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?
The North Carolina, which you cited, is what I was referring to - I was too tired to get more specific than that. As I wrote in the post just above, the law does not specifically say "except when changing diapers, breastfeeding, etc. WHILE driving." As I asked, does it have to? Are we going to take no responsibility for pushing this particular envelope and expect no further and UNWANTED intervention by the state?
There is a big difference between breastfeeding while driving and handing a package of crackers, a paper towel or a bottle to the toddler in the back seat. And as I mentioned before, I have a HUGE problem with placing a baby's delicate head between me and the steering column in a vehicle moving 70 miles an hour - hoping that nothing goes wrong within the vicinity on the freeway. And please, I don't equate it with the "Oh my God, we have to lock ourselves up in the house forever, or else we'll be in DANGER!" argument. That is an intellectually dishonest argue by many degrees.
The people here are Howlin because she didn't pull over immediately. Naturally, they missed the part of the story her husband told where SHE'D BEEN RAPED ON TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS BY POLICE OFFICERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS ON TRIAL!!
Dan, because you're such a stickler for accuracy, I'm sure you don't mind this gentle correction.
According to this post, she was not on her way to pick up an expert witness that was going to testify at a trial.
She was on her way to Michigan to a symposium of forensic toxicologists. She needed an expert witness in the case she is pursuing against the last rapist. She had to get there on time, or miss the opportunity
In actuality, she was on her way to symposium of forensic toxicologists, looking for someone to become an expert witness. You also make the claim that one of the police officers is on trial. His statement says "a case," not a trial. In this instance, because she's looking for an expert witness, and in criminal trials, the responsibility for obtaining an expert witness falls to the state (prosecutor, state's attorney, district attorney), as well as paying for the expert's witness fees and transportation and other expenses and not the responsibility of the victim, this is more likely a civil case, with the trial still pending.
In this post, he doesn't say she's been raped on two separate occasions. It states that she has been assaulted twice by the police: assaulted, not sexually assaulted. The word "assault" can also mean that she was touched, slapped, hit, kicked, punched or another similar action. In the above post, he claims she was raped. There is a claim that she was raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. Later, of course, he becomes more expansive and dramatic and makes the rape claim, but doesn't say who the rapist is or who they're suing. It's unclear whether she's been raped once, twice or three times.
Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses.