I for one think it is abhorrent when a child is born addicted to drugs, because their mother is an abuser.
I have seen it first hand, and it breaks your heart.
But would something like this ever get traction::
CHATTANOOGA, TN (Times Free Press) -
No one wants to see babies born dependent on drugs.
It’s easy for lawmakers, medical groups and women’s rights advocates to
agree on that.
But they don’t always agree on how to curb the
numbers of such births. Now the nation’s eyes are on Tennessee, where
lawmakers passed a bill that allows pregnant women to be criminally
charged if drug use harms their babies.
The bill says a pregnant
woman may be prosecuted for an “assaultive offense … if her child is
born addicted … or harmed by the narcotic drug.” She can be charged with
homicide if her baby dies because of her drug use.
If Gov.
Bill Haslam signs the bill or allows it to become law without his
signature, it will be the first law of its kind in the country.
For a lot this is too close to "personhood" and pro lifers have been fighting this tooth and nail, because it makes the "rights of the fetus" a very real thing.
I for one think it is abhorrent when a child is born addicted to drugs, because their mother is an abuser.
I have seen it first hand, and it breaks your heart.
But would something like this ever get traction::
CHATTANOOGA, TN (Times Free Press) -
No one wants to see babies born dependent on drugs.
It’s easy for lawmakers, medical groups and women’s rights advocates to
agree on that.
But they don’t always agree on how to curb the
numbers of such births. Now the nation’s eyes are on Tennessee, where
lawmakers passed a bill that allows pregnant women to be criminally
charged if drug use harms their babies.
The bill says a pregnant
woman may be prosecuted for an “assaultive offense … if her child is
born addicted … or harmed by the narcotic drug.” She can be charged with
homicide if her baby dies because of her drug use.
If Gov.
Bill Haslam signs the bill or allows it to become law without his
signature, it will be the first law of its kind in the country.
For a lot this is too close to "personhood" and pro lifers have been fighting this tooth and nail, because it makes the "rights of the fetus" a very real thing.
That is a tough one. At first glance I think a woman should get charged the same as if she gave her infant child drugs. Would that be child abuse? Child endangerment? Not sure what the charge would be. If an infant child dies due to parent neglect or harm, what do they get charged with?
As far as the death of the child pre birth or from complications after birth, you would need to be absolutely sure it was from the drugs. Not sure if thats possible and I can see many a court battle there.
That is a tough one. At first glance I think a woman should get charged the same as if she gave her infant child drugs. Would that be child abuse? Child endangerment? Not sure what the charge would be. If an infant child dies due to parent neglect or harm, what do they get charged with?
As far as the death of the child pre birth or from complications after birth, you would need to be absolutely sure it was from the drugs. Not sure if thats possible and I can see many a court battle there.
I don't see how this would be an effective deterrent. Seems like a punitive reaction to an abhorrent part of society, and an attempt to quell the anger it evokes.
I don't see how this would be an effective deterrent. Seems like a punitive reaction to an abhorrent part of society, and an attempt to quell the anger it evokes.
I bet the anti-abortion people have been working on something like this for years: Try to make pro-abortion people look like monsters because they don't recognize fetuses or paint them in a corner and recognize fetuses in the future.
I bet the anti-abortion people have been working on something like this for years: Try to make pro-abortion people look like monsters because they don't recognize fetuses or paint them in a corner and recognize fetuses in the future.
I dont see this as anything to do with abortion or against abortion.
Like mentioned above, it is a tough topic but I actually side with the law on this one, that if someone knowingly inflicts harm on another, in this case a baby then there is a punishment that goes with it.
I would rather if they were tested positive then put them in a facility until they give birth so that no MORE drugs would be available to use.
I think if someone abuses the right to create in this way, they dont care about that which they are creating and probably a bit more drastic measures might be necessary.
Would a parent be put in jail if they gave drugs to their 5 yr old kid? Sure they would..same goes here.
I dont see this as anything to do with abortion or against abortion.
Like mentioned above, it is a tough topic but I actually side with the law on this one, that if someone knowingly inflicts harm on another, in this case a baby then there is a punishment that goes with it.
I would rather if they were tested positive then put them in a facility until they give birth so that no MORE drugs would be available to use.
I think if someone abuses the right to create in this way, they dont care about that which they are creating and probably a bit more drastic measures might be necessary.
Would a parent be put in jail if they gave drugs to their 5 yr old kid? Sure they would..same goes here.
I don't see how this would be an effective deterrent. Seems like a punitive reaction to an abhorrent part of society, and an attempt to quell the anger it evokes.
I don't know what the answer is Rick.
Lets be realistic, I don't think the law is intended to be a deterrent in drug abuse.
Imagine this: A drug user finds out she's pregnant, would that be a prefect reason for her to get an abortion?
I don't see how this would be an effective deterrent. Seems like a punitive reaction to an abhorrent part of society, and an attempt to quell the anger it evokes.
I don't know what the answer is Rick.
Lets be realistic, I don't think the law is intended to be a deterrent in drug abuse.
Imagine this: A drug user finds out she's pregnant, would that be a prefect reason for her to get an abortion?
I dont see this as anything to do with abortion or against abortion.
Like mentioned above, it is a tough topic but I actually side with the law on this one, that if someone knowingly inflicts harm on another, in this case a baby then there is a punishment that goes with it.
I would rather if they were tested positive then put them in a facility until they give birth so that no MORE drugs would be available to use.
I think if someone abuses the right to create in this way, they dont care about that which they are creating and probably a bit more drastic measures might be necessary.
Would a parent be put in jail if they gave drugs to their 5 yr old kid? Sure they would..same goes here.
This is a battle in the abortion debate whether people want to admit it or not. If I was pro-abortion I would probably want to pretend that this type of legislation didn't exist, because I would be backed into the corner of defending drug using pregnant women, saying that it was "their body their choice" etc etc.
Reminds me of years ago there was a woman that was in a car accident which made her miscarry, and the pro-abortion crowd lobbied and paid an attorney to fight the case that her unborn child was not a human being, and there was no "manslaughter" based on that.
This isn't directly about abortion, but it will be.
I dont see this as anything to do with abortion or against abortion.
Like mentioned above, it is a tough topic but I actually side with the law on this one, that if someone knowingly inflicts harm on another, in this case a baby then there is a punishment that goes with it.
I would rather if they were tested positive then put them in a facility until they give birth so that no MORE drugs would be available to use.
I think if someone abuses the right to create in this way, they dont care about that which they are creating and probably a bit more drastic measures might be necessary.
Would a parent be put in jail if they gave drugs to their 5 yr old kid? Sure they would..same goes here.
This is a battle in the abortion debate whether people want to admit it or not. If I was pro-abortion I would probably want to pretend that this type of legislation didn't exist, because I would be backed into the corner of defending drug using pregnant women, saying that it was "their body their choice" etc etc.
Reminds me of years ago there was a woman that was in a car accident which made her miscarry, and the pro-abortion crowd lobbied and paid an attorney to fight the case that her unborn child was not a human being, and there was no "manslaughter" based on that.
This isn't directly about abortion, but it will be.
From a purely legal perspective, its fraught with nightmarish scenarios.
Every baby born with a disability will cast a pall of suspicion on the parent. Could one time drug use have been the cause? What if it was an accident? What if the parent took drugs/drank before realizing the pregnancy?
Which goes to the proveability part.... as it won't be easy. Even in today's world of medical precisness, so many other variables exist making proof beyond a reasonable doubt difficult.
And now you have possibly impeded a pregnant drug user from seeking help, for fear of incriminating themself.
I disagree that the anti-choice crowd is fighting this at all. Why would they? It very much gives legal credence to rights of fetus.
From a purely legal perspective, its fraught with nightmarish scenarios.
Every baby born with a disability will cast a pall of suspicion on the parent. Could one time drug use have been the cause? What if it was an accident? What if the parent took drugs/drank before realizing the pregnancy?
Which goes to the proveability part.... as it won't be easy. Even in today's world of medical precisness, so many other variables exist making proof beyond a reasonable doubt difficult.
And now you have possibly impeded a pregnant drug user from seeking help, for fear of incriminating themself.
I disagree that the anti-choice crowd is fighting this at all. Why would they? It very much gives legal credence to rights of fetus.
like most attempts at government intervention, i think it's a good idea in theory but a disaster in practice. in order to prove a child was harmed from drugs as opposed to diet, alcohol, birth defect or other issues, the state will need an expert to testify to that conclusion. do you kno how that works? anyone? here's how it works. the cop or prosecutor believes it to be true and/or maybe they get pushed in that direction by the media and then they call their trusty quack of a doctor they have on the payroll to be their expert and now they have an "expert" opinion saying it's true. since the defendant is poor and can't afford her own expert, that defendant is in trouble.
happens all the time with injuries to children. some infant shows up to the hospital with some injury. the parents either can't explain it or the cops don't like their explanation, the state gets their "expert" to say"the only way this could have happened is abuse" and the case is off and running. those parents better hope they have the money to get their own expert.
like most attempts at government intervention, i think it's a good idea in theory but a disaster in practice. in order to prove a child was harmed from drugs as opposed to diet, alcohol, birth defect or other issues, the state will need an expert to testify to that conclusion. do you kno how that works? anyone? here's how it works. the cop or prosecutor believes it to be true and/or maybe they get pushed in that direction by the media and then they call their trusty quack of a doctor they have on the payroll to be their expert and now they have an "expert" opinion saying it's true. since the defendant is poor and can't afford her own expert, that defendant is in trouble.
happens all the time with injuries to children. some infant shows up to the hospital with some injury. the parents either can't explain it or the cops don't like their explanation, the state gets their "expert" to say"the only way this could have happened is abuse" and the case is off and running. those parents better hope they have the money to get their own expert.
Reminds me of years ago there was a woman that was in a car accident which made her miscarry, and the pro-abortion crowd lobbied and paid an attorney to fight the case that her unborn child was not a human being, and there was no "manslaughter" based on that.
Reminds me of years ago there was a woman that was in a car accident which made her miscarry, and the pro-abortion crowd lobbied and paid an attorney to fight the case that her unborn child was not a human being, and there was no "manslaughter" based on that.
I think this law is going to be tricky to enforce- Proving "harm" due to maternal drug use isn't as easy as it may seem- If the issue is simply a positive drug screen during pregnancy then it is much easier- And it's an interesting question as to why a mother using drugs during pregnancy isn't already prosecuted as if the drugs were given to a child- Hence the "human being vs not" debate......
I think this law is going to be tricky to enforce- Proving "harm" due to maternal drug use isn't as easy as it may seem- If the issue is simply a positive drug screen during pregnancy then it is much easier- And it's an interesting question as to why a mother using drugs during pregnancy isn't already prosecuted as if the drugs were given to a child- Hence the "human being vs not" debate......
And honestly I don't know where I stand on this legislation. I just know where the Pro-abortion crowd has fallen on similar cases. There are women that give birth to brain damaged children every day in my state, because they took drugs throughout pregnancy.
You have to think at some point the Fetus does have rights.
And honestly I don't know where I stand on this legislation. I just know where the Pro-abortion crowd has fallen on similar cases. There are women that give birth to brain damaged children every day in my state, because they took drugs throughout pregnancy.
You have to think at some point the Fetus does have rights.
I dont see this as anything to do with abortion or against abortion.
Like mentioned above, it is a tough topic but I actually side with the law on this one, that if someone knowingly inflicts harm on another, in this case a baby then there is a punishment that goes with it.
I would rather if they were tested positive then put them in a facility until they give birth so that no MORE drugs would be available to use.
I think if someone abuses the right to create in this way, they dont care about that which they are creating and probably a bit more drastic measures might be necessary.
Would a parent be put in jail if they gave drugs to their 5 yr old kid? Sure they would..same goes here.
It's not clear-cut on "knowingly" since a lot of them probably find out they are pregnant afterwards and the drug is already in the system. If anyone wants to extend the definition of it to cover "the act of committing unprotected sex while using drugs", it just opens another can of worms.
I dont see this as anything to do with abortion or against abortion.
Like mentioned above, it is a tough topic but I actually side with the law on this one, that if someone knowingly inflicts harm on another, in this case a baby then there is a punishment that goes with it.
I would rather if they were tested positive then put them in a facility until they give birth so that no MORE drugs would be available to use.
I think if someone abuses the right to create in this way, they dont care about that which they are creating and probably a bit more drastic measures might be necessary.
Would a parent be put in jail if they gave drugs to their 5 yr old kid? Sure they would..same goes here.
It's not clear-cut on "knowingly" since a lot of them probably find out they are pregnant afterwards and the drug is already in the system. If anyone wants to extend the definition of it to cover "the act of committing unprotected sex while using drugs", it just opens another can of worms.
From a purely legal perspective, its fraught with nightmarish scenarios.
Every baby born with a disability will cast a pall of suspicion on the parent. Could one time drug use have been the cause? What if it was an accident? What if the parent took drugs/drank before realizing the pregnancy?
Which goes to the proveability part.... as it won't be easy. Even in today's world of medical precisness, so many other variables exist making proof beyond a reasonable doubt difficult.
And now you have possibly impeded a pregnant drug user from seeking help, for fear of incriminating themself.
I disagree that the anti-choice crowd is fighting this at all. Why would they? It very much gives legal credence to rights of fetus.
I think that the anti-choice crowd would be stupid not to attempt to get every single fetal rights law they could in by any way possible. Setting precedence is key, isn't it? Then you expand on that.
From a purely legal perspective, its fraught with nightmarish scenarios.
Every baby born with a disability will cast a pall of suspicion on the parent. Could one time drug use have been the cause? What if it was an accident? What if the parent took drugs/drank before realizing the pregnancy?
Which goes to the proveability part.... as it won't be easy. Even in today's world of medical precisness, so many other variables exist making proof beyond a reasonable doubt difficult.
And now you have possibly impeded a pregnant drug user from seeking help, for fear of incriminating themself.
I disagree that the anti-choice crowd is fighting this at all. Why would they? It very much gives legal credence to rights of fetus.
I think that the anti-choice crowd would be stupid not to attempt to get every single fetal rights law they could in by any way possible. Setting precedence is key, isn't it? Then you expand on that.
I think that the anti-choice crowd would be stupid not to attempt to get every single fetal rights law they could in by any way possible. Setting precedence is key, isn't it? Then you expand on that.
Oh, I completely agree. I imagine they are fully supporting this measure which on its face, would have popular support.
By the way, 'anti-choice'....I see what you did there.
I think that the anti-choice crowd would be stupid not to attempt to get every single fetal rights law they could in by any way possible. Setting precedence is key, isn't it? Then you expand on that.
Oh, I completely agree. I imagine they are fully supporting this measure which on its face, would have popular support.
By the way, 'anti-choice'....I see what you did there.
Yup. This is a very easy to demagogue issue, for those that don't support it. This is something that will have every mother in America's support.
You can say things like "reasonable restrictions", or "common sense reforms" to show that we can be a little less savage if we would only institute this one little itsy bitsy law.
The left is ridiculously good at this, (or the Right is just lazy).
Yup. This is a very easy to demagogue issue, for those that don't support it. This is something that will have every mother in America's support.
You can say things like "reasonable restrictions", or "common sense reforms" to show that we can be a little less savage if we would only institute this one little itsy bitsy law.
The left is ridiculously good at this, (or the Right is just lazy).
I believe drug addiction is recognized by the feds as a disease so I am not sure it would be legal to punish someone who has a disease unless you can also punish a person with HIV for giving birth to an HIV infected baby as well. But I may not be correct on my assumptions about this.
I believe drug addiction is recognized by the feds as a disease so I am not sure it would be legal to punish someone who has a disease unless you can also punish a person with HIV for giving birth to an HIV infected baby as well. But I may not be correct on my assumptions about this.
I believe drug addiction is recognized by the feds as a disease so I am not sure it would be legal to punish someone who has a disease unless you can also punish a person with HIV for giving birth to an HIV infected baby as well. But I may not be correct on my assumptions about this.
Provide more treatment and keep abortion legal
This brings up a very good point.
Starts with drugs, where does it stop? There are thousands of things that you are cautioned about when pregnant. Drugs. Drinking. Certain forms of exercise. Sex. Certain foods. Certain medications.
I also think, but I'm not sure (is there a doctor in the house ) but could someone pregnant without HIV who then acquires the disease, pass it on to the unborn child?
I believe drug addiction is recognized by the feds as a disease so I am not sure it would be legal to punish someone who has a disease unless you can also punish a person with HIV for giving birth to an HIV infected baby as well. But I may not be correct on my assumptions about this.
Provide more treatment and keep abortion legal
This brings up a very good point.
Starts with drugs, where does it stop? There are thousands of things that you are cautioned about when pregnant. Drugs. Drinking. Certain forms of exercise. Sex. Certain foods. Certain medications.
I also think, but I'm not sure (is there a doctor in the house ) but could someone pregnant without HIV who then acquires the disease, pass it on to the unborn child?
The HIV question is an interesting one- because most obstetricians measure antibody, not antigen- so one may be infected and not yet seroconverted; But at any rate, there would be exposure to the virus- With newer treatment regimens (assuming the mother adhered to the regimen), the rate of transmission from mother to fetus is actually much lower than you might think- Kind of getting into the weeds- but if you'd like I can probably find that data, but might take a little while-
The HIV question is an interesting one- because most obstetricians measure antibody, not antigen- so one may be infected and not yet seroconverted; But at any rate, there would be exposure to the virus- With newer treatment regimens (assuming the mother adhered to the regimen), the rate of transmission from mother to fetus is actually much lower than you might think- Kind of getting into the weeds- but if you'd like I can probably find that data, but might take a little while-
I don't see how this would be an effective deterrent. Seems like a punitive reaction to an abhorrent part of society, and an attempt to quell the anger it evokes.
I don't know what the answer is Rick.
The truth comes out. You are what I thought you were !
I don't see how this would be an effective deterrent. Seems like a punitive reaction to an abhorrent part of society, and an attempt to quell the anger it evokes.
I don't know what the answer is Rick.
The truth comes out. You are what I thought you were !
What are your thoughts Don? Do you side with those that would attempt to make a fetus a human being, or do you continue to stand and support those that want to dehumanize the fetus as much as they can?
What are your thoughts Don? Do you side with those that would attempt to make a fetus a human being, or do you continue to stand and support those that want to dehumanize the fetus as much as they can?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.