Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This is a violation of civil rights!

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 11:49:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just because she's pregnant?

She was abusing prescription drugs. Pretty sure that's a bipartisan issue.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 2:06:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's one thing to abuse your own body, but it's a completely different issue to abuse another human being, give it birth defects, and ruin its whole life.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 2:31:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

Even if we take that a fetus isn't a person (that Sitara will undoubtedly state several times), this doesn't fall in the realm of "rights" anyway. Perhaps morals and ethics, but not rights.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 2:35:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 2:31:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

Even if we take that a fetus isn't a person (that Sitara will undoubtedly state several times), this doesn't fall in the realm of "rights" anyway. Perhaps morals and ethics, but not rights.

I know that will be her position, hence my question to her.
One could make the argument that, since the fetus isn't a person, the disclosed information to the doctor was a violation of the doctor-patient privilege, which means her rights were violated by the doctor disclosing it to the police.

However, I disagree with this, since the woman seemingly was going to keep the baby, which makes the fetus a person under the law, IMO. (think of someone purposely causing a miscarriage)
My work here is, finally, done.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 2:53:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The US government needs to take a side concerning the legal status of a fetus. Things are getting ridiculous.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 2:56:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 2:35:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:31:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

Even if we take that a fetus isn't a person (that Sitara will undoubtedly state several times), this doesn't fall in the realm of "rights" anyway. Perhaps morals and ethics, but not rights.

I know that will be her position, hence my question to her.
One could make the argument that, since the fetus isn't a person, the disclosed information to the doctor was a violation of the doctor-patient privilege, which means her rights were violated by the doctor disclosing it to the police.

However, I disagree with this, since the woman seemingly was going to keep the baby, which makes the fetus a person under the law, IMO. (think of someone purposely causing a miscarriage)

But the doctor-patient privilege is not a right, by any stretch.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:00:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 2:56:29 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:35:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:31:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

Even if we take that a fetus isn't a person (that Sitara will undoubtedly state several times), this doesn't fall in the realm of "rights" anyway. Perhaps morals and ethics, but not rights.

I know that will be her position, hence my question to her.
One could make the argument that, since the fetus isn't a person, the disclosed information to the doctor was a violation of the doctor-patient privilege, which means her rights were violated by the doctor disclosing it to the police.

However, I disagree with this, since the woman seemingly was going to keep the baby, which makes the fetus a person under the law, IMO. (think of someone purposely causing a miscarriage)

But the doctor-patient privilege is not a right, by any stretch.

I'd say it falls under the 5th and 4th amendment.
To incriminate yourself in order to receive adequate services (be it doctor or lawyer, or even to function a family properly, spouse), you need to be able to be honest. Anything less than that, is a disservice to you, and potentially others.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 2:53:32 PM, Korashk wrote:
The US government needs to take a side concerning the legal status of a fetus. Things are getting ridiculous.

Why the US government?
Why not each state doing its own thing?

Within each state, they ought to be consistent, but across the nation, I disagree.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 3:00:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:56:29 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:35:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:31:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

Even if we take that a fetus isn't a person (that Sitara will undoubtedly state several times), this doesn't fall in the realm of "rights" anyway. Perhaps morals and ethics, but not rights.

I know that will be her position, hence my question to her.
One could make the argument that, since the fetus isn't a person, the disclosed information to the doctor was a violation of the doctor-patient privilege, which means her rights were violated by the doctor disclosing it to the police.

However, I disagree with this, since the woman seemingly was going to keep the baby, which makes the fetus a person under the law, IMO. (think of someone purposely causing a miscarriage)

But the doctor-patient privilege is not a right, by any stretch.

I'd say it falls under the 5th and 4th amendment.

It's not the 4th, since it isn't a search or seizure. And it isn't the 5th because they aren't required to be a witness against themselves.

To incriminate yourself in order to receive adequate services (be it doctor or lawyer, or even to function a family properly, spouse), you need to be able to be honest. Anything less than that, is a disservice to you, and potentially others.

That doesn't make it a right.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:40:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

If the fetus isn't viable it isn't a person and therefore has no constitutional rights (PP of PA v. Casey, 92). All patients have a right to medical privacy, and that privacy extends even to protect a patient from criminal prosecution (Roe). This woman's medical privacy was unconstitutionally violated, and because the police who took her into protective custody would have had to have had access to her medical history, we can and do therefore know that she was subject to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Because she has not been charged with actually breaking a law that is constitutionally viable, her due process rights have likewise been violated. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I can see it making its way to a federal appeals court, at least, unless the Wisconsin state courts rectify the idiotic laws passed by that state's legislature.
Tsar of DDO
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:50:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Holy crap! This sounds a lot like that one episode of Stargate whereby a court was deciding whether or not the parasitic Goa'uld deserved the body, or it's host did!

As far as the matter at hand goes, she can't plead ignorance to not knowing that the physicians information wouldn't be used against her. That policy breaks once police warrant it as evidence, and that should be obvious to everyone. I also really don't see how it's unconstitutional.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:08:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 3:40:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

If the fetus isn't viable it isn't a person and therefore has no constitutional rights (PP of PA v. Casey, 92). All patients have a right to medical privacy, and that privacy extends even to protect a patient from criminal prosecution (Roe). This woman's medical privacy was unconstitutionally violated, and because the police who took her into protective custody would have had to have had access to her medical history, we can and do therefore know that she was subject to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Because she has not been charged with actually breaking a law that is constitutionally viable, her due process rights have likewise been violated. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I can see it making its way to a federal appeals court, at least, unless the Wisconsin state courts rectify the idiotic laws passed by that state's legislature.

The counter argument will be the mother's decision to carry the child to term.
If the fetus is not a person, then me killing the fetus (without mother's consent) is not murder. It cannot be both murder and not child abuse (that seems to be the premise is that it is abuse).

Had the mother's plan be an abortion, then I would agree this is hypocritical.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:10:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 3:33:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:00:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:56:29 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:35:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:31:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

Even if we take that a fetus isn't a person (that Sitara will undoubtedly state several times), this doesn't fall in the realm of "rights" anyway. Perhaps morals and ethics, but not rights.

I know that will be her position, hence my question to her.
One could make the argument that, since the fetus isn't a person, the disclosed information to the doctor was a violation of the doctor-patient privilege, which means her rights were violated by the doctor disclosing it to the police.

However, I disagree with this, since the woman seemingly was going to keep the baby, which makes the fetus a person under the law, IMO. (think of someone purposely causing a miscarriage)

But the doctor-patient privilege is not a right, by any stretch.

I'd say it falls under the 5th and 4th amendment.

It's not the 4th, since it isn't a search or seizure. And it isn't the 5th because they aren't required to be a witness against themselves.

If a doctor is trying to save your life, he needs to know what is in your system (i.e. drugs). The fact that you have OD'd on drugs ought to be enough to search your home for more.

To incriminate yourself in order to receive adequate services (be it doctor or lawyer, or even to function a family properly, spouse), you need to be able to be honest. Anything less than that, is a disservice to you, and potentially others.

That doesn't make it a right.

We'll agree to disagree.
I say the privilege is due to the right of self-incrimination, while you disagree.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:11:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:08:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:40:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

If the fetus isn't viable it isn't a person and therefore has no constitutional rights (PP of PA v. Casey, 92). All patients have a right to medical privacy, and that privacy extends even to protect a patient from criminal prosecution (Roe). This woman's medical privacy was unconstitutionally violated, and because the police who took her into protective custody would have had to have had access to her medical history, we can and do therefore know that she was subject to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Because she has not been charged with actually breaking a law that is constitutionally viable, her due process rights have likewise been violated. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I can see it making its way to a federal appeals court, at least, unless the Wisconsin state courts rectify the idiotic laws passed by that state's legislature.

The counter argument will be the mother's decision to carry the child to term.

Which has no bearing on whether or not the fetus has rights.

If the fetus is not a person, then me killing the fetus (without mother's consent) is not murder.

No, it's assault. However, there are some states where you would be charged with murder. I'm aware of how odd that may seem.

It cannot be both murder and not child abuse (that seems to be the premise is that it is abuse).

I'd say it's neither.

Had the mother's plan be an abortion, then I would agree this is hypocritical.

The mother's plan is irrelevant to whether or not the fetus has rights. It is a fetus, therefore not a person, therefore has no rights, therefore cannot be abused -unless it is viable, which is to say that it is around 22 weeks in the gestational cycle.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:26:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:11:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:08:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:40:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

If the fetus isn't viable it isn't a person and therefore has no constitutional rights (PP of PA v. Casey, 92). All patients have a right to medical privacy, and that privacy extends even to protect a patient from criminal prosecution (Roe). This woman's medical privacy was unconstitutionally violated, and because the police who took her into protective custody would have had to have had access to her medical history, we can and do therefore know that she was subject to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Because she has not been charged with actually breaking a law that is constitutionally viable, her due process rights have likewise been violated. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I can see it making its way to a federal appeals court, at least, unless the Wisconsin state courts rectify the idiotic laws passed by that state's legislature.

The counter argument will be the mother's decision to carry the child to term.

Which has no bearing on whether or not the fetus has rights.
I disagree.
You can't claim someone assualted/murdered the child, if the mother had every intention of doing so. Ergo, if the mother has no plans for the fetus, it doesn't have rights.

If the fetus is not a person, then me killing the fetus (without mother's consent) is not murder.

No, it's assault. However, there are some states where you would be charged with murder. I'm aware of how odd that may seem.
I think it fair, actually.

It cannot be both murder and not child abuse (that seems to be the premise is that it is abuse).

I'd say it's neither.
Even at the age of viability?

Had the mother's plan be an abortion, then I would agree this is hypocritical.

The mother's plan is irrelevant to whether or not the fetus has rights. It is a fetus, therefore not a person, therefore has no rights, therefore cannot be abused -unless it is viable, which is to say that it is around 22 weeks in the gestational cycle.

I agree that at the age of viability, it has rights.
However, I also believe the fetus has rights, if the mother has every intention of bringing the child to term. If she is clearly going to do so, like going for prenatal care, then abuse is a factor.

Did I miss how pregnant she was?
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:27:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:26:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:11:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:08:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:40:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:08:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 5:54:50 AM, Sitara wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Doctors have a duty to report abuse to authorities when it involves minors.

If the fetus isn't viable it isn't a person and therefore has no constitutional rights (PP of PA v. Casey, 92). All patients have a right to medical privacy, and that privacy extends even to protect a patient from criminal prosecution (Roe). This woman's medical privacy was unconstitutionally violated, and because the police who took her into protective custody would have had to have had access to her medical history, we can and do therefore know that she was subject to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Because she has not been charged with actually breaking a law that is constitutionally viable, her due process rights have likewise been violated. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I can see it making its way to a federal appeals court, at least, unless the Wisconsin state courts rectify the idiotic laws passed by that state's legislature.

The counter argument will be the mother's decision to carry the child to term.

Which has no bearing on whether or not the fetus has rights.
I disagree.
You can't claim someone assualted/murdered the child, if the mother had every intention of doing so. Ergo, if the mother has no plans for the fetus, it doesn't have rights.

I'm saying assault of the mother. Legally, the fetus and the mother are indistinguishable.

If the fetus is not a person, then me killing the fetus (without mother's consent) is not murder.

No, it's assault. However, there are some states where you would be charged with murder. I'm aware of how odd that may seem.
I think it fair, actually.

It cannot be both murder and not child abuse (that seems to be the premise is that it is abuse).

I'd say it's neither.
Even at the age of viability?

Had the mother's plan be an abortion, then I would agree this is hypocritical.

The mother's plan is irrelevant to whether or not the fetus has rights. It is a fetus, therefore not a person, therefore has no rights, therefore cannot be abused -unless it is viable, which is to say that it is around 22 weeks in the gestational cycle.

I agree that at the age of viability, it has rights.
However, I also believe the fetus has rights, if the mother has every intention of bringing the child to term. If she is clearly going to do so, like going for prenatal care, then abuse is a factor.

Did I miss how pregnant she was?

It didn't say.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:28:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My issue is that the only grounds on which they held her was the confession of past use.

Tests taken at the time of prenatal visit showed no drugs but the opoid replacement. She decided to no longer take the replacement, and the doctor said if she didn't take the opoid replacement they'd throw her in rehab.

Tests on the fetus showed absolutely no sign of harm.

It's one thing to find someone doing drugs while pregnant.

But to force someone to continue taking opoid replacements while pregnant with a diagnosis based entirely on behavoirs which have been avoided during the pregnancy? Threatening them with rehab if they don't?

Wanna throw someone in rehab if they are immediate risk to the fetus? Let's talk.

But throwing someone in rehab because they refuse to take methadone while pregnant? Because before pregnancy they had an untreated drug problem?

How is that even mildly acceptable?
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:52:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:28:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
My issue is that the only grounds on which they held her was the confession of past use.

Tests taken at the time of prenatal visit showed no drugs but the opoid replacement. She decided to no longer take the replacement, and the doctor said if she didn't take the opoid replacement they'd throw her in rehab.

Tests on the fetus showed absolutely no sign of harm.

It's one thing to find someone doing drugs while pregnant.

