2 votes

Pregnant Woman Detained For Violating 'Fetal Protection' Law (Anti-Choice Big Brother Blueprint)

"Alicia Beltran cried with fear and disbelief when county sheriffs surrounded her home on July 18 and took her in handcuffs to a holding cell.

She was 14 weeks pregnant and thought she had done the right thing when, at a prenatal checkup, she described a pill addiction the previous year and said she had ended it on her own — something later verified by a urine test. But now an apparently skeptical doctor and a social worker accused her of endangering her unborn child because she had refused to accept their order to start on an anti-addiction drug."

Update: I have edited the title for accuracy. As someone who is Pro-Life for myself and pro-choice for everyone else, i did not want to lump myself in with the authoritarian Anti-Choice crowd that championed this law.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is like Amish Girl Flees US to Avoid Forced Chemo

SHARE THIS STORY! FUNDRAISER TOO.

This is huge!! Please share -- there is a fundraiser to help family to come back to the U.S. http://wp.me/pZzqp-1YI

!Early in October 2103, the entire nation heard about how Sarah Hershberger, a 10-year old Ohio Amish girl with leukemia (now recovered), is being forced into a two-year unproven experimental chemotherapy study by Akron Children’s Hospital (ACH). It was just learned the parents, Andy and Anna Hershberger, took their significantly recovered daughter out of the United States before the court ruled that a hospital-affiliated, attorney-nurse, Maria Schimer, was made the medical guardian to make sure Sarah will get her treatments. Parents reported this week the child is fully recovered through natural treatments. Schimer is General Counsel (chief legal advisor) for Northeast Ohio Medical University (NEOMED), a close affiliate and business partner of the hospital. The parents say they were never told their child was being used in a research study—among other things.Amish buggy

Although they do not know it yet, the hospital now has a big problem they must deal with. Sarah is completely recovered, as of October 23, according to Andy. The hospital told them and the news media that Sarah would die in a few months without the treatment they recommend. Three doctors that have treated her with a natural, biochemical protocol using nutrition, supplements and plant extracts have declared Sarah cancer free based on cat scans and blood tests—confirmed three times. more http://wp.me/pZzqp-1YI

This has nothing to do with being ProAbort or ProLife

I could see if the Wisconsin law put her in jail for blowing her unborn chikd's head apart at an abortion (death) clinic, but it's the Gov. forcing her on meds while she is pregnant and that is unacceptable and crazy.

The supreme right is the right to exist once being created, all other rights are meaningless without this supreme right.

Drug-free pregnant woman forced to take anti-addiction... DRUGS

I just can't get over this story. It shows so many things wrong on so many levels. For one, how could the woman's NO DRUG USE = SEVERE DRUG USE. A test PROVED that she was drug free - a test she shouldn't have had to take in the first place! Brought into court in shackles... G-r-r. Let this be a warning to women about being FORTHRIGHT with their physicians.

Here's a NY Times article on the subject. It notes that "Wisconsin is one of four states, along with Minnesota, Oklahoma and South Dakota, with laws specifically granting authorities the power to confine pregnant women..." (There are some interesting comments.) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/us/case-explores-rights-of...

"The law is intended “to help both the woman and her baby,” said Susan Armacost, the legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life, whose group lobbied hard for the measure." Apparently there have been hundreds of such cases.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Stupid law

This is an example how the state is not a solution to what ails us. Pro-lifers should know this by now. This over-kill by intrusive state laws and LEO extremism will lead to more abortions having one will not result with you cuffed in a holding cell. You don't want to punish people for doing the right thing. You don't want to force people to ingest drugs against there will. What goes around, comes around. If they can force you to take a drug against drug addiction, they can force you to take seratonin uptake inhibitors. Big Pharma would love that. As to alternative solution: Make prenatal care contigent on staying clean.

Vickie

This has nothing to do with pro life.

And your title just taints the whole story with liberal bias.

yes you're kinda right

i have changed the title to more accurately reflect the situation.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
#standwithrand

Thanks

That is better and I believe more accurate. We are fighting control freaks and the control freak is not confined to any certain political or social philosophy.

:-)

The government should just

The government should just stay out of every bodies lives. They have proven they can't make a difference.

I'm also asking

Why that title? Pro-life statists? I don't know anyone who is pro-life that would demand a woman take drugs she doesn't want. Maybe you should talk to pro-lifers a bit more and expand your narrow view.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

yes you're right

title update with explanation.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
#standwithrand

If I was her, I'd have had an abortion

The minute the social worker showed up, I'd tell them the fetus would be terminated if I ever saw or heard from that doctor or any social worker ever again.

This is such an abominable outrage.

The issue is not a pro-life problem, it is a nanny state extremism problem and child protection racket problem. But pro-life advocates are the ones who pushed this law on Wisconsin. Nanny-statism promoted by either liberals or conservatives are equally evil.

The group Wisconsin Right to Life claims that incarcerating pregnant women is good for "both the woman and her baby." Wisconsin Right to Life is a pack of insane Constitution-hating freaks.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

But what about the children born

addicted to drugs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eP5EnFSG0c

Where do you send a pregnant addict for help? I don't agree with the forced detainment, either, but it's no use whining about Nanny-statism if we can't offer a viable solution.

I see this as part of an over-all degeneration of morals and values in our society. Pro-lifers are dedicated to protecting the most innocent of lives, unfortunately, they used the state to get what they wanted instead of setting up a voluntary, private organization to deal with the issue. I don't have a solution and it's apparent the pro-lifers don't either otherwise they wouldn't have run to the state in the first place. But I'm not going to excoriate anyone who wants to protect life and this thread seems to be geared to do so.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Yep, what would they have

Yep, what would they have said then? Abortion, even late term is not illegal in all places.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

This is *not* a "pro-life" statist problem (but +1 anyway)

What it is: a right wing, Big Pharma statist problem! Many pro-life people would be as incensed as you are about forced drugging of a pregnant woman. I am, and hold both pro life and anti- Big Pharma as my positions on the issue.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Liberal mindset

pro life people want to chain you up until you have a baby. Seriously they really believe this.

Maybe they should look at the fact that it used to be illegal for a doctor to disclose patient information, but oboma care made it the law for the doctors to disclose private information.

Or the fact the the drug war screws everybody.

Or the likely hood that the judge gets a kick back from the faculty he sent the girl too.

Nope pro life people want to chain pregnant women up until they have their baby.

I am pretty sure pro life people like myself have made it clear we would rather go after the abortionist than the pregnant women. But I guess its good business for them to just say pro life people want to chain up pregnant women, so have an abortion today and give the abortionist 400 dollars. Bring a friend. Support the feminist cause. Stupid.

Confusing

Very confusing post.

Of course!

If he fetus has a right to life, then the mother may be poked, prodded, drugged, chained, imprisoned,...whatever is necessary according to the 'protectors' of the fetus...until birth.

If the woman owns her own body, then she can smoke, take pills (or not), drink, be a vegan, carry to term or abort...whatever she wants...because it's her body.

Make your choice, folks. Either the fetus owns the mother, or the mother owns herself.

I'm with the mother.

Nobody owns anyone

Nobody "owns" anyone else. We are interdependent. Every one is dependent on other people to bring the into the world, raise them, educate help them when they are sick and to bury them. No one should be killed because they are in a dependent state. However, police state tactics are not the solution to prevent this from happening. I totally agree that the woman should not have been imprisoned for this. It violates her dignity and also what goes around comes around.

Vickie

what about all the hormonal changes that happen BECAUSE

she's pregnant? She has no control over those. Can she control the nausea if she gets that? Or the mood swings if she gets that? Can she control the food cravings or new food hates? Can she control the fact that she will be growing an entirely new organ, the placenta? Can she control the fact that her body will produce the hormone relaxin making all her bones loose?
All of these things and more are caused because she is carrying a new life. Unfortunately, most, like you, do not understand the sanctity of that life and that there are responsibilities that go hand in hand with being pregnant. A woman's body forces changes on her that she has no control over and any woman with a bit of common sense and virtue, yeah, I used that word, would moderate her lifestyle accordingly for the duration of her pregnancy. I'm not saying she should be forced to do so, or forced to take drugs, but by not being responsible as far as eating well - which is done entirely for herself, by the way, the baby will take all the nutrition it needs from her leaving her short - it exposes the self-ceneredness and irresponsibility of that woman.
Ask any woman who's been pregnant and she will more than likely tell you that their body wasn't exactly hers during that time. I knew women who felt honored to be able to have a child and who would do everything possible to safeguard their unborn child from harm. This one girl even stopped dying her hair, which I thought strange, but to each their own. Maybe if you spoke with women more you would know these things.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Please see my note, below

See "You're not dealing with my point."

Your point is 'love is selfish'?

Why should anyone 'deal' with that insane concept?

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

My point is you can't have it both ways

Either the fetus (or an authority speaking for the fetus) controls the woman's body, or the woman controls her own body. Each choice has it's own logical conclusions.

By arguing that the state of Wisconsin cannot rightfully force a woman to take pills that a medical authority has determined are in the best interest of the fetus, you are accepting the woman's right to her own body and dismissing the fetus' claim.

However, when you argue that the woman may not expel the fetus, you are accepting the idea that the woman's use of her own body is secondary to the fetus' use or some authority's preference, thereby supporting the State of Wisconsin's contention.

Let me repeat an often missed point: the right of a woman to her own body includes the right to expel portions of it, AND the right to refuse to take pills the authorities demand she take. The right to choose goes both ways. If she loses the right to choose, she loses all rights to her body, including the right NOT to take meds she does not want to take.

And, yes, love is intensely personal and therefore perfectly selfish. I understand that 'selfish' may sound like it is uncaring, mean spirited, even brutal, but in reality it merely refers to one's own desires...the happiness of others can be a very selfish goal if that is what brings you satisfaction. Unselfish caring, on the other hand, can be brutal (they don't like you much, but they are giving you money, food, meds, prison time, etc., for your own good, and they have no 'selfish' stake in their 'good' deeds because they literally don't care.)

you're arguing away personal responsibility

The woman was in full possession of her body when she decided to do the deed - with or without contaception. She knew the consequences of her actions. Hit-baby Miss-no baby Then, all of a sudden, she regrets her actions and now, because our morals and values have so deteriorated, that human life carried within a woman is considered a parasite, leech, unworthy. You cannot say abortion is not murder, not with what we now know about the development of human life within the womb.

I also find your use of the word 'fetus' very telling. You refuse to accept that it's a human life, a baby. When you put your hand on a woman's buldging midsection and feel that little unborn child kicking, do you still refer to that baby as a 'fetus'? Many women can feel the child moving even before they begin to show. The baby is alive and can feel and is a part of his/her mother, not a separate, foreign entity. I don't accept your tricky use of language.

And I don't accept your new definition of 'selfish'. Selfish means concerned mostly or exclusively about oneself and denotes an disregard of others' concerns. 'Intensely personal' has an entirely differently connotation. Making things up to 'prove' your point is a game I'm not interested in playing.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Please try to keep it non-personal

1. Again, you need to reconcile the contradiction of advocating that the state should control a woman's body to prevent her from having an abortion with the argument that the state should not control the woman's body to prevent her from making decisions that, according to medical authorities, could result in the death of the fetus.
2. I use the word "fetus" to designate an unborn human being. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. Selfish has different connotations to different people, and I made clear what I meant by selfish. If you can't grasp what I am saying about my use of the term 'selfish,' then I will seem a monster to you and there isn't much I can do to dissuade you from your impression.
4. I don't make things up.

We have differing views on the subject of self-ownership and it's implications. I get that. I don't mind exploring those differences and trading views, hopefully with the end result that one or both of us changes some elements of our thoughts. However, I don't think we can have a reasonable conversation when you believe I am being 'tricky,' or playing a 'game.' Such language tells me that you don't believe I am sincere or that I am dishonest. If that is so, then there is no basis for discussion.

don't accuse me of things I have not said

1. Where did I write that the state should control a woman's body to prevent her from having an abortion? I never did. But woman should be made well aware of the consequences of their actions and be prepared to deal with those consequenses. Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control.

2. Do you use the word "fetus" to make abortion sound less immoral and somehow virtuous? Isn't it less damaging to the psyche to say you aborted a fetus rather than saying you killed a baby? Words matter.

3. No. Selfish has a specific meaning. I don't see how wanting your child to be the best he/she can be as being selfish. Find another word.
4. Words already have definitions. Sustainable used to be a good word until the UN changed its meaning to communism with its 'sustainable development' program. I now have a hard time using that word because I don't want to mislead anyone. Changing the meanings of words to suit one's way of thinking is something I see progressives do often. There are many words out there, one to suit what you want to express but you use 'selfish' for a concept in your head that leaves me unable to understand your point. That is not my shortcoming but yours for not being able to find the word to use to express your ideas.

Are our views really so different? Only if you want to substitute abortion for murder so you can put a stamp of approval on murder.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I apologize

I inferred, perhaps unfairly, that you advocated making abortion illegal. If you have not, then much of our debate is moot.

Webster and the Oxford dictionary seem to agree with you concerning the term "selfish." However, in common usage, 'selfish' is often used to describe people whose only preference is to keep what is theirs, as in "the businessman was selfish for keeping his profits instead of giving them to the government for the good of society", or "it is selfish to buy a bigger house when so many people are homeless." So, I believe the dictionary definitions do not reflect the full range of connotations that are in common usage.

Nevertheless, you are correct that my use of the term 'selfish' may be misleading. I have heard the term "rational selfishness" used to describe the connotation I was using, but I'm not so sure that will help you.

For the record, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. I will strongly advise a woman not to abort for moral and practical reasons, but I will also strongly defend her right to make her own decision.

False

I'm with both, and hope people will do good in all circumstances. You present a false choice, it doesn't have to be the way you're painting it. People own themselves and the baby is a person, so he has rights as well, he can't make choices for himself in the womb so we have to hope the mother will make good choices for him. Should we force her to make good choices for him? No I don't think so, but we can hope she will and we can be sure she doesn't steal his RIGHT to live. The same right she has and the same right you have. If she kills him, should we punish her. Oh yeah, absolutely, and the doctor involved and the horse they road in on.

If you think about it I think you'll see I'm right and I hope moderate your view, because it's definitely not the either or that you present. So don't play the divide and conquer game. We both know as liberty people that that is a tactic of lesser groups. Let's unite under the logical cause of liberty and natural law.

rothbard disagrees

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
#standwithrand

Rothbard is wrong

Science says from the very first second the Child has its own genetic code, it is an individual, period.

Unless that child

Unless that child that is it's own individual, period, because it has its own genetic code, divides into two clumps of undifferentiated cells that develop separately in the womb. Then that child that had its own genetic code and was it's own individual, period, turns out to be two children, that share the same genetic code, and are two separate individual human beings, period period. Identical twins.