• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

What disturbs me is the mother had no lawyer but the fetus did.
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.
 
So is an unborn child. Doesn't mean it has rights.

If a born child has no rights, do you believe that animals should be treated with absolute disregard as well?
 
If a born child has no rights, do you believe that animals should be treated with absolute disregard as well?

I don't believe anything should be treated with absolute disregard.
 
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.

Every post to me you'll get this since you're so special
 
Every post to me you'll get this since you're so special
[video=youtube;I84ORrbTouQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I84ORrbTouQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video
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.
 
Last edited:
I'm late to the party, but I just have to chime in on this one.

Talk about "government intruding on your life and your liberty!" If this case doesn't convey what Republicans have been fearful of concerning "government over-reach", I don't know what does! ObamaCare doesn't even come close to intruding on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" the way this case clearly does!

Let me be clear: A fetus is NOT a human being any more than a corporation is a person. A fetus IS a human life-form developing in the womb and nothing more. Until it is capable of sustaining life on its own outside the womb, it is NOT human. It is as science classifies it: a fetus.

Genesis 2:6 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
 
You would think that, but you've established on multiple occasions that you don't understand how enslaving women to the interests of fetuses could possibly violate their rights.

A parent is not enslaved to their offspring if the law doesn't allow them to kill their kids. Try again.

It is when one of them is growing entirely within the other and is solely dependent on the other's metabolism to provide nutrients.

Kids are dependent on their parents for resources. If you don't want to have to provide for them, don't make them.

The only way for an unborn person to have rights is to force another person-- one specific person-- to provide for those rights at their own expense.

Doesn't even make sense. You don't have to provide much of anything to support the basic human rights of your offspring.

There's a word for people who believe that you can have a right to someone else's body.

Yeah, "pro-aborts." Also, their ideological cousins, advocates of slavery.


Neither ingesting whatever chemicals one chooses nor removing unwanted organisms from one's own person is aggression.

Poisoning your kids is aggression against them. Killing your kids is aggression against them.

Locking women up for doing these things is.

Locking up aggressive savages is not aggression.
 
1.)A parent is not enslaved to their offspring if the law doesn't allow them to kill their kids. Try again.
2.)Kids are dependent on their parents for resources. If you don't want to have to provide for them, don't make them.
3.)Doesn't even make sense. You don't have to provide much of anything to support the basic human rights of your offspring.
4.) Yeah, "pro-aborts." Also, their ideological cousins, advocates of slavery.
5.)Poisoning your kids is aggression against them. Killing your kids is aggression against them.



Locking up aggressive savages is not aggression.

1.) on the topic of abortion yoru statement is 100% false as proven many times, at this point posting such dishonesty and even tryin to sell such a lie is pure comedy
2.) exactly what abortion does besides protecting rights both legal and human
3.) facts dont have to make sense to you. If you disagree by all means please provide any facts that support you
4.) LMAO slavery is always a failed argument because its a failed analogy that has been destroyed over and over again. THe best part is while its an appeal to emotion. LOGICALLY and FACTUALLY, slavery has omore in common with BANNING abortion than allowing it ever will.
5.) good thing the lady in the OP factually did not do that, if she did then she deserves punished
6.) good thing thats not happening either

forcing a women to risk her life and health against her will is aggression and its one you support 100% because you view the woman as a lesser.
 
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.
 
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.

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:
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.


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.


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."


... 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :shrug: unless the levels were extremely abnormal no reason to violate this lady.
 
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 :shrug: 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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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/case-explores-rights-of-fetus-versus-mother.html?_r=0
 
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 :D

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
 
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.



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.


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.


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.
 
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.
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom