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.

[honeygrl]

I am leaning on your side of this issue myself.

[servantoftheservant]

I loved it when she told him to look up the law and he charged her with, what was it, keeping an officer from doing his duty? Now keep in mind he was getting paid, she was missing an important appointment, and they ended up throwing her in jail (don’t question authority or you will pay for it). He had the duty to not jail a citizen unnecessarily. To see support of these militant actions is to say the least, disheartening. In my conservative world, the government doesn’t get to just keep making up charges until it gets you.

BUMP. It's quite sad to see the cliquish, mob mentality of vindictiveness toward this couple because they live according to different principles than most.

[bootless]

It's quite sad to see the cliquish, mob mentality of vindictiveness toward this couple because they live according to different principles than most.

I respectfully disagree that that assessment regarding what I believe is the main point: this woman, by breastfeeding her baby WHILE she was driving is not safe. It doesn't take more than a few brain cells and a few years of experience to realize that the breastfeeding/carseat exemption was intended to address a mother who was not driving at the same time she's breastfeeding.

And even if the law doesn't explicitly say so (which I guess it should now, hmm?), I believe it is disingenuous to condone or excuse that behavior simply because the law does not state it. For instance, here in Kalifornistan, I can make a U-Turn (after being sure it's safe) if the sign does not say I can't. If I cut it too close, I'll be hit by oncoming traffic. If I have a child in the car on the side most likely to be hit by oncoming traffic, I will be EXTRA sure to be safe.

But this language-slicing is the kind of thing that leads to exactly the opposite of what we small-government supporters scorn: blow dryers that say on the instructions: "Do not use in bathtub", or hot curlers that say, "Do not use internally." Do we actually need someone to tell us not to breastfeed and drive at the same time, or can we just figure this out for ourselves?! Good grief.

And it is in no way being a sheeple to use the brain God gave us. I don't even agree that a baby should be held in an adult's lap on an airliner - and the only laws that apply are those of physics and your responsibility to that child. At least one "lap" child on the United Air Lines Sioux City crash became an instant projectile and died - flying from the anguished parent's arms - on impact. It was completely unnecessary. A lot of passengers lived in that crash, and if that baby had been in a baby seat, their chances would have been a LOT better than the zero percent chance of living that they had.

I don't think we need a full-color computer simulation of a mother breastfeeding while driving, having to slam on the brakes, whereupon the baby suffers - fatally - the inevitable result of the laws of physics. Let's not lose sight of the big picture here. How pro-life is that attitude, anyway?

[ChemistCat]

Another aspect of this case that amazes me:

It must be nice to be a non-citizen so that you can pick and choose which laws you accept and which you don't.

They don't believe they have to have driver's licenses, real insurance, real identification--because they don't believe they are citizens. Okay. They don't believe they have to pay taxes? Vote? Help fellow conservatives fight for lowering taxes for everybody? Okay. They reject all that. I have a strong feeling that they don't deserve to live in this country if they won't be part of the system, but I will stipulate that a case can be made for his beliefs. They're far more suited to a frontier society than to a society of 200 million and modern, shared infrastructure, of course. But okay, he wants no part of our system. He is an anarchist, a non-participant.

But they sure want to use our court system to get justice on somebody else. Who is paying for the rape trial?

American taxpayers.

Who is going to pay for the lawsuits that are about to happen with respect to this policeman's reasonable belief that she was breaking laws and risking her kid's life? We are. And it's clear that they set out wanting to tangle with the law. If she had really wanted to get to her destination more than she had wanted to "make this point"--she wouldn't have been breastfeeding while driving, or doing anything else that might attract attention (and delay.) SO they are LYING about that.

She was supposedly on the way to collect a witness against a rapist--where did they hope to try that rapist? In an American criminal court, of course. If they really believe they are outside the law, why didn't the husband shoot the rapist dead through the head? There would have been many, many who would have defended him for that...and depending on how he did it, the law might have looked the other way too.


I am not saying she deserved to be raped--no, not at all. I just note it's mighty convenient to repudiate, even attack, all parts of our system except the parts that are useful to them.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The laws of physics are immutable here. She was lucky. The baby was lucky. But it was NOT by design or planning or even the practice of minimal good sense.

Let's turn this around.

Why do you think states like Illinois and North Carolina added the provision that failure to adhere to the child restraint laws cannot be used as evidence of negligence?

In fact, if you look at Illinois child restraint laws, it clearly states the following:

"...Any person who transports the child of another shall not be in violation of this Section unless a child restraint system was provided by the parent or legal guardian but not used to transport the child..."

If you're transporting a child whom is not yours and the parent didn't give you a child restraint, you can't be cited for a violation of their laws. How about that?

Why did these states add these provisions to their laws?

[bootless]

That's a good question, AND it is not related to the reality of the situation. That law clearly states that it applies to the child of ANOTHER, not yours. If you are the parent, you are clearly responsible for providing - and using - a child seat.

They are two different issues that have a common nexus in the issue of driving and child restraint.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

We have a car with no airbags so I occationally put my son up front on long trips to keep him entertained without having to stop every hour. I've never been pulled over for it and his carseat is big and easily visible.

I had a pick-up when my kids were yound and carried them up front all the time. Still do. Nothing wrong or illegal about it.

In fact, Howlin's state of North Carolina has an interesting provision, which I've re-posted below:

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply: (i) to ambulances or other emergency vehicles; (ii) when the child's personal needs are being attended to; (iii) if all seating positions equipped with child passenger restraint systems or seat belts are occupied; or (iv) to vehicles which are not required by federal law or regulation to be equipped with seat belts.

"...when the child's personal needs are being attended to;..."

In other words, if you taking care of your child's immediate personal needs, like say, breast-feeding, you are not in violation of their child restraint laws.

Or you could be driving an older car that isn't require by law to have seat belts, so no way to restrain the car seat. It's still okay to transport your kids in a vehicle with no seat belts. How about that?

You're right, honeygirl. Statistically speaking, the back seat is the safest spot, but you have to be practical, too. IMO, this is probably why the escape provisions I've noted were added to the child restraint laws.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

That's a good question, AND it is not related to the reality of the situation. That law clearly states that it applies to the child of ANOTHER, not yours. If you are the parent, you are clearly responsible for providing - and using - a child seat.

No, it varies from state to state. There is no blanket rule.

According to North Carolina law, which I've posted above, you can be attending to a child's personal needs or driving a vehicle which is not legally require to be equipped with seat belts and still transport your children without being in violation of the their child restraint laws. How about that?

Like I said, as much as we want to protect our children, we've got to be practical, too.

My question was, why add the no-negligence clauses?

[servantoftheservant]

You assume that stupidity is sufficient cause for state intervention.

It's stupid to have an emotional argument on a cell phone while you're driving. It's stupid to spill hot coffee on yourself while you're driving. It's stupid to reach back and break up fighting siblings while you're driving.

That doesn't mean it's any of the state's business.

You gave the example of a child flying from a mother's arms during a plane crash. Well guess what: I recently took a flight with my wife and infant daughter. We did not purchase a seat for our daughter. She travelled in our arms. THAT'S OUR CALL AS PARENTS. NOT YOURS. Life is dangerous. My kid is not your problem, responsibility, or business, and she certainly is not the state's.

[glory]

I thought the same thing. If you have ever read some of the parenting boards on the internet you would realize that this woman is emboldened by women who think it is their right to breastfeed everywhere and anywhere they choose. I knew long ago they held no restrictions as far as safety goes--in fact I wouldn't be surprised with how "well read" they are if they didn't plan on challenging the system in some way, no doubt she was emboldened by buddies from the internet who claim membership to the militant breastfeeding cult.
I just don't see how any reasonable and sane personw wouldn't just pull over and feed their baby on the side of the road. Oh and the exemption for nursing mothers is probably for those that are passengers not drivers, ya think?

