A Catch-22 situation. Bad for civil liberties for the mother, good for the kid. Note that the article below requires you to register to read it. This one does not.

Measure forces care on pregnant, meth-hooked women

Pregnant women who are addicted to methamphetamine could be taken into custody and involuntarily held in treatment programs if a new state initiative is approved.

The Senate Judiciary Committee took the first steps toward approving SB 1500 Monday, mandating that state Child Protective Services workers go to court if they know or have reasonable grounds to believe a mother-to-be is using meth and is not getting voluntary treatment.
Critics of the proposal are concerned that Gorman is trying to give the measure some teeth by extending the definition of what now constitutes “child abuse” to fetuses.

Or as the other article puts it, “The bill also creates the crime of child abuse against a fetus.”

Ahhh…. The real reason: it’s a first step toward banning legal abortions.

  1. Brandon says:

    “Bad for civil liberties for the mother, good for the kid.”

    “Ahhh…. The real reason: it’s a first step toward banning legal abortions.”

    Call it what you will, but I think this is a Freudian slip on the part of the author. It’s either a kid that you can’t kill, or a fetus that you can’t. You can’t have it both ways.

  2. Thomas says:

    Sheepishly, I admit that I enjoy reading many of these case primarily because of their affect on civil liberties. As if that is not enough Missouri v. Holland was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    Missouri v. Holland was an intriguing case both for the case itself and for the implications. What made the Missouri case so pivotal is that Congress had earlier tried to regulate the migration of birds through a normal law and it was held as unconstitutional by the Courts specifically on the grounds that the Constitution did not explicitly grant any such powers and therefore belonged to the States. Thus, the treaty was seen as an end-run around the Constitution. There was quite a fight in the 1950’s over treaty power.

    Theoretically, the issue was put to rest by a series of rulings that limited the effect of treaties including Reid v. Covert. However a court ruling, even a Supreme Court ruling, is far different than an explicit law or Amendment as was clearly the case when the drug laws were passed (which was after both of the above cases.)

  3. bobbo says:

    #32–Thomas==so, what you are really saying is “more than 2 cases will have to be read?” Well, seems worth the effort–thanks for the roadmap.

    #31–While the Right to Life group incessantly tries to muddy the legal issues by using incorrect terminology, it still remains only a little inconsistent, but understandable, that while you can abort a fetus, you can’t abuse a fetus===just like we treat our cattle. And yes, these protect the fetus type statutes would help move to an anti-abortion position, but they make good sense standing alone as well.

  4. Mister Catshit says:


    Good posts. After your Missouri post I was ready to hit you with Reid, but you corrected it first.

    Just to clarify a comment you made. The Federal Government assumes power over drugs through the Pure Food and Drug Act and all the subsequent laws. Since the initial slaughter houses were engaged in interstate commerce, as were the drug companies, the Feds have authority. In my opinion, it makes sense for one large agency to oversee drugs instead of a company having to please 50 agencies that can’t afford to investigate. Can you imagine the patchwork of safety as one State allows drug “A” but neighboring states don’t and only one of them has access to check on the manufacturer’s cleanliness and the drug’s purity.

    While the Constitution does not grant an absolute right for the Feds to make drug laws, Common Law grants them the authority to make laws for the public health and safety.


    There are other cases but it is generally held through Reid that treaties may not trump individual rights. As I pointed out earlier, the Government may take your land through treaty, but they must still compensate you for it.

  5. diana king says:

    We need to protect all life,and life as we know begins as we know begins in the womb, and methamphetamine will probably not help that cause so I welcome the move.
    Diana King
    Addiction Recovery Arizona


Bad Behavior has blocked 20115 access attempts in the last 7 days.