Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 135

Thread: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

  1. #111
    Professor Hypersonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    11-04-13 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,379

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    If you want to engage in what some would call troll like activities, be my guest.
    As you were the one seeing things through special lenses, it apparently only applies to you.

    You being disturbed is nonsense.
    She would have been afforded such at the appropriate time in the process.

    Or in other words, you are taking issue with something that really isn't an issue.



    Btw, I love that vid. I believe I have been infracted for using it just like you are.
    Well you're obviously trolling me....That was the point of the video. Obviously, based on the thread most people here agree that there is something wrong with the fact that this woman's constitutional rights were violated. You immediately said, and I quote:

    "Sounds like you are purposely finding reason to be disturbed.
    She would have eventually been afforded the opportunity.
    This was just the beginning where she didn't have one. It is normal."


    Whenever you appear before a judge when a charge is brought upon you, you are supposed to have representation or if you so choose, to deny representation but YOU MUST HAVE THAT OPTION WHEN OR BEFORE you are sentence to have legal representation. Her fetus, not her, had legal representation. This is not normal. Is it normal to appear before a judge and ask for a lawyer and none be given to you? No. So yes, I've come to the conclusion your comment was merely to troll me and to disagree using some baseless comment.
    “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”

    -Arthur Schopenhauer

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) per what im actually discussing they are being factually violated
    It's good policy to involuntarily commit people whose behavioral health disorders are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. This should extend to fetuses when pregnant women are brain-damaging them with drugs.

    2.) i was hence your mistake
    You were talking about banning abortion? Well that's not what this thread is about.

    3.) nope didnt happen in this case, there were no drugs in her system
    Except for the drugs that were in her system. Read again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    She couldn't afford to renew the script and she got the suboxone from a friend, I presume for free.
    From an acquaintance, actually, and I presume not for free. Drug dealers can't really stay in business giving away drugs for free.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 10-25-13 at 11:43 PM.

  3. #113
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersonic View Post
    Well you're obviously trolling me....That was the point of the video.
    Listen closely. An on point reply to what you said, is not trolling.
    Learn the difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersonic View Post
    Obviously, based on the thread most people here agree that there is something wrong with the fact that this woman's constitutional rights were violated.
    Not to those who are informed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersonic View Post
    Whenever you appear before a judge when a charge is brought upon you, you are supposed to have representation or if you so choose,
    Really?
    Is that what you think?
    Let's cut to the chase, okay?
    Prove that is the case in Wisconsin.
    It is that simple. Prove it.

    I already know you are wrong.
    Which is why I said;

    "Sounds like you are purposely finding reason to be disturbed.
    She would have eventually been afforded the opportunity.
    This was just the beginning where she didn't have one. It is normal."


    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersonic View Post
    ... to deny representation but YOU MUST HAVE THAT OPTION WHEN OR BEFORE you are sentence to have legal representation. Her fetus, not her, had legal representation. This is not normal.
    Wrong. It is normal at that stage in the process. Her fetus having counsel, is the law. That is also normal.

    So Like I said. Prove it.
    Either that, or learn the law of which you speak and admit you are wrong as you are.


    So let me help you out.

    977.08 | Appointment of counsel.

    Prove your argument, or learn that you are wrong.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #114
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    1.)It's good policy to involuntarily commit people whose behavioral health disorders are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. This should extend to fetuses when pregnant women are brain-damaging them with drugs.
    2.)You were talking about banning abortion? Well that's not what this thread is about.
    3.)Except for the drugs that were in her system. Read again.
    1.) which has nothgin to do with this story and still doesnt change the fact that per the discusion im actually having right would be violated
    2.) the conversation i ws replying to most certainly did thats why it is again your mistake
    3.) dont need to you need to read again there were no drugs in her system except for Suboxone, the one they wanted her to take. AGain your mistake.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) which has nothgin to do with this story
    Involuntary commitments have nothing to do with this story? The woman was involuntarily committed to substance abuse treatment. You're having serious troubles here Tiger.

    3.) dont need to you need to read again there were no drugs in her system except for Suboxone,
    Oh! Well on that note I have been 100% sober for two weeks from alcohol of any kind except beer.

    the one they wanted her to take. AGain your mistake.
    No, she was taking Suboxone all along that she scored on the street. The only marginally acceptable way for pregnant women to take it is under very close physician supervision. EVEN THEN it is controversial because of how harmful Suboxone is to the fetus, but it's considered accepted practice only because there are some cases where pregnant women are so profoundly drug-addicted that physician-managed Suboxone treatment is less harmful to the fetus than the alternative.

  6. #116
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    1.)Involuntary commitments have nothing to do with this story? The woman was involuntarily committed to substance abuse treatment.
    2.)You're having serious troubles here Tiger.
    3.)Oh! Well on that note I have been 100% sober for two weeks from alcohol of any kind except beer.
    4.)No, she was taking Suboxone all along that she scored on the street.
    5.) The only marginally acceptable way for pregnant women to take it is under very close physician supervision. EVEN THEN it is controversial because of how harmful Suboxone is to the fetus, but it's considered accepted practice only because there are some cases where pregnant women are so profoundly drug-addicted that physician-managed Suboxone treatment is less harmful to the fetus than the alternative.
    1.) again your mistake and fault next time youll read what you are actually replying to and you wont fail so bad
    2.) no trouble at all just pointing out your mistakes
    3.) not even close to the same on any level MAO

    NOW if you went to a clinic and a doctor prescribed a med for you to take to curb your issue AND this is a med you are STILL SUPPOSED TO BE ON but cant afford it so you take your friends but yet someone tells you you should pay for it THEN that would be the same.

    your analogy is a complete failure

    4.) from the street? LOL you mean her friend. Nice fancy appeal to emotion terminology though.
    5.) guess they shouldn't have wanted her to take it then unless the levels were extremely abnormal no reason to violate this lady.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) again your mistake and fault next time youll read what you are actually replying to and you wont fail so bad
    2.) no trouble at all just pointing out your mistakes
    3.) not even close to the same on any level MAO

    NOW if you went to a clinic and a doctor prescribed a med for you to take to curb your issue AND this is a med you are STILL SUPPOSED TO BE ON but cant afford it so you take your friends but yet someone tells you you should pay for it THEN that would be the same.

    your analogy is a complete failure

    4.) from the street? LOL you mean her friend. Nice fancy appeal to emotion terminology though.
    5.) guess they shouldn't have wanted her to take it then unless the levels were extremely abnormal no reason to violate this lady.
    I'm glad you're so clueless about drug dependence. It indicates you must not be one of them, which would be a very good thing. Unless the cluelessness is all an act.

    The woman in the story was an opiate addict and the statutory procedure that resulted in the suspension of her civil liberties is justified considering the circumstances and the harm she was risking to her fetus. Preventing permanent brain damage to things that will become living breathing humans is a very noble thing.

  8. #118
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    1.)I'm glad you're so clueless about drug dependence. It indicates you must not be one of them, which would be a very good thing. Unless the cluelessness is all an act.

    2.)The woman in the story was an opiate addict
    3.) and the statutory procedure that resulted in the suspension of her civil liberties is justified considering the circumstances and the harm she was risking to her fetus. Preventing permanent brain damage to things that will become living breathing humans is a very noble thing.
    1.) hey look! failed insults, right on cue when posts start failing, go to the failed insults.
    2.) yes she WAS
    3.) IMO no its not and there is also going to be a court case to determine that. Nothing noble at all about assuming. Innocent first.
    ALso her pregnancy was found to be normal and id say its safe to "guess" ( i admit its a guess) there were no drugs in her system the second time when they forced her to medical exams since they didnt mention it.
    I also fine it interesting the state canceled its court date against her. Seems they are backing off but i hope she doesnt. I hope she wins and wins big IF the story/article is true.

