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.

[Kozak]

7th, and I think no one has really considered this as much as I think they should. What is the chance that a child in a restraint will survive an accident at 65 MPH? It is so close to zero, that it will surprise you. So the restraint cannot be the issue in this case. The child would be dead in any event.

That sir is pure BS. Children have survived far higher impacts in child restraint seats with little or no injury. And on this topic I AM an expert. I am an Emergency Physician with 20 years experience. I've seen kids unscathed in child restraint seats where the car was otherwise a complete twisted mass of metal. At worst having the child in a restraint gives it a far better chance of survival then while being held by a driver.

[rrrod]

if this wasnt real id being laffing myself into a comma...well enough of this jerry springer stuff..on to more news

[AppyPappy]

What is the chance that a child in a restraint will survive an accident at 65 MPH?

So after you get up to a certain speed, you just unbuckle everyone because they will die anyway? That's asinine. Teach your wife how to pull over to breastfeed. Cell phones are bad enough but breast feeding mothers are too much.

[AppyPappy]

Not only that, accidents rarely happen at full speed. I was an EMT and almost every accident had skid marks.

[Poohbah]

You inventive sleuths have already confirmed that she attended.

Actually, we haven't.

All we have is your say-so.

What company was she in? Was she in that year's Lucky Bag?

[Black Agnes]

I have two words for your friend. Breast pump.

[homeschool mama]

It takes **50 minutes** to breastfeed?! What a joke.

[EggsAckley]

So......you signed up at Free Republic just to post this piece of idiocy?

I can't believe this thread has survived for four days.

[homeschool mama]

Perhaps your wife should have planned her travel time to allow for breastfeeding...ie pulling over.

I live in California. Please don't move here.

[smith288]

So lets ignore the fact that a child was made into a human projectile in the event of a crash and instead focus on reasons to her being pulled over.

[Ken H]

I once saw an idiot driver putting on make-up and talking on her cell phone.

I was so shocked, I cut myself shaving and damn near wrecked my car!

[BADROTOFINGER]

All matters of law, your intelligence, your religion, etc. aside (and I mean that seriously, not mockingly), what your wife did was plain stupid. Depending on the year your auto was made (and regardless of, I must add), she put your child in grave danger. Fender benders that happen at velocities as slow as 10 mph could deploy and airbag that could EASILY kill your child. There was a case about 2 years ago when a grandmother let her 4 year old grandson drive about 150 ft down a private driveway. The child left the road and hit a tree at about 10 mph, the airbag deployed, killing him instantly.

Your child's life should be the most important thing, and not your wife's convenience. Hell, your wife's convenience should come LAST of all, especially when the lives of other motorists could be at stake. Your wife exhibited a callous selfishness in my opinion, and it seems you both will do anything to keep from acknowledging this selfishness, much less owning up to it.

Just my opinion tho.

Welcome to FR...JFK

[Cultural Jihad]

... they cannot be arrested unless they are incapacitated or unless they do not provide "sufficient evidence of identity." It does not say driver's license.

Handing over something you find in a Cracker Jack box hardly qualifies as 'sufficient' unless it is the Cracker Jack Company asking for the I.D.

[newgeezer]

I will be around for a bit, so "have at me."

Do let us know if/when you come back for more. Laughter is good medicine. Your point that child restraints are no good at 65 MPH was especially therapeutic.