Missouri court ruling

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Missouri court ruling
3
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:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/44C922F5E9E467438625735C0015612B?OpenDocument

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).

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2007
Mon, 09-24-2007 - 9:38pm
I didn't read the article that you linked us to, but just from what you said, isn't that more an issue of behavior in a pregnant state, rather than a pre-pregnant state?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Mon, 09-24-2007 - 9:42pm
Yes - in these instances. I feel it's related to the discussion on the other thread because laws affecting the way that women known to be pregnant may behave must lead into laws that will affect the way that women who are potentially pregnant may behave. A classic slippery slope in both directions! Sorry I didn't make that clear!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2007
Tue, 09-25-2007 - 4:08pm

"are those of you posters who are against enforcing the ideal pre-pregnant state on all women by law still unwavering? "


Short answer?

*************************************************

"You're cute. I like you."

"What you se