Is drinking while pregnant a crime in any state?
Erik wrote:
"Is drinking while pregnant a crime in any state?"
You can't be that lazy. Why don't you look it up and report back to us?
I swear, some of you people are lost without cue cards.
Constitutional? Hell, what has the constitution to do with this?
Who's body are they talking about? Again, as with all the fancy "studies" they forget to quantify what they mean by "smoking"? Zealous enforcement officers of course will use a single puff on a cigarette as a pretext to interfere.
The biggest damage from such proposals is that they create an "culture" where people must get the impression that if it is not against the law, it is ok.
Life will become governed by law instead of common sense. People refrain from doing something not because they are informed, not because they are informed, have gone through an intellectual process and are finally convinced that it is common sense not to smoke while pregnant.
The potential punishment from breaking law could be what? A forced abortion, a fine, prison?
The potential punishment from not being reasonable with your health is health problems, the death of a child?
Now ask a mother-to-be what is more important to her ...
What this proposal basically says is mothers are too dumb to bear children, they must be forced into the correct behavior. And Bob Mathis knows exactly what they need.
With all the fallacious studies we have seen so far (SHS, obesity, soft drinks, ..), there is no way we can trust them.
This moron should be removed from his post forthwith and shipped to Iraq on a one way ticket.
How long before pregnant woman, or any woman of child bearing years for that matter, become wards of the state in order to force compliance with what some MAN is insisting is better care of her own body? And then how long before children are wards of the state in order to protect them from all the normal mistakes that normal loving parents tend to make (not being perfect Gods but human beings instead)?
This is like someone's worst nightmare come to life. This is the worst horror show I've seen in my life.
And how long before it's determined that everything a man does has some harmful effect on his sperm? What then?
Is this ever going to stop? Not at the rate things are going now it's not.
Erik wrote: "Is drinking while pregnant a crime in any state?"
Not that I'm aware of. But if you are really wondering and would love to prove me wrong (which you wouldn't really be doing as I have not actually looked, nor stated a fact), why don't you look it up; in all 50 states? Better yet, why not the world?
As I said, that I am aware of, there is no law making it a crime to drink while pregnant.
Are we just short of state controlled procreation?
People with illnesses, overweight, handicaps, genetic defects, low IQ as well as addicts of any sort should be banned from making children to begin with.
Hey, in Saudi Arabia it's against the law to drink while pregnant 
Michael Siegel, I am glad you recognize that there are many potentially risky behaviours that pregnant mothers might 'impose' on their unborn babies. Personally, I think the mother should be left with the choice of priorities of which potentially risky behaviours to avoid while pregnant. Mother is an individual too.
Before around 1980, when the present incarnation of the antismoking movement began , obstetricians counseled women who smoked that the only effect of smoking during pregnancy might be a slightly smaller baby--by ounces. Since smoking reduces the appetite it is natural that a smoking woman will gain less weight and give birth to a smaller child than a nonsmoking woman. Very few women of that era and before who smoked gave up the habit during pregnancy.
If smoking during pregnancy were dangerous, the number of defective children born back then would be far greater than now and I do not believe it is. With the current ease of access to abortion and the sophisticated tests available now that did not exist then, however, many women now choose to abort a fetus if it has problems, so it may be difficult to get an accurate number for comparison.
I have conducted an informal survey of women who smoked during pregnancy including, but not limited to, four women in my own family, and all gave birth to healthy normal-weight babies.
The fear of smoking during pregnancy is another example of the antismoking movement using any means, however superstitious, to frighten and control the public and influence legislation.
Stephen H wrote: "The fear of smoking during pregnancy is another example of the antismoking movement using any means, however superstitious, to frighten and control the public and influence legislation."
I had the opportunity back in 1980 to meet a Doctor who came to speak to a small group of mothers. He spoke to us as he was the parent of 2 children with birth defects. In the course of talking with us, he told us that he had been involved in the studies that had been done regarding smoking during pregnancy. As it turns out, this man told us to our faces that the studies were biased, and even the question of lower birth weight babies to smokers was flawed, because the non-smoking mothers all came from upper middle-class to upper class women with healthy diets to start with and excellent pre-natal care; the smoking mothers were all from poor families with poor diets to start with and little to no pre-natal care. Sorry, I don't remember this man's name.
It was after listening to this doctor, who was very nice too, that I realized how UNtrustworthy all these studies and reports are that they throw out to the public. How these people didn't care if they lied or not as long as they got their own way.
His advice to us that day was: Use your own judgment and remember that in moderation most things will not hurt you. And don't feel guilty if you smoke during pregnancy, though he did suggest smoking as little as possible.
Stephen the advice given in the early nineties still bore the same hallmark- a slight weight reduction that is all.I would also suggest that to a smoker a reduction may be beneficial but a state of relaxation whilst smoking a cigarette is advantageous both for the expectant mum and baby.I repeat for existing smokers.It utilises the concept of a placebo ,if you think something is doing you good,the positive thought process will provide a benefit.Furthermore the effects of tobacco will of course also figure,smoking promotes relaxation when you smoke for that effect.Nowadays it would be suggested that when the baby is born it's first demands would be for a lucky and possibly a beer.
Soren wrote: " Hey, in Saudi Arabia it's against the law to drink while pregnant"
Apparently it's also against the law to BE a woman in Saudi Arabia.....hehehehe
At least that's the way they seem to be treated. Thank God/Goddess this isn't Saudi Arabia.........then again, the way things are going, we just may become them yet.
Damn where was Rep. Mathis while I was growing up.....two smoker's in the house for the first ten years of my life.....it's probably an anomaly that I've made it to 42 years of age.
I'm curious what's in the water these days it sure sounds from the anti-s that all humans are a lot more fragile and immune deficient.
For those asking about alcohol, I know of at least one case where a woman was charged with felony child endangerment because a surviving twin was born with cocaine and alcohol in it’s urine after being born. The other twin did not survive, but murder charges were not drawn to avoid compromising the pro-abortion laws. This case was in March of 2004 in Utah.
Before I get up on my soapbox over the abortion issue, there are somewhere around 1 million abortions performed in this country every year. Clearly if you smoke, drink or take drugs, abortion is your only safe option to avoid jail time. The irony of this is a bit twisted in my opinion. Clearly the constitution opted on the abortion issue on the rights to privacy but fail to consider the same right to privacy for actions undertaken pre-partum.
I am also aware of several instances where anti-smokers have shot pregnant women for smoking. One was because of the individuals distain for second hand smoke, and the other was an attempt to force the woman to not endanger the unborn life. This is a derivation of the abortion clinic bombers mentality in my opinion.
To the “Ought to be a law crowd, I say there should be a constitution which is upheld to prevents such travesties as the one being proposed in Arkansas.
Dr. Siegel calls it a slippery slope. I think it’s more like stepping into the behavior control abyss.
I stand by my original thesis, if a law is needed to prevent pregnant women from smoking, then smoking at all should not be legal. If we no longer possess the faculty to make decisions for ourselves, then we all should be wards of the state to control what we eat, drink and exercise we perform, as we are nothing more than servants to the state.
The road being hoed by those so blinded by their zeal to control tobacco, sows the seeds of a society I don’t think many would enjoy, as these are only precedents which are being set.
Some other random thoughts:
Women who smoke may avoid getting proper pre-natal care to avoid prosecution (whatever such "prosecution" would entail.) This would be far more harmful to the baby than her smoking a cigarette.
Among the list of things that can also cause a few ounces less of birth weight are: working night shifts or working on your feet. (Attention waitresses; it's not the SHS.) Caffeine has been implicated. And so has dental plaque. So maybe not flossing can also be made a crime.
The "studies" that tout smoking as a cause of low birth weight (see CalEPA Report of 1997 and 2005 where all the extant studies are meta-analyzed) all have gigantic methodological flaws, but the big hoot is that they reach their conclusion by (what else?) re-defining "low birth weight." Officially and traditionally the term means 5.5 lbs or less, but CalEPA redefined it to mean anything less than the average weight of babies born to non-smoking mothers. Its conclusion? On average the babies of smoking mothers were 28 grams (or less than 1 ounce!) lighter. Not only is this hardly life or health-threatening, but other studies have shown that lighter-weight babies have made up any difference by the age of 6 months.
Finally I presume that Partial Birth Abortion would stay legal in Arkansas. Those kids are lighter too: they're missing the weight of their sucked out brains.
Walt wrote: "Finally I presume that Partial Birth Abortion would stay legal in Arkansas. Those kids are lighter too: they're missing the weight of their sucked out brains."
You were doing just fine until this point, Walt. Personally, I found that last sentence somewhat uncalled for, not to mention tacky. But that's just me.
And me, Linda.
Walt, while I disagree with your opinion, I do respect it (abortion is a very difficult issue).
However, this is not an abortion debate site, this is about tobacco issues and your comments will probably only serve to hijack any meaningful discussion.
FTR I don't oppose Roe v Wade as written, but I do think the very-different Partial Birth Abortion, which I simply described accurately, is an atrocity. If anyone's offended perhaps it's by the (accurately described) process itself? But it wasn't my intention to sidetrack the thread or debate abortion. I merely intended to point out the irony of criminalizing smoking while defending PBA.
Dunno why that came out anonymous.
Walt i don't think i've ever heard about PBA .What is the logic(or clinical reason i suppose is a better term) for this compared to a normal abortion.It sounds barbaric and gruesome.Sorry folks i know it's off thread but it may help me understand more of the issues concerning the high profile, abortion has in the states.
I had initially thought you were making reference to some of the officials being brainless and tying that in with the discussion of smoking and possible fetal weightloss.Having a sense of "black humour" this struck me as being humerous until i read the following comments.If i'd commentated what a ballsup that would have proven to be.
Oh, c'mon you guys. It was very clear what Walt meant. Though graphic (and so what?) it was a slap at legislators who support partial birth abortion -- a choice by women to do what they want with their bodies even in that late a stage of pregnancy -- but would control a woman's body when it comes to smoking. The facetiousness riding on the ugly truth that both would result in lower weight babies. Did you not get that??
(So si, PBA is an abortion that takes place in the last trimester where the most usual method is partially birthing the baby and then deflating the brain -- to put it nicely).
The topic of abortion is entirely appropriate in this thread since it's all about allowing women the choice to do what they want with their own bodies (pro-abortion being the side taken by most politicians). The comparison is glaringly relevant!
This story is exactly why I think the left has made such a huge mistake by siding uncritically with the anti-smoking movement.
I'm sure the thinking 30 years ago was tobacco is a big business which donates to the Republicans, therefore we will be against tobacco.
But the thinking is flawed. The tobacco companies have been very clever about diverting the zeal of the anti-smoking movement away from themselves and onto the individual smoker. And those individual smokers are being punished unequally; the poor more heavily than the rich, etc. This vile proposal from Arkansas is yet another logical extension. What we are ending up with is a situation where the left, instead of attacking the "evil" big business as it intended, has thrown itself in line behind legislation which basically punishes the poor, pregnant women, the homeless, the mentally ill, etc. etc.
This is most striking in terms of taxation. I'm sure if you did a poll, the support for super-high tobacco taxes would be much higher among Democrats than Republicans. But this tax is in fact the most regressive in America today. For a pack-a-day smoker making minimum wage in a high tobacco tax state, the tobacco taxes amount to ~3000$ per year, or ~25% of pre-tax income. And, keep in mind that minimum wage workers are MORE likely to smoke than rich people, not less.
Imagine if a legislator got up and said, hey I've got a great idea for a new tax. For the poorest people in society 40-50% will have to pay this tax, and it will correspond to 25% of their income. For the middle class 20% of the people will have to pay the tax and it will correspond to 10% of their income. And for the richest people only 10% will have to pay the tax and it will only correspond to 2% of their income.
Pretty fair tax, huh? And it's THE LEFT who have been the loudest in promoting it.
Oh, sorry si, the rest of the answer is that the reason held behind allowing PBA is to save the life of the mother if it can be shown that giving birth would pose a serious risk to her life.
Many thanks JTF.Isn't a caesarean section performed in these circumstances?I have never heard the term PBA or become aware that an abortion is conducted at such a late stage.Here the tops is at 24 weeks 'but usually 20 weeks.After that an abortion in the sense of the procedure just doesn't happen.This is the 21st century isn't it ?Over here the foetus has no legal position so no-one can produce such ridiculous proposals and have them enshrined in law but i fully understand Walt and appreciate the way he said it,it is highly pertinant.I'm just shocked about it.
Millions of HEALTHY babies have been born to mothers who smoke. What possible justification can there be for such a proposal? So that babies might weigh more??? Look carefully at the BS they spew. The only "harm" they could pin on smoking mothers was "low birth weight". They couldn't pin any actual harm from this per se, so they pool all LBW babies (not just those of smoking mothers) to say they are more "at risk" for certain problems.
