Breast feeding loony...

Good gravy!!!! Can people get any stranger in their thinking? www.thepittsburghchannel.com...

[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Tyriffic]

Well, as strange as the occurance may have been, and on top that, they being from Michigan!! I do find that they will have a 'snowballs chance in Hell' with the lawsuit and appeal. They were in Ohio, and the laws that may allow them/her to do this in Michigan, do not apply to other states UNLESS said state has the same or similar law.

I did think it was funny that they wouldn't stop until they got to a toll booth though...reckon the husband didn't want anyone to see her, ummm, breast?!


regards
seekerof

We have no love for the State Up North in Oh either.
I saw some video shot from the troopers cam of him chasing the couple. She was swerving into the berm of the freeway and looked like it was drunk driving. She was on Foxnews with hubby and the little sucker and said it was against her BELIEFS to follow the law applied to child saftey.
Common sense is losing here folks.

Donkers, what a name, its so funny.

being that I BF my daughter for 2 years, I know all about traveling from Florida to Pennsylvania-yeah that's nearly a 25 hour drive with all the feeding stops!

Anyway, I just think #1 the woman was/is ignorant and not thinking of the safety of the child. #2 the woman is just damn lazy! For crying out loud! Pull over, take a break and nurse the child, yes it may take time, but in the long run it could save your childs and your life! My goodness people these days!!
Magestica

Very interesting story from my point of view - I've met the 'husband' in this story and know a little about him. Very interesting fellow. I've been following this closely and have more info that what that story outlines

You think just because she's in Ohio that other laws don't apply? Not so fast. The Ohio law gives deference to the residents state law in regards to nursing and child restraint. She's a MI resident, Ohio's law says MI law can apply. (It was on an Interstate, btw).

Not that I agree w/ what she did but it appears to be totally legal for her to do what she did. AND the husband asked the cops to look up the law (I am certain the Ohio State Police have a copy of the Ohio Revised Code available to them - even I have a copy). They wouldn't bother to look it up.


BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE - THIS IS THE CRAZY PART.

The husband wants to stand trial for his wife. He claims his religious beliefs insist HE be punished for what his wife does and he's the only one allowed to punish her.

Oh - anyone catch this on Good Morning America yesterday? I missed it and would like to here from anyone who saw it.

Folks - this is going to get really, really interesting!

...I'll write more later - I have a bit more to say about this.

[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Bob88]

Here's a link to an article that talks about the husband wanting to be punished instead of his wife:

washingtontimes.com...

Wow, that is a trip Bob...the husband was holding the little one on his lap in the interview w/O'Rielly. He did not mention this at the time. Do you think they are seeking this controversy or what?

I think it is a dangerous use of a loophole in the law in any case. If you can find the trooper video, it will show them in a red convertable weaving in and out of their lane on the interstate...enough cause for a ticket -reckless oper.?

I didn't see the O'rielly Factor - I knew they'd be on but didn't know when. Anything interesting on? They are trying to get on "On The Record" with Greta - their point is the legality of the charges. Yeah - it's a terrible loophole. My only guess is the lawmakers just don't want to touch the breastfeeding issue, thus the loophole. My wife breastfeeds our child - child safety aside - I would bet she could breastfeed and drive better than talking on a cell phone and driving. I'd say nursing becomes almost second nature.

Living in Ohio, I would say the state 'troopers' here can be overzelous. Their job boils down to writing tickets on the highways. So I guess in their minds writing lots of tickets means they are doing a better job. And, having just taken a long road trip from Ohio to Florida, then back, I saw, as I have historically seen, more Ohio troopers running radar than in any other state. I was ticketed once by one - the circumstances were so odd I fought and won the case. Funny part was I was 17 yrs old and represented myself, yet I won.

[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Bob88]

She was stupid.
Whatever the law says - she should have known better.

I hope they throw the book at her.

I breastfed for 2 years as well. She obviously wasnt in her right mind.

stupid, yes. Legal for her to do what she did, yes.

There's no book to throw at her. I wish we could throw the book at all the stupid people as well.

Again, the Michigan law, to which the driver is a resident, says that their child restraint law does not apply while the child is being nursed. There is a clause in the Ohio law restraint law that recognizes the state of this driver and it's law, in the case MI.

Here is the MI law:

MCL 257.710d Child restraint system required; exceptions; violation as
civil infraction; points; abstract; exemption by rules; alternate
means of protection.

(1) Except as provided in this section, or as otherwise provided by law, a rule promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor
vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213.

(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.


Doesn't apply to any child being nursed - that's the key part. Most people are quick to point that the driver was in Ohio and must obey Ohio law. She was following Ohio's law because it respects MI's law by basically saying 'it's illegal here unless it's legal in your home state'

Here's the ORC:

ORC 4511.81(F): If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.

That's the point these people are making. In one of the articles about this story I read the husband asked the state police to look at the law - they didn't.

I don't know why Michigan would allow such a law myself. (it must have something to do w/ those folks in the upper Peninsula - I hope someone gets that joke)

And what's even more bizarre is the defendants husband plans on making a citizens arrest on the prosecutor. link: www.ohio.com...






[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Bob88]

The impression I got from the Factor segment lead me to believe they were seeking some challenge to the law.
O'Rielly brought up the anarchy card and no real response came from either her or the husband...religous beliefs were raised from the mother, and her responses were basically, "that's irrelevant" (to the law/religion).

I find it a sad reflection on common sense that person would purposely challenge law (or loopholes in such) that obviously are laid forth to protect life and do not prohibit or infringe on any rights(driving we know, is not a right. even thought I disagree with that ...).

...and yes, our troopers are vigilant to say the least. I don't slam them too much as one gave my buddies and I a ride to get a spare tire fixed late one night after an Iron Maiden concert in 'Natti

Well, I don't care who this offends. This story is so rich with cannon fodder I feel like I've just taken Bunker Hill.

I'm going to sum up all the racing thoughts I have on this with: these two idiots are what we call "ignorant white trash" down here. She was probably also smoking a cigarette and passing the Wild Turkey back and forth between her and the hubby (who was probably wearing what my son's generation calls a "wife-beater"..we called them muscle shirts), while driving the car with her dirty-brown knees...and listening to Hank Williams Jr.

Furthermore...nah, forget it. This is too easy.

Uh, Val, I would have to say they are at least middle class from what I saw of their news interview and the nice convertable they were driving in at the time.
They came across as very well spoken and thoughtful. And, I understand they may be professional people. This makes it all the more disturbing when people we think would have common sense, do indeed have none.

Uh, where might be 'down here'?

[Edited on 27-6-2003 by Tyriffic]

Bob...I merely mentioned that 'they' and the offence occured in Ohio......in doing so, I also mentioned that IF said state didn't have the same law or similar, there chances of a law suit, etc., was 'a snowballs in Hell's chance'. And I still think it is very questionable if it will succeed.

In that Ohio, which is just as 'weird' a state as Michigan does have the same or similar law as is in Michigan, they may have something. Though Ohio has this 'law', as you have mentioned, they are within their rights to do so. BUT, I do, and as is obvious, many, question her/their actions and decisions. Having driven through Ohio in my travelings from Chicago to Phili, on numerous occassions, my question would be: "Why did they choose to not stop at many of the 'service plaza's' that indeed are quite plentiful on interstate/Ohio Turnpike? Also, irregardless if they were on the Ohio Turnpike, if they were on US 75, US 75, running from Toledo to Detroit, has multiple rest stops. Her husband even says that she normally stops at rest area's to breast feed their child. Then he makes an 'excuse', lacking a better word, for this by saying that it would have turned a 5 hour trip into a 7 hour trip. Thats a question within itself. IF they had been invovled in an accident and both or her or the child had have been injured or killed, I would have been very interested to hear that explanation. Very foolish but worth it because it was legal?!

Was it legal anyhoo....according to the state laws and regualtion....yes. But I think what the judge or anyone who reads or hears this story is going to ask or think is: its a child we are talking here, not a cellphone! And taking that time, ie: hour or so, to stop at a service plaza or rest area could be the difference between life and death in regards to both of them. And now they are throwing the 'religion' card into play.....huh?! What religion are we talking here? And then, why use it as an excuse for something that she/they said they normally do.....by stopping at a rest area or service plaza?

Yep, I agree Bob, they were 'within' the letter of the law, but I also add, that I agree with the charge placed on her for child endangerment.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 27-6-2003 by Seekerof]

I think the paradigm you are having trouble breaking here is that you are wanting to say

"poor white trash"

try replacing it with

"ignorant white trash"

which doesn't have anything to do with what kind of car you drive or how well you can speak. It has more to do with common sense (horse sense). Trust me, there are PhD's out there that would scare you to death with their ignorance. Don't judge a book by its cover...

THIS time that means, don't give them too much credit.

Originally posted by Valhall
I think the paradigm you are having trouble breaking here is that you are wanting to say

"poor white trash"

try replacing it with

"ignorant white trash"

which doesn't have anything to do with what kind of car you drive or how well you can speak. It has more to do with common sense (horse sense). Trust me, there are PhD's out there that would scare you to death with their ignorance. Don't judge a book by its cover...

THIS time that means, don't give them too much credit.

Hmmm. Where I am from, poor white trash is a common saying, and we do know what it means Val. Reading, writing and not normally owning much at all is key here.............. And yes, I am aware of educated fools, as I have been one before. Are you one yet?

[Edited on 27-6-2003 by Tyriffic]

Oh no...I already got past that stage