Should doctors be required to give Miranda to pregnant women?

joko104 · Jul 13, 2013

Aunt Spiker said:
:shrug:

I'm not really concerned with the internal fears of a drug user. . . and while reading this thread I really struggled to follow what your actual point is. You started with a question about Miranda rights/warnings and doctor obligations - you then said, on your own volition, that police do the 'law-enforcement stuff' and doctors just do what they're legally required to do and nothing more.

So - now what's your issue? Are you trying to draw a legitimate concern regarding the health of a pregnant woman and how it might affect her child?

There is more than one concern.

Would you approve of the legislature passing a law that police take a dna and a blood sample for every person using checkpoints to do so?

Is it any different if the vote to have doctors take samples from their patients and provide them to the police?

If it becomes a reality that doctors are required to take blood samples from expectant mothers to test if she has drunk any alcohol, has smoked pot or used any other illegal substance and provide the results to the police, do you think that would prevent some women from having prenatal care?

Neomalthusian · Jul 13, 2013

joko104 said:
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.

Not disagreeing, but, citation?

Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients?

No. Duty to warn, mandatory reporters, etc. are not de facto law enforcement held to Miranda rights notification just because they're mandatory reporters.

Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?

As others have indicated, it is not unreasonable search for a doctor to do normal business and, in the course of that, if they notice abuse of children happening, reporting it to authorities. Same as the teacher noted, it's not unreasonable search to see a black eye, ask about it, and report it to authorities if he says "my dad hit me."

joko104 · Jul 13, 2013

Aunt Spiker said:
:shrug:

I'm not really concerned with the internal fears of a drug user. . . and while reading this thread I really struggled to follow what your actual point is. You started with a question about Miranda rights/warnings and doctor obligations - you then said, on your own volition, that police do the 'law-enforcement stuff' and doctors just do what they're legally required to do and nothing more.

So - now what's your issue? Are you trying to draw a legitimate concern regarding the health of a pregnant woman and how it might affect her child?

That is not the question as drug tests are a separate set of tests.

THIS is the question. Shouldn't pregnant women (always targets for attack by prolife Republican politicians) at least be notified that a condition of her seeing any licensed doctor that her blood and dna is taken for police drug and alcohol testing?

Of course, ONLY pregnant women ave automatic (and covert without her knowledge) drug and alcohol tests - but CERTAINLY not politicians, police officers, parents, surgeons, airline pilots - no one else - ONLY pregnant women to be secretly drug and alcohol tested.

Yes, my concern is both the woman and her children if this premise continues and expands. It means in San Francisco a woman could find herself arrested and CPS seizing her children because a test determined nicotine from smoking cigarettes. In Muskogee Oklahoma she is jailed because there is evidence of pot and her parental rights terminated. And at no time did she ever consent to any such tests whatsoever.

Slyfox in his view that the Bill of Rights not longer has any worth or effect is the growing reality. In the past, it took a court order to take someone's blood and DNA for examination by police - and that on probably cause as the basis. BUT under prolife attack on women, these tests are to be done - secretly - to all women as fishing expeditions by police.

There are pregnant women who do smoke cigarettes. Do drink alcohol. Do smoke pot. Do use cocaine. And in states that are passing such laws, exactly NONE of them should EVER go to the doctor during pregnancy nor for delivery. Nor should any other woman. Poppy seeds (in some foods) will trigger positive for opiants. If the woman fails to mention some prescription, the test will fail. Or a restaurant didn't reveal it had alcohol in its steak sauce or salid dressing.

In general, virtually NO drug test is a YES or NO question, as virtually everything that triggers any drug test is in our environment, so arbitrary percentages are used. And a person KNOWING they are approaching a drug/alcohol test can at least TRY to avoid those inadvertent triggers, NOR do doctors offices have the chain-of-custody safeguards and protocols that clinics have either.

Slyfox696 · Jul 13, 2013

joko104 said:
Since your view on all topics involving government is that the government and enforcement can violate the Bill or Rights, require anything of people and do anything to people without except - even explaining everyone volunteered to this as every person has the options of suicide and death, there isn't any rational discussion with on any topic.

Nothing quite like a straw man to avoid having to defend your absurd theory. What's even better is how you turn your straw man into an ad hominem, with perhaps just a hint of poisoning the well thrown in. You're a walking logical fallacy.

I believe I've said this to you before. When this is what you've been reduced to, you know you've lost. You went from arguing doctors should read Miranda because they were somehow police agents (though, to your credit, you did acknowledge the difference between lawmakers and police) to saying we shouldn't try to catch pregnant women doing drugs to now this completely off-topic and erroneous rant.

Just so you know, doctors taking a blood test and reporting their findings to the police is not a violation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, I'm 100% confident you'll find nothing in any article of the Constitution about the rights of a pregnant woman to use illegal drugs and not get turned in for them.

Finally...why is this even in the Abortion forum? Why did you choose to put this thread here? This has nothing to do with abortion.

joko104 said:
That is not the question as drug tests are a separate set of tests.

THIS is the question. Shouldn't pregnant women (always targets for attack by prolife Republican politicians) at least be notified that a condition of her seeing any licensed doctor that her blood and dna is taken for police drug and alcohol testing?

:lamo

Look who is actively advocating for pregnant women to be scared to go to the doctor now. And while I generally loathe Republicans like you wouldn't believe, what do they have to do with any of this? It almost seems as if you're trying to stage them as an evil boogeyman for your outrageous scenario.

Yes, my concern is both the woman and her children

No, it's not. Your concern very clearly isn't with either of them. I'm not exactly what your concern is, but you seem to want pregnant women to get away with using illegal drugs. I can safely say you do not seem very concerned.

Slyfox in his view that the Bill of Rights not longer has any worth or effect is the growing reality.

Again, when you're reduced to outright lies to prove your ridiculous and outrageous posting, you know you've lost.

In the past, it took a court order to take someone's blood and DNA for examination by police - and that on probably cause as the basis. BUT under prolife attack on women, these tests are to be done - secretly - to all women as fishing expeditions by police.

I'm sorry, are the doctors coming to their homes and demanding this blood sample? No? Then this has nothing to do with the political implications of the abortion debate, but rather common sense.

There are pregnant women who do smoke cigarettes. Do drink alcohol. Do smoke pot. Do use cocaine.

And you seem to want them to get away with it. Who cares if the child comes out deformed mentally and/or physically and lives an absolutely wretched life because of it? Certainly not you.

It scares me people like you exist in this country. Truly it bothers me that someone actively advocates for pregnant women to get away with using drugs to the harm of her unborn child.

Neomalthusian · Jul 13, 2013

joko104 said:
That is not the question as drug tests are a separate set of tests.

THIS is the question. Shouldn't pregnant women (always targets for attack by prolife Republican politicians) at least be notified that a condition of her seeing any licensed doctor that her blood and dna is taken for police drug and alcohol testing?

Well that's not why it's drawn, so, no.

Of course, ONLY pregnant women ave automatic (and covert without her knowledge) drug and alcohol tests - but CERTAINLY not politicians, police officers, parents, surgeons, airline pilots - no one else - ONLY pregnant women to be secretly drug and alcohol tested.

Prenatal visits recommend blood draws to identify possible teratogens. That's standard prenatal medical practice. Do you object to this for some reason?

Juanita · Jul 13, 2013

CanadaJohn said:
I'm curious - what do blood tests that find drug abuse have to do with the subject of abortion?

I was asking the same question--but, if doctors are required to give info to police on drug use---doesn't it seem apparant that eventually, in those bright red states, they will also be required to report on pregnancy results?.. Seems like the next conservative step to me.....

Slyfox696 · Jul 13, 2013

Juanita said:
I was asking the same question--but, if doctors are required to give info to police on drug use---doesn't it seem apparant that eventually, in those bright red states, they will also be required to report on pregnancy results?.. Seems like the next conservative step to me.....

So...to prevent a "might happen sometime in the distance future" we shouldn't worry about about pregnant women doing illegal drugs? Is that your position? Or are you simply trying to justify why this is in the Abortion forum.

I certainly hope it's just you trying to justify the thread's location.

Juanita · Jul 13, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
So...to prevent a "might happen sometime in the distance future" we shouldn't worry about about pregnant women doing illegal drugs? Is that your position? Or are you simply trying to justify why this is in the Abortion forum.

I certainly hope it's just you trying to justify the thread's location.

The Doctor is perfectly capable of counseling the woman about her drug use.....To be required to report it to law enforcement is not justifiable...another step away from liberty and freedom.....

joko104 · Jul 13, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
Nothing quite like a straw man to avoid having to defend your absurd theory. What's even better is how you turn your straw man into an ad hominem, with perhaps just a hint of poisoning the well thrown in. You're a walking logical fallacy.

I believe I've said this to you before. When this is what you've been reduced to, you know you've lost. You went from arguing doctors should read Miranda because they were somehow police agents (though, to your credit, you did acknowledge the difference between lawmakers and police) to saying we shouldn't try to catch pregnant women doing drugs to now this completely off-topic and erroneous rant.

Just so you know, doctors taking a blood test and reporting their findings to the police is not a violation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, I'm 100% confident you'll find nothing in any article of the Constitution about the rights of a pregnant woman to use illegal drugs and not get turned in for them.

Finally...why is this even in the Abortion forum? Why did you choose to put this thread here? This has nothing to do with abortion.
:lamo

Look who is actively advocating for pregnant women to be scared to go to the doctor now. And while I generally loathe Republicans like you wouldn't believe, what do they have to do with any of this? It almost seems as if you're trying to stage them as an evil boogeyman for your outrageous scenario.

No, it's not. Your concern very clearly isn't with either of them. I'm not exactly what your concern is, but you seem to want pregnant women to get away with using illegal drugs. I can safely say you do not seem very concerned.

Again, when you're reduced to outright lies to prove your ridiculous and outrageous posting, you know you've lost.

I'm sorry, are the doctors coming to their homes and demanding this blood sample? No? Then this has nothing to do with the political implications of the abortion debate, but rather common sense.

And you seem to want them to get away with it. Who cares if the child comes out deformed mentally and/or physically and lives an absolutely wretched life because of it? Certainly not you.

It scares me people like you exist in this country. Truly it bothers me that someone actively advocates for pregnant women to get away with using drugs to the harm of her unborn child.

The relevancy to the abortion debate is such laws essentially require a woman to pick between prison, lose of many right permanently and lose of any children she might already have if she does not abort a pregnancy.

The government obtaining a person's blood and/or DNA covertly from a person where the person has an expectation of privacy as in a doctor's office is a violation of the Bill of Rights. You confirm your contempt of the Bill of Rights.

You prove you are an extreme control freak in wanting to criminalize a pregnant woman from smoking a cigarette or having a glass of wine.

You prove you are indifferent to whether a person is guilt of what they are accused of by slipshod and wrongful evidence gathering without strict protocols.

You prove you are a grotesque sexist in that by looking at the thread in terms of men using substances that would cause birth defects I - to no surprise - find you have expressed no objection whatsoever and - you are agreeable to such concerns calling for covert blood testing for substances limited only to women - because of course you as man should be protected from the same standard as you think should anyone else other than pregnant women you rabidly insist you and government should control.

Finally, you prove are a liar in claiming I am promoting anyone - man or woman - getting away with deliberately causing birth defects in children.

joko104 · Jul 13, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
So...to prevent a "might happen sometime in the distance future" we shouldn't worry about about pregnant women doing illegal drugs? Is that your position? Or are you simply trying to justify why this is in the Abortion forum.

I certainly hope it's just you trying to justify the thread's location.

But you certainly don't want the police to report the bio-father's drug use to the police, though this could result in birth defects in defective male sperm.

In your totalitarian view of government, you want the legislature to forcibly turn everyone into free-labor narcs and informants on pregnant women - whether the person is willing to be a government and/or police agent or not - to insure they are complying with all the controlled demanded upon the human-herd breeding stock. Only bio-mothers, no one else and certainly not you.

And, of course, you are absolute in that it falls in the proper role of government to order private citizens and businesses to be in the employment of the government and police against their wishes - and to do such labor for the government for free as another set of slaves you claim the government can turn anyone into as it wishes.

I find nothing allowing government to order doctors to be free police investigators and free professional experts, whether the doctor wants to or not. A person has to be convicted of a crime before ordered to do community service and free labor for the government.

joko104 · Jul 13, 2013

Neomalthusian said:
Well that's not why it's drawn, so, no.

Prenatal visits recommend blood draws to identify possible teratogens. That's standard prenatal medical practice. Do you object to this for some reason?

This is a very easy question to answer. I'll never be pregnant so I will never be asked and therefore never a reason to agree or objection.

I DO NOT BELIEVE A DOCTOR CAN DO ANYTHING WITH THE PATIENT'S INFORMED CONSENT. Period.

There are instances where a person may agree to anything the doctor decides in a surgery or emergency situation, and parents can speak for minor children not old enough to understand the topic. However, the question is not whether I objection, but whether the woman/patient does. And I believe the doctor must truthful state the purpose of the procedure, action or test so the woman/patient's decision is an INFORMED decision.

If a blood test is going to be turned over to the police, a doctor should have a strict duty to state that is the purpose of the test so the patient can then give informed consent or not. Needles are stuck in livestock and pets without their informed consent. Slyfox and many ProLifers see women as exactly no different than breeding stock to be treated accordingly.

Do you think a doctor can not do any medical action without the patient's prior informed consent?

And the topic of prolife doctors lying to patients has been a topic on the abortion forum before as a related topic. For example, deliberately falsely telling a woman the fetus is fine when the doctor actually learned it has Down Syndrome because the doctor opposes abortion in all instances and lied to impose his faith on the woman. To no surprise, ProLifers also want to make it legal for doctors to deliberately lie to women about the health and condition of a fetus.

Slyfox696 · Jul 13, 2013

Juanita said:
The Doctor is perfectly capable of counseling the woman about her drug use.....To be required to report it to law enforcement is not justifiable...another step away from liberty and freedom.....

:lol:

That doesn't even make sense. How is a law requiring doctors to report a crime a step away from liberty and freedom?

joko104 said:
The relevancy to the abortion debate is such laws essentially require a woman to pick between prison, lose of many right permanently and lose of any children she might already have if she does not abort a pregnancy.

No, such a law essentially requires a woman to pick between her drugs and her children. It really has nothing to do with abortion.

The government obtaining a person's blood and/or DNA covertly from a person where the person has an expectation of privacy as in a doctor's office is a violation of the Bill of Rights. You confirm your contempt of the Bill of Rights.

No, it doesn't, because the Bill of Rights only limits what the government can take from you. It does not cover what you willingly give to another. The only person showing a contempt of the Bill of Rights is you, due to your incredibly distorted view of them.

You prove you are an extreme control freak in wanting to criminalize a pregnant woman from smoking a cigarette or having a glass of wine.

I won't even begin to tell you what your lies say about you.

You prove you are indifferent to whether a person is guilt of what they are accused of by slipshod and wrongful evidence gathering without strict protocols.

WHAT? Your entire premise is BUILT around the idea the woman is using drugs. Do you even know what you're saying anymore? Or did you ever in the first place?

Furthermore, doctors don't get to determine guilt, anymore than they are agents of the police. Doctors, according to you, turn the evidence over to the police. The police, presumably, conduct an investigation which might result in an arrest. But an arrest is also not guilt, it takes a jury to determine guilt. Do you have any idea how the justice system works?

You prove you are a grotesque sexist

I'm a sexist because I don't want to subject children to a mother who is doing drugs during her pregnancy? You do realize that roughly half of the babies born are female, right?

in that by looking at the thread in terms of men using substances that would cause birth defects I - to no surprise - find you have expressed no objection whatsoever and - you are agreeable to such concerns calling for covert blood testing for substances limited only to women - because

Because you only created a thread regarding women. So now I'm a sexist because you can't even remember the topic of your own damn thread? Do you realize just how asinine your posting is?

of course you as man should be protected from the same standard as you think should anyone else other than pregnant women you rabidly insist you and government should control.

Ignoring the obvious biological differences you don't seem to quite understand when it comes to the development of a fetus (you know, the fact that a baby is never stored inside a man), I'd have no problem with the exact same law regarding men.

I care about the children, not about your ridiculous accusations of me being sexist. What concerns me is how little you seem to care about the children.

Finally, you prove are a liar in claiming I am promoting anyone - man or woman - getting away with deliberately causing birth defects in children.

Uhh...I'm a liar for accurately assessing what you're saying? If a doctor is seeing a pregnant woman and discovers drug use, what do you think should happen?

joko104 said:
But you certainly don't want the police to report the bio-father's drug use to the police, though this could result in birth defects in defective male sperm.

Did I ever say that? I'd have no problem with reporting any drug use to the police. As for the rest of your mind-numbingly ridiculous post, I didn't even bother to read it, given how incredibly dumb the last one was and this one started. I find it amusing how quickly you resort to lies when your initial theory was blown to hell by exposing the obvious lack of logic in it.

joko104 · Jul 13, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
No, such a law essentially requires a woman to pick between her drugs and her children. It really has nothing to do with abortion.

No, because 1.) no woman is required to go to a doctor - and you don't care if the fetus or newborn dies as a result and 2.) the woman has the other option of abortion.

Slyfox696 · Jul 13, 2013

joko104 said:
No

Yes. The fact you think a woman is automatically just going to do drugs when she is pregnant is incredibly sexist.

1.) no woman is required to go to a doctor

Nor is she required to use illegal drugs. Though maybe you think she should, I don't know. I really have no idea why you seem to think pregnant women have no choice on whether or not to use illegal drugs.

and you don't care if the fetus or newborn dies as a result

This doesn't even begin to make sense. First of all, my entire platform throughout this thread has been for the safety and well-being of the child, unlike you who seems to care far more about the ability to get away with using illegal drugs while pregnant. Second of all...do you have any idea how old humankind is? Women have been having babies long before modern medicine.

and 2.) the woman has the other option of abortion.

The woman always has that choice, how does this affect that? Again, do you even realize what you're saying? Did you ever?

CanadaJohn · Jul 13, 2013

Juanita said:
I was asking the same question--but, if doctors are required to give info to police on drug use---doesn't it seem apparant that eventually, in those bright red states, they will also be required to report on pregnancy results?.. Seems like the next conservative step to me.....

I'm thinking that comment should be in the conspiracy threads.

CanadaJohn · Jul 13, 2013

Juanita said:
The Doctor is perfectly capable of counseling the woman about her drug use.....To be required to report it to law enforcement is not justifiable...another step away from liberty and freedom.....

I could be wrong, but I think reporting drug abuse has to do with certain drugs and abuse of drugs being illegal. I'm not aware of pregnancy being illegal in any state.

Slyfox696 · Jul 13, 2013

CanadaJohn said:
I'm thinking that comment should be in the conspiracy threads.

As someone who is 100% pro-choice, I can tell you unequivocally that some of the people in this thread who would call themselves pro-choice would more aptly be characterized as pro-abortion. I think if they had it their way, every woman would have a doctor outside their house ready to rush in the moment a woman decides to even consider an abortion.

What so many in the pro-choice crowd, like joko and Juanita for example, don't seem to understand is the word "choice". They are so intent on arguing for abortions, they sometimes seem to forget the word choice.

CanadaJohn · Jul 13, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
As someone who is 100% pro-choice, I can tell you unequivocally that some of the people in this thread who would call themselves pro-choice would more aptly be characterized as pro-abortion. I think if they had it their way, every woman would have a doctor outside their house ready to rush in the moment a woman decides to even consider an abortion.

What so many in the pro-choice crowd, like joko and Juanita for example, don't seem to understand is the word "choice". They are so intent on arguing for abortions, they sometimes seem to forget the word choice.

I agree - they call me a liar when I indicate I'm pro-choice, because people should be free to choose their own path, but I also abhor when a woman makes a lifestyle choice to abort. Yet they hate to be called pro-abortion, although abortion is all they promote, and insist they be called pro-choice. To them, I can't be pro-choice because my preference would be protecting life, with exceptions, yet they can be pro-choice even though they seldom if ever credit the choice to carry a child to term.

Slyfox696 · Jul 13, 2013

CanadaJohn said:
I agree - they call me a liar when I indicate I'm pro-choice, because people should be free to choose their own path, but I also abhor when a woman makes a lifestyle choice to abort.

I feel almost the same way. I wouldn't necessarily say I abhor the thought of a woman having an abortion (for several reasons I won't get into now), I just know I would not want my child aborted. And that has nothing to do with religion, as I'm not a religious person and generally reject organized religion as a whole. I just love children.

Aunt Spiker · Jul 13, 2013

joko104 said:
Would you approve of the legislature passing a law that police take a dna and a blood sample for every person using checkpoints to do so?

Is it any different if the vote to have doctors take samples from their patients and provide them to the police?

If it becomes a reality that doctors are required to take blood samples from expectant mothers to test if she has drunk any alcohol, has smoked pot or used any other illegal substance and provide the results to the police, do you think that would prevent some women from having prenatal care?

1) If it's legal in any state to take blood drug-test results and turn it into the police, link to verifiable proof such as legislation - otherwise, we're discussing a fictional situation.

2) No one randomly tests for DNA - that's conspiracy - nor would anything drug-related come of it.

3) You're drawing the conclusion, it seems, that the only way to see if someone has been doing drugs is to take a blood sample. That's not true - there are signs and symptoms indicative of drug abuse and use that can tip someone off just by looking at numbers, measurements and other factors.

Example: Drunk-driving. . . what tips a cop off if they pull you over for speeding? Possibly several things: eye dilation, swerving while driving, slurred speech, slow and lethargic movements, irrational behavior - etc. Regardless of your opinion on law enforcement and drug use - this is just truth, is it not? Same thing with possible chronic drug abuse and pregnancy - it has various, possible, telltale signs that might raise concern.

joko104 said:
Shouldn't pregnant women (always targets for attack by prolife Republican politicians) at least be notified that a condition of her seeing any licensed doctor that her blood and dna is taken for police drug and alcohol testing?

No - that makes no sense. . . and your political and senseless bias is noted.

Of course, ONLY pregnant women ave automatic (and covert without her knowledge) drug and alcohol tests - but CERTAINLY not politicians, police officers, parents, surgeons, airline pilots - no one else - ONLY pregnant women to be secretly drug and alcohol tested.

Do they - again - provide proof for your continuous claim so I can read up and see where you've drawn your knowledge from. I can't debate facts that only you stake claim to and I don't have.

And to note - it might not be covert, but military (for direct example) undergo RANDOM testing - thrown out of the blue, and monitored - so the testee cannot avoid drug use or otherwise figure out how to sidestep the effort. . . as do most professions: random drug testing is often contractually obligated - if someone doesn't agree with it, they don't sign the contract and take the job.

Yes, my concern is both the woman and her children if this premise continues and expands. It means in San Francisco a woman could find herself arrested and CPS seizing her children because a test determined nicotine from smoking cigarettes. In Muskogee Oklahoma she is jailed because there is evidence of pot and her parental rights terminated. And at no time did she ever consent to any such tests whatsoever.