Mother of 3 "LBW" HEALTHY children. The fact that I was 100 lbs and petite and my husband is also on the small side, the fact that all my children were born at 37 weeks has nothing to do with their small size. It was because I dared to smoke.
Give me a break.
I find laws like these are meant to reemphasize what woem of child bearing age have been indoctrinated to believe thru their years in the American Education System. They have been brainwashed since preschool and once they are out into the real world they may try this evil product and come to enjoy it. Most women and men want to procreate, until after they have tried it once. While they are in the dark about the costs involved in procreation they realise what it means to be a parent subject to the controls of society on their behavior. They also realise it is a 20 year term of punishment.
Legislation like this is only to force compliance with society's rules of conduct. Your life is not your own. You are a part of society with responsibilites to society.
In the long run this type of legislation will only reduce the number of women who ever get pregnant and of those who do, will only encourage them to remove this cancer from their bodies ASAP.
Just as old men cause wars, old men are now making decisions for all young people. Men have no right to discuss or legislate women's health or what she can do with her own body.
People over 40 have no right to legislate the lives of the child bearing population.
Viagra may have made old men feel young again, but just because it works again doesn't give them the right to make up for lost time.
Healthy children have been born to women regardless of government from the beginning of time. It is only a recent event that women could envision a life without coming in contact with smoke. It is also a recent event that witch doctors thought they deserved the right to correct mother nature's grand plan.
When are we going to start talking about ambulance chasing doctors shoving the lawyers out of the way?
Both are chasing the almighty dollar, only the doctor knows if he lays hands on the patient will he get paid.
Texas Dave writes:
"Pretty fair tax, huh? And it's THE LEFT who have been the loudest in promoting it."
Texas Dave,
I had posted this earlier in another thread, but you may be interestted to know that, here in NJ, during the third-party gubanatorial debates, the Socialist Worker's Party came right out and opposed the cigarette tax for basically the same reasons you stated. Also, in NJ, one of the prime sponsors of the smoking ban was Tom Kean Jr., a Republican who will most likely become the next governor.
With that said, I do agree with you, however, that the many politicians on what is referred to as the "left" in America have fallen for this institutionalized discrimination, and I think there are 3 main reasons for that:
a. Large corporations are involved with production/distribution of tobacco.
b. The "second hand smoke" issue has been disengeniously been re-cast as a "worker protection" issue.
c. Tobacco use is perceived as culturally outdated and unenlightened (right along with the 3-martini lunch, etc.), as opposed to marijuana use, etc.
So, basically, you have an outdated practice, aligned with big business, that is killing innocent people. The simple practice of smoking has now been saddled with all sorts of social, cultural, and economic implications. Taken in that light, you can see how opposition to tobacco would appeal to those on the "left." It's too bad that people who consider themselves so sophisticated and enlightened can fall for this propaganda so easily. But, in this day and age, when critical thinking is all but absent on ALL sides of most issues, what do you expect?
(BTW Our non-US friends reading the blog should understand that the terms "left" and "right" are used a bit differently here than in the rest of the world. Both the Democrats and Republicans support corporate capitalism.)
A note on the hypocrisy (at the risk of seeming off topic).
The self same idiots that made my life miserable because I was a smoker had absolutely NO QUALMS about wanting to inject my tiny infants with a Hep B vaccine before they were a day old. Smoking during pregnancy is "child abuse" but giving a mercury containing (at the time) vaccine to a neonate for a disease they were not "at risk" for, with no proof of safety or future efficacy seemed good health practice to these morons. I was urged to trade in my mercury thermometers for digital ones because they were a "threat" to my child, but thimerosol was "perfectly safe". No fewer than 6 morons tried to coerce me into signing the consent. I'm damned lucky I wasn't turned over to DHS and I might have been, had my friend (and a sane pediatrician) not intervened on my behalf.
Childbirth was the straw that broke the camels back for me. I lost what little trust I had left in allopathic medicine from the experience.
"The only "harm" they could pin on smoking mothers was "low birth weight". They couldn't pin any actual harm from this per se, so they pool all LBW babies (not just those of smoking mothers) to say they are more "at risk" for certain problems."
Isn't it a fact that smokers have a lesser tendency to become obese? Now they complain that your newborn isn't obese right from the first second it sees the light of the day?
cj,
That's really interesting that there is some group on the left (however small they may be) that is actually THINKING about the class politics of anti-tobacco, and not just blindly accepting.
Personally I don't think the American left should be dismissed (as tempting as that is sometimes). I think people who consider themselves left or progressive should be argued with strongly and clearly in a way they will understand:
The current tobacco tax structure is ANTI-POOR. Denying employment to people because they smoke is ANTI-WORKER. Attempting to criminalize pregnant women who smoke is SEXIST and ANTI-WOMEN. It's a simple message and I think it needs to be driven home over and over again to the unions, to feminists, to anti-poverty activists etc. It doesn't mean you have to love the tobacco companies. But you have to recognize that the current anti-tobacco movement isn't really hurting them, it's instead focusing all it's energy on attacking the exact same people the left is supposedly trying to defend. That's the message I think needs to get out there.
Texas Dave - I think you stated it quite eloquently. I can't improve on that.
Texas Dave,
I agree with you and your analysis of the classist nature of the tobacco control issue wholeheartedly. And, yes, I think the "left" should be better educated in how these repressive measures hurt the most vulnerable, as well as how the propaganda systematically dehumanizes an entire group of people. Some would consider me to be pretty far "left" on many socio-economic issues, but I became very disturbed by the knee-jerk anti-smoker sentiments expressed by those on the "left" and found myself agreeing much more with the Libertarians (who I always thought were far to the "right") on how the state has no place meddling in the private affairs of citizens (whether it be smoking, seat belts, what goes on in your bedroom, etc.). Now, I may not agree with all of the Libertarian ideas, but I am willing to listen to what they have to say with an open mind, without getting caught up in the "left" vs. "right" thing.
Regarding the original topic of this thread, I think what you may see here is political paralysis on both sides.
The political "left" is going to have to struggle between supporting abortion rights (based on the principle that the state has no say over a woman's body [their words]) versus supporting strong statist anti-tobacco measures as they traditionally have almost always supported.
The pro-life/religious/family values wing of the political "right" will most likely endorse this measure to "protect the children" but it may also be opposed by those on the "right" with a more Libertarian bent.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But I belieive that, unless those on the pro-choice left and libertarian right can unite to fight this measure across party lines, it will pass due to those who just blindly follow their respective party lines. This is an example of why I think it is so important to get beyond the "left"/"right" divide when looking at the issue of institutionalzed discriminnation against smokers. Remember, there is no "left/right" divide when it somes do showing disdain and contempt for smokers; you got everyone jumping on that bandwagon. So, opposition to the anti-smoker discrimination must cut across political lines as well to be effective.
My personal feeling regarding punishing pregnant women who smoke is similar to that of Dr. Siegel. I think it is dangerous that laws like these, which seek to regulate the most intimate of personal relationships, are even considered. I also have to say that my mother smoked while pregnant (as did most back then) and I turned out just fine. You would think that there would have been nothing but sickly, feeble, fragile bebies being born for a good 50 year period of time. Clearly, this was not the case. There is a very real danger that anti-smoker discrimination has crossed over from a merely authoritarian mindset (which is bad enough) to a totalitarian mindset.
Authoritarian regimes exact strict control over what you can do in public (look at Singapore, Saudi Arabia, etc.) but totalitarian regimes also attempt to control your private thoughts and your private life. Smoking legislation is becoming more and more totalitarian in nature. If most people would just put their hatred of smokers aside for one second, they would understand how truly dangerous laws like the one being proposed are to anyone who values living in a free society.
It is ironic that many of the same people and lawmakers who advocate freedom of choice for a pregnant woman to abort her baby......are the same people who DON'T advocate freedom of choice when it comes to how a bar or restaurant owner chooses to operate his / her business.
Great analyses here. (What a smart bunch we are.)
I'd add that another factor in the politics of jihad was the rising costs of health care. This movement got up steam just as the costs of premiums was rising through the roof (while smoking was declining; IOW, no connection). And who was paying the costs? Corporations (right) on the one hand and government (left) on the other. The Scilla and Charybdis of the individual's life.
Corporations were looking for anything--any little vague statistical connection between anything at all and less that optimum glowing "health," in order to lower costs. At about the same time as anti-smoking came to town because the time was becoming ripe, so did corporate-office gyms, and "health education," -- all those glossy little brochures.
And meanwhile, the left-- which politically was hankering after Universal Health Care, even as the bank was being broken on what we had (Medicare/cade) --was beginning to feel the pinch and was after the same grail.
So the goal from both ends of the political spectrum was to somehow remake us into ever-healthy producers. I figured right from the start that anti-smoking was just the start. That it would have to expand to food, to exercise, salt, and into the general notion of your body belongs to the state and/or your body belongs to the boss or, the way it's been playing out, you belong to Society-- which then gets to resent you for taking any "risks" since they believe they're paying the costs.
Walt, this seems to confirm your fears:
"Consider these other action items from the agenda for the AMA’s annual meeting this week:
* Support a 50 percent reduction in salt in processed foods, fast foods and restaurant meals over the next decade.
* Oppose beer ads on college sports broadcasts.
* Prepare a report summarizing video game research, including emotional and behavioral effects and addictive potential.
* Push to ban smoking in all public places and workplaces.
* Support mandatory school instruction on the dangers of Internet pornography."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2...ng-association/
Benpal,
We know the AMA took money from RWJF. And RWJF is the largest single shareholder of Johnson & Johnson stock. etc.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
The CATO link you reference above also states:
"the AMA is considering throwing its support behind a move to tax soda sales, ...(non-diet soda consumption.."
I wonder if the fact that Johnson & Johnson manufactures aspertame & other sugar substitutes has anything to do with the AMA "support behind a move to tax soda":
http://www.jnj.com/news/
jnj_news...020307_1037.htm
I'm sorry I meant SPLENDA® brand sweetener (also known as Sucralose)....a substitute for aspertame and sugar.
J & J demonstrates a shrewd, if slightly deceiptful business practice...of having its Foundation provide funding to NGO's who then steer lawmakers to enact laws which benefit their products.
Certainly known as lobbying in any other terms, however the twist with J & J is that they get non-profit health organizations to exaggerate claims.....and lawmakers are hoodwinked into thinking that they are enacting laws in the best interest of the public........but now we know.....the Rest of The Story.
Hundreds of women have in fact already been arrested for continuing a pregnancy to term in spite of a drug or alcohol problem. This is so in spite of overwheming medical consensus that prosecuting pregnant women does not advance either fetal or maternal health. (It firghtens women away from treatment and does nothing to increase access to treatment that can help women with a range of health/addiction probems)
South Carolina, as a result of conservative judicial activism has re-written state law to permit prosecution of pregnant women who even "risk" harm to their fetuses. In the McKnight case the State Supreme Court held:
A pregnant woman who unintentionally
heightens the risk of stillbirth can be found
guilty of “depraved heart homicide”
A conviction is permitted on any evidence
that a pregnant woman engaged in activity
“public[ly] know[n] to be “potentially fatal”
to the fetus.
State v. McKnight, 575 S.E.2d 168 (2003), cert denied, McKnight v. South Carolina,
2003 WL 21313734, 71 USLW 3759, 72 USLW 3210, 72 USLW 3235 (Oct. 6, 2003)
At oral argument the state AG made clear that prosecutions could be brought against pregnat women who smoked cigarettes:
The Court: Well who doesn’t know cigarettes
can cause harm To the fetus? That’s pretty
common knowledge too, isn’t it?
Assistant AG : It is, and I, but the case may be
that the court, the state could under certain
circumstances prosecute someone.
The Court: So we are going there.
Transcript of Oral Argument, State v. McKnight (Nov. 6, 2002)
(From official audiotape).
The prosecutor in the case made clear this applies to all pregnant women.
“Even if a legal substance is used,
if we determine you are medically
responsible for a child’s demise ,
we will file [homicide] charges.
Chief Proscutor for Horry County
E. Gaston
Conway Homicide Case Sets Precedent,
The Sun News A1
(May 19, 2001)
Let me present "The Rest Of The Story" Lynn Paltrow leaves out in her comment immediately above. The efforts of like-minded people have been much more successful in stopping South Carolinians from protecting children from their mothers' drug abuse than she implies.
During the Clinton administration, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala led a successful fight to prevent South Carolina from interfering with pregnant women's "right" to use *crack cocaine*!
REF: "Clinton's Crack Babies": http://www.policyreview.org/spri...g95/
condth.html
Why is it OK to ban exposing babies to second-hand tobacco smoke in cars, but not to first-hand crack cocaine from the bloodstream of their pregnant mothers? Well, any mother who smokes in a car *has* a car, so she is likely a member of America's middle class, which is majority-white. Mothers who smoke crack cocaine are almost always members of America's poverty class, which is majority-black + Latino.
The consensus on the Left is in effect that there are some children who are so precious that no risk is to small to be legally proscribed (hence the opprobrium piled on Britney Spears for driving a couple of blocks with her infant unrestrained in a car seat), while there are other children of so little value that no risk is too great (hence the Clinton administration plus the ACLU forcing an end to the efforts of an *Afro-American* police chief to curb crack cocaine use among poor, largely black mothers in South Carolina that I reference above).
Lynn Paltrow herself has two children, and I am sure that she never even took an aspirin tablet when *she* was gestating her *own* kids, nor would she tolerate any female relative of hers even drinking half a glass of wine while pregnant, much less smoking cigarettes!
In my view, all children are precious and all should be protected against endangerment, even if that danger comes from their parents. There should be a single standard of what "acceptable risk" is for all children of all groups, and either all risks above that line should be illegal or none should. Obviously, the ACLU disagrees.
Those believe that all children matter should refer to:
http://www.projectprevention.org
For those of you who do not, Ms. Paltrow has posted her web site's address above.
Please don't take my prior post as signifying agreement with the notion that any woman should be prosecuted for harming her unborn child. If this is a "crime", it's one that carries with it its own punishment, and I don't believe that the state should seek to add to such an enormous penalty a mother has already imposed on herself. I am appalled by the attitude of the Mr. E. Gaston, the prosecutor Lynn Paltrow quotes, who lumps our society's poorest and most desperate mothers in with true criminals who harm others for profit or even for fun. His actions are an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
But the very *definition* of "government" is "the organ of society that imposes responsible behavior its members who would not otherwise act responsibly, if the matter is 'important'." Given that the welfare of children is important, if the state can restrain a mother from endangering an unborn child that she intends to contribute as a new member of our society without doing more harm than good in the process, then the state not only has the right, but the obligation to do so. What is sufficient "endangerment" to rise to the level of state concern, and what restraints do more good than harm is inherently a matter for the political branches.
I believe that the several States should be free to experiment with different approaches to lessen the instance of child endangerment. A mother who cannot stop herself from poisoning her unborn baby via her alcohol, tobacco, or illegal-substance abuse should be free to relocate from a state that prohibits this, like South Carolina seeks to do, to New York State where National Advocates for Pregnant Women is based.
My own state of Texas serves as a "Laboratory Of Democracy" in a different area. In Texas, we have been experimenting with having drivers discourage carjackers by shooting them dead. We trust that this has encouraged some would-be carjackers to relocate to the State of New York, where honest citizens are not allowed to carry handguns.
"My own state of Texas serves as a "Laboratory Of Democracy" in a different area. "
Lifes of individuals are not laboratories. There is no human being on earth (not even the Pope, let alone the SG), who can pretend to know what is an acceptable risk. I don't want the government to tell me what risk is acceptable by me: crossing the street, working on a skyscraper, riding a motorbike, mountain climbing, walking in some dark streets in Manhatten at night, taking a plane. Who, other than me, can hudge if the risk is "acceptable"?
"benpal",
I don't want government telling *you* what risk is acceptable to *you* either. Indeed, my working definition of a "liberal" is, "someone who presses for motorcycle helmet laws, and then bemoans the shortage of donor organs"!
Re-read this thread. It's about what is an acceptable level of risk for an adult to impose on a *child*, not himself.
And it's not a pro-life argument. I can't imagine any meaning to the words "Limited Government" that include government having the right to say whether a woman carries a baby to term or not. But if she *is* going to carry it to term, then society has a compelling interest in that baby being healthy.
Given the bluntness of the instruments government has at its disposal, what it is wise for government to *do* in furtherance of its compelling interest is a matter for debate. Perhaps "nothing" is the best a set of terrible options. Perhaps not. Only public policy experiments can give us answers.
One thing is for sure, though. "Drug Treatment" has failed. We don't even have "substance-abuse" modalities that can get your typical obese American off Supersized Happy Meals, and we are going to get desperate, abused, poverty-class women off crack cocaine?
A lot of these women are self-medicating severe psychiatric symptoms that would land a member of the moneyed classes in a private sanatorium. However, in their wisdom, over the last 40 years, our solons have decided it best to close America's mental institutions and dump their patients out on the street. The most disruptive of these unfortunates we jail--our prisons have taken over the functions of the mental hospitals of 1965.
Alas, mentally ill women are as fertile as sane ones, and much more vulnerable to male sexual predators. So what to do?
Commenting by HaloScan
