Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 135

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

  1. #121
    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 AGENT J View Post
    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.
    ok its confirmed, she PASSED her drug test the day she was arrested
    Wisconsin Fetal Protection Law Hit With Legal Challenge
    Wisconsin Woman Challenges Fetal Protection Law - ABC News
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/us...ther.html?_r=0
    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

  2. #122
    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 wasn't an insult
    2.), it was an expression of happiness that your comments indicate you clearly know little about addiction (which is almost certainly a good thing).
    3.)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)

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



    4.)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.
    1.) i know it wasnt because it came from you and was factually labeld as failed
    2.) which is factually false
    3.) just posted more info and she still is and she passed her drug test the day she was surprised and arrested. You know since "junkies" are usually sober when surprised
    4.) chuckly all you want i wsa factually right and admitted it was a guess based on logic as i have now proven with 3 more articles
    You assumed shes is a active junkie based on nothing and facts prove you wrong

    that makes me chuckle too because its ANOTHER failure by you

    5.) we both know now
    in a nut shell you posted another fail, the law way overreached in this case and violated her rights and with her being able to get out of rehab and the state seemingly backing off their charges seems justice will prevail.

    But you are free to keep with the fantasy she was some type of criminal, junkie and deserved her rights violated based on assumptions

    I hope she wins and wins big and the law is rewritten to medical and science standards that will actually do good instead of potential violating rights with little to no just cause
    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

  3. #123
    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
    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.
    Yes this is good.
    You are showing everybody that you are not paying attention to what was said and provided, and showing that who have a poor understand of the law and it's applicability.

    Why are you not paying attention?
    It was not provided at that time because it was not the time for it.


    Do you not understand the law?
    The appropriate time for it would have come later.
    What is it you do not understand about that?

    Wisconsin's laws are in accord with the Case Law you cited.
    Do you not also understand that?
    (The underlined portion in Red being what is applicable in these circumstances.)



    Read the Wisconsin laws as provided.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersonic View Post
    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?
    This is you twisting what was said to mean something that wasn't said.
    I never said she didn't have a "Right" to counsel.
    What I did say was the following, which you apparently do not understand.
    "She would have eventually been afforded the opportunity.
    This was just the beginning where she didn't have one. It is normal."

    What do you not understand about appointment of counsel coming later in the process?
    You were given the applicable Law, what about how counsel is acquired do you not understand.

    From the damn article.
    At the hearing, her lawyers say, the judge told Beltran that an attorney would not be provided for her at that time but that she could seek counsel for her next hearing in the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersonic View Post
    The fact that she had no representation was unconstitutional, and most rational thinking people know that before she was sentenced
    Wrong on all counts.
    And why are you assuming she didn't have counsel at the other points in case?
    You really need to pay better attention.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hypersonic View Post
    The argument here is that the cocaine law is dumb and needs revision and this case demonstrates the failure of the legal system.
    No such thing has been shown.
    It is a good law with good intent and is specific.
    The only problem here is it is being misapplied.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #124
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,568

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    From an acquaintance, actually, and I presume not for free. Drug dealers can't really stay in business giving away drugs for free.
    If she couldn't afford to get the prescription filled, chances are she couldn't afford to buy them on the street.

  5. #125
    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 Scrabaholic View Post
    If she couldn't afford to get the prescription filled, chances are she couldn't afford to buy them on the street.
    Opioid dependent pregnant women are considered a special population and there is significant help for them because of how dangerous it is to fetuses/babies. Spend fifteen minutes looking for opioid treatment for pregnant women in Wisconsin (or any state for that matter) and you will find ways. Poor people qualify for help as it is, pregnant women qualify for even more, but special populations like pregnant addicts get bumped straight to the front of the line, help-wise. This woman could have found professional help if she wanted it. It was not only being offered to her, it was being extremely strongly recommended to her. And she refused.

    The laws that temporarily restrict people's liberty when they are harming others (including fetuses in the case of pregnant addicts) are good laws.

    This article obviously only got its information from the addict and her lawyer. Why? Because 42 CFR Part II laws are extremely protective over substance abusers' treatment information. If NBC had contacted the social worker, what do you think the social worker would have said about the case? Nothing, because that would be breaking the law. What would the facility that was treating her have said? Nothing, because that would be breaking the law. Look up 42 CFR Part II if you don't know what I'm talking about.

    So this article is from the mouth of an addict and her lawyer. The spin in the article is clear. It sounds like every other addict with their endless bag of excuses and positive spin.

    Anyone interested in some information about treatment for pregnant opioid addicts, do have a look:

    Methadone Maintenance for Pregnant Women -- dhs.wisconsin.gov
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 10-26-13 at 06:04 PM.

  6. #126
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,568

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Opioid dependent pregnant women are considered a special population and there is significant help for them because of how dangerous it is to fetuses/babies. Spend fifteen minutes looking for opioid treatment for pregnant women in Wisconsin (or any state for that matter) and you will find ways. Poor people qualify for help as it is, pregnant women qualify for even more, but special populations like pregnant addicts get bumped straight to the front of the line, help-wise. This woman could have found professional help if she wanted it. It was not only being offered to her, it was being extremely strongly recommended to her. And she refused.

    The laws that temporarily restrict people's liberty when they are harming others (including fetuses in the case of pregnant addicts) are good laws.

    This article obviously only got its information from the addict and her lawyer. Why? Because 42 CFR Part II laws are extremely protective over substance abusers' treatment information. If NBC had contacted the social worker, what do you think the social worker would have said about the case? Nothing, because that would be breaking the law. What would the facility that was treating her have said? Nothing, because that would be breaking the law. Look up 42 CFR Part II if you don't know what I'm talking about.

    So this article is from the mouth of an addict and her lawyer. The spin in the article is clear. It sounds like every other addict with their endless bag of excuses and positive spin.

    Anyone interested in some information about treatment for pregnant opioid addicts, do have a look:

    Methadone Maintenance for Pregnant Women -- dhs.wisconsin.gov
    Oh.my.god. You are so missing the point. smh

  7. #127
    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 Scrabaholic View Post
    Oh.my.god. You are so missing the point. smh
    No I get it. You're giving an opioid addict the benefit of the doubt.

  8. #128
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    See, here's where we both agree and disagree...

    I agree with you about "shadoes gray". That's why I don't buy your argument that it's "pro-abortoin".

    I don't see a law like this necessarily being "pro-life" or "pro-choice"...those two terms are directly tied to abortion. This, to me, doesn't tie to abortion, though it is within the same general area. While I think more "pro-life" types are going to support something like this than "pro-choice" people. However, think that your people who align with either of those two sides...but who don't let it DEFINE them in some monumental way...could absolutely support something like this in theory. I think where the tie to "pro-life" and "pro-choice" come into play is the fact that laws rarely stand on their own, and part of the rationale for how this law likely came to pass can also then be piggy backed upon to make the "pro-life" argument.



    The problem is HOW should the laws encourage women in those situations? that's the hard question.
    I agree for the most part. In that, we do come to the question are criminal laws the answer to everything? That government power is the cure-all an only recourse? Is it "education?" Trying to change social thinking?

    While laws are necessary in many regards, laws often really get it wrong in regards to particular situations - which seems to be what has happened in this particular instance.

    In instance of a drug-addict pregnant woman? I understand the "hope" of the law - and that is to avoid damage to the fetus which is destined to be a child. That is a good motive. However, it also opens the door as an incentive to abort - making it problematical. It also can go overboard, such as wanting to arrest a pregnant woman for smoking cigarettes or having a beer.

    There probably is no easy or universal answer or solution. In a way, it's like the greater problem of what about all the rotten parents out there overall?

  9. #129
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Opioid dependent pregnant women are considered a special population and there is significant help for them because of how dangerous it is to fetuses/babies. Spend fifteen minutes looking for opioid treatment for pregnant women in Wisconsin (or any state for that matter) and you will find ways. Poor people qualify for help as it is, pregnant women qualify for even more, but special populations like pregnant addicts get bumped straight to the front of the line, help-wise. This woman could have found professional help if she wanted it. It was not only being offered to her, it was being extremely strongly recommended to her. And she refused.

    The laws that temporarily restrict people's liberty when they are harming others (including fetuses in the case of pregnant addicts) are good laws.

    This article obviously only got its information from the addict and her lawyer. Why? Because 42 CFR Part II laws are extremely protective over substance abusers' treatment information. If NBC had contacted the social worker, what do you think the social worker would have said about the case? Nothing, because that would be breaking the law. What would the facility that was treating her have said? Nothing, because that would be breaking the law. Look up 42 CFR Part II if you don't know what I'm talking about.

    So this article is from the mouth of an addict and her lawyer. The spin in the article is clear. It sounds like every other addict with their endless bag of excuses and positive spin.

    Anyone interested in some information about treatment for pregnant opioid addicts, do have a look:

    Methadone Maintenance for Pregnant Women -- dhs.wisconsin.gov
    I'm curious, how do you conclude that the information provided for this story is somehow concocted by Ms. Beltran and her attorney when the article itself states the she hasn't even been assigned an attorney yet? I get where you conclude that she was a drug addict because the article clearly states she had a "past struggle w/the painkiller Percocet," but the article also makes clear that Ms. Beltran was already going through detox on her own by taking the drug Suboxone. Furthermore, the article states that she had taken her last dose of Suboxone days before her "voluntary" prenatal visit and was clean when given a drug test after her arrest.

    I'm just curious how you can make such bold statements without any clear evidence to support your claims short of her self-admitted past addition?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-26-13 at 10:21 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  10. #130
    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 Objective Voice View Post
    I'm curious, how do you conclude that the information provided for this story is somehow concocted by Ms. Beltran and her attorney when the article itself states the she hasn't even been assigned an attorney yet?
    According to Beltran, the physician’s assistant recommended
    “Alicia had no idea she was giving information to the physician’s assistant that would ultimately be used against her in a court of law,” said Linda Vanden Heuvel of Germantown, Wis., one of Beltran’s attorneys.
    At the hearing, her lawyers say, the judge told Beltran
    The contributors to this article are Ms. Beltran and her lawyers. Further, 42 CFR Part II prohibits release of any information about patients with substance abuse disorders.

    I get where you conclude that she was a drug addict because the article clearly states she had a "past struggle w/the painkiller Percocet," but the article also makes clear that Ms. Beltran was already going through detox on her own by taking the drug Suboxone. Furthermore, the article states that she had taken her last dose of Suboxone days before her "voluntary" prenatal visit and was clean when given a drug test after her arrest.
    Suboxone is an opioid that is abused the same way other opioids are.

    When the social worker visited her, she must have had objective, observable evidence that Ms. Beltran was continuing to abuse opiates if based off of that visit s/he was compelled to petition for an involuntary commitment. Petitions to the courts for involuntary commitments require objective and observable evidence, and bad faith petitions (e.g. the social worker making up evidence or assuming) are a felony, so social workers know to avoid petitioning unless the evidence is compelling. Judges also know not to grant the petitions unless the evidence is compelling.

    We will never know what the social worker saw when she visited Beltran's home, because the law prohibits the social worker or anyone else involved in the treatment disclosing that information.

    Is it possible in this particular case that the petition was in bad faith? Yes, it's possible. It's easy to gather objective verifiable evidence of substance abuse once brought into the ER by the police and, if this lady was held for treatment despite truly being negative for all substances, then that would mean the judge who ordered the commitment made a serious and very stupid error. But that doesn't make the policy of detaining substance abusing pregnant women wrong.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 10-26-13 at 11:57 PM.

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 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
  •