• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should doctors be required to give Miranda to pregnant women?

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.

Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.

Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?

"Mrs. Smith, I'm a mandatory child-abuse reporter. Just letting you know that if you beat your child, and I find out about it, you'll be reported to the proper authorities. So! You have the right to remain silent...."

I don't think a pregnant woman having blood tests should be Mirandized.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,201
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?
As a teacher, if I see evidence of abuse of a student, I'm legally required to report the abuse to some authority (there are different avenues). Should I also be required to give a Miranda warning to the parent I'm reporting for abuse?

The answer, of course, is no. The Miranda warning is not required when an investigation is proceeding or when evidence is created/discovered, it's only required when a person is placed under arrest or is otherwise in police custody. Since neither doctors nor myself have the power to arrest a person, we are not required to read Miranda.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Miranda warning is not required when an investigation is proceeding or when evidence is created, it's only required when a person is placed under arrest or is otherwise in police custody.

^^And there it is, best answer.
 

Sarcogito

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
2,333
Reaction score
2,090
Location
SE Asia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
After a little research I found that in 2001 SCOTUS ruled that hospitals cannot perform drug tests on pregnant women without their consent. Doctors had run drug tests on urine samples taken for other purposes as well and had reported the results to the police. SCOTUS says that is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Ferguson v. City of Charleston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What isn't apparent is now when doctors ask permission to do a drug test do they tell the pregnant women they may report the results to the police? If they aren't required to tell them that I think they should be.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The answer, of course, is no. The Miranda warning is not required when an investigation is proceeding or when evidence is created/discovered, it's only required when a person is placed under arrest or is otherwise in police custody.

Other than you are entirely wrong about when police have to Miranda someone, that's a great answer. Or, rather, it is the Hollywood cop-show law answer. Meaning, false.

In fact, anytime the police question someone with the police considering that person even remotely a suspect, the police must first give Miranda. This also applies to police agents, such as a polygraph operator who is conducting a polygraph at police request or the appointment set up by the police. The only exception to not giving Miranda to any suspect is if it is spontaneous statements make quickly prior to the police having opportunity to give a Miranda.

There was a case some years ago where a man who had denied involvement for over a year, told a police polygraph officer he did it and exactly where he buried the body (at an outfield of DFW airport). That was the sole evidence of him killing his girlfriend. The issue was did the polygraph operator - an police department employee but NOT a police officer - have to Miranda him before questioning him. Since the polygraph officer was an agent of the police and to gather evidence for the police, the answer was yes. As a result, the man did get away with murder.

Thus, for example, if someone called 911 shouting "I shot him!" or the police arrive and the person were to burst that out, it is allowable. BUT, if they take the person into the station and ask "Did you shoot him?" for an interrogation? They MUST first have told him Miranda.

So it is back to my original question. IF law REQUIRES doctors to act as agents for police, should there be Miranda or can doctors be used covert as agents of the police to gain evidence the police themselves could not otherwise gather?

There also is, in my opinion, a very real issue otherwise of doctors secretly and without consent doing blood tests on patients. With this, could ANY woman in her right mind go to her doctor if she has used any illegal drug in such states? A woman goes to the doctor for a routine exam - and the next day SWAT kicks in her door, CPS takes her children and she's hauled off in handcuffs. Guess she shouldn't have gotten the veggie burger with a poppy seed covered bun.

Yet aside from that bad-drug-test secretly done by a doctor, should it be law that it is - essentially - a felony offense for a pregnant woman who uses illegal drugs to go to a doctor?
 
Last edited:

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
After a little research I found that in 2001 SCOTUS ruled that hospitals cannot perform drug tests on pregnant women without their consent. Doctors had run drug tests on urine samples taken for other purposes as well and had reported the results to the police. SCOTUS says that is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Ferguson v. City of Charleston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What isn't apparent is now when doctors ask permission to do a drug test do they tell the pregnant women they may report the results to the police? If they aren't required to tell them that I think they should be.

That is the question, and I think (could be wrong) in 2011ish the Supreme Court ruled circumstantially yes, depending upon the state's law? I couldn't find the case outcome. I know there was a case brought by behalf of 10 women.

The Supreme Court has, step by step, been rolling back many rights of citizens, the accused and Defendants from the liberal laws and rulings of the 60s and 70s. For example, the police generally now can tell a jury "he refused to answer our questions" - meaning refusing to answer can be used against you. And, if the officer is lying about that, you are forced to testify to deny it, thus forcing a Defendant to then be cross examined overall.
 
Last edited:

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My concern is more general.

As government increasingly requires professionals - such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists etc to be informants for the police and government - plus now also increasingly required to gather personal and private information to then give to the government - can anyone really confide in such professionals? And, for some and maybe a growing number of people, dare risk even seeing one or seeking such help?

You tell your doctor "I haven't been sleeping well later because some things are troubling me" - and the next thing is SWAT kicking in your door, taking your firearms and hauling your kids off to foster care.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We also know a couple of doctors who intensely hate the government telling them what to do about anything - and view the government as the enemy - plus are sick of the ever-increasing paperwork the government demands they make, keep and turnover.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,201
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Other than you are entirely wrong about when police have to Miranda someone
No, I was partly wrong.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."
Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.​

The Miranda Warning - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
An officer must only read you the Miranda Warning if he or she plans on using your answers as evidence at a trial. Therefore, in many instances you may be stopped and asked questions without being read those rights. You have the right to politely refuse
Miranda Warning FAQ

However, Miranda does have to be read to anyone arrested or in custody (which probably encompasses a greater number of situations than you gave credit to) before "pertinent" questioning. Furthermore, I believe Miranda refers to the questioning of a suspect, not the gathering of evidence against him/her. A blood test would be evidence, not questioning.
In fact, anytime the police question someone with the police considering that person even remotely a suspect, the police must first give Miranda.
Not technically true, as I've shown above. But I do not disagree with your general point.

This also applies to police agents
Which means your question is answered, since doctors are not police agents.

So it is back to my original question. IF law REQUIRES doctors to act as agents for police
Can you show me where doctors are acting as agents of the police?

Again, we come back to: The answer, of course, is no. In fact, your entire premise that a law requiring one to report illegal activity means one is an agent of the police is rather ridiculous. I think you might be confusing lawmakers with police. If it's a law, then it's a duty imposed upon the doctor by lawmakers, not the police.

There also is, in my opinion, a very real issue otherwise of doctors secretly and without consent doing blood tests on patients. With this, could ANY woman in her right mind go to her doctor if she has used any illegal drug in such states? A woman goes to the doctor for a routine exam - and the next day SWAT kicks in her door, CPS takes her children and she's hauled off in handcuffs. Guess she shouldn't have gotten the veggie burger with a poppy seed covered bun.
I'm confused...are veggie burgers with poppy seed buns against the law?

should it be law that it is - essentially - a felony offense for a pregnant woman who uses illegal drugs to go to a doctor?
This is beyond absurd. The offense is not going to the doctor, the offense is illegal drug use. We already have laws against illegal drug use, so why exactly would we create another law to say the exact same thing?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think the question should be about reporting the blood test results. As for the question asked, no.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,525
Reaction score
50,127
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.

Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?



Hadn't thought about it that way. Interesting.


This sounds like a question for....

... The SUPREME COURT!!! :)
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hadn't thought about it that way. Interesting.


This sounds like a question for....

... The SUPREME COURT!!! :)

Argh...those nine idiots.

Prediction:

Yes.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,703
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm curious - what do blood tests that find drug abuse have to do with the subject of abortion?
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,942
Reaction score
20,915
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.
Many states require doctors to report to law enforcement if blood works shows evidence of substance abuse. This can be done without any notice to or consent from the woman, and the drug tests also done by the doctor without the woman's knowledge or consent. Upon this, the woman can be arrested, a search warrant issued, and her children taken by CPS.

Since doctors in those states are REQUIRED to act as evidence gatherig agents of the police, shouldn't they be required to give a Miranda warning to their patients? Or is this a unique way that applies only to pregnant women around prohibitions of the police secretly taking blood samples without a person's consent or court order - and then using that evidence against the person?

No, since only law enforcement performing an actual arrest need do so.

However, if I lived in a state where a medical practitioner was required by law to report to law enforcement on the contents of my blood based upon a test taken for medical purposes, I'd at least require some form of notice before consenting to have my blood drawn.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hadn't thought about it that way. Interesting.


This sounds like a question for....

... The SUPREME COURT!!! :)

This won't fly with the court. And unlike with law enforcement, there is still such thing as client/patient confidentiality between a woman and her doctor...which included any diagnostics tests.

One of the main legal elements of the Roe v. Wade decision is built around a woman's right to privacy along with her physician. That means that privacy works both ways...because a woman has to be able to trust her physician and vice versa.

