• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Supreme Court lifts block on Wisconsin 'cocaine mom' law during appeal

Celebrity

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It looks like we are going ahead with the detainment of a pregnant woman in Wisconsin.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday let Wisconsin officials continue to enforce a law allowing them to detain pregnant women suspected of abusing drugs or alcohol while the state appeals a lower court ruling that struck down the law.

In its brief order, the Supreme Court did not give any reasons for lifting an injunction against the so-called "cocaine mom" law imposed last April by a federal judge in Madison, Wisconsin, who said it was unconstitutionally vague.
Click to expand...

As I understand the injuction, it will not grant courts the power to force pregnant women to give birth. It is possible instead that it is part of a broader "slippery slope" which will lead to that conclusion.

Wisconsin's Unborn Child Protection Act, enacted in 1998, gives courts power over any expectant mother who "habitually lacks self-control" over drugs or alcohol, placing an unborn child at risk. The law allows officials to hold the pregnant woman in custody if she refuses treatment.

Former Wisconsin resident Tamara Loertscher sued state officials in 2014 after a hospital in Eau Claire, Wisconsin reported her for testing positive for after methamphetamines and marijuana while she was three months pregnant.

She said she had stopped using the drugs, but a juvenile court judge jailed her for 18 days until she agreed to be assessed by a drug treatment facility.

She submitted to weekly drug testing and gave birth to a healthy baby boy in 2015, according to court papers.
Click to expand...

This is just business as usual in the so-called 'war on drugs.' Still, it's too bad that drug users have to risk losing their civil rights.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-cocaine-idUSKBN19S2YX
 
Tough situation, yes, but the answer is clear here. Consequences exist for bad choices, and an expectant mom has no right to use drugs or alcohol to the extent it could harm the fetus.
 
Well, this shoots a hole in, ah, never mind. Who knew the sword cut both ways? I know I did, but I surely didn't want to point it out. I figured it would become obvious in time.
 
JamesBY said:
Tough situation, yes, but the answer is clear here. Consequences exist for bad choices, and an expectant mom has no right to use drugs or alcohol to the extent it could harm the fetus.
Click to expand...

Especially if she intends to keep it, which obviously was the case since 12 weeks had passed.
 
Honestly it makes sense, have you ever seen the reprocussions of children exposed to cocaine (what are called crack babies) or FAS? It can permanently handicap the child for life based on her decisions while pregnant. It is one of the worst forms of child abuse.
 
Celebrity said:
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It looks like we are going ahead with the detainment of a pregnant woman in Wisconsin.

As I understand the injuction, it will not grant courts the power to force pregnant women to give birth. It is possible instead that it is part of a broader "slippery slope" which will lead to that conclusion.

This is just business as usual in the so-called 'war on drugs.' Still, it's too bad that drug users have to risk losing their civil rights.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-cocaine-idUSKBN19S2YX
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm so glad I live in a FREE country.

ETA: They tried this crap here in Canada 20 years ago. It didn't fly.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=vd...nepage&q=canada pregnant glue sniffer&f=false
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
Wow. I'm so glad I live in a FREE country.
Click to expand...

It is free. Just don't end up somewhere that drug tests you if you are more than 12 weeks pregnant and still doing Meth.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Wow. I'm so glad I live in a FREE country.
Click to expand...

Free country as in the right for pregnant women to harm their children for life by drug use.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Wow. I'm so glad I live in a FREE country.
Click to expand...

The same country where you can freely go to jail, because it's not debt peonage if you chose to go to jail for not paying your debt!
 
calamity said:
It is free. Just don't end up somewhere that drug tests you if you are more than 12 weeks pregnant and still doing Meth.
Click to expand...

Which is what will happen. Also, pregnant drug addicts will not seek prenatal care, which could affect the child when it is born.
 
Celebrity said:
The same country where you can freely go to jail, because it's not debt peonage if you chose to go to jail for not paying your debt!
Click to expand...

The only debts you'd get jailed for here nowadays is unpaid fines imposed by the courts. If you fail to pay traffic fines, you lose your license. Failure to pay parking fines results in inability to renew the vehicle's plates.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Which is what will happen. Also, pregnant drug addicts will not seek prenatal care, which could affect the child when it is born.
Click to expand...

Free country. See?
 
digsbe said:
Honestly it makes sense, have you ever seen the reprocussions of children exposed to cocaine (what are called crack babies) or FAS? It can permanently handicap the child for life based on her decisions while pregnant. It is one of the worst forms of child abuse.
Click to expand...
Talk to the SPED teachers who have crack-baby syndrome students. Awful.
 
JamesBY said:
Talk to the SPED teachers who have crack-baby syndrome students. Awful.
Click to expand...

Kind of a pet peeve of mine because we have a relative who gave birth to drug addicted babies, twice. It's frustrating to see how little the state did to prevent that...especially the second time :(
 
calamity said:
Kind of a pet peeve of mine because we have a relative who gave birth to drug addicted babies, twice. It's frustrating to see how little the state did to prevent that...especially the second time :(
Click to expand...
The answer for drug moms are mandatory sterilization after the first drug baby. Babies' chances of survival outweigh the right of a woman to have a child.
 
JamesBY said:
The answer for drug moms are mandatory sterilization after the first drug baby. Babies' chances of survival outweigh the right of a woman to have a child.
Click to expand...

Yep. The "family" finally talked the idiot I mentioned into tying her tubes. But, even that was like pulling teeth. What eventually worked was her mom saying we won't help you take care of your three kids if you don't get the surgery.
 
Well intentioned or not (in Republican Wisconsin I suspect not), it's a terrible law.

Even worse due to "suspicion" being all that's required. So in essence, the law claims one can be detained upon suspicion? This would seem to go against due process, but then so much with the War on Drugs seems to.

Freedom is a precarious thing, and when we chose to be a free people there are costs that we may have to pay. Some of those costs can be terrible, and no one's ever happy to pay. But that is the cost of freedom.
 
JamesBY said:
The answer for drug moms are mandatory sterilization after the first drug baby. Babies' chances of survival outweigh the right of a woman to have a child.
Click to expand...

We should leave compulsory sterilization in our past.
 
calamity said:
Yep. The "family" finally talked the idiot I mentioned into tying her tubes. But, even that was like pulling teeth. What eventually worked was her mom saying we won't help you take care of your three kids if you don't get the surgery.
Click to expand...
Good for the children's grandmother.
 
Chomsky said:
Well intentioned or not (in Republican Wisconsin I suspect not), it's a terrible law.

Even worse due to "suspicion" being all that's required. So in essence, the law claims one can be detained upon suspicion? This would seem to go against due process, but then so much with the War on Drugs seems to.

Freedom is a precarious thing, and when we chose to be a free people there are costs that we may have to pay. Some of those costs can be terrible, and no one's ever happy to pay. But that is the cost of freedom.
Click to expand...

The judge relies on medical and witness testimony, Chomsky, not random whim.
 
There are often justifiable state interests with situations like these.
If a person is "creating" disabled people, that the state ends up liable for, that's a good argument to limit their freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom