Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I understand that drug addiction is an illness but I really don't feel bad for this woman. Maybe she can get clean in jail. My aunt was a NICU nurse and worked with too many inconsolable babies who were suffering, screaming and shaking from the symptoms of drug withdrawal. Her stories about these babies whom almost never had visitors and would often end up in foster care was heartbreaking.
I don’t particularly feel bad for her either, but the implications for this sentence are terrifying.
Anonymous wrote:I understand that drug addiction is an illness but I really don't feel bad for this woman. Maybe she can get clean in jail. My aunt was a NICU nurse and worked with too many inconsolable babies who were suffering, screaming and shaking from the symptoms of drug withdrawal. Her stories about these babies whom almost never had visitors and would often end up in foster care was heartbreaking.
Anonymous wrote:
This. A social worker who has worked in foster care, homeless and in other areas. Someone who is a serious addict isn't going to get scared straight like that and will not get clean until they are ready. Its a waste of prison resources.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And also this will make it so that women who do want substance abuse treatment while pregnant be scared to get it.
No it won't.
I am a social worker who has worked in addiction and yes, it will....
I am a prison administrator. No, it will not.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry not much sympathy. I was just pregnant. There were so many resources if you were a smoker, drug addict or alcoholic to get you sober. There were hotlines to call and lots of free resources. This baby shouldn’t have had to suffer. I’m very pro choice and she should have had an abortion.
She could have had an abortion. It would have been legal. So how does she get four years in jail for having the same end result as an abortion? I'll note that I'm not "very pro-choice". I'm very ambivalent in my feelings about it, but I prefer to live in a society where it is legal than one where it is not. I don't really understand how someone could call themselves "very pro choice" and not be horrified by this case.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get that people are freaked out but I also think there needs to be some common sense here. No, you shouldn’t do drugs while pregnant, because it can impact that child for the rest of their life. It shouldn’t be anything goes, and obviously there’s a big difference between eating sushi and doing meth.
FWIW, I think men should also be held accountable. Like if they expose a pregnant woman to an STD.
There is no child. There was a miscarriage. There is no evidence that the miscarriage was due to her drug use. The medical examiner did not declare her drug use to be a cause.
THIS. The bold. The district attorney assigned a cause of death. The medical examiner did NOT say the drug use was the cause of the miscarriage but did say that other factors like genetic anomaly could have been causes. Yet the district attorney is declaring this woman's drug use murdered the child.
People should be "freaked out," PP above, that a lawyer is acting as if he or she has the right to determine a cause of death and then press charges based on that. We should freak out that it's somehow OK for a medical examiner to be overridden in the way that it's happened here. Because, precedent. And if you all think that "Well, she was a drug abuser, and I'm not, so, whatever...." you are extremely short-sighted indeed. Are you really fine with the idea of medical examiners' conclusions being brushed aside like this?
Anonymous wrote:I am so freaking glad I am done being fertile.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get that people are freaked out but I also think there needs to be some common sense here. No, you shouldn’t do drugs while pregnant, because it can impact that child for the rest of their life. It shouldn’t be anything goes, and obviously there’s a big difference between eating sushi and doing meth.
FWIW, I think men should also be held accountable. Like if they expose a pregnant woman to an STD.
There is no child. There was a miscarriage. There is no evidence that the miscarriage was due to her drug use. The medical examiner did not declare her drug use to be a cause.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And also this will make it so that women who do want substance abuse treatment while pregnant be scared to get it.
No it won't.
I am a social worker who has worked in addiction and yes, it will....
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And also this will make it so that women who do want substance abuse treatment while pregnant be scared to get it.
No it won't.
Anonymous wrote:I get that people are freaked out but I also think there needs to be some common sense here. No, you shouldn’t do drugs while pregnant, because it can impact that child for the rest of their life. It shouldn’t be anything goes, and obviously there’s a big difference between eating sushi and doing meth.
FWIW, I think men should also be held accountable. Like if they expose a pregnant woman to an STD.
Anonymous wrote:I get that people are freaked out but I also think there needs to be some common sense here. No, you shouldn’t do drugs while pregnant, because it can impact that child for the rest of their life. It shouldn’t be anything goes, and obviously there’s a big difference between eating sushi and doing meth.
FWIW, I think men should also be held accountable. Like if they expose a pregnant woman to an STD.