To end that privacy relationship...would end the Roe v. Wade decision.

And as you've probably noticed, the states that are passing stringent abortion laws...are making it hard on doctors to provide services instead of trying to make abortion a punishable offense...which would, at this point, be unconstitutional within the provisions of Roe v. Wade.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, I was partly wrong.


The Miranda Warning - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Miranda Warning FAQ

However, Miranda does have to be read to anyone arrested or in custody (which probably encompasses a greater number of situations than you gave credit to) before "pertinent" questioning. Furthermore, I believe Miranda refers to the questioning of a suspect, not the gathering of evidence against him/her. A blood test would be evidence, not questioning.
[/LEFT]
Not technically true, as I've shown above. But I do not disagree with your general point.

Which means your question is answered, since doctors are not police agents.

Can you show me where doctors are acting as agents of the police?

Again, we come back to: The answer, of course, is no. In fact, your entire premise that a law requiring one to report illegal activity means one is an agent of the police is rather ridiculous. I think you might be confusing lawmakers with police. If it's a law, then it's a duty imposed upon the doctor by lawmakers, not the police.

I'm confused...are veggie burgers with poppy seed buns against the law?

This is beyond absurd. The offense is not going to the doctor, the offense is illegal drug use. We already have laws against illegal drug use, so why exactly would we create another law to say the exact same thing?

Poppy seeds can trigger a drug test ("poppy" seeds).

The result of not giving a person Miranda is the police can't use it in court, yes. Otherwise, they can use it, but for what?

I do see your distinction of a duty from lawmakers rather than the police.

What you do not address is why you think it a good thing to make so pregnant women fear going to a doctor? In fact, such laws would be highly encouraging of getting an abortion. A woman who has used an illegal drug has 3 choices: 1.) Go to the doctor and go to jail plus lose any child you have and/or have drug user put in your permanent record, 2.) continue the pregnancy but do not see a doctor and opt for a home birth or 3.) terminate the pregnancy.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lawmakers trying to force doctors to be cops and criminal investigators, government information gatherers, restricting and defining their medical practices for ideological reasons - all make the doctor-patient relationship an adversarial relationship. So even before going to a doctor a person should call their lawyer first - no different than going to a police station for an interrogation? The doctor asks "how are things going for you? Any discomfort? Sleeping problems?" - and a wise and prudent patient let's his/her lawyer brought along answer "I'm instructing my client not to answer that question."

Has there always been civil and criminal legal questions a person has to decide before deciding to seek medical care - and at this level? That the doctor is going to - without your consent or knowledge - take you fingerprints, dna, a hair sample and blood sample - all then sent to the police - none of which is for medical reasons but rather routine exploration in the event you MIGHT be engaging in something criminal?

They claim while polygraph tests (traditional) are less than perfect, that a C-SCAN will produce 100% accurate results without fail - because a person lying accesses the logic/reasoning part of the brain most, and a person telling the truth more accesses the area of the brain for memory. So... should doctors have a list of required questions of "did you ever do (crime)" - 1 thru 100? to ask someone if a person happens to be under the influence of medications and undergoing a C-Scan?

#1. Have you been perfectly truthful on your last 3 tax returns? (response goes to IRS)
#2. Do you have any illegal drugs or firearms at your home? (response goes to police)
#3. Have you ever spanked your child? (response goes to CPS)
#4. Have you altered your car in any mechanical way? (response goes to DOT and EPA)

ETC
 
Last edited:

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,201
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What you do not address is why you think it a good thing to make so pregnant women fear going to a doctor?
I don't think it's a good thing to make pregnant women fear their doctor, I think it's a good thing to make pregnant women afraid of doing illegal drugs. Big difference.

In fact, such laws would be highly encouraging of getting an abortion. A woman who has used an illegal drug has 3 choices: 1.) Go to the doctor and go to jail plus lose any child you have and/or have drug user put in your permanent record, 2.) continue the pregnancy but do not see a doctor and opt for a home birth or 3.) terminate the pregnancy.
Of course, there's always the option of NOT using an illegal drug. *shrug*

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to find ways to make it okay for women who are pregnant to take illegal drugs to the potential detriment of their child. It seems to me a woman should be far more worried about consuming illegal drugs than a blood test.
 

Sarcogito

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
2,333
Reaction score
2,090
Location
SE Asia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I don't think it's a good thing to make pregnant women fear their doctor, I think it's a good thing to make pregnant women afraid of doing illegal drugs. Big difference.

Of course, there's always the option of NOT using an illegal drug. *shrug*

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to find ways to make it okay for women who are pregnant to take illegal drugs to the potential detriment of their child. It seems to me a woman should be far more worried about consuming illegal drugs than a blood test.

That sounds nice in theory, but in reality these types of requirements do more damage than the problems they attempt to solve. First of all, a woman who would actually do drugs while pregnant obviously has a SERIOUS addiction. If she can’t bring herself to quit out of fear for her child, she sure as hell isn’t going to quit out of fear for jail. So now the woman just won’t go to the doctor, thus doing even more damage to the child due to lack of prenatal care.

It is similar to mental health in the military with regards to security clearances. People with security clearances can jeopardize their jobs if they end up seeking professional help from a psychiatrist. You have to waive doctor/patient confidentiality for a security clearance. So what ends up happening is people with access to highly classified information who may end up having serious mental problems, such as PTSD, DON’T seek treatment out of fear for reprisal.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think it's a good thing to make pregnant women fear their doctor, I think it's a good thing to make pregnant women afraid of doing illegal drugs. Big difference.

Of course, there's always the option of NOT using an illegal drug. *shrug*

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to find ways to make it okay for women who are pregnant to take illegal drugs to the potential detriment of their child. It seems to me a woman should be far more worried about consuming illegal drugs than a blood test.

No, the woman doesn't have to worry about illegal drugs. Just about going to the doctor. If she doesn't go to the doctor, then there is no problem for her. That's her option. If she has already used drugs recent to learning she is pregnant, "NOT using an illegal drug" is no longer an option. Her only option is to not go to a doctor.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,201
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That sounds nice in theory, but in reality these types of requirements do more damage than the problems they attempt to solve. First of all, a woman who would actually do drugs while pregnant obviously has a SERIOUS addiction. If she can’t bring herself to quit out of fear for her child, she sure as hell isn’t going to quit out of fear for jail. So now the woman just won’t go to the doctor, thus doing even more damage to the child due to lack of prenatal care.
So...the doctor should just turn a blind eye to the fact the woman is taking illegal drugs while pregnant? It's a terrible alternative, but only one can be recognized as accepting a law breaker putting a child in danger.
No, the woman doesn't have to worry about illegal drugs. Just about going to the doctor. If she doesn't go to the doctor, then there is no problem for her. That's her option. If she has already used drugs recent to learning she is pregnant, "NOT using an illegal drug" is no longer an option. Her only option is to not go to a doctor.
No...her option is to not do drugs.

You seem to be arguing the doctor should be okay with the idea of a pregnant lady doing illegal drugs to the potential detriment of her child, all under the guise of some silly notion of making doctors, who are not law enforcement, read Miranda warnings to pregnant women, as if THAT will protect the child.

Your idea is very far moved from what I'd consider rational.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
No, the woman doesn't have to worry about illegal drugs. Just about going to the doctor. If she doesn't go to the doctor, then there is no problem for her. That's her option. If she has already used drugs recent to learning she is pregnant, "NOT using an illegal drug" is no longer an option. Her only option is to not go to a doctor.

:shrug:

I'm not really concerned with the internal fears of a drug user. . . and while reading this thread I really struggled to follow what your actual point is. You started with a question about Miranda rights/warnings and doctor obligations - you then said, on your own volition, that police do the 'law-enforcement stuff' and doctors just do what they're legally required to do and nothing more.

So - now what's your issue? Are you trying to draw a legitimate concern regarding the health of a pregnant woman and how it might affect her child?
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So...the doctor should just turn a blind eye to the fact the woman is taking illegal drugs while pregnant? It's a terrible alternative, but only one can be recognized as accepting a law breaker putting a child in danger.
No...her option is to not do drugs.

You seem to be arguing the doctor should be okay with the idea of a pregnant lady doing illegal drugs to the potential detriment of her child, all under the guise of some silly notion of making doctors, who are not law enforcement, read Miranda warnings to pregnant women, as if THAT will protect the child.

Your idea is very far moved from what I'd consider rational.

Since your view on all topics involving government is that the government and enforcement can violate the Bill or Rights, require anything of people and do anything to people without except - even explaining everyone volunteered to this as every person has the options of suicide and death, there isn't any rational discussion with on any topic.
 
Top Bottom