Study shows casualties of GOP's War On Women

[Terralthra]

On Tuesday, January 15th, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law will publish our study, “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973-2005: Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health.” This study makes clear that post-Roe anti-choice and “pro-life” measures are being used to do more than limit access to abortion; they are providing the basis for arresting women, locking them up, and forcing them to submit to medical interventions, including surgery. The cases documented in our study through 2005, as well as more recent cases, make clear that 40 years after Roe v. Wade was decided, far more is at stake than abortion or women’s reproductive rights. Pregnant women face attacks on virtually every right associated with constitutional personhood, including the very basic right to physical liberty.

Our study identified 413 criminal and civil cases involving the arrests, detentions, and equivalent deprivations of pregnant women’s physical liberty that occurred between 1973 (when Roe v. Wade was decided) and 2005. Because many cases are not reported publicly, we know that this is a substantial under count. Furthermore, new data collection indicates that at least 250 such interventions have taken place since 2005.

In almost all of the cases we identified, the arrests and other actions would not have happened but for the fact that the woman was pregnant at the time of the alleged violation of law. And, in almost every case we identified, the person who initiated the action had no direct legal authority for doing so. No state legislature has passed a law that holds women legally liable for the outcome of their pregnancies. No state legislature has passed a law making it a crime for a pregnant woman to continue her pregnancy to term in spite of a drug or alcohol problem. No state has passed a law exempting pregnant women from the protections of the state and federal constitution. And, under Roe v. Wade, abortion remains legal.

Yet, since 1973, many states have passed feticide measures and laws restricting access to safe abortion care that, like so-called “personhood” measures, encourage state actors to treat eggs, embryos, and fetuses as if they are legally separate from the pregnant woman. We found that these laws have been used as the basis for a disturbing range of punitive state actions in every region of the country and against women of every race, though disproportionately against women in the South, low-income women and African-American women.

Women have been arrested while still pregnant, taken straight from the hospital in handcuffs, and sometimes shackled around the waist and at the ankles. Pregnant women have been held under house arrest and incarcerated in jails and prisons. Pregnant women have been held in locked psychiatric wards, as well as in hospitals and in drug treatment programs under 24-hour guard. They have been forced to undergo intimate medical exams and blood transfusions over their religious objections. Women have been forced to submit to cesarean surgery. They have been arrested shortly after giving birth while dressed only in hospital gowns. And, despite claims by some anti-choice activists that women themselves will not be arrested if abortion is re-criminalized, women who have ended their pregnancies and had abortions are already being arrested.

Consider the following:

• A woman in Utah gave birth to twins. When one was stillborn, she was arrested and charged with criminal homicide based on the claim that her decision to delay cesarean surgery was the cause of the stillbirth.
• After a hearing that lasted less than a day, a court issued an order requiring a critically-ill pregnant woman in Washington, D.C. to undergo cesarean surgery over her objections. Neither she nor her baby survived.
• A judge in Ohio kept a woman imprisoned to prevent her from having an abortion.
• A woman in Oregon who did not comply with a doctor’s recommendation to have additional testing for gestational diabetes was subjected to involuntary civil commitment. During her detention, the additional testing was never performed.
• A Louisiana woman was charged with murder and spent approximately a year in jail before her counsel was able to show that what was deemed a murder of a fetus or newborn was actually a miscarriage that resulted from medication given to her by a health care provider.
• In Texas, a pregnant woman who sometimes smoked marijuana to ease nausea and boost her appetite gave birth to healthy twins. She was arrested for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor.
• A doctor in Wisconsin had concerns about a woman’s plans to have her birth attended by a midwife. As a result, a civil court order of protective custody for the woman’s fetus was obtained. The order authorized the sheriff’s department to take the woman into custody, transport her to a hospital, and subject her to involuntary testing and medical treatment.

As disturbing as our findings are, this study also provides a basis for building a shared public health and political agenda that includes all pregnant women. The current public debate overwhelmingly focuses on the issue of abortion and interference with one kind of right: the right to end an unwanted and untenable pregnancy. This study, however, confirms that if passed, so called “personhood” measures would: 1) provide the basis for arresting pregnant women who have abortions; and 2) provide state actors with the authority to subject all pregnant women to surveillance, arrest, incarceration, and other deprivations of liberty whether women seek to end a pregnancy or not.

Furthermore, the study demonstrates that there is no way to add fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses to state constitutions or to the United States Constitution without removing all pregnant women from the community of constitutional persons. These measures create a “Jane Crow” system of law, establishing a separate and unequal status for all pregnant women and disproportionately punishing African-American and low-income women.

For example, last week, a Tennessee woman who had been in a car accident was tested to see if she had been driving under the influence of alcohol. According to local press, her blood alcohol content was well below the legal limit. Nevertheless, because she told a police officer that she was four months pregnant, she was arrested and taken to jail. Tennessee apparently recognizes a special crime reserved just for pregnant women: driving while not intoxicated.

We are confident that most people in the United States, regardless of their views on abortion, do not want to see pregnant women subjected to a separate and unequal system of law as a result of “pro-life” measures. To that end, we call for a culture of life that values all women, including those who give birth to that life, and recommend:

• The rejection of “personhood” measures;
• A moratorium on new feticide laws and a fair and open inquiry into whether such laws—passed with the promise of protecting pregnant women and fetuses—have actually reduced violence against pregnant women or rather increased legal surveillance of women;
• That health care providers ensure that pregnant women are afforded the same confidentiality, respect, and dignity extended to other patients;
• That lawmakers adopt policies that promote women’s health and remove barriers to family planning and contraceptive services, abortion services, birthing options, and effective and humane drug treatment, and address the stark racial and economic inequalities that are perpetuated by the United States war on drugs and our system of mass incarceration;
• Finally, we call upon legislative authorities and others to affirm the personhood of pregnant women, ensuring that upon becoming pregnant and through all stages of pregnancy, labor, and delivery, women retain their civil and human rights.

Bolding mine.

[Alferd Packer]

We are confident that most people in the United States, regardless of their views on abortion, do not want to see pregnant women subjected to a separate and unequal system of law as a result of “pro-life” measures.

I'm not. The thesis, "there should be no such thing as consequence-free fucking (for women)" is so deeply entrenched in so many members of our society that these horror stories, rather than an aberration, are the natural outcome of policy derived from people who wholly support that thesis.

[CJvR]

I thought Washington and Oregon was more civilized than that.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In almost all of the cases we identified, the arrests and other actions would not have happened but for the fact that the woman was pregnant at the time of the alleged violation of law.

How exactly did they determine this?

For example, last week, a Tennessee woman who had been in a car accident was tested to see if she had been driving under the influence of alcohol. According to local press, her blood alcohol content was well below the legal limit. Nevertheless, because she told a police officer that she was four months pregnant, she was arrested and taken to jail. Tennessee apparently recognizes a special crime reserved just for pregnant women: driving while not intoxicated.

According to this, in Tennessee it is a Class A misdemeanor for child abuse when a woman drinks while knowingly pregnant. I don't have the time or energy to go look at all the other cases they use as "proof," but their blatant misrepresentation of this incident is pretty damning. Not only did they overlook the fact that the cops acted legally, but that last sentence, driving while not intoxicated, herpdederp is almost unbearably smug.

[Terralthra]

In almost all of the cases we identified, the arrests and other actions would not have happened but for the fact that the woman was pregnant at the time of the alleged violation of law.

How exactly did they determine this?

Their study is linked in the article. Maybe you should try reading it.

For example, last week, a Tennessee woman who had been in a car accident was tested to see if she had been driving under the influence of alcohol. According to local press, her blood alcohol content was well below the legal limit. Nevertheless, because she told a police officer that she was four months pregnant, she was arrested and taken to jail. Tennessee apparently recognizes a special crime reserved just for pregnant women: driving while not intoxicated.

According to this, in Tennessee it is a Class A misdemeanor for child abuse when a woman drinks while knowingly pregnant. I don't have the time or energy to go look at all the other cases they use as "proof," but their blatant misrepresentation of this incident is pretty damning. Not only did they overlook the fact that the cops acted legally, but that last sentence, driving while not intoxicated, herpdederp is almost unbearably smug.

They didn't misrepresent anything. She was in an accident. She was given a breathalyzer to determine if she was intoxicated. She was not. Had she said nothing about being pregnant, she'd have been free to go; only because she said something about being pregnant was she arrested for consuming a legal substance in legal amounts.

Your article (and you) also misrepresented Tennessee law. House Bill 1413 from 1997 does not criminalize drinking while pregnant, it requires places which sell alcohol to post a sign indicating that drinking while pregnant can cause birth defects.

The only thing she could've been arrested for is TN Code, Title 39, Chapter 15, Part 4, Section 401c(1), which makes it a misdemeanor if "A parent or custodian of a child eight (8) years of age or less commits child endangerment who knowingly exposes such child to or knowingly fails to protect such child from abuse or neglect resulting in physical injury to the child." There was no child. There was a fetus. That's the whole crux of this issue, that because fetuses are being treated as people by law, women are suddenly second-class citizens when pregnant, not given basic control over their own bodies.

[Dominus Atheos]

I thought Washington and Oregon was more civilized than that.

It was Washington DC, and I don't really understand what the issue is with the oregon woman.

A woman in Oregon who did not comply with a doctor’s recommendation to have additional testing for gestational diabetes was subjected to involuntary civil commitment. During her detention, the additional testing was never performed.

I don't even know what to make of that. Gestational diabetes isn't that serious an issue, and looking it up on google, it doesn't seem that dangerous to the fetus, only possibly causing hypoglycemia for a few days after birth.

My guess is that she was committed for other issues?

Edit: Apparently the hypoglycemia is the biggest risk when the condition is managed, but according to the NIH untreated, it can cause s "slightly increased risk of the baby dying when the mother has untreated gestational diabetes. Controlling blood sugar levels reduces this risk."

[AniThyng]

There was no child. There was a fetus. That's the whole crux of this issue, that because fetuses are being treated as people by law, women are suddenly second-class citizens when pregnant, not given basic control over their own bodies.

Does intent matter? If the woman knew she was pregnant and intends to carry the baby to term, and given that negative effects on the fetus do carry forward to the resulting baby and the adult that would come into age 18 years hence, how does this differ from authorities taking action against parents who neglect or mistreat an infant?

If someone is pregnant by choice, doesn't it become an imperative responsibility to accept that one is in fact now has to give up some "basic control of ones body" for the sake of the fetus?

And if one is not pregnant by choice and was denied an abortion to remedy that, eh, well. Yeah. Problem there.

[PeZook]

Edit: Apparently the hypoglycemia is the biggest risk when the condition is managed, but according to the NIH untreated, it can cause s "slightly increased risk of the baby dying when the mother has untreated gestational diabetes. Controlling blood sugar levels reduces this risk."

Obviously this slight risk has to be corrected by arresting the mother, because I'm sure conditions in jail are going to help the fetus stay healthy!

That's the problem, I think. Treating future mothers as criminals for doing things that might, conceivably, maybe, have a small chance of affecting the fetus, and bringing down the entire weight of the law enforcement apparatus on their heads, including arrests, hand and ankle cuffs, prosecution, jail time, etc.

It would be like police storming a home because the mother smokes in the same building as her small children, arresting her, throwing her in prison and comitting the children to foster care. Which surely fixes the problem, right? RIGHT? The kids will be well cared for now! The vile criminal is in prison and will never threaten any other child with a chance of developing cancer or bad disgusting habits!

What happened to the state HELPING the mothers? Educating them in what the should or should not do while pregnant? Providing prenatal care? Do American lawmakers really think involving the police is the correct answer to every single fucking social problem?

[CJvR]

What happened to the state HELPING the mothers? Educating them in what the should or should not do while pregnant?

There are two problems for the "modern" Republican right there.
Helping someone = socialism.
Education = Godlessness.
Much better to just throw people in jail - and profitable too if you buy stocks in the prison industry.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Civil Commitment in this case is just a 72-hour hold period that can be ordered by almost any kind of mental health professional, CJvR. Because of how easy it is to send someone in for one, it carries no legal consequences, like restrictions on firearms ownership or possession, because it is not regarded as substantial proof of any kind of serious mental problems. The objective is to have a very easy way of getting someone off the streets who might be dangerous, that people cannot easily appeal, while also taking into account the fact that there is no due process with the hold, so there is no fair determination of one's actual status. Now, I think this process is frequently abused, but I suspect the only outcome of "reform" would be to cut mental health services even more.

Needless to say that for the truly insane, the 72-hour hold has become a revolving door sort of inefficient pseudocare.

It's the legal equivalent of being arrested and held during a period before you're taken to a judge, and in this case the doctor was the equivalent of an asshole cop that drags you in for arguing over your friend's transit gate hopping ticket.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They didn't misrepresent anything. She was in an accident. She was given a breathalyzer to determine if she was intoxicated. She was not. Had she said nothing about being pregnant, she'd have been free to go; only because she said something about being pregnant was she arrested for consuming a legal substance in legal amounts.

There's another possibility here that you aren't considering.

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401. Emphasis is mine.

(1) Under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, controlled substance, controlled substance analogue, drug, substance affecting the central nervous system or combination thereof that impairs the driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle by depriving the driver of the clearness of mind and control of oneself which the driver would otherwise possess; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath is eight-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) or more.

Many states have this type of language in the their laws for drunk driving. It usually comes into play during accidents when a person has been determined to be at fault and/or fail the field sobriety tests and has consumed any substance that can impair. In other words. You do not have to be at or above a .08 to be arrested for drunk driving.

Here is the law in Utah for comparison.

(b) is under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or the combined influence of alcohol and any drug to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating a vehicle;

So, no it does not appear that she was singled out.

As for the rest of the OP. How do you determine when someone is at war with a group of people? We are looking at a period of 32 years involving at least 413 incidents and if we multiple that by ten we have 130 (rounded up) incidents per year across the entire country. 130 incidents out of roughly 6 million pregnancies per year. My experiences tell me there is a lot more to these stories and maybe some truth in there.

[Junghalli]

I find the weird intersectionality of patriarchy and modern scientific health consciousness here kind of interesting, I wonder what Straha would say about it.

Apparently we're seeing the emergence of a kind of technocratic sensibility that pregnant women should be subjected to state impositions on their lives in the name of health that wouldn't happen to other people because their body is no longer simply their own, it is somebody else's vessel.

[Terralthra]

They didn't misrepresent anything. She was in an accident. She was given a breathalyzer to determine if she was intoxicated. She was not. Had she said nothing about being pregnant, she'd have been free to go; only because she said something about being pregnant was she arrested for consuming a legal substance in legal amounts.

There's another possibility here that you aren't considering.

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401. Emphasis is mine.

(1) Under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, controlled substance, controlled substance analogue, drug, substance affecting the central nervous system or combination thereof that impairs the driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle by depriving the driver of the clearness of mind and control of oneself which the driver would otherwise possess; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath is eight-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) or more.

Many states have this type of language in the their laws for drunk driving. It usually comes into play during accidents when a person has been determined to be at fault and/or fail the field sobriety tests and has consumed any substance that can impair. In other words. You do not have to be at or above a .08 to be arrested for drunk driving.

Here is the law in Utah for comparison.

(b) is under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or the combined influence of alcohol and any drug to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating a vehicle;

So, no it does not appear that she was singled out.

Which would be great, except according to the study, she was charged with Child Endangerment. So, yeah, there goes that idea.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which would be great, except according to the study, she was charged with Child Endangerment. So, yeah, there goes that idea.

Well, the OP article should leave out phrases such as "driving while not intoxicated"
Note the section titled "Child Endangerment"

http://www.tn.gov/safety/duioutline.shtml#child

Also, could you cite the page in the study where it talks about the charges "Child Endangerment" is only on two pages and is talking in general terms and not specific incidents.

[Terralthra]

Which would be great, except according to the study, she was charged with Child Endangerment. So, yeah, there goes that idea.

Well, the OP article should leave out phrases such as "driving while not intoxicated"
Note the section titled "Child Endangerment"

http://www.tn.gov/safety/duioutline.shtml#child

Interesting, but that charge requires a child passenger, and further that said passenger be injured or killed. There was no child present, let alone injured or killed.

Also, could you cite the page in the study where it talks about the charges "Child Endangerment" is only on two pages and is talking in general terms and not specific incidents.

My mistake. This particular case was not listed in the study because it occurred after the period they studied, since they cut it off at 2005 to be sure they captured how any judicial action ended. It's described in the following article:

MEMPHIS, TN -
(WMC-TV) - A Memphis woman is behind bars on a DUI and child endangerment charge even though she did not have a child in the car with her, and blood alcohol level was under the legal limit.

Maria Guerra was driving in a car by herself when she crashed on I-240 Sunday morning just south of Walnut Grove. Her blood alcohol content was only half the legal limit, yet, she is charged with DUI-child endangerment with a child under 18 because she told an officer she is four months pregnant.

Memphis police say Guerra smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on her feet, and had bloodshot eyes.

Tennessee Code 39-13-214 recognizes a "Viable Fetus as a Victim". The state will "…include a viable fetus of a human being, when any such terms refers to the victim of any act made criminal…"

In Tennessee, a viable fetus is a minimum of 24 weeks old. That is 5.5 months. Guerra told an officer she is four months pregnant.

Though her blood alcohol level was .045, just more than half of the legal limit, police say the DUI charge is at the officer's discretion.

Dell Russell of Mothers Against Drunk Driving knows the dangers.

"Once you start drinking, you make bad decisions. That was obviously a horrible decision," said Dell Russell, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Her husband died on his lawn when a drunk driver veered off the road. Russell says the mother-to-be took reckless to the next level.

"If you're going to drink while you're pregnant, that's horrible," said Russell. "That not only endangers you and your unborn child, but you and the innocent people on the street."

In addition to the DUI-child endangerment charge, Guerra is also charged with not having a driver's license, reckless driving, and public intoxication.

She is behind bars on a $5,000 bond. Guerra is due back in court January 9.

Emphasis mine.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Interesting, but that charge requires a child passenger, and further that said passenger be injured or killed. There was no child present, let alone injured or killed.

No, Child Endangerment is when you're DUI with a passenger under 13. If they are injured or killed it enhances the penalty.

That brings up my next question regarding the specifics here. Could it be that TN has a different definition regarding when fetus becomes a child. They may consider a child in the womb to still be a child in matters of criminal offenses.

Emphasis mine.

Dude. The answer is in the article.

"Tennessee Code 39-13-214 recognizes a "Viable Fetus as a Victim". The state will "…include a viable fetus of a human being, when any such terms refers to the victim of any act made criminal…""

Under Tennessee code her conduct does meet the elements for DUI - Child Endangerment

[Terralthra]

No, Child Endangerment is when you're DUI with a passenger under 13. If they are injured or killed it enhances the penalty.

It doesn't specify any penalty absent injury or death of a child passenger, and you're still dodging the point: there is no child passenger! There's a woman and a 4-month-old fetus.

That brings up my next question regarding the specifics here. Could it be that TN has a different definition regarding when fetus becomes a child. They may consider a child in the womb to still be a child in matters of criminal offenses.
[...]
"Tennessee Code 39-13-214 recognizes a "Viable Fetus as a Victim". The state will "…include a viable fetus of a human being, when any such terms refers to the victim of any act made criminal…""

Under Tennessee code her conduct does meet the elements for DUI - Child Endangerment

Ok, so does that mean you're agreeing with the central thesis of the OP, which said that laws allowing pre-term fetuses to be protected as people make pregnant women into second-class citizens? Laws like this are bullshit. That's kind of the point. Most of the people in the study were charged with an offense under some law; the study's point is that these laws are overly intrusive into the decisions of adult women on the sole basis that they are (or were, in some cases!) pregnant.

The earliest a fetus has ever survived pre-term birth is 21 weeks: 5 months. There was no viable fetus in the car. There was a pregnant woman who is being slapped with a child endangerment charge that is, even by the fucked-up laws of Tennessee which prioritize a fetus over the bodily integrity and agency of an adult woman, prima facie unjustifiable. If she was driving recklessly, fine. If she was driving drunk, fine. If she was driving without a license, fine. Charge her with those. Inventing additional charges because she was pregnant is, you know, wrong.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It doesn't specify any penalty absent injury or death of a child passenger, and you're still dodging the point: there is no child passenger! There's a woman and a 4-month-old fetus.

I think we've settled this but just in case I will respond as if we have not.

If you still think I'm dodging I just have to say that you're not comprehending the law.

The language in bold says "Child Endangerment - DUI with passenger under 13 years old" then lists enhancements in the bullet points. That's the language. She was arrested for DUI and because there was a fetus and in criminal matters the state considers a viable fetus as a victim. Therefore she was charged with Child Endangerment.

Here is further evidence if you need it. FYI - The language from either the state web page or LexisNexis could out of date though. The language found in LexisNexis under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-403 states;

(B) (i) If a person is convicted of a violation of § 55-10-401 (DUI LAW) and the trier of fact finds that, at the time of the offense, the person was accompanied by a child under eighteen (18) years of age, the person's sentence shall be enhanced by a mandatory minimum period of incarceration of thirty (30) days and a mandatory minimum fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). The incarceration enhancement shall be served in addition to, and at the conclusion of, any period of incarceration received for the violation of § 55-10-401. The fine enhancement shall be in addition to any fine imposed for the violation of § 55-10-401.

So, under 18 not 13.

Ok, so does that mean you're agreeing with the central thesis of the OP, which said that laws allowing pre-term fetuses to be protected as people make pregnant women into second-class citizens? Laws like this are bullshit. That's kind of the point. Most of the people in the study were charged with an offense under some law; the study's point is that these laws are overly intrusive into the decisions of adult women on the sole basis that they are (or were, in some cases!) pregnant.

Are you saying that mothers are not responsible for the health of their child until no longer considered a fetus. So, basically until no longer considered a fetus you think mothers should be able to engage in harmful behavior?

The earliest a fetus has ever survived pre-term birth is 21 weeks: 5 months. There was no viable fetus in the car. There was a pregnant woman who is being slapped with a child endangerment charge that is, even by the fucked-up laws of Tennessee which prioritize a fetus over the bodily integrity and agency of an adult woman, prima facie unjustifiable. If she was driving recklessly, fine. If she was driving drunk, fine. If she was driving without a license, fine. Charge her with those. Inventing additional charges because she was pregnant is, you know, wrong.

Inventing charges? They didn't invent anything, Terralthra. Viable fetus are considered victims in criminal matters, see 39-13-214. She could be charged with DUI under Tennessee law, see my previous posts and the quoted statutes. She could be charged with Child Endangerment because the elements exist. again see my posts and quoted statues.

She choose to consume alcohol to such a degree that she was unable to operate a motor vehicle safety while pregnant.

If you have evidence that she was taking substantial steps to terminate the pregnancy then I'll be on your side but until then you're wrong and yes I do support these types of laws. If someone intends on carrying a child to term then they need to be responsible and held to a certain standard.

[Terralthra]

It's like you ignored what I said, KS. 4 months is not a viable fetus. It's a full 4-5 weeks short of the youngest fetus ever delivered to survive, and 8 weeks short of 50/50 viability.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's like you ignored what I said, KS. 4 months is not a viable fetus. It's a full 4-5 weeks short of the youngest fetus ever delivered to survive, and 8 weeks short of 50/50 viability.

Ah I apologize, that must have been annoying. I'm not wrong though only because Tennessee updated their code to include embryo. Your article is quoting the language that was on the books prior to July 2012.

EDIT - I took a closer look at 39-13-214 because it ended with "act made criminal by this part". This language is found in the sections labeled "Criminal Homicide" and "Offenses Against the Person". I need to read further in to see if it is included as part of child endangerment.

39-13-214. "Another" and "another person" to include fetus of a human being.

(a) For the purposes of this part, "another" and "another person" include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by this part.

You ignored my question though. Say that Tennessee did not update their code and the language was still viable fetus. Should a pregnant person, that has knowledge she is pregnant, have no responsibility until the embryo becomes a viable fetus?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Under the Child Abuse, Neglect, Endangerment section; A violation of this section may be a lesser included offense of any kind of homicide, statutory assault, or sexual offense, (The Offense Against Persons Section) if the victim is a child and the evidence supports a charge under this section. In any case in which conduct violating this section also constitutes assault, the conduct may be prosecuted under this section or under § 39-13-101 or § 39-13-102, or both.

