A Catch-22 situation. Bad for civil liberties for the mother, good for the kid. Note that the article below requires you to register to read it. This one does not.
Measure forces care on pregnant, meth-hooked women
Pregnant women who are addicted to methamphetamine could be taken into custody and involuntarily held in treatment programs if a new state initiative is approved.
The Senate Judiciary Committee took the first steps toward approving SB 1500 Monday, mandating that state Child Protective Services workers go to court if they know or have reasonable grounds to believe a mother-to-be is using meth and is not getting voluntary treatment.
[…]
Critics of the proposal are concerned that Gorman is trying to give the measure some teeth by extending the definition of what now constitutes “child abuse” to fetuses.
Or as the other article puts it, “The bill also creates the crime of child abuse against a fetus.”
Ahhh…. The real reason: it’s a first step toward banning legal abortions.
I wouldn’t say it’s trying to ban abortions. I don’t think people in office can scheme that well in advance. I think it’s more of a “When people don’t know shit it shows” kinda law.
Thank you for providing a non registering link!
Ban abortions? That’s a stretch. Where did that come from? Based on your previous postings, I thought you might try to blame Bush on the meth problem.
Try the phrase “meth before after” in Google. Take a look at the devastation that meth does to these people.
Hi Mom, can I bring some friends home to play?
Sure, just give me a minute to put my nose back on.
We really need to legalize drugs and let that portion of the population kill themselves off if they are so inclined. We could empty out the jails and cut the crime rate tremendously. Personally, I tried snorting coke once and nearly drowned. Didn’t understand the BFD.
Unfortunately, there are people in the anti-women’s rights movement who would take this horrible issue and use it as a so-called “anti-abortion” wedge issue and they do think that far ahead.
But also, this type of self abuse should be punished. Maybe in another way. Perhaps monetary. First though, drug abuse in general should no longer be criminalized, just illegal distribution of controlled substances. Too much money is spent because of this. Too many people in prison, and not the right people either, just the victims, not the pushers. Like the old Steppenwolf song says, “G*d D*mn the pusher man.” However, drug abuse criminalization, started by the paragon of virtue, Dick “I am not a crook” Nixon, is a great way to keep the lower economic levels in prison “where they belong.”
You can use logins from Bugmenot.com like the first hit here: “AZSTARNET.COM passwords” http://www.bugmenot.com/view/azstarnet.com
to avoid having to register at many if not most websites.
Child protective can only protect BORN children. Roe vs. Wade made the distinction that the fetus was not a person, thus, this bill will clearly be aborted.
#7 wrote: “Roe vs. Wade made the distinction that the fetus was not a person.”
It did no such thing. Roe v Wade simply ruled on privacy issues.
There are plenty of states where if you happen to kill a mother and their unborn child you can be charged with two counts of murder.
#5, I don’t understand why drug criminalization hasn’t been overturned anyway on Constitutional grounds. Prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcohol required a Constitutional amendment, yes these days the government feels it has some new found authority to enact the same prohibitions of other substances.
#9 – Well… what are you gonna do? As long as the apathetic public does nothing, government will overstep its bounds.
It sounds good, on paper. But my concern is will it stop with meth-addict moms? Why stop there? What if you catch a pregnant woman with a beer, or cigarette, or a box of doughnuts? Or doing anything that might in any way place her baby at risk?
This is a slippery slope indeed.
#9
An excellent question that I’m sure many have not asked: Where does the Federal government get the authority to regulate drugs? It is not at all apparent in the Constitution that they have such authority.
Beyond Amendments, there have been a few laws that were used ram drug regulation through the interstate commerce clause. The Harrison Act for example required sellers of narcotics to get a “license” which the government would later not issue to anyone. The Marijuana Tax Act did the same. However, the truly insidious change occurred in 1961. Up until this point, it would have been possible to overturn or trump these laws. However, in 1961 the US signed a treaty (in addition to a couple more later) to prohibit production and supply of certain drugs. What many may not realize is that treaties trump the Constitution. If the Federal government wanted to ban free speech, they could do so with a treaty. Without the treaties, there would be hope that drug regulation could be taken from the Federal government by overturning or modifying the Harrison and Marijuana Tax Act however, now there is no way.
Marijuana is the only drug that has some possibility of being made available in that it is not controlled via any of the above treaties.
IMO the Federal government should never have been given (allowed to take) the authority to regulate drugs. That should have been left up to the States. If every State individually banned aspirin, that’s fine even if I disagree with it. However, by the Federal government banning a laundry list of items, it gives the States no authority to make the decision for themselves.
#3 – “Sure, just give me a minute to put my nose back on.”
Sounds like Michael Jackson.
#12, “What many may not realize is that treaties trump the Constitution.”
Says who? “…and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
The Constitution establishes and grants the United States its authority. Where the United States has no Constitutionally granted authority, it has no authority to enter into a treaty, just as it has no authority to enact any other statute or law.
let’s see….you’ve got enough evidence to show that they’re meth addicted – an illegal activity to begin with. So, why couldn’t you just toss them in jail awaiting trial and get the health care to them that way? Get’s them away from the meth, gets them confined somewhere that they can be given health care. simple.
Actually, a meth addicted mother is one of the best arguments in favor of abortion I’ve ever run across. Well, non-voluntary abortion anyway. I mean, what kind of mother are you going to have if you let the fetus come to term???
As for the US and the Constitution and treaties. Since when has the United States abided by its treaties? My Cherokee brothers and sisters want to know!
#15
That effectively means that treaties can trump (or more accurately, “modify”) anything in the Constitution. Think about it this way, give me an example under which there is no Constitutionally granted authority in the US.
An argument could be made that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” implies that since the Federal government was never explicitly granted the power to regulate drugs, that power lies exclusively with the States (or the people). However, a treaty changes that. It *does* give the Federal government that power as part of enforcing its treaty without the rigors of a Constitutional Amendment and thus effectively allows the Federal government to create just about any power it did not previously have.
Although I am among those who would prefer not to have the government intrude into our lives, this is one of those cases that are warranted.
The damage is not to the mother, but to the fetus. If the mother is too sick with her addiction then yes, she should be committed to an institution where she can receive treatment. Tied to a bed or locked in a room? No. Receiving help and care. Yes.
Why? Easy.
It has been standard procedure that whenever a person may be harmful to them self or others, they may have a sanity hearing and be restrained until they are no longer a danger. This scenario fits the reasoning for that exactly.
The same exists for alcoholics. So many babies are born and abandoned each year with fetal alcohol syndrome.
Getting sidetracked into this as a back door into an abortion ban is totally off the mark. It is an attempt to help pregnant women clean up their act and prevent the health of babies being compromised.
Sea Lawyer, as I see it, the problem is a combination of voir dire and Juries not knowing they can refuse to convict.
From WIKI:
“Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. Although a jury’s refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what the law is or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be, or the legitimacy of a law itself. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a “dead-letter” or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one’s peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.”
An important point seldom mentioned is that the ability to get laws passed often accumulates in specific groups. Jury nullification reduces the probability of the situation getting bad enough for the oppressed to regard riot and rebellion necessary.
Thomas,
Think about it this way, give me an example under which there is no Constitutionally granted authority in the US.
Universal Health Care, automobile safety standards, radio wave transmission, Environmental Protection, Social Security, and commercial Atomic Energy.
As for treaties, they must be ratified by the US Senate. And, as always, may be voided by the a joint resolution of Congress. You are incorrect though. They can NOT trump any protection one may have under the Constitution. A treaty will trump statute law (state and federal) and common law.
For example, if by treaty the government decides to relinquish some land so the British may build a new embassy or the Canadians build a dam and lake. The government may take your land if it wishes but they must still pay you a fair price for it.
#20, Philleep,
While you copied verbatum the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for “Jury Nullification”, you missed something. The practice is considered illegal. Read on and you will find the part you missed.
In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” The jury convicted the defendant, and the judge’s answer was upheld on appeal.
In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas,[20] the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).
Yes, jury nullification does happen. If a juror lets it be known that he favors jury nullification, he most likely will be removed from the jury and even possibly charged with obstruction of justice. And remember, it was jury nullification that gave us many of the civil rights abuses that led to white murderers being let off by all white juries.
2-3 nice separate issues here.
1–The Bill of Rights does a good job of limiting what the US Government can do as in “Make no law.” I might be wrong, but I’ve always thought of treaties as simply being in effect another way Congress can make a law. I’m sure if a case directly on this point went to the Supreme Court that they would rule that way?
2. And abortion is a lot like drugs. What gives the Fed Gov the right to make national laws or enter into treaties with the same effect?—a hook into the Constitution has to be found, valid or not. To that end, what the Feds regulate, can be regulated for good or ill. In this case, yes==why not mandate abortions for drug addled/brain damaged fetuses? And why not death to the mothers for this vicious crime?
3. I have never understood how regulating commerce “among” the states somehow got to activity conducted entirely within a state. Sometime this notion is a very bright line that is enforced, and other times not. If you grow local weed and consume it, where is the instate commerce? And so forth. Nothing is ever as it is supposed to be.
#21
If the Federal government has the authority to regulate the subjects you mentioned, then they can be altered via a treaty. Universal health care and social security are both examples, IMO, of something that the Federal should not in fact have authority to regulate and thus it makes sense to say that they should not be affected by treaty. Environmental protection has already been affected by many treaties. Whaling comes to mind as does Missouri v. Holland. Atomic energy has also been affected by treaty numerous times. Think arms talks and above ground testing. Yes, it is true that treaties can be abandoned by Joint sessions just as Constitutional Amendments can be overridden by other Amendments. However, you must admit that it is much tougher to amend a treaty than it is to pass a new law that corrects a mistake from the past.
#23
Treaties are sort of like standard laws. Where they differ greatly is in their ability to afford the Federal government additional powers merely by vote of the Senate. Read up on Missouri v. Holland. Another, albeit not great example, revolves around income taxes. The anti-income tax folks argue that the only way the Federal government is authorized to collect income taxes, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution and in which that restriction is specifically stated by the Supreme Court to not be altered by the 16th Amendment, is through treaty.
#24–Thomas==I did not know that. Thanks. I’ll read the case but wont post about it, at least for a few days. Seems “wrong” somehow?
Keep the good stuff coming.
In doing some research on this (instead of work), I discovered Read v. Covert has modified my position somewhat. Not *all* powers can be amended by treaty. In Reid v. Covert, the Court ruled that treaties cannot override individual liberties.
Although this next quote is clearly wrong:
All rights not given to the Federal government are given to the States so clearly some powers can be conferred to the Federal government via the supremacy clause and apparently drug laws do not qualify as individual liberties.
#26–Thomas==ok, STOP! Now I gotta read two cases!! Sounds suspiciously like my original uniformed opinion might be pretty close though?
And yea, not much mystery here–you have a privacy right on what you expel from your body, but no privacy right as to what you put in it–be it food, sex organs, dead animals, or whatever==unless you thought ahead and made it part of your religion.
And relevantly, there is this Bush fellow claiming he can enter treaties all by his lonesome self as commander in chief. It should be illegal that you can pay for what ever legal opinion you want??
Stop the good stuff, while I catch up==unless you change your mind?
Well, that was easier than I thought. Before slogging thru what I assume will be difficult reads, I like to go to wikipedia to get a simplified, and only sometimes wrong, intro to the case. In this instance, I will go no farther than wikipedia:
http://tinyurl.com/3dl2wg
Thomas–you misunderstand, or misremember the relevant holding in Missouri v. Holland:
Holding
Treaties made by the federal government are supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states’ rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.
So–the issue of the Feds creating rights not already granted in the Constitution is not raised at all==unless in dicta, but I’d rather watch Beavis and Butt-Head than do that scut work==unless you confirm you are right and wiki is wrong?
In Missouri v Holland, the Court held that the US government can override the States using treaties as long as it can deem the States “individually incompetent.” Conveniently for the Court, there was nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibited the Federal government from acting on the bird migrations. That, IMO is a logic flaw. If the only restriction is that a right must explicitly be prohibited in the Constitution, then almost any right can be acquired by the Federal government through a treaty. The Federal government can basically ignore Tenth Amendment (as if that has not happened already).
In Reid v. Covert (I originally misspelled ‘Reid’), the court simply stated that the government could not use treaties to override individual liberties. Reading both decisions, it is clear that the Reid decision was simply and extension of the Missouri decision in that abrogation of individual liberties *are* specifically prohibited.
That brings us back to the drug laws. From where does the Federal government get the authority to regulate drugs? It is certainly not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with interstate commerce. So, where? The answer is that the Federal government used the treaty system to acquire a power it was never given nor should it have.
Thomas–I guess I’ll give both cases a read as I am interested in the drug laws because I am interested in privacy. There must be dozens of cases on point contesting the constitutionality of the federal drug laws and I’ll try to find 1-2 of those as well. I may not be able to do this without going to the local law library to access Nexis.
I take your characterization as accurate, though compared to wikipedia you have shifted the burdens. –ie–Missouri v Holland said the States could not invalidate the Federal Law that was based on a Treaty, BUT could have been regulated by Congress to begin with? Its a small step, but still a step, to rephrase this as an affirmative power on the part of the Feds–but seems rational in this case. You did conclude with the relevant point though–how did a treaty invade the privacy rights of drug users?
Its a small dithering point that for some reason I find interesting nonetheless.
“Bad for civil liberties for the mother, good for the kid.”
“Ahhh…. The real reason: it’s a first step toward banning legal abortions.”
Call it what you will, but I think this is a Freudian slip on the part of the author. It’s either a kid that you can’t kill, or a fetus that you can’t. You can’t have it both ways.