[glory]

I'm curious, despite the law, do you support your wife's decision to breastfeed the baby while driving? Laws aside now, we are talking about as a parent, knowing the potential for accident and death exist? Is your wife's convenience worth your baby girl being embedded into the steering wheel?

[glory]

Speak for yourself;-) Breastfeeding for the eh-um, larger endowed women is not such an easy feat and can not be done easily at any mall bench even. I guess because of it, I got used to nursing privately and taking the time to do it. I just can't see how someone taking a drive accross a couple of states can't stop for 20 or 30 minutes and feed their child. Give you a chance to get a drink, read, rest for a little bit. I wonder if this lady peed in some kind of container on the interstate too--I mean after all you wouldn't want to stop for such a thing would you?

After reading the hubby's words, I am with Howlin, something is fishy and if it's what i think, shame on them for using their child for their little experiment in loopholes!

[glory]

Raspberry jam is right! I have a friend who is a paramedic in central Ohio. The stories she tells:-( People, in particular children, are unrecognizable as humans if unrestrained and there is a collision which sends them through the windshield, into the dash board, or steering will. God help this baby. I'm sure this will blow over with loophole central at the helm, but just think of the environment she is being raised in?

[glory]

A car going 70 can do a lot more damage to a baby than a woman tripping and falling on it can. Generally a baby doesn't come out unrecognizable in a fall unless his mother weighs several hundred pounds. BTW, I have fallen carrying my baby before--I did as the poster said and turned to my side. Baby was fine and I was scratched up.
My paramedic friend had the displeasure of talking to a grandparent who lost their grandchild in a car accident she was attending. She acted instinctively too and put her hand in front of her unrestrained grandchild--the child still barelled out of the window.
You are comparing apples to oranges since nothing you do instinctively to "protect" an unrestrained child in a vehicle is going to fight the physics involved when a vehicle going 60mph comes to an abrupt and instant stop, however the efforts you make if you trip and fall to protect your child are likely to be worthwhile and the physics involved in your average trip and fall are not likely to damage a child in the same manner as a car accident.
Of course I think part of instinctually protecting a child in a car would be to use child restraint seats so you don't have to worry about whether your hand will be an adequate seat belt(it won't).

[glory]

The difference is mama tripping and falling is not doing it at 70 mph. Give it a rest--apples and oranges.

[glory]

Interesting you should note that because there is an athletic teenager in Virginia belonging to a Cindy and Brad Barnhill(or whatever it was)--there is a page dedicated to this child at their school for their accomplishment in a certain sport. You can find it on the second page of that ealier google search on this man's name. I was beginning to wonder the same thing and am glad someone expressed it.

[glory]

No, compassion for her baby would have been tending to it's screams and cries AFTER pulling over and parking in the car.
Her actions were unreasonable and unsafe. She certainly didn't show any compassion for what might become of her child if she got in an accident. Give it a rest, this poor breastfeeding mother just wanted to quiet her poor baby thing is not flying. There are too many past and present nursing(or not) mothers with brains enough to see this couple for what they are to buy into the compassionate mother routine. You can back them up on their view on legalities, however you will not sell anyone the bill of goods that this is the action of a mother who has a concern for her child.

[glory]

Did you ever consider SHE was courting drivers so her husband could get his test case?

[glory]

Add me as well if you decide to start a ping list on this. This happened in the state I live in too so I am doubly interested if these two will try and rape taxpayers here in some civil claim against the officers.

[Catspaw]

Breasfed babies don't usually need to be burped. My 2 never did. It's bottled that let in air. Boobies are air free

Not exactly. A breastfed baby will not burp like a bottle-fed baby does. But they do take in small amounts of air & emit burplets. If your babies didn't, good for you. If I didn't burp my daughter, the air travelled through her digestive tract, which caused cramping and the air coming out the other end.