Missouri court ruling
Find a Conversation
|Mon, 09-24-2007 - 7:35pm|
Hmm. I'll start out by saying that I personally think this woman's actions are embarrassingly wrong. But the court case is so relevent to recent discussion that I have to post the news clip:
A woman in Missouri recently tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana when she was admitted to a hospital to deliver her baby. The court ruled that she couldn't be charged with child endangerment for actions taken prior to the birth. The ruling may affect a similar case in which a woman was determined to have drunk so much alcohol during her pregnancy that the resulting infant died shortly after birth.
Here's the judge's language:
"Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care."
and the news article:
What this proves to me is that no matter how we write the laws, there are going to be individuals who act in accordance with that law in a way that is legal but nauseating, and so the question is - what is the least of all evils?
Keeping these two women in mind, are those of you posters who are against enforcing the ideal pre-pregnant state on all women by law still unwavering? Please post!
(I am, but I am really big into trying to stare truth in the face without flinching - learning about humane slaughter of food animals and searching out humane-treatment labels is what allows me to incude meat in my diet on occaision).