Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 135

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

  1. #51
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If a fetus is found to be causing harm to its mother, will it be tried as an adult or a minor? If it is tried as a minor and found guilty, will it be sent to a juvenile detention center? If it is tried as an adult, is execution on the table if the transgression is severe enough? Will it exercise its right to choose counsel? I'm just asking - considering a fetus is a person and all. I'd like to know just how a fetus, being a person and all, is supposed to be punished if it is found to be harming its mother.
    It's thrown into a biological waste bucket. Automatic death sentence.

  2. #52
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    I started a thread some time ago over the topic of doctors who secretly are police investigators and interrogators of their patients:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/aborti...ant-women.html

    Most people don't realize that when they are talking to a doctor, psychologist or any other healthcare professional they ARE talking to the police too. There is no privilege protection between a doctor and patient in regards to the police and courts.

    However, increasing numbers of such professionals see the government as their enemy and the enemy of their patients. The "underground" of healthcare and mental healthcare continues to grow. The general practice doctor my wife goes to and takes the children to has a sign in his office that he does not accept any insurance, will not fill out any insurance forms, will not talk to lawyers, will not talk to investigators and will not testify in any court. He is a doctor 100%. He refuses to be anything else.
    Last edited by joko104; 10-25-13 at 02:35 PM.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-12-13 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    This woman was arrested and is now imprisoned at basically a mental institution without any legal representation, which the court denied her. The sicko judge said the woman may hire her own attorney for the next hearing - knowing she can't afford one and after-the-fact of her imprisonment anyway.

    Basically, the view is that ONLY women who are pregnant can be summarily imprisoned with no attorney and then after sentencing and imprisonment may have a hearing without any attorney for that same judge to decide if the judge was wrong in summarily imprisoning the woman. There are no other criminal cases where sentencing comes before the trial or where a person does not get an attorney prior to being sentenced and imprisoned.
    There are lots of incidences of people being imprisoned and sentenced before a trial. America made itself infamous for doing just that. The slippery slope of disregard for international norms in law is coming home to roost.

  4. #54
    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 Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law - U.S. News

    This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights. It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
    Rights have to balanced against one another. One person cannot use his or her right to violate the rights of another.

    There is nothing misguided about the notion of fetal rights. Fetuses turn into real humans and, when pumped full of drugs in utero, develop static encephalopathy and all sorts of other problems, including social problems when the brain damaged FASD kid grows up. Substance abuse while pregnant is abusive and permanently damaging and should be a crime in all states. Put another way, the right to abuse drugs should not trump the rights of kids to not be permanently brain damaged by their mothers when in the womb.

    Quick question: why would the woman in the story refuse physician-supervised Suboxone treatment, and insist on continuing to feed her addiction from the streets?

    The article could not possibly have put a more naive and fluffy spin on what drug addiction looks like.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 10-25-13 at 02:36 PM.

  5. #55
    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 joko104 View Post
    This woman was arrested and is now imprisoned at basically a mental institution without any legal representation, which the court denied her. The sicko judge said the woman may hire her own attorney for the next hearing - knowing she can't afford one and after-the-fact of her imprisonment anyway.

    Basically, the view is that ONLY women who are pregnant can be summarily imprisoned with no attorney and then after sentencing and imprisonment may have a hearing without any attorney for that same judge to decide if the judge was wrong in summarily imprisoning the woman. There are no other criminal cases where sentencing comes before the trial or where a person does not get an attorney prior to being sentenced and imprisoned.
    "Imprisoned" in a mental institution? I think we call those involuntary commitments, actually, and we do it all the time to people at imminent risk of harm to self or others. So no, this does not ONLY apply to pregnant women.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-12-13 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    433

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

    In normal first world societies the woman's rights are important and people look with disdain and disgust at those who presume they have a right to interfere. But in America the rabid extreme right want to take the woman's right away.

    There's no legitimate replacement for socially responsible government. Certainly not extremism based on religious fantasies and fairy tales.

  7. #57
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    "For Beltran, the consequences of her case have hit hard. Her family struggled to visit her regularly during her stint at Casa Clare Women’s Facility in Appleton, Wis., a two-hour drive from her home. After being away from work for an extended period, Beltran lost her job in the food service industry, according to her lawyers. She was released earlier this month, but with the case still open, she is still at risk of being taken into custody or ordered into further treatment, Paltrow said."

    Well there is a shortage of people on food stamps and welfare. We need to create more! If people won't do it voluntarily, we must force them!

  8. #58
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 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
    Looking over this, I have a much larger issue with the gross over reach by the state in regard to their interpritations of the law rather than the intent of the law itself.

    In regards to the law itself, an argument for it can actually piggy back off at typical liberal argument against abortion and for health care. IF the woman is going to abort, then abort. However, if the women is current functionally under an intent to keep the child but is habitually undertaking actions that have a high probability of leaving the child handicapped...and thus a burden on society and on tax payers...then it's reasonable for the state to step in. A common liberal argument thrown towards the pro-life crowd is that if they make abortions illegal, than it is the governments responsability to deal with a child potentially brought into a low income situation where assistance is going to be needed and that such a thing would be a burden and a drain and thus it's better to allow such things to be dealt with prior to that point. A child with something like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is also a burden upon society.

    The general notion of the state monitoring the pregnancy of a woman whose indicated no intent to abort and who has shown wanton and habitural abuse of alcohol or drugs so as to help assure the child is born with the best chance to be healthy isn't something that, off hand (never really thought of it much before now), doesn't bother me too much. If while being monitored she decides she just wants to abort, and that's legal in the state, then she should be able to. But if she's intent on having it then I don't think it's out of line for the state to take action if she's significantly and continually endangering the health of the child.

    However this situation, in no way shape or form, looks like that. I can see critics complaints with the lack of medical terminology in the law, and perhaps that'd help it from being abused in the future. But this looks more like an issue of an abuse of a law as opposed to the just and faithful execution of it.
    Pro-life legislatures passing laws demanding women decide between risking being imprisoned or aborting. Yeah, that's "pro-life."

  9. #59
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 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 Excon View Post
    Come on.

    "would not be provided for her at that time"

    This was just the beginning of the process.






    As the law is written, it can clearly be seen that it intends to stop a mother from destroying the child's life with her drug use.
    To do so is not sick, depraved or spiteful, but a compassionate, noble and honorable act. Nor is it punishing a woman for having sex as you absurdly and ridiculously assert.

    The Law.
    48.133  Jurisdiction over unborn children in need of protection or services and the expectant mothers of those unborn children. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over an unborn child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court whose expectant mother habitually lacks self-control in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree, to the extent that there is a substantial risk that the physical health of the unborn child, and of the child when born, will be seriously affected or endangered unless the expectant mother receives prompt and adequate treatment for that habitual lack of self-control. The court also has exclusive original jurisdiction over the expectant mother of an unborn child described in this section.
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/48/III/133

    What is wrong here is that it does not appear that the mother's actions meet the underlined criteria.
    There is nothing indicating she habitually lacks self control, especially not exhibited to a severe degree, as required. The opposite appears to be what is true.

    So it seems it is more a misapplication of the law, or deliberate overreach.


    Which does not allow you to speak for those states in which you have no experience.





    This case may be struck down, but not the law.



    The law is a good law with good intent, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be defended or the state if the state properly applies it.
    It's application in this case is what I question.
    Yes, I understand you want people to have an attorney and trial AFTER than have been sentenced and served their time.

  10. #60
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The covert purpose of these laws is to pressure women to have abortions if they are poor or involved in substances.
    Wow, I think you definitely figured it out. This is both an obscene horrible catastrophic stereotypical bigoted pro-lifer law AND one that is clealry aimed at forcing women to have abortions.....because pro-lifers are like, totaly....for....abo-....


    Sigh. Just, REALLY?

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •