here!

No harm, no foul.

And if something had happened, say, the airbag engaged due to some sort of accident impact, well, then it would be the car manufacturer's fault for not stating that breastfeeding a baby behind a steering wheel with the airbag engaged was ill advised. It would be the state's fault for not having passed a law specifically prohibiting drivers from breastfeeding while driving.

[Carolinamom]

The article said that they planned to counter sue. Sounds like a voice of experience/test case to me.

I wouldn't mind being in court for this encounter w/the judge. LOL

His Supreme Court brief is probably 200 pages of cut and paste citations. Remind you of someone we both know?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I never said that; I said that the law requires the car seat to be in the back. You misunderstood.

You're right. Upon re-reading, I can see that was your meaning re: the 5-point harness vs. back seat.

But, you still haven't shown the laws for the 50 states that require a carseat to be carried in the back seat.

Do all 50 states carry this requirement, or don't you know?

I showed you the National Highway Safety rules. If you don't like it, I'm so so sorry.

I never passed myself off as an authority on anything; I merely stated the laws and regulations.

Yes, you did. When you wrote that the car seat needs to be in the back seat as "required BY LAW", you passed yourself off as an authority. Does the NHTSA write vehicle codes for all 50 states? If not, then their "rules" are meaningless to this discussion.

You have quoted no laws and no regulations. You merely stated your opinion and posted something that looks like a label.

My original question to you remains unanswered.

Do all 50 states require that the carseat be in the back seat?

[ChemistCat]

What does "Should" have to do with it?

Last time I checked, my wallet is ransacked long before I get it, for the sake of people like that.

[ChemistCat]

You must not know what a Newton is. Take some physics, then tell us this isn't dangerous for the baby.

[Rollee]

Very intersting. His name in the email address is bradbva@mindspring...

The poster whose comment was deleted in #195 is bva</>.

[Luis Gonzalez]

He doesn't pay taxes, the taxes which built the highway he claims he has a right to travel on.

He does not believe in taxes, but he believes in freely using those things that others have paid for.

And he believes himself a "principled" man, in spite of the fact that he uses that which belogns to others, with no regard for the common rules of usage entered into by all.

[mylife]

What does "Should" have to do with it? Last time I checked, my wallet is ransacked long before I get it, for the sake of people like that.

Time to worry bout the real laws aint it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...it is my responsibility to protect her and my family from the Beast."

Which is the exact same reason why I need to get your wife off the road...because I want to protect my family from her complete lack of regard for herself, your child, or anyone else traveling on that road.

[Rollee]

Please ignore my last post. I confused bvw with bva. Too much reading and laughing.