It will be interesting to see what happens in court.

[AniThyng]

I find the weird intersectionality of patriarchy and modern scientific health consciousness here kind of interesting, I wonder what Straha would say about it.

Apparently we're seeing the emergence of a kind of technocratic sensibility that pregnant women should be subjected to state impositions on their lives in the name of health that wouldn't happen to other people because their body is no longer simply their own, it is somebody else's vessel.

I am genuinely curious about the ethics surrounding these issues and how you balance this - especially since we accept that neglect of a born infant is something that is worth state (or other relevant external party) intervention, and it is biological reality that a embryo becomes a fetus that becomes a born infant if time is allowed to run its course.

[PeZook]

You ignored my question though. Say that Tennessee did not update their code and the language was still viable fetus. Should a pregnant person, that has knowledge she is pregnant, have no responsibility until the embryo becomes a viable fetus?

Problem is, this is not an exact science. Thirty years ago doctors would allow pregnant women to drink a glass of wine every once in a while ; Two hundred years ago pregnant women would consume beer for breakfast. People were still born and the increased risks were only noticed after we began doing actual science on the matter.

So if you define "has tiny amount of alcohol in her breath" as child abuse and throw the lead brick of the law at her, you are almost certainly endangering the child-to-be more than if you just let the mother have the goddamned glass of wine every two weeks. It is a very narrow definition of responsibility backed by the rather clumsy tool of state repression, a thing that would be analogous to holding people responsible (via arrests and trials) for not adhering 100% to accepted scientific consensus on any other potentially harmful issue. Did you handle someone water in a bottle that contains BPA? Is your store's air conditioner being sterilized every week? Do you use antibacterial soap in your restrooms? No? Handcuffs for you!

That approach solves no problems and causes plenty.

[PeZook]

I am genuinely curious about the ethics surrounding these issues and how you balance this - especially since we accept that neglect of a born infant is something that is worth state (or other relevant external party) intervention, and it is biological reality that a embryo becomes a fetus that becomes a born infant if time is allowed to run its course.

Even in cases of neglect the state doesn't (well, okay, shouldn't - I don't know how it acts in the US) immediately go from "nothing" to "arrest and try the mother". Where I live, there's an entire intermediate apparatus which aims to first, determine the causes for apparent neglect (like material hardship, lack of education or time) and address them, then monitor the situation to see if things improve or not, and the response becomes gradually heavier if it doesn't.

When we had our boy, we had a couple visits from a nurse who gave us a few tips on how to best care for him, filed a report about the conditions etc, and every couple years we're supposed to check in to a doc to monitor for problems. But if we're three months late for the checkup, we won't get arrested - it's just not that big a deal.

It's nowhere near "There was a half empty bottle of wine on the table, arrest the mother immediately". The negative reinforcement are administrative fines, not police and arrest.

[AniThyng]

I am genuinely curious about the ethics surrounding these issues and how you balance this - especially since we accept that neglect of a born infant is something that is worth state (or other relevant external party) intervention, and it is biological reality that a embryo becomes a fetus that becomes a born infant if time is allowed to run its course.

Even in cases of neglect the state doesn't (well, okay, shouldn't - I don't know how it acts in the US) immediately go from "nothing" to "arrest and try the mother". Where I live, there's an entire intermediate apparatus which aims to first, determine the causes for apparent neglect (like material hardship, lack of education or time) and address them, then monitor the situation to see if things improve or not, and the response becomes gradually heavier if it doesn't.

When we had our boy, we had a couple visits from a nurse who gave us a few tips on how to best care for him, filed a report about the conditions etc, and every couple years we're supposed to check in to a doc to monitor for problems. But if we're three months late for the checkup, we won't get arrested - it's just not that big a deal.

It's nowhere near "There was a half empty bottle of wine on the table, arrest the mother immediately". The negative reinforcement are administrative fines, not police and arrest.

To be more clear definitely throwing people in jail is a ridiculous approach even if you think the state does have a vested interest in it, so that's not quite the issue I want to discuss.