If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Wisconsin law allows the state to arrest and jail any woman they suspect of endangering a fetus. Naturally, there's a few people who have a problem with this   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 325
    More: Scary, Wisconsin, Alabama Supreme Court, Suboxone, Personhood USA, Percocet, consumer protection, psychiatric treatment, 38th state  
•       •       •

4177 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2013 at 5:36 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



325 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-24 03:58:06 PM
From the redlit thread, so the quotes may be a little off.

I have so many questions about this case.

1) How did the doctors not violate patient-doctor privilege?

2) "Ms. Beltran, 28, was taken in shackles before a family court commissioner who, she says, brushed aside her pleas for a lawyer." Um, I'm pretty sure a court can't do that.

3) "can forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses illegal drugs or alcohol "to a severe degree," and who refuses to accept treatment." Since they said a urine test showed she wasn't currently using drugs, how did this statute even apply?

4) ""She exhibits lack of self-control and refuses the treatment we have offered her," wrote Dr. Breckenridge, who, according to Ms. Beltran, had not personally met or examined her." What the what?

I hope this lady sues and gets a nice college fund for her kid out of this. Also, I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and gets struck down, because there are a lot of shenanigans about this whole process.
 
2013-10-24 03:58:27 PM
When asked to detail her medical history, Beltran admitted a past struggle with the painkiller Percocet.

That was your first mistake.

But that was all behind her, Beltran said: She had been taking Suboxone, a drug used to treat Percocet dependency. Lacking health insurance and unable to afford the medication, Beltran had used an acquaintance's prescription and self-administered the drug in decreasing doses.

That was your second mistake.

Along with an overzealous physician's assistant, it seems, probably because OBGYNs need to cover their asses because of all the liability.

My guess is that OBGYN is getting a 1-star on Google right about now.
 
2013-10-24 03:59:43 PM
Paging Unintended Consequences, Unintended Consequences please pick up the white phone.
 
2013-10-24 03:59:59 PM
That law- like the women it affects- is thoroughly farked.
 
2013-10-24 04:00:32 PM

show me: Paging Unintended Consequences, Unintended Consequences please pick up the white phone.


No, I'm pretty sure this was exactly what they intended. These dirty whores need to understand that they can't just walk around like they own that womb.
 
2013-10-24 04:01:11 PM

nmrsnr: 1) How did the doctors not violate patient-doctor privilege?


Not a lawyer, but I believe you are allowed under code of ethics to intervene if a circumstance warrants it, and perhaps this doctor/assistant thought intervention was required in light of the fact she was pregnant and could harm the fetus. Hence the law. Whether it's constitutional or not is up to the judge.
 
2013-10-24 04:10:06 PM

bdub77: nmrsnr: 1) How did the doctors not violate patient-doctor privilege?

Not a lawyer, but I believe you are allowed under code of ethics to intervene if a circumstance warrants it, and perhaps this doctor/assistant thought intervention was required in light of the fact she was pregnant and could harm the fetus. Hence the law. Whether it's constitutional or not is up to the judge.


Not only do I have the right, I have the legal obligation to share with the authorities any information gleaned from a medical exam if I have a reasonable suspicion that you have or will harm yourself or others.
 
2013-10-24 04:13:02 PM
So. . . who was it that came up with that gorram "Theorem" post about cascading conclusions that women of child-bearing age need to be locked up???

'Cause I'mma shoot you for giving them the idea. . .

/*sigh* Seriously people, Fark has some pretty amazing manifestation power going on. Can we PLEASE use it to do some good in the world? How about coming up with one of those posts that describes how we move from a money-based economy to one where machines are doing most of the jobs people used to get paid for and how we deal with the subsequent massive unemployment? THAT would be useful.
 
2013-10-24 04:15:30 PM

bdub77: Not a lawyer, but I believe you are allowed under code of ethics to intervene if a circumstance warrants it, and perhaps this doctor/assistant thought intervention was required in light of the fact she was pregnant and could harm the fetus. Hence the law. Whether it's constitutional or not is up to the judge.


Me neither, but from what I know (from TV crime dramas, the most reliable source of legal knowledge) they can only break privilege if you admit to behavior that causes an imminent threat to someone else (like, I'm having fantasies about killing my boss, and I just bought a gun). Now they'd argue a fetus is "someone else" but this woman did not admit to any behavior that threatened the fetus, precisely the opposite, in fact, and none of the physical evidence contradicted her story. I don't think that a doctor's "I don't believe them" is enough to break privilege, at least, it shouldn't be.

Now, if her drug test found Percocet in her system, that's a different story, but they didn't.
 
2013-10-24 04:19:44 PM
A woman should consider herself pre-pregnant and act accordingly, until she actually becomes pregnant. Then, she's not so much a human being as she is a fetal incubator.

Remember, a woman's body is never her own. It belongs to her father, her husband, or her fetus.
 
2013-10-24 04:19:52 PM

Peki: So. . . who was it that came up with that gorram "Theorem" post about cascading conclusions that women of child-bearing age need to be locked up???



Margaret Atwood
 
2013-10-24 04:20:15 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Not only do I have the right, I have the legal obligation to share with the authorities any information gleaned from a medical exam if I have a reasonable suspicion that you have or will harm yourself or others.


This is where I think there's the problem, I think there has to be at least some admission by the patient or physical evidence to substantiate "reasonable suspicion" here there was none.
 
2013-10-24 04:22:07 PM

what_now: Peki: So. . . who was it that came up with that gorram "Theorem" post about cascading conclusions that women of child-bearing age need to be locked up???


Margaret Atwood


*sigh*

There are times I wish the right-wing were just a little more illiterate.
 
2013-10-24 04:22:35 PM
As they say, the devil is in the details.

And between a woman's legs, of course.
 
2013-10-24 04:24:48 PM

nmrsnr: bdub77: Not a lawyer, but I believe you are allowed under code of ethics to intervene if a circumstance warrants it, and perhaps this doctor/assistant thought intervention was required in light of the fact she was pregnant and could harm the fetus. Hence the law. Whether it's constitutional or not is up to the judge.

Me neither, but from what I know (from TV crime dramas, the most reliable source of legal knowledge) they can only break privilege if you admit to behavior that causes an imminent threat to someone else (like, I'm having fantasies about killing my boss, and I just bought a gun). Now they'd argue a fetus is "someone else" but this woman did not admit to any behavior that threatened the fetus, precisely the opposite, in fact, and none of the physical evidence contradicted her story. I don't think that a doctor's "I don't believe them" is enough to break privilege, at least, it shouldn't be.

Now, if her drug test found Percocet in her system, that's a different story, but they didn't.


Privilege is a legal concept, rooted in the rules of evidence. It pertains to who can and cannot be compelled to testify.

Ethical boundaries of confidentiality are different, and may cover different circumstances. For example, a reporter may be bound by the ethical duties of his profession not to reveal a source. However, if a judge requires the reporter to testify and the identity of the source isn't covered by privilege in the rules of evidence in that state, then the reporter can either refuse to testify and be in contempt of court or can violate his professional ethics.
 
2013-10-24 04:26:06 PM
A healthy woman is going to miscarriage in custody before any fetuses are saved by this law.

Also, it sounds like she is the first person tried under a law from 1997, but the whole hospital / legal system was poised to strike from the moment she started talking.  That is odd....
 
2013-10-24 04:26:43 PM
Oh, and a duty to report something is yet another animal. That's created by statue and can involve, say, the legal duty some professionals have to report child abuse, for example.
 
2013-10-24 04:29:01 PM

nmrsnr: Gecko Gingrich: Not only do I have the right, I have the legal obligation to share with the authorities any information gleaned from a medical exam if I have a reasonable suspicion that you have or will harm yourself or others.

This is where I think there's the problem, I think there has to be at least some admission by the patient or physical evidence to substantiate "reasonable suspicion" here there was none.


The doctor's office may have felt that she was a risk to have symptoms of opiate withdrawal if not monitored by a doctor, or that she may have a relapse, both of which would be a risk to her and her unborn child.
 
2013-10-24 04:34:04 PM
This whole situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

You can legally abort a fetus at twelve weeks, but painkillers are over the line?
 
2013-10-24 04:36:03 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: This whole situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

You can legally abort a fetus at twelve weeks, but painkillers are over the line?


Yeah, what happens when a woman goes to a doctor and says "I think I'm going to have an abortion" and the doctor uses this law to keep her in the system until she's into her second term.

Sure, they just farked up the woman's life, but the sacred fetus wasn't harmed.
 
2013-10-24 04:39:51 PM

Gecko Gingrich: The doctor's office may have felt that she was a risk to have symptoms of opiate withdrawal if not monitored by a doctor, or that she may have a relapse, both of which would be a risk to her and her unborn child.


Right, but the whole point of privilege is to encourage honesty between doctor and patient, if admitted prior drug use can land you in jail then there is an active incentive to lie to your doctor, which is potentially much more dangerous to both her and her unborn child. Now, an admission of active drug use without willingness to receive counseling, or evidence that they are lying about drug use, those should be reported, since there is evidence that the person is actively doing something, but your suspicion that they might do something that might threaten them, I just don't think that raises to the level where reporting to the police is warranted.

On the whole, though, I think the hospital reportage is the least farked up part of this story. The fact that she was denied representation at the initial hearing, and was sentenced to forcible detention when she wasn't actually doing drugs, and was done so on the word of someone who didn't actually evaluate her personally is just all sorts of messed up.
 
2013-10-24 04:48:00 PM

nmrsnr: Gecko Gingrich: The doctor's office may have felt that she was a risk to have symptoms of opiate withdrawal if not monitored by a doctor, or that she may have a relapse, both of which would be a risk to her and her unborn child.

Right, but the whole point of privilege is to encourage honesty between doctor and patient, if admitted prior drug use can land you in jail then there is an active incentive to lie to your doctor, which is potentially much more dangerous to both her and her unborn child. Now, an admission of active drug use without willingness to receive counseling, or evidence that they are lying about drug use, those should be reported, since there is evidence that the person is actively doing something, but your suspicion that they might do something that might threaten them, I just don't think that raises to the level where reporting to the police is warranted.

On the whole, though, I think the hospital reportage is the least farked up part of this story. The fact that she was denied representation at the initial hearing, and was sentenced to forcible detention when she wasn't actually doing drugs, and was done so on the word of someone who didn't actually evaluate her personally is just all sorts of messed up.


Oh, I agree with all that. It's just that medical professionals are given very little leeway (between the law and their employers legal departments) in whether to report suspected harm.
 
2013-10-24 04:54:32 PM

nmrsnr: if admitted prior drug use can land you in jail then there is an active incentive to lie to your doctor


It's there anyway. Docs have refused to treat certain conditions if they label you an addict, no matter what your actual state of addiction is, whether or not you piss clean, or why you are using. You need docs to stop being judgmental, but that will happen just as soon as our culture stops being judgmental.

And unfortunately, for some reason, when a woman gets pregnant, society seems to think THAT is the perfect time to be the most judgmental.
 
2013-10-24 05:05:17 PM

what_now: show me: Paging Unintended Consequences, Unintended Consequences please pick up the white phone.

No, I'm pretty sure this was exactly what they intended. These dirty whores need to understand that they can't just walk around like they own that womb.


I know your post was dripping with sarcasm. I honestly wonder if there isn't a sect of people who actually think like that.
 
2013-10-24 05:05:27 PM

nmrsnr: Also, I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and gets struck down, because there are a lot of shenanigans about this whole process.



Difficulty: Today's Wisconsin Supreme Court is a partisan rubber-stamp for whatever Republicans want.
 
2013-10-24 05:06:48 PM

SilentStrider: what_now: show me: Paging Unintended Consequences, Unintended Consequences please pick up the white phone.

No, I'm pretty sure this was exactly what they intended. These dirty whores need to understand that they can't just walk around like they own that womb.

I know your post was dripping with sarcasm. I honestly wonder if there isn't a sect of people who actually think like that.


Yeah- that's the entire anti abortion crowd- what do you think the Transvaginal Ultrasound laws, the "waiting period" for an abortion, the requirement to see a therapist etc etc is all about?
 
2013-10-24 05:15:37 PM

what_now: SilentStrider: what_now: show me: Paging Unintended Consequences, Unintended Consequences please pick up the white phone.

No, I'm pretty sure this was exactly what they intended. These dirty whores need to understand that they can't just walk around like they own that womb.

I know your post was dripping with sarcasm. I honestly wonder if there isn't a sect of people who actually think like that.

Yeah- that's the entire anti abortion crowd- what do you think the Transvaginal Ultrasound laws, the "waiting period" for an abortion, the requirement to see a therapist etc etc is all about?


You have a point.
 
2013-10-24 05:28:52 PM

nmrsnr: 3) "can forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses illegal drugs or alcohol "to a severe degree," and who refuses to accept treatment." Since they said a urine test showed she wasn't currently using drugs, how did this statute even apply?


I got the impression that the treatment they wanted her to take was to manage her withdrawl symptoms, which would themselves have caused harm to the baby?  I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor though.
 
2013-10-24 05:30:15 PM
I have a friend who is an OB/ GYN NP at a major hospital in Baltimore, and she has seen her share of babies born addicted and addicted mothers who abandon the babies.

Its heartbreaking. I dont know what the solution is, but im sure that this ISNT it.
 
2013-10-24 05:40:53 PM

vernonFL: I have a friend who is an OB/ GYN NP at a major hospital in Baltimore, and she has seen her share of babies born addicted and addicted mothers who abandon the babies.

Its heartbreaking. I dont know what the solution is, but im sure that this ISNT it.


The solution is mandatory birth control that requires a license to remove.
 
2013-10-24 05:42:29 PM
Republcan governor, Republican bullshiat like this. But no, let's just keep up the false equivalence, shall we?
 
2013-10-24 05:42:40 PM
This asinine arrest and subsequent lawsuit brought to you by Republicans: Government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus.
 
2013-10-24 05:45:16 PM
Just try her in an Imam's court and stone her to death, I guess.  Welcome to Wississippi!
 
2013-10-24 05:45:22 PM
Attention women of Wisconsin....MOTHERfarkING RUN YOU STUPID farkING biatchES RUN OH GOD RUN!!!!
Dont stop till you hit a deep blue state or they shoot you.  Thank you for your attention.

This advice soon to be given to women of all red states, and muslim countries, and maybe everywhere but NY and Cali.
 
2013-10-24 05:48:42 PM

serial_crusher: nmrsnr: 3) "can forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses illegal drugs or alcohol "to a severe degree," and who refuses to accept treatment." Since they said a urine test showed she wasn't currently using drugs, how did this statute even apply?

I got the impression that the treatment they wanted her to take was to manage her withdrawl symptoms, which would themselves have caused harm to the baby?  I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor though.


AFAIK, generally the ruling with medications and pregnancy is harm to mother without versus harm to baby with. If you think the mother will do greater harm without the medication (addiction) than the medication would do to the baby (birth defects), you prescribe the meds and make the gamble.

/this is where federal money for research would come in handy, because no company will touch drug trials with pregnant women because of possible liability
 
2013-10-24 05:52:08 PM
scottwalkerforpresident.jpg
 
2013-10-24 05:52:28 PM

what_now: show me: Paging Unintended Consequences, Unintended Consequences please pick up the white phone.

No, I'm pretty sure this was exactly what they intended. These dirty whores need to understand that they can't just walk around like they own that womb.


Ayup. The party of small government strikes again!
 
2013-10-24 05:53:13 PM
It's been a long time since a news story has made me want to beat the shiat out of something, but here we are.
 
2013-10-24 05:53:39 PM
Great public policy here- This encourages woman to not have prenatal care. They must really care about the unborn.
 
2013-10-24 05:53:53 PM
 
2013-10-24 05:54:19 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: scottwalkerforpresident.jpg


Jaypeg? That man deserves nothing short of a pinnang or a tiff. Or a bump, for the way he bmps and grinds Republican crotch.
 
2013-10-24 05:54:36 PM
What if the shackles trip her up, she can't catch herself because of the handcuffs, hits the ground
and has a miscarriage? Then the state has commuted murder..
 
2013-10-24 05:55:41 PM
You had your chance at a recall.  A chance at sanity.  Whoops, failed that percentile roll!  Good jorb!
 
2013-10-24 05:56:29 PM
i64.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-24 05:58:19 PM
Yeah this law is toast, seriously bills should be screen by an independent panel for constitutionality and they could kill any bill that did not past muster by majority vote.

It would have to save money over having to fight it out in court over a law that should never have been passed.

This should be done on the state and federal level.

Also the political parties should have no hand in appointing the panel.

/I'm just a bill....
 
2013-10-24 06:00:17 PM
What war on women?
 
2013-10-24 06:00:59 PM
Whose interest does this law serve?  If woman think they could be jailed base on a prenatal visit then they'll stop having prenatal visits.  If the details in the article are correct the exam was a form of a search.

Being denied a lawyer at a criminal hearing is bad but sentencing some one to 90 days rehab without due process is worse.  This isn't the same being sent to jail until while you wait your court date there is no bail hearing and no appeal, both with a lawyer.  Doesn't even sound like the state made prima facie  case.
 
2013-10-24 06:01:48 PM

what_now: Peki: So. . . who was it that came up with that gorram "Theorem" post about cascading conclusions that women of child-bearing age need to be locked up???


Margaret Atwood


Cross out 1984, replace with "Handmaid's Tale"

perpetualdissent.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-24 06:02:29 PM

SuperTramp: [i64.photobucket.com image 188x373]


Correct.  Do not steal the state's wine glasses.  Even if they're in front of a vase.
 
2013-10-24 06:04:03 PM

Cheron: Whose interest does this law serve?  If woman think they could be jailed base on a prenatal visit then they'll stop having prenatal visits.  If the details in the article are correct the exam was a form of a search.

Being denied a lawyer at a criminal hearing is bad but sentencing some one to 90 days rehab without due process is worse.  This isn't the same being sent to jail until while you wait your court date there is no bail hearing and no appeal, both with a lawyer.  Doesn't even sound like the state made prima facie  case.


It serves moralist busybodies.
 
Displayed 50 of 325 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report