quote:

Damn the cost?  I tend to agree with most of your posts in this issue, and appreciate your history as high risk L&D nurse.  But we can't "damn the cost," it just isn't reasonable.  Most governmental programs are already suffering and facing dramatic cuts and the cost of those rehabilitation programs are horribly cost prohibitive already for most but the wealthy.  Setting up government run facilities would be far too much of a financial burden and wouldn't be able to be accomplished anyway since government facilities would be a joke.  If the government sponsored this, they would likely allow for only a 90 day stay in rehab, with "damn the recidivism" as their mantra.

quote:

The reality is that everything can't be resolved by turning over control to "big brother." These women have to take responsibility for what they are doing. I'm all for helping them find every program available to help them break the habit, but ultimately every addict has to want to get off the crap for any program to work. I'm sure you are well aware of that. Forcing drug addicted mothers into rehab that didn't want to go would be a dismal failure with the end result still being having to charge them for the damage to their addicted or dead baby.

quote:

As for putting them in jail.....correctional facilities are facing overcrowding all over (silly Lindsey Lohan on house arrest due to it). Placing a bunch of drug addicted pregnant women in correctional facilities where the officers are not trained to deal with the health issues associated with it would end in multiple lawsuits from the mothers claiming that they were denied adequate care. Those lawsuits would be against the state, furthering burdening the budgets.

quote:

the point being that the time is getting to the point where poor/young, women are going to be afraid to seek pre natal care, family planning healthcare, reproductive care, and not to mention abortion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The age of viability. Its the part you keep leaving out.

quote:

Babies can be damaged before the fetus is viable, so do we prosecute only drug use after the the fetus is viable? In other words, if you use prior to finding out you are knocked up is it okay? Can you use until the baby is viable, because it isn't a person with rights until viability? This is important to your entire viability claim, because you can damage a fetus before viability. But if the fetus isn't viable it has no standing under the law, so you can't prosecute for using at a point in time where the woman can still choose abortion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Babies can be damaged before the fetus is viable, so do we prosecute only drug use after the the fetus is viable? In other words, if you use prior to finding out you are knocked up is it okay? Can you use until the baby is viable, because it isn't a person with rights until viability? This is important to your entire viability claim, because you can damage a fetus before viability. But if the fetus isn't viable it has no standing under the law, so you can't prosecute for using at a point in time where the woman can still choose abortion.

Yes, they can be damaged before viability. They can also be damaged after viability. The more a woman uses, the more risk. It is the feeling of most of the medical profession that what you do before you know... well... you didnt know. Once you do, you now take responsibility for that unborn child. The option to abort is there, up until viability. Pregnant women know this, its not like its suddenly sprung upon them. The risks are well known. There was a case in Wisconsin where a woman went in to deliver, and the baby was born with a blood alcohol level of 0.3. At the time, legal intoxication for adults was 0.1. I believe the case is still before their Supreme Court. She told the hospital staff she wanted to go home and drink more so she could kill the baby. The baby went up for adoption. Long term care will be extremely expensive. All because this woman wouldnt stop drinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Babies can be damaged before the fetus is viable, so do we prosecute only drug use after the the fetus is viable? In other words, if you use prior to finding out you are knocked up is it okay? Can you use until the baby is viable, because it isn't a person with rights until viability? This is important to your entire viability claim, because you can damage a fetus before viability. But if the fetus isn't viable it has no standing under the law, so you can't prosecute for using at a point in time where the woman can still choose abortion.

Yes, they can be damaged before viability. They can also be damaged after viability. The more a woman uses, the more risk. It is the feeling of most of the medical profession that what you do before you know... well... you didnt know. Once you do, you now take responsibility for that unborn child. The option to abort is there, up until viability. Pregnant women know this, its not like its suddenly sprung upon them. The risks are well known. There was a case in Wisconsin where a woman went in to deliver, and the baby was born with a blood alcohol level of 0.3. At the time, legal intoxication for adults was 0.1. I believe the case is still before their Supreme Court. She told the hospital staff she wanted to go home and drink more so she could kill the baby. The baby went up for adoption. Long term care will be extremely expensive. All because this woman wouldnt stop drinking.

quote:

Do you agree or disagree that this woman should be prosecuted for her actions?  In my opinion, the situation you talk about above fits the whole "depraved heart" criteria.  She wantonly and purposely attempted to cause the death of her child.  The fact that she probably was spreading her legs in an alcoholic blackout and didn't "intend" to get pregnant isn't a defense.  The money she likely spent on alcohol would have been more than enough to pay for a early abortion.

quote:

Many people have talked about how if a woman doesn't want the baby, she can "simply" put it up for adoption. On what planet do people believe adoption is "easy?" I am an adopted child and obviously, I'm glad that my biological "greenhouse" didn't have an abortion (although in 1964 it wasn't legal). I have no desire to search for this woman (notice the term "mother" is never being used), but I have frequently hoped that whatever caused her to make the choice to put me up for adoption rather than keep me was something that she never regretted. I hoped that she never looked at every child she came across and wondered if it was the child she gave birth to.

What surprises me is the number of women here who are taking the "just put the baby up for adoption" position are women who have children. They know what pregnancy can do to their bodies, the possible health risks, etc. Many also couldn't imagine life without their children. How, therefore, can they think anyone else, even if not wanting or feeling able to raise a child, would not potentially suffer long term psychological effects from such a decision. Adoption does not have closure. In today's culture, even a woman who places her child up for adoption and is content with her decision, has to wonder every day whether that child is going to come searching for her later on in life, possibly disrupting the life she built for herself after giving up the baby, and having to answer questions about "why" that she would rather not get into. These are rhetorical comments, by the way. Unless you have been adopted or placed a child of yours up for adoption, all the psychology courses in the world are not going to make you compentant to know how this would feel.

quote:

I am pro-choice. I believe every woman, as an individual, has to decide for herself what is right for her. But I'll be damned if I'm going to cut a woman slack when for whatever reason, she acts irresponsibly knowing the damage that can be done during her pregnancy.

quote:

I completely understand where WyldHrt is coming from but this is the 21st century, there is no saying, "I didn't know what would happen." One solution is to take out of the current legislation that medicaid won't pay for terminating a pregnancy, and to make health insurance plans cover the procedure. By not doing so, the federal government is going against Roe v. Wade in the sense that they are saying it is a woman's right, but for poor women, making it impossible for those women to exercise that right.

quote:

What is happening in Kansas is deplorable. The state is violating, through regulation, federal law. They are preventing the women of that state are being denied, via making it unavailed, their right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Hopefully, there are people in that state who have the guts to file suit against Kansas for doing that.

quote:

The morning after pill.  Amazing that there are eight pages of people talking about the poor not being able to afford abortions and they never mention the morning after pill.  This is an affordable option. 

quote:

Let's face it, for a good number of those pregnancies, the women didn't use birth control for one reason or another. If you assume that they did not use birth control in a spur of the moment thing, they should know they can get the morning after pill. When a condom breaks, you know you need to take an extra precaution. I have a feeling that the reality is these women know immediately they could be pregnant and not do anything about it. The morning after pill is affordable and available. I know that in NJ a prescription isn't even needed, one only has to ask the pharmacist. You have to ask the pharmacist for most allergy and cold medicines now around here. The point is, that that the morning after pill is an option.

quote:

Tazzy, I would look to you to tell us the odds of survival for a 24 week birth. Yes, we call it viable, but especially in the case where a woman has been ingesting drugs or alcohol, it would seem to me that viability at that age would actually be pretty slim, if it existed at all.

quote:

This is obviously quite the hot button subject with people clearly only on one side or the other. Either the mother has the rights or the fetus does. As the laws are currently written, it doesn't fall in black and white. Our current laws allow CPS to charge a woman with child abuse for using drugs during her pregnancy. The child will be placed in foster care and remain there until the woman manages to get her act together and prove she is willing to be a parent. Current law also allows that a woman who gives birth to a child who does not survive and the mother's drug use or drinking prove to be the cause of death to be charged with murder.

quote:

The point is that there doesn't have to be a one or the other solution. Saying that a woman unable to clean up her act is "unwittingly" damaging her baby doesn't fly. But beating an addiction is difficult, that's common knowledge as well. So a woman is trying to beat her addiction deserves consideration. There is also the fact that sometimes dangerous drugs are necessary to the health of the mother. My cousin was an epileptic. She still needed medication during her two pregnancies. They were potentially harmful to her daughters (alive and well), but the epilepsy was more dangerous to both mother and fetus. My cousins daughters are doing fine, except for the loss of their mother to ovarian cancer while they were young (a tragedy). Considerations need to be given to those situations as well.

quote:

So your position is that we are supposed to divine when a woman quit using when we consider culpability in her guilt over damaging her fetus (actually, lets call it the State's fetus since the woman isn't important anymore toward viability).



I tell ya what, I am all on board for the way you think the world should work as long as you have a way to divine when the woman quit using drugs, and also you will pay for her to have her fetus born into the world at the time she is no longer legally allowed to abort. In other words, if you want to prosecute a woman for the crime of murder for an addiction allow her to mitigate her culpability by having the baby born.. so if you decide the baby is viable at 24 weeks, the woman can have her labor induced at 24 weeks because no one should be forced to carry a baby that they do not want, nor in which they will damage through their addiction.

quote:

In other words, if you want to prosecute a woman for the crime of murder for an addiction allow her to mitigate her culpability by having the baby born.. so if you decide the baby is viable at 24 weeks, the woman can have her labor induced at 24 weeks because no one should be forced to carry a baby that they do not want, nor in which they will damage through their addiction.

quote:

I would love the statistics on the number of damaged babies born to women who use illegal drugs, not the statistics of women who use drugs while pregnant, but those who have damaged children as a result of illegal drug use. I would then think we can look at the amount of babies born to alcoholic mothers... which it is not illegal to be an alcoholic mother. It is not even illegal to get drunk, as long as you are at home, so in the example you gave, the mother was drunk in public, which is not a heavy penalty.

quote:

I think you slide on a slippery slope to help children that may be born with life long problems as a result of their mother's drug use. I am doubting that the percentage of children born to mothers who engage in illegal drug use that are also damaged at birth is really large. I bet the number of FAS babies is rather large by comparison. The idea that you give a fetus standing under the law and you put the penalty for using up there with murder 1 is a recipe for disaster for babies.... more babies will not be born as a result, or you will have women who opt to have labor induced to protect their ass. And premature babies have their own set of difficulties.

quote:

The viability argument is made as the fetus could be a self sustaining human being without its host. If that is true, then the woman deserves to have it born early if she can't handle the responsibility of being host to a child that she could unwittingly damage...

So in the end, what happens to the babies that come into the world under such a scenario, are they healthier? Are many of them even alive?

quote:

I would have filed charges against a pharmacist who refused to give out the medication. If the laws say it is available, the pharmacist legally can't determine what medication someone should have.

quote:

Anyway, accountability is the issue isn't it? I would love to hear how being a pregnant woman means you no longer have to account for your actions?

quote:

At what point do you think its safe for a woman to use while pregnant? I dont consider it safe at any point.

quote:

And what is wrong with holding someone accountable for their actions?

quote:

I gave the costs for those infants.

quote:

Increasing rates of substance abuse during pregnancy translate into higher numbers of drug-exposed infants. In 2004
and 2005 DHS confirmed in utero drug exposure on 549 & 306 newborns, respectively, in Iowa. 5 However, this number is
lower than the expected 1500-1750 newborns based on ~ 37,000 infants being delivered in Iowa annually. This discrepancy is
mainly due to poor screening/testing practices. The unrecognized infants are discharged to their homes where mothers are
likely to continue to use/abuse illegal substances. These infants continue to be exposed to illegal substances and the
associated chaotic life style, health degradation, violence, child abuse and neglect, and family dysfunction.

quote:

I think You should note I made no special exception for pregnant women who abuse Alcohol. I think you are grasping at straws to try and make your argument.

quote:

The viability argument is legally mandated. If I had my way, one drink is too many, one line of coke is too many, even if she doesnt know. I dont have my way, so my thoughts about all this are along the lines of what the courts decree and what they will, or have, allowed.

quote:

That is not my point, it never was my point. My point, which you didn't address, is how do we know when drug use took place? Did the woman use before or after your age of viability? How is this proven in a court of law? How do we correlate infant mortality with the drug use which may or may not have caused a death? How can anyone justify locking up a woman for 20 years... I would not think using drugs is a premeditated act of murder.

quote:

How can anyone justify locking up a woman for 20 years... I would not think using drugs is a premeditated act of murder.

quote:

Again, my point isn't about that, it is about your claim of viability, and if a fetus is indeed viable, why not induce labor and prevent it from being damaged by drugs and alcohol?

quote:

My point had nothing to do with costs of caring for those infants. My point is that there is not a huge number of drug damaged babies that die from in uterine exposure, so the law is being put in place to give backdoor rights to the fetus before it is born.

quote:

I know the viability argument is legally mandated, which was why I brought it up. Now you are even saying if a woman does not know she is pregnant yet she should be perhaps tried for murder of her unborn child? I know that a lot of people who are prolife would agree with that position.

quote:

I wonder, are we going to start locking up women who smoke while pregnant? How about drink coffee? How far are we willing to take controlling what women do with their bodies? If I were a young child bearing woman I would be deeply disturbed by the government's interference into what we put into our bodies, especially as the age of viability gets earlier and earlier into a pregnancy. I have no problem with the viability argument, as long as women are allowed to deliver their viable infants early so that they will not be facing murder one charges because they have an infant that dies of SIDS and someone claims they smoked a joint at 6 weeks into their pregnancy and this caused it.

quote:

This is the slippery slope I truly believe the pro life faction wants to get us sliding down, control over women and their bodies.

quote:

What would you consider huge?

As far as the effects of TCH on newborns, there have been many studies that disagree with you.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52919509/Cannabis-Suicide-Schizophrenia-and-Other-Ill-Effects-DFA

quote:

Using drugs is premeditated. Someone makes a choice to use drugs.

quote:

So you agree with allowing women to weasle out of their responsibilities that easily? Especially when society bears the cost of their weasling? Sorry, you cant have it both ways

quote:

I call it a whacko world when some gets less time for killing human beings in a car after they get drunk and we are now trying women for the deaths of infants where they may or may not be responsible for the deaths... very whacko indeed

quote:

This was written in response to my post about women being accused of causing a death where there may be no causal relationship between drug use and the death of an infant.

I noticed how you never answered my question, do you want to prosecute mothers who smoke tobacco, drink coffee, eat chocolate? If one of them has a SIDS baby, going to lock them up and throw away the key? How far do you want to go in monitoring what people do while gestating? Howabout women who attempt suicide while gestating? Or how about women who have eating disorders? Wanna lock these women up also?

quote:

Some women do not have the wherewithal to control themselves or their bodies. If I had my way these women wouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

quote:

And again, for the last time, there is NO LAW THAT PROHIBITS DRINKING WHILE PREGNANT. Therefore there is no law that will lock up a woman for drinking and causing her child to be born with FAS. I think my point, which seems to have escaped you (maybe I am not communicating correctly) is that the women in the OP were prosecuted because the substances they used were illegal, and the most harmful substance in this country for a fetus is alcohol, and no one is doing anything about that.

quote:

One of the most troubling aspects of this entire discussion is that usually when you murder someone, in a court of law they have to prove that your action led to the death of another human being... unfortunately, there is no proof that a child would have not died of SIDs with or without drugs during pregnancy. So we are advocating locking women up because something they did may have caused the death, when it cannot be proven to be so.