Headline fail. She never requested to have her baby with her, as the headline would imply. She simply wants accommodations to pump; frankly, the accommodations she suggests seem reasonable, as is her request for those accommodations. I don't think the Bar's response to her is as flamingly ignorant as many would imply, but it's also not practical; they seem to suggest, for example, that she pump in the testing room. How reasonable is that? Would that not cause a distraction to other test takers?
If that would cause a distraction, then why shouldn't she be granted a medical exception of sorts to allow for time to replace the necessary pumping?
At any rate, #6 and #9 show a blatant failure to read the article.
#7 - I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this point, but it's still disheartening to see someone so quickly judge another human being based on one single fact. "I have bills to pay" is apparently a non-starter for child-bearing to this individual. I guess that leaves only the independently wealthy to have children.