Again - you keep throwing 'facts' out without giving verifiable proof. Examples for San Francisco - and example for Muskogee, Ok.

Slyfox in his view that the Bill of Rights not longer has any worth or effect is the growing reality. In the past, it took a court order to take someone's blood and DNA for examination by police - and that on probably cause as the basis. BUT under prolife attack on women, these tests are to be done - secretly - to all women as fishing expeditions by police.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming Slyfox is a member and you're referring to a post?
If you have evidence of proposed legislation, etc, post it - so we can all read and be up to date. If someone's already done this, point it out and I'll fish down the link. You keep wafting between fictional/non-existent situations and supposed real-life situations.

There are pregnant women who do smoke cigarettes. Do drink alcohol. Do smoke pot. Do use cocaine. And in states that are passing such laws, exactly NONE of them should EVER go to the doctor during pregnancy nor for delivery. Nor should any other woman. Poppy seeds (in some foods) will trigger positive for opiants. If the woman fails to mention some prescription, the test will fail. Or a restaurant didn't reveal it had alcohol in its steak sauce or salid dressing.

Click to expand...

So what do you propose as an alternative - and why aren't you concerned? What do you suggest should be done instead?

In general, virtually NO drug test is a YES or NO question, as virtually everything that triggers any drug test is in our environment,

Click to expand...

This is horrifically false and presumptuous - virtually everything that triggers any drug test is in our environment? Hmm.

so arbitrary percentages are used. And a person KNOWING they are approaching a drug/alcohol test can at least TRY to avoid those inadvertent triggers, NOR do doctors offices have the chain-of-custody safeguards and protocols that clinics have either.

Click to expand...

Ok - so your argument is now that it's just useless because everyone, regardless of whether they've done any illegal substances or not, will test positive (maybe).

Joko - I see no point, you're not being clear. You're drawing false assumption, jumping to conclusions, and your end concern seems to be around the freedom to use drugs while pregnant rather than concern for mother's health / child's health.

What bothers you more - that MAYBE drug tests are being done in secret and without consent? (I emphasize the maybe because as far as I'm aware - in this thread - you've yet to give proof)
Or that unborn children are being subjected to illicit drug usage?

Your responses in this thread are poorly thought out, ill informed, unresearched, and accusative (IE: turning this into an 'evil republicans' debate) . . . maybe you would have had better responses if you took more time with your OP.

Click to expand...

Paschendale · Jul 13, 2013

How about the government just stay the hell out of people's bodies?

joko104 · Jul 13, 2013

National Advocates for Pregnant Women: Pregnancy and Drug Use: The Facts

VM -- The Legality of Drug-Testing Procedures for Pregnant Women, Jan 2008 ... Virtual Mentor

drug testing during pregnancy

Drug Testing Pregnant women - February 2010 Birth Club - BabyCenter

State Responses to Substance Abuse Among Pregnant Women

Drug-Testing Pregnant Women Nixed - ABC News

The issue is doctor-patient confidentiality for pregnant woman. This is relevant, among other reasons, as this can SERIOUSLY factor into whether a woman opts for an abortion. And, if not, then MUST opt for no medical exams or hospital birth to avoid prison.

Since some drug testing can cover months previous, "stop using drugs" isn't even an option, and there is the question of forcing a woman to give up cigarettes OR abort OR have no prenatal care and no hospital delivery - as an example.

MEANING, it goes well beyond CONTROLLING women to prohibit abortion, but to turning into felons women (only) for smoking cigarettes, women (only) for drinking alcohol and women (only) for smoking pot - wanting these to be felony offenses and basis for taking away her children (and giving them to the father.) In short, men passing laws demanding women act like women were required in the 1800s.

As we see even on this thread, many ProLifers - claiming other motives as always of course - want to try force about half of pregnant women to have an abortion, threatening them with prison if not. If a woman aborts, obviously than there is no fetus for cigarettes, a glass of wine, pot or drugs to harm and no potential of a child born with birth defects to prosecute over. Using "the unborn baby" - or even potential of one - as basis for virtual total control of women. If he drives without a seatbelt, it's a ticket. If a pregnant woman does, it is felony endangerment.

Why would ProLife push for laws that use criminal laws to force women to have abortions to avoid prison? The answer for ANY topic of ProLife's slogans and views is to look at what is the driving force behind ProLife. It is rightwing fundamentalist Christianity.

So... while on the one hand they lament that there are abortions destroying unborn babies conceived by God (no fetus is ever the result of fertilization by male sperm, but rather by "conception," even worth than "murdering" unborn babies is for heathen women to have babies. Thus, for women who smoke, drink, use pot or any other illegal drug, they want laws that effectively say if that woman does not abort then she will be prosecuted for endangering a fetus.

Thus, when it comes to religious ProLife's TOP priority, it is not "save unborn babies." For some ProLifers then, including on this forum, it is imprison women who do not "abort babies of such non-God fearing women and abort fetuses that may not be ideal for adoption, but they want to ban abortions to God fearing women to women who produced babies that could be highly economically profitable to religious adoption services for marketing and may grow up to be religion rightwing voters and putting-money-in-the-collection-plate church members.

Babies are BIG BUSINESS to organized religion in many regards. But they are not likely to profit from babies born to heathens, who also will more likely not vote to allow organize religion to control government.

IF doctors may or should be required to report drug test failures to the police "to protect unborn babies," then lawyers should be required to report evidence about their clients to the police to protect children, women, everyone from violent criminals including those that would kidnap, rape and murder little children on the same principle. I mean, why would you WANT to protect rapists, kidnappers and murderers? THAT is the DIVERSIONARY logic used in attempts to eliminate doctor-patient confidentiality to pregnant woman.

Neomalthusian · Jul 13, 2013

joko104 said:
The issue is doctor-patient confidentiality for pregnant woman.

Confidentiality has never trumped child abuse in the health professions, nor should it, and I'm not sure why it should trump fetal abuse with substances either.

Why would ProLife push for laws that use criminal laws to force women to have abortions to avoid prison?

Click to expand...

Because substance-induced static encephalopathy is worse.

So... while on the one hand they lament that there are abortions destroying unborn babies conceived by God (no fetus is ever the result of fertilization by male sperm, but rather by "conception," even worth than "murdering" unborn babies is for heathen women to have babies. Thus, for women who smoke, drink, use pot or any other illegal drug, they want laws that effectively say if that woman does not abort then she will be prosecuted for endangering a fetus.

Click to expand...

Can you provide evidence of this (that the religious right holds this view)?

Slyfox696 · Jul 13, 2013

joko104 said:
The issue is doctor-patient confidentiality for pregnant woman.

:lol: How many times can you change your story?

As we see even on this thread, many ProLifers - claiming other motives as always of course - want to try force about half of pregnant women to have an abortion, threatening them with prison if not.

:lamo

Ahh, I see. So now you've come to the idea those who are pro-life want women to have an abortion. Of course, why didn't we see it before?

Seriously, cut your losses and move on. Your entire thread is asinine. You've changed what you claim to be the focus multiple times and you're now standing before us claiming those who are pro-life want women to have an abortion. I'd also say your constant sexist comments about men suggest either a fair amount of self-loathing or the idea you might really be a woman who hates men.

Aunt Spiker · Jul 13, 2013

Paschendale said:
How about the government just stay the hell out of people's bodies?

That's funny coming from a proclaimed socialist. LOL - come on, I know you don't actually believe that. You're not a libertarian.

Should doctors be required to give Miranda to pregnant women?

joko104

Neomalthusian

joko104

Slyfox696

Neomalthusian

Juanita

Slyfox696

Juanita

joko104

joko104

joko104

Slyfox696

joko104

Slyfox696

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

Slyfox696

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

Slyfox696

Aunt Spiker

Cheese

Paschendale

Uncanny

joko104

Neomalthusian

Slyfox696

Aunt Spiker

Cheese