Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Criminalising Pregnant Mothers who Drink

trashpony said:
I don't think toggle has already posted this but if so, I apologise. It's absolutely chilling:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?_r=2
Click to expand...

it's a good summary of the situation.
i'll note, the report discussed in that article seems to be a free to acccess one.

African American women, are overrepresented among those who have been arrested or subjected to equivalent deprivations of liberty
Click to expand...

For example, while our study documents ninety-three cases in South Carolina for the time period 1973–2005, local newspapers reported that as of 1998 “about 100” pregnant women in a single county (Greenville) had been threatened with or charged with criminal child neglect (Spartanburg Herald 1992). Simi- larly, news reports about civil commitments of pregnant women also iden- tify the existence of many additional cases. One 1992 Minnesota news story reported that “in the Twin Cities, at least 30 women have been con- fined in a locked psychiatric ward at the University of Minnesota Hospital since the [civil commitment] law was passed” (Cook 1992). In the same year CBS Evening News (1992) reported that Florida Judge Dennis Alva- rez “commit[ed] pregnant addicts to drug treatment in jail under the same mental health laws used to commit the insane.”
Click to expand...
Laura Pemberton, a white woman, was in active labor at her home in Flor- ida. Doctors, aware of this, believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by attempting to have a vaginal birth after having had a previous cesarean surgery (VBAC). The doctors sought a court order to force her to undergo another cesarean. A sheriff went to Pemberton’s home, took her into custody, strapped her legs together, and forced her to
go to a hospital, where an emergency hearing was under way to determine the state’s interest in protecting the fetus still inside her. While lawyers argued on behalf of the fetus, Pemberton and her husband, who were not afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel, “were allowed to express their views”10 as she was being prepared for surgery. The judge presiding over the case compelled Pemberton to undergo the operation, which she had refused and believed to be unnecessary. When she later sued for violation of her civil rights, a trial- level federal district court ruled that the state’s interest in preserving the life of the fetus outweighed Pemberton’s rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Pemberton subsequently gave birth vaginally to three more children, call- ing into question the medical predictions of harm from a VBAC on which the court had relied.
Click to expand...
In Louisiana, Michelle Marie Greenup, a twenty- six- year- old African American woman, went to a hospital complaining of bleeding and stom- ach pain. Doctors suspected that she had recently given birth and con- tacted law enforcement authorities. After repeated police interrogations, Greenup “confessed” that the baby was born alive, and it died because she had failed to provide it with proper care. Greenup was charged with second- degree murder and was incarcerated. Eventually counsel for Greenup obtained her medical records, which revealed that the fetus could not have been older than between eleven to fifteen weeks and that priorto the miscarriage Greenup had been given Depo- Provera, a contracep- tive injection that may cause a miscarriage if administered to a woman who is already pregnant. Greenup was finally released, but only after she agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor violation of a public health law that regulates disposal of human remains. There is no indication that the human remains law was intended to apply to pregnant women confronted with a miscarriage.16
Click to expand...


41% of women who were charged were reported to the police by healthcare workers

Overwhelmingly, and regardless of race, women in our study were eco-
nomically disadvantaged, indicated by the fact that 71 percent qualified for indigent defense. Of the 368 women for whom information on race was available, 59 percent were women of color, including
Click to expand...

Although every pregnancy in this study involved a man, the father or the woman’s male partner was mentioned in only 23 percent of cases.
Click to expand...

Research into cases that were widely reported in the news media as involving a pregnant woman and her use of an illegal drug or alcohol often revealed that other actions, inactions, or circumstances, in addition to pregnancy, were the primary reason for the state action. These include a pregnant woman who had been in a location while pregnant that exposed her unborn child to dangerous “fumes that permeate in the air,”18 and another case in which the woman did not follow her doctor’s medical advice to rest during her pregnancy and did not get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of delivery.19 In several cases a woman’s efforts to seek help after having been physi- cally abused resulted in her arrest,
Click to expand...


Another case provides a particularly good example of one that defies
simple categorization and characterization. Deborah Zimmerman, a thirty- four- year- old white woman from Franksville, Wisconsin, had been drinking alcohol and was allegedly intoxicated when she was brought to St. Luke’s Hospital two days before she was scheduled to deliver her baby. Declining a “biophysical profile” at a prenatal care appointment a week earlier, as well as drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes while pregnant, all legal activities, were mentioned in the criminal complaint describing the grounds for her arrest on charges of attempted first- degree intentional homicide and first- degree reckless injury.22 The case received widespread national attention, focusing on Zimmerman’s alcohol use and the claim that she wanted to “kill” her unborn child through her use of alcohol. A review of the case reveals something unreported in the media: medical staff decided to contact the police and characterize her as a criminal only after she refused to consent to fetal monitoring and cesarean surgery.23 According to the criminal complaint, “Once at St. Luke’s Hospital,
Deborah Zimmerman was combative and refused monitoring and treat- ment.”24 Although Zimmerman “kept talking about a gentleman and how he was abusing her,” neither the nurses nor the doctors apparently saw this information as bearing on why Zimmerman might object to being touched by the strangers who made up the medical staff (Terry 199
18
Click to expand...


Other factors explicitly described in arrest warrants and other legal doc-
uments justifying state intervention in cases that also involved an allegation of drug use included the fact that the pregnant woman had a sexually trans- mitted infection,28 was HIV positive,29 or gave birth at home or in another setting outside a hospital.30 In one case the state indicated that it would use the fact that the woman had refused offers of voluntary sterilization in sup- port of its prosecution.31
Click to expand...
.

that's got me less than halfway through the paper. it dosen't get any less aweful as you go through moe of it
 
For example, one affidavit explained that the woman “did willfully and unlawfully give birth to a male infant.”108 In some cases the criminal charges filed and comments made by arresting officers, prosecu- tors, and judges were explicit in denying dignity to both women and theirchildren. Accordingly, the woman did not give birth to a child but rather to a “victim,”109 a “bastard,”110 or a “delinquent.”11
Click to expand...
 
Our research into cases claiming that arrests and detentions would ensure that pregnant women were provided with appropriate drug treatment or that only women who had refused treat- ment would be arrested or prosecuted overwhelmingly found that such claims were untrue.114 In some cases women were arrested despite the fact that they were voluntarily participating in drug treatment.115 Our find- ings also lend support to the medical and public health consensus that punitive approaches undermine maternal, fetal, and child health by deter- ring women from care and from communicating openly with people who might be able to help them
Click to expand...
 
toggle said:
Our research into cases claiming that arrests and detentions would ensure that pregnant women were provided with appropriate drug treatment or that only women who had refused treat- ment would be arrested or prosecuted overwhelmingly found that such claims were untrue.114 In some cases women were arrested despite the fact that they were voluntarily participating in drug treatment.115 Our find- ings also lend support to the medical and public health consensus that punitive approaches undermine maternal, fetal, and child health by deter- ring women from care and from communicating openly with people who might be able to help them
Click to expand...

And there's the rub.

Newbie?
 
8ball said:
I think that's getting a bit extreme. You can start from wanting to balance the rights of people who have not yet been born yet against people who are around now and still arrive at a stance that is not anti-choice with regard to abortion (which is slightly different to being anti-abortion).
Click to expand...

Well, I think it's the logical consequence, which is why the argument needs to be presented so clearly.

These issues do make people feel uncomfortable and I think it should be ok to acknowledge that discomfort, our emotional discomfort, without that discomfort and the subsequent intellectual or political uncertainty being seen as evidence of holding misogynistic attitudes or being a cunt. It may take a while to arrive at a position where the political implications become clear.

That being said, I do think people have argued very clearly and informatively on this thread that this is an issue where the consequences do make it a black and white issue. Perhaps for some posters where they don't see any expression of grey there is a sense of...the fetus not being held in mind, like the fetus has been eradicated. I can see that. But the position on this does have to be very certain, very firm, because if a fetus is given the status of personhood that status is effectively eradicated for women.
 
weltweit said:
I think women who take Lithium are advised to stop taking it during pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are, but some, with or without medical advice, will continue to take it through pregnancy because the possible or probably effects of not taking it are worse. As you should know yourself, too, cessation of lithium isn't to be taken lightly, both from the point of view of side-effects and the issues it was suppressing.
 
Poot said:
And people who drink are advised not to during pregnancy. I think that was sort of Thora 's point.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, there are a whole host of substances that have teratogenic effects, including a massive volume of prescription medications. I've just had a look at the 14 I'm prescribed, and 8 of them have possible effects on foetuses, with one of them (diclofenac) specifically contraindicated in pregnancy. These are drugs that in many cases allow the user a reasonable quality of life where the alternative is at best physical or emotional pain, and at worst death, and yet they will have equally horrendous effects on a foetus as alcohol exposure has.
So what do we do? The end-game of newbies' logic would seem to be causing potential mothers to cease therapies on the off-chance of foetal harm being caused, which in my book is no logic at all.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yes, there is. In other societies - the Vikings, for instance - a form of 'post-natal abortion' has been carried out where it is judged that the new baby cannot be cared for. We wouldn't accept that in our society, and quite rightly, but at the same time I can understand why it has been done in other societies. Moral absolutes rarely work.
Click to expand...

The Vikings; the majority of the societies that formed ancient Greece (although Sparta is the one that gets most mention); Dravidian and Aryan Asian societies, etc etc. It's a long old list, even if you don't count those societies that gave "unwanted" babies to the priest caste.
 
toggle said:
and people still have to ask what women could possiby be pissed off about.
Click to expand...

This question is posed with no 'side' whatsoever.

Do you think that it is right, that a pregnant woman who is drinking six cans of Special Brew, and half a bottle of vodka a day, should continue to do so with no fear of intervention from any source, when it is absolutely known that such alcohol consumption will severely damage the foetus?
 
Sasaferrato said:
This question is posed with no 'side' whatsoever.

Do you think that it is right, that a pregnant woman who is drinking six cans of Special Brew, and half a bottle of vodka a day, should continue to do so with no fear of intervention from any source, when it is absolutely known that such alcohol consumption will severely damage the foetus?
Click to expand...

Intervention yes, criminalisation no.
 
Sasaferrato said:
This question is posed with no 'side' whatsoever.

Do you think that it is right, that a pregnant woman who is drinking six cans of Special Brew, and half a bottle of vodka a day, should continue to do so with no fear of intervention from any source, when it is absolutely known that such alcohol consumption will severely damage the foetus?
Click to expand...

that is a statement, not a question.

responding to a single case should not involve actions that open the door to unwarranted interference in the lives of every woman of child bearing age.
 
Predictable decision and absolutely correct - if I lived in that local authority area I would want to know why in hell the la were instructing an expensive QC to act in this case which had no merit whatsoever. Would asking for a ct rebate!!!!!
 
Sasaferrato said:
This question is posed with no 'side' whatsoever.

Do you think that it is right, that a pregnant woman who is drinking six cans of Special Brew, and half a bottle of vodka a day, should continue to do so with no fear of intervention from any source, when it is absolutely known that such alcohol consumption will severely damage the foetus?
Click to expand...

Intervention already takes place in the above types of situation. Social services and other agencies may become involved and if it is felt that a parent is unable to adequately safeguard and promote the wellbeing of their child then the child may be taken into care.

Which is a pretty huge thing for everyone involved and a huge consequence. It isn't as if nothing ever happens.
 
SpookyFrank said:
Intervention yes, criminalisation no.
Click to expand...

Quite. That then raises the question regarding intervention, where is the line drawn. Should a woman be kept in hospital against her will?

This is not going to go away, there are too many extremists on either side. I would not be at all comfortable with enforced detention, nor would I be terribly happy with forced abortion.

Funny old world. I pretty much thought that there would be no major moral dilemmas any more at my age. I have a view on the biggies, and am unconcerned with the minutiae.

I have given a lot of thought to this. Am I much further forward in forming an opinion? Partly.

To enable a followable path through any thought process, state where you are starting from.

I am starting from the viewpoint that a foetus is a proto -human being. Not yet a human, in terms of being able to breathe independently, and yet, not 'nothing' either. That is the first difficulty. To give no legal right to life to a foetus is wrong, but, not as 'wrong' as giving no legal right to life to a baby. What 'weighting' do you apply to a foetus though, and should it be scaled as the pregnancy progresses?

If it is decided that legislation be introduced to give the foetus a legal status (and I think that this is inevitable), then parliament has got to think very carefully.

The closest I have come to an opinion, and is probably final, is 'I do not feel that a mother should be allowed to do this, however, I do not support legislation that would cause loss of liberty, or enforced surgery. The just outcome is that the mother should be supported and encouraged to give up alcohol, but, should they not do so, they should not be criminalised.'. Imperfect, but probably the best I am going to get. You cannot have equality of legal right here, because that is stalemate, therefore, if you are applying 'weight', the balance must go to the mother.
 
Sasaferrato said:
This question is posed with no 'side' whatsoever.

Do you think that it is right, that a pregnant woman who is drinking six cans of Special Brew, and half a bottle of vodka a day, should continue to do so with no fear of intervention from any source, when it is absolutely known that such alcohol consumption will severely damage the foetus?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "no fear of intervention"?
 
Sasaferrato said:
If it is decided that legislation be introduced to give the foetus a legal status (and I think that this is inevitable), then parliament has got to think very carefully.

The closest I have come to an opinion, and is probably final, is 'I do not feel that a mother should be allowed to do this, however, I do not support legislation that would cause loss of liberty, or enforced surgery. The just outcome is that the mother should be supported and encouraged to give up alcohol, but, should they not do so, they should not be criminalised.'. Imperfect, but probably the best I am going to get. You cannot have equality of legal right here, because that is stalemate, therefore, if you are applying 'weight', the balance must go to the mother.
Click to expand...

all the intervention that you suggest can and is be done without any resort to interference in the liberties of the mother, or giving any legal status to the foetus. what prevents support being given is the will and the money to help.

the will, because in this case in particular, the time to intervene was when there was a vulnerable alcoholic child. not to demonise her a few years later when she was a pregnant alcoholic young woman. it dosen't take much reading of some of the recent grooming cases to realise that a lot of teenage girls are being ignored because of the class prejudices of those running the services that are supposed to protect them.

secondly, there's no money to help, early intervention of any kind is becoming less and less likely as services are being cut left, right and center. this makes it less likely that help will be available at an earlier stage where there isn't more difficult issues to consider like in this case.

lstly, you really need to have a look at some of the links i've put in this thread. laws that were put in place supposedly to criminlise a third party who attacked a pregnant woman are being overwhelmingly used to criminlise women. the stated intent of laws to protect a foetus rarely mirrors the use to which those laws are put.

we don't resist laws restricting women'[s rights to be intentionally contrarian, or because we don't recognise the moral dilemmas of a case like this. we just recognise that it has been a very long and hard fight and we deserve legal equality. and we owe it to the women who fought for equality as well as to our daughters to fight to keep it.
 
Last edited:
Sasaferrato said:
Quite. That then raises the question regarding intervention, where is the line drawn. Should a woman be kept in hospital against her will?

This is not going to go away, there are too many extremists on either side. I would not be at all comfortable with enforced detention, nor would I be terribly happy with forced abortion.
Click to expand...

There are provisions under the mental health act to force people to stay in hospital if they are likely to be a danger to themself or others, but that is used for acute cases and as far as I know it isn't ever used to detain alcoholics. Sever alcoholism is not an acute, short term condition which hospitals are equipped to treat effectively so I can't see the value of locking people up in hopspitals out of sheer desperation and lack of a better idea of what to do with them.

Treatment for alcoholics generally seems to be pretty poor. This case demonstrates that it's not always possible for people to simply stop drinking and that some people do need a lot of support. The double standard between criminalising a woman for harming a baby with her drinking while being only too happy to let countless other people drink themelves to death is pretty jarring. Deaths caused by alcoholism should be seen as preventable deaths and dealt with accordingly.
 
I was involved in a case recently where the pregnant woman was specifically advised not to stop drinking, as the withdrawal would have been more damaging for the unborn.
 
With severe alcoholism withdrawal can easily kill you. And not in a nice way either, you completely lose your mind first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RubyBlue
Who to vote for?
Replies
14
Views
488
dessiato
dessiato
tim
Candidates who are vile c*nts.
Replies
1
Views
294
moochedit
moochedit
tim
Candidates who are vile c*nts.
Replies
19
Views
862
andysays
andysays
Dog_Voodoo
Tory Mark Menzies, who are these bad people?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
WhyLikeThis
Who the f*ck are Socialist Appeal?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
224
Views
11K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom