Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday May 06 2014, @04:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the Take-Me-to-Another-Land dept.

USA Today reports that Tennessee has become the first state with legislation that will criminally charge women who use drugs while pregnant with assault for harm done to their infants. Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs (921 in Tennessee in 2013) and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome. The legislation would allow mothers to avoid criminal charges if they get into one of the state's few treatment programs. Governor Bill Haslam says he wants doctors to encourage women to get into treatment before delivering their babies so they can avoid charges. "The intent of this bill is to give law enforcement and district attorneys a tool to address illicit drug use among pregnant women through treatment programs," says Haslam.

Seventeen states already consider drug use during pregnancy as child abuse and in three of them Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin it is grounds for civil commitment (e.g. forced enrollment in treatment programs). In 15 states, health-care providers are required to report suspected abuse and, in four of those states, they are then also required to test for drug exposure of the child. Eighteen states have treatment programs targeted at pregnant women. Opponents of the bill, including five national medical organizations and local doctors who treat pregnant women, worry that criminalization will scare women away from treatment. "This law separates mothers from their children and is not patient-centered," says Cherisse A. Scott. "Tennessee families who are already being hit the hardest by policies such as the failure to expand Medicaid, poverty and a lack of available drug treatment facilities will be most deeply impacted by this bill."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:25PM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:25PM (#40261) Journal

    As opposed to YOUR callousness as to allow all these unwanted, often drug addicted and later on physically and even sexually abused children to be born? If you 1.- Don't give enough of a shit about your reproductive rights as to be wiling to sell them for as little as 5k and 2.- later on can't be bothered to save up enough to have it reversed? i'm sorry but you simply aren't good parenting material, no way you can possibly spin that into anything else. And I noticed how you completely sidestepped both the fact that they would sell their rights for so cheap AND that they could easily adopt, what does that say about YOUR position, hmm?

    Are you REALLY gonna argue that someone who places so little value on their reproductive rights would be a GOOD parent, really? Or are you seriously trying to argue that "those people" are just like little children and don't have enough sense to make up their own minds without you, the righteous middle class white person, making the choice FOR them? Is that really your position? because I have had this argument before and it always comes down to one or the other, either you think they are morons who should be "protected" because the poor and minorities simply can't be trusted to make their own choices, or they take the position that ALL reproductive rights are sacred and it doesn't matter if they are junkies, child abusers, or scum of the earth simply because they have the ability to pop out a kid that should be protected at all costs, welfare of the child and society be damned...so which is it?

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:51PM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday May 06 2014, @06:51PM (#40273)

    > As opposed to YOUR callousness as to allow all these unwanted, often drug
    > addicted and later on physically and even sexually abused children to be born?

    Wow. Think of the children! Of course all the kids born to poor parents are unwanted, drug addicted and abused. Poor people are such terrible parents.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:08PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:08PM (#40361) Journal

      Hey my parents were poor but unlike "those people" which is the obvious position you are supporting they WOULD NOT SELL THEIR RIGHTS and THAT is the difference! If you truly believe that "those people" can't be allowed to make their own choices without your white middle class input, why stop there? After all if they can't be trusted to decide whether to have reproductive rights or not what makes you think they have the ability to choose WHEN to use them either? Don't you think YOU would be better at deciding this?

      I just hope you see how completely condescending and racist you sound, thinking that somehow 5k will sap them of their will and like little children that eat candy until they get sick they can't even have enough sense to decide how their bodies should be treated without YOU choosing for them.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:33PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday May 06 2014, @10:33PM (#40369)

        > Hey my parents were poor but unlike "those people" which is the obvious position you are supporting they
        > WOULD NOT SELL THEIR RIGHTS and THAT is the difference!

        Not sure who "those people" are, but it sure is easy for you to claim your parents would never have chosen food, housing, medical treatment or even just transportation to a job so as to give birth to you ten years later.

        > After all if they can't be trusted to decide whether to have reproductive rights or not

        Of course they can choose, they make that choice every day, the problem is holding them hostage to their poverty. You want to give out free IUDs, that's fine. You start paying people for something that is at best expensive to reverse and you start creating all kinds of perverse incentives.

        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:58AM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:58AM (#40399) Journal

          My dad actually worked dead end jobs with a cracked skull just to make sure that my mother could get the medical treatment that was required for me to be born so...yes i think I can say that with 100% certainty. And again you completely avoid (like most of the left wingers that hold this position) explaining why you think that YOU are qualified to decide what THEY can and can't choose. Who are YOU to decide this? Who are YOU to say that all these unwanted children should be born? Are YOU gonna pay for them? How many have YOU adopted? Thought so, you see the left and the right have that in common, they just looove telling OTHERS how THEY should live but when it comes to walking the walk? then its THEIR problem not yours.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:15AM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:15AM (#40400)

            > My dad actually worked dead end jobs with a cracked skull just to make sure that my mother could get the
            > medical treatment that was required for me to be born so...yes i think I can say that with 100% certainty.

            Your mother being already pregnant is a completely different situation than what is being discussed here.

            > explaining why you think that YOU are qualified to decide what THEY can and can't choose

            I never said they can't choose. Offering desperate people money to make a choice is coercion.

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:27AM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:27AM (#40458) Journal

              WRONG sir you are trying to spin the fact that you believe that poor people are children that they have NO free will of their own, simply because they are poor. You sir are arguing the same position that those for affirmative action, that without your help they are incapable of making a responsible choice. You can spin all you want but ultimately that IS your position, that being poor makes "those people" so pathetic and helpless that ONLY with YOU making the choice FOR them they will be okay.

              Tell me would YOU sell YOUR reproductive rights simply because you are poor? Then why do you think that they are impotent children that can't choose correctly without you? You DO realize this is the exact same argument that is used for every. single. nanny. state. law. we have had from prohibition on up, the poor are helpless, they are stupid, after all if they weren't they wouldn't be poor would they? they will spend all their money on drugs if they are legal, spend all their money on booze if that is legal, they will gamble away every dime if there is a lotto or casino, your entire argument is based on the frankly offensive position that poor are children, only rich white people like yourself are qualified to make the choices for them.

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
              • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:04AM

                by Angry Jesus (182) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:04AM (#40472)

                > Tell me would YOU sell YOUR reproductive rights simply because you are poor?

                If I was starving, or homeless or dying of a treatable disease and the money would be enough to cure it then I probably would and so would most rationale and sane people.

                > WRONG sir you are trying to spin the fact that you believe that poor people are children

                Whatevers dude. I think your crazy-ass ranting has discredited your own position way more than anything I could have written and really that's the about the best I could reasonably expect from this conversation.