Unless, of course, they are pregnant. In which case they are liable to be arrested for drinking, or doing drugs, or doing anything else (legal or not) that someone thinks might endanger their pregnancies.
And "Personhood" laws are making this even worse, with such august bodies as the Alabama State Supreme Court ruling that the word "child" in state laws applies to the pre-born, and thus upholding the conviction of two women for using drugs while pregnant.
If that were the only case, it might be just some random zaniness from the Deep South. But this article refers to dozens of cases, each more appalling than the last, of women treated as incubators, robbed of their medical rights, and arrested and imprisoned for actions that someone thought endangered their unborn child.
Don't get me wrong — I think there are all sorts of behaviors that are probably ill-advised in pregnancy. But to put the state (or nosy parker local law enforcement and judges) in charge of a woman's medical judgement (poor or not) means that women are being treated as children, at best, dependents who cannot be trusted to behave wisely, make decisions about their own bodies, even their own pregnancies. Women will be thrown in jail, or committed to institutions, if someone thinks they had a few too many drinks, or maybe did some sort of "risky" sport, or perhaps drove a car during rush hour, or went to a "bad" part of town, or maybe aren't eating right, or smoke, or …
And for "will be", read "have been".
Appalling. And it's getting worse.
(h/t +Wendy Cockcroft
Reshared post from +Pamela Zuppo
“Personhood” and the Punishment of All American Women. The New Jane Doe Laws
Well..we are talking about one of the most fucked-up, backward states in the nation – Alabama, but this crazy evangelical shit spreads like a horrific disease. I'm going to start pushing to have all sperm under state law.
Did you know that last week a pregnant woman in Memphis was arrested and charged with DUI and “child endangerment” even though passed a test and had no children in her car. She is four months pregnant, however. Whose issue is this? In general, people don’t like thinking women have “issues” unless they’re personal. Individuals, however, are not responsible for the protection of women’s rights. “We” are.
Which is why this is the right time to take a moment to say happy new year and congratulations to Alabama! On Friday of last week, in what one media report called “the most important affirmation of the personhood of the pre-born child since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision,” the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the word “child” applies to the pre-born. Because, while we occupied ourselves over the weekend, I’m pretty sure the American Organization of Pre-Modern Pater Familias had a party! The ruling upheld the convictions of Hope Ankrom and Amanda Kimbrough, both of whom were prosecuted for using drugs while they were pregnant. As I’ve written about before, there are hundreds of women similarly prosecuted, arrested, charged and imprisoned. And, it bears saying again, despite what we know about sperm, toxicity and fetal harm, we have yet to see men’s rights and liberties infringed on in similar fashion in order to “protect” life or men from themselves. When a fetus is a “child” does it get a “guardian” as suggested in Arizona? Tax credits, as was sought by Michigan conservatives? Paul Ryan and his personhood party have keep writing “sanctity of life” legislation that means rapists can stop their victims from seeking abortions. That means that a rapist can lay claim to her body, against her will, a second time. Let that sink in because these are all threads of the same rope.
The Alabama Supreme Court just normalized “personhood” and created a precedent.
There are no laws prohibiting pregnant women from smoking, drinking alcohol, or say, seeking drug addiction treatment. For, example, abortion is legal in Alabama. The Alabama legislature passed a law to stop people from taking children into meth labs. The Alabama Supreme Court decided that a “womb” is a regulated “environment.” This is a personhood measure, in which every aspect of a pregnancy can be monitored and controlled by the state, in disguise. We are witnessing the establishment of a separate but unequal system of law that applies to women. What Alabama just did was deprive women in that state of their full personhood. That’s what precedents like Alabama’s do. Women should not lose their civil rights when they conceive.
http://www.fem2pt0.com/2013/01/15/personhood-and-the-punishment-of-all-american-women/
We also need to talk about men who punch, shove, and kick pregnant women, as well as psychological warfare including name calling such as fat pig.
Embedded Link
“Personhood” and the Punishment of All American Women”Personhood” and the Punishment of All American Women
Did you know that last week a pregnant woman in Memphis was arrested and charged with DUI and “child endangerment” even though passed a test and had no children in her car. She is four months pregnant…
Google+: View post on Google+
Welcome to The Nanny States of America. The more power we give the govt., the more they're going to take.
And it's not going to matter if there's a "D" or an "R" in front of the name.
Autocracy is ugly regardless of the cause, +Mark Means, you are quite correct.
In this case, at least, it's the "R" types that are pushing this particular paternalism (call it the "Daddy State" instead). If the ostensibly Libertarian wing of the Republican Party were out there openly criticizing the theocrats behind these kind of laws, I'd be a lot more impressed by them.
I guess along with drug tests and alcohol tests…they are going to start doing pregnancy tests as well?
Yup. Unless they become required to register when they become preggers, under penalty of kidnapping and child endangerment.
While I would imagine this is coming from the same camp as no-abortion, it does present a different discussion point. Namely, with an abortion the child will not be born. If you drink/smoke/take drugs and intend to carry to term, then you affect a child.
If a child is born with mental or physical defects, and the doctors state ‘Its because the mother did x, y, z although she was warned in the clearest terms not to,” is it not conceivable that there should be some sanction. The manufactures of Thalidomide are involved in, or have settled a number of lawsuits worldwide precisely for causing birth defects. If a mother causes defects, should she be held responsible?
I understand your point, @LH, and it’s not a trivial one. One problem is that it’s an extremely slippery slope, prone to selective enforcement abuse as well as no bright line. For example, while chronic alcohol consumption will have ill effects on the fetus, an occasional drink or two doesn’t seem to (based on discussions with both my mom and mother-in-law). Some pregnant women will choose to completely abstain while pregnant, or after or before a certain point. Others will not.
Similarly, there’s a slippery line regarding post-birth health deficits due to actions by the parent. Starving a child is clearly abusive, but providing an unhealthy diet, or smoking in the household, etc., can have negative health effects.
Except in extreme cases, we tend instead to try to advise and counsel and socially set the appropriate expectations. It’s by no means a perfect system, but it’s also a system that also recognizes parental autonomy (both personal and as a parent) to make decisions about (directly or indirectly) themselves and their offspring.
I guess I’m a second class citizen again. Lovely.
Could I be prosecuted ex post facto for not having been properly diagnosed as bipolar, being overweight, and older (39 at conception) when we decided to try for a pregnancy? Oh, right–let’s not forget the GDM. I’m sure I should have known that would happen, by these trends.