But to force someone to continue taking opoid replacements while pregnant with a diagnosis based entirely on behavoirs which have been avoided during the pregnancy? Threatening them with rehab if they don't?

Wanna throw someone in rehab if they are immediate risk to the fetus? Let's talk.

But throwing someone in rehab because they refuse to take methadone while pregnant? Because before pregnancy they had an untreated drug problem?

How is that even mildly acceptable?

It's not. But perhaps hers is one of those fvcked up states with far-right wing state legislatures.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:54:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:52:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:28:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
My issue is that the only grounds on which they held her was the confession of past use.

Tests taken at the time of prenatal visit showed no drugs but the opoid replacement. She decided to no longer take the replacement, and the doctor said if she didn't take the opoid replacement they'd throw her in rehab.

Tests on the fetus showed absolutely no sign of harm.

It's one thing to find someone doing drugs while pregnant.

But to force someone to continue taking opoid replacements while pregnant with a diagnosis based entirely on behavoirs which have been avoided during the pregnancy? Threatening them with rehab if they don't?

Wanna throw someone in rehab if they are immediate risk to the fetus? Let's talk.

But throwing someone in rehab because they refuse to take methadone while pregnant? Because before pregnancy they had an untreated drug problem?

How is that even mildly acceptable?

It's not. But perhaps hers is one of those fvcked up states with far-right wing state legislatures.

Probably one of those "Don't touch my medicare, but doctors have to perform transvaginal ultrasound on potential abortions" states.
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:56:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What you all are missing is that she underwent and completed treatment for her former addiction. There was no reason for her to be forced to take more medication than necessary.
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:28:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
My issue is that the only grounds on which they held her was the confession of past use.

Tests taken at the time of prenatal visit showed no drugs but the opoid replacement. She decided to no longer take the replacement, and the doctor said if she didn't take the opoid replacement they'd throw her in rehab.

Tests on the fetus showed absolutely no sign of harm.

It's one thing to find someone doing drugs while pregnant.

But to force someone to continue taking opoid replacements while pregnant with a diagnosis based entirely on behavoirs which have been avoided during the pregnancy? Threatening them with rehab if they don't?

Wanna throw someone in rehab if they are immediate risk to the fetus? Let's talk.

But throwing someone in rehab because they refuse to take methadone while pregnant? Because before pregnancy they had an untreated drug problem?

How is that even mildly acceptable?

Oh, I didn't read far enough. ^THIS

Her tox screen was clear, y'all.
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:59:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:54:54 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:52:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:28:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
My issue is that the only grounds on which they held her was the confession of past use.

Tests taken at the time of prenatal visit showed no drugs but the opoid replacement. She decided to no longer take the replacement, and the doctor said if she didn't take the opoid replacement they'd throw her in rehab.

Tests on the fetus showed absolutely no sign of harm.

It's one thing to find someone doing drugs while pregnant.

But to force someone to continue taking opoid replacements while pregnant with a diagnosis based entirely on behavoirs which have been avoided during the pregnancy? Threatening them with rehab if they don't?

Wanna throw someone in rehab if they are immediate risk to the fetus? Let's talk.

But throwing someone in rehab because they refuse to take methadone while pregnant? Because before pregnancy they had an untreated drug problem?

How is that even mildly acceptable?

It's not. But perhaps hers is one of those fvcked up states with far-right wing state legislatures.

Probably one of those "Don't touch my medicare, but doctors have to perform transvaginal ultrasound on potential abortions" states.

I'd say you're very likely correct.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 7:33:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 3:02:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/2/2013 2:53:32 PM, Korashk wrote:
The US government needs to take a side concerning the legal status of a fetus. Things are getting ridiculous.

Why the US government?
Why not each state doing its own thing?

Within each state, they ought to be consistent, but across the nation, I disagree.

Why should each state do its own thing, when that basically renders the nation a confusing patchwork of regulations that are often contradictory?

Anyway, I would say that her rights aren't being violated if she intended to keep it. Pre-emptively charging a person with reckless giving of birth defects is fine in my book. (Pre-emptive in the sense that the person hasn't given birth yet.)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a very easy legal remedy for this (if the legislators actually cared about the women):

Instead of using fortune-telling based on past behavior, the criteria should be similar to how child abuse must occur before you can arrest parents. You can't arrest parents because they MIGHT abuse their child.

Refusing to take opoid replacement during pregnancy is about as far from "imminent danger to the fetus" as it gets.

If the medicine she refused to take effected the child's health in a positive way, THEN I can see complaint.

But refusing to take opoids targeted at the mother at the risk of the child?