    Now if it comes out she was really abusing then so be it.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #119
    Professor Hypersonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    11-04-13 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,379

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Listen closely. An on point reply to what you said, is not trolling.
    Learn the difference.


    Not to those who are informed.


    Really?
    Is that what you think?
    Let's cut to the chase, okay?
    Prove that is the case in Wisconsin.
    It is that simple. Prove it.

    I already know you are wrong.
    Which is why I said;

    "Sounds like you are purposely finding reason to be disturbed.
    She would have eventually been afforded the opportunity.
    This was just the beginning where she didn't have one. It is normal."


    Wrong. It is normal at that stage in the process. Her fetus having counsel, is the law. That is also normal.

    So Like I said. Prove it.
    Either that, or learn the law of which you speak and admit you are wrong as you are.


    So let me help you out.

    977.08 | Appointment of counsel.

    Prove your argument, or learn that you are wrong.
    So point out in that link where she (the mother, defendant) does not have a right to legal counsel and she, not having legal counsel is normal in Wisconsin law? Because the basis of my argument was that an unborn child ought to not have legal representation since the unborn child (in my opinion) has no rights, not even a right to life thus abortion. Now, a fetus' only right by a moral definition (and by law) is to not be murdered as the murderee that being the mother, is also harmed. The argument here is that the cocaine law is dumb and needs revision and this case demonstrates the failure of the legal system. The fact that she had no representation was unconstitutional, and most rational thinking people know that before she was sentenced

    This should be good.

    A criminal defendant has the right to be represented by counsel.
    In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the Supreme Court ruled that “in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him.” In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own. However, in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), the Court declined to extend this requirement to the state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment unless the defendant demonstrated "special circumstances" requiring the assistance of counsel.
    Last edited by Hypersonic; 10-26-13 at 12:53 AM.
    “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”

    -Arthur Schopenhauer

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) hey look! failed insults, right on cue when posts start failing, go to the failed insults.
    It wasn't an insult, it was an expression of happiness that your comments indicate you clearly know little about addiction (which is almost certainly a good thing).

    2.) yes she WAS
    As of the drafting of that article, she was. Who knows how she's doing now. Hopefully better.

    3.) IMO no its not and there is also going to be a court case to determine that. Nothing noble at all about assuming. Innocent first.
    ALso her pregnancy was found to be normal and id say its safe to "guess" ( i admit its a guess)[/quote]

    (the two bolded statements right in a row made me chuckle)

    there were no drugs in her system the second time when they forced her to medical exams since they didnt mention it.
    Neither of us knows, I suppose. But if we stepped back from this particular story and just thought in general terms about what would justify suspension of a pregnant addict's liberties for the safety of her fetus, I imagine we would come up with the following (in a nutshell):

    1) A substance abuse treatment professional, social worker or mental health professional clinician who determines based upon a face-to-face assessment of a pregnant client that observable evidence supports probable cause of intoxication by alcohol or other drugs harmful to a fetus may petition the the courts for a 72-hour hold at a designated substance abuse treatment facility for the purposes of emergency evaluation and determination of substance use detrimental to the health of the fetus. The petition shall require the petitioner to document observable facts in support of the necessity of the 72-hour hold to the judge or magistrate with jurisdiction over substance abuse treatment and behavioral health commitment holds for the area.
    2) Staff employed by the substance abuse treatment facility at which patients committed under (1) shall immediately perform a urinalysis or other screening that will reliably determine the presence of harmful intoxicants in the mother's body. For respondents whose screenings are negative for any harmful intoxicants, they shall be released immediately.
    3) Bad faith petitions are a felony.
    4) Within the 72 hours of the hold, a hearing will determine any need for further commitment for substance abuse treatment taking into account the immediate health concerns of both the mother and fetus.

    I think that sounds like a decent start on statutory procedure that will promote the health of not only the fetus, preventing substance-induced static encephalopathy, but also of the mother, who certainly does not benefit from continued abuse of substances.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •