The right wing agenda of the extremists is already in play. Donald Trump knows his base. Women are jailed because of fetal protection laws. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Where is everyone? Pretending this doesn't exist and it's precedent is very dangerous.
Sentencing a pregnant woman to drug rehab and a parole officer is safer for the fetus. Prison is no place for a pregnant woman.
April 22, 2016
By Janet Reitman
The anti-abortion movement (click here) is ramping up a new strategy: Sending pregnant mothers who have used drugs and alcohol to jail.
Tammy Loertscher had no idea that seeking a pregnancy test would ultimately put her in jail. That, though, is what happened last summer to the blond 29-year-old nursing aide from Medford, Wisconsin, who, after confirming her pregnancy at a local health clinic, admitted to her doctor that she'd recently stopped using methamphetamines and pot. According to a sworn statement she later filed in a civil suit, Loertscher had been struggling for more than a decade with a severe thyroid condition that, if untreated, left her lethargic and depressed. In February 2014, she quit her job during a bout of depression, which meant she could no longer afford the expensive blood tests doctors required to continue to prescribe her medication. To manage her worsening symptoms, she'd briefly self-medicated with meth and the occasional hit of weed to soothe her anxiety and give her some energy. It helped for a while, she says, "but ultimately the depression would take over and it just became a big cycle."...
I am quite certain a pregnant woman will lose the baby, once born and have a very difficult life with a jail sentence. That is what a woman gets for being honest with a concern for her baby in Wisconsin.
...Though she was not afforded legal representation, Loertscher's 14-week-old fetus was given a lawyer, known as a guardian ad litem. This court-appointed official represented the fetus's interests during two hearings that resulted in Loertscher being incarcerated for refusing to enter drug treatment. "It seemed so crazy — I was like, 'I'm not using anymore because I don't want to hurt my child!' " she recalls....
She stated she cleaned herself up and didn't need rehab. That statement needs to be reflected in a blood test. Where there is evidence there is still a drug testing positive the woman/girl needs to be in rehab until testing negative. But, to destroy her life is not a good idea.
She also needed medication for a thyroid disorder. Lacking appropriate hormones also effects the pregnancy. She needed support not prison. Single women are among the populations frequently found in poverty. There should have been referrals to social work as well as a parole officer that could follow her blood work until she was clear of all drug levels. Drugs don't necessarily clear out of the body simply because it was stopped.
She couldn't afford a lawyer, but, the fetus was assigned one. Amazing. This law acts in one direction and that is to treat the pregnant woman as incompetent and the baby as a harvest.
...Nonetheless, she spent 18 days in jail — including 24 hours in solitary confinement, according to her sworn statement. She says she was given no prenatal care. At one point, she alleges, a guard even threatened to taser her after she refused to submit to a urine test. Finally, she found a public defender who negotiated her release....
If she didn't want an abortion before her jailing, she'll want one while she is there.
May 14, 2012
By Adam Liptak
Sentencing a pregnant woman to drug rehab and a parole officer is safer for the fetus. Prison is no place for a pregnant woman.
April 22, 2016
By Janet Reitman
The anti-abortion movement (click here) is ramping up a new strategy: Sending pregnant mothers who have used drugs and alcohol to jail.
Tammy Loertscher had no idea that seeking a pregnancy test would ultimately put her in jail. That, though, is what happened last summer to the blond 29-year-old nursing aide from Medford, Wisconsin, who, after confirming her pregnancy at a local health clinic, admitted to her doctor that she'd recently stopped using methamphetamines and pot. According to a sworn statement she later filed in a civil suit, Loertscher had been struggling for more than a decade with a severe thyroid condition that, if untreated, left her lethargic and depressed. In February 2014, she quit her job during a bout of depression, which meant she could no longer afford the expensive blood tests doctors required to continue to prescribe her medication. To manage her worsening symptoms, she'd briefly self-medicated with meth and the occasional hit of weed to soothe her anxiety and give her some energy. It helped for a while, she says, "but ultimately the depression would take over and it just became a big cycle."...
I am quite certain a pregnant woman will lose the baby, once born and have a very difficult life with a jail sentence. That is what a woman gets for being honest with a concern for her baby in Wisconsin.
...Though she was not afforded legal representation, Loertscher's 14-week-old fetus was given a lawyer, known as a guardian ad litem. This court-appointed official represented the fetus's interests during two hearings that resulted in Loertscher being incarcerated for refusing to enter drug treatment. "It seemed so crazy — I was like, 'I'm not using anymore because I don't want to hurt my child!' " she recalls....
She stated she cleaned herself up and didn't need rehab. That statement needs to be reflected in a blood test. Where there is evidence there is still a drug testing positive the woman/girl needs to be in rehab until testing negative. But, to destroy her life is not a good idea.
She also needed medication for a thyroid disorder. Lacking appropriate hormones also effects the pregnancy. She needed support not prison. Single women are among the populations frequently found in poverty. There should have been referrals to social work as well as a parole officer that could follow her blood work until she was clear of all drug levels. Drugs don't necessarily clear out of the body simply because it was stopped.
She couldn't afford a lawyer, but, the fetus was assigned one. Amazing. This law acts in one direction and that is to treat the pregnant woman as incompetent and the baby as a harvest.
...Nonetheless, she spent 18 days in jail — including 24 hours in solitary confinement, according to her sworn statement. She says she was given no prenatal care. At one point, she alleges, a guard even threatened to taser her after she refused to submit to a urine test. Finally, she found a public defender who negotiated her release....
If she didn't want an abortion before her jailing, she'll want one while she is there.
May 14, 2012
By Adam Liptak
Washington— There have been many hundreds of varied rulings (click here) in the lower courts on when the use of Taser stun guns by the police amounts to excessive force, and sooner or later the Supreme Court
will have to bring order to this area of the law. Next week, the
justices are scheduled to decide whether to hear an appeal from three
Seattle police officers who say they are worried about the future of
what they call “a useful pain technique.”
The
case involves Malaika Brooks, who was seven months pregnant and driving
her 11-year-old son to school in Seattle when she was pulled over for
speeding. The police say she was going 32 miles per hour in a school
zone; the speed limit was 20....
Keep police away from confrontation when there is a simple traffic infraction. Why would a cop want a woman to step out of her car with her nine year old in it? The entire situation with the police is a disaster.
There are too much interaction written into the law. A person has a right to refuse to sign a citation if they believe they are not guilty. The cops and people should be interacting less over traffic infractions.
The average American is not a lawyer and cannot be expected to understand what comprises guilt and innocence. The average American dreads being stopped by police. That has been true for a long time, but, with the extremes that occur in the past few years, there is a fear of bodily harm or worse. They don't want to go to jail and should not be exposed to a police officer with the potential to escalate an interaction.
Americans have rights and it is called Due Process. In 2016 there are few Americans that do not fear police. There is something wrong and legislatures in states and federal government need to redirect to use technology to record a license plate and description and filling it with the police department without contact with the driver. If it is a stolen car the license will show up. If there is a different driver than the owner, I am sure the owner won't want to pay the ticket or have points on their license and will provide the person driving the vehicle at the time.
Technology is the undisputed facts in these cases and no one can say they weren't violating the law with the evidence it provides. There are too many problems between police and citizens to put them together in the same space over a simple traffic violation.
Keep police away from confrontation when there is a simple traffic infraction. Why would a cop want a woman to step out of her car with her nine year old in it? The entire situation with the police is a disaster.
There are too much interaction written into the law. A person has a right to refuse to sign a citation if they believe they are not guilty. The cops and people should be interacting less over traffic infractions.
The average American is not a lawyer and cannot be expected to understand what comprises guilt and innocence. The average American dreads being stopped by police. That has been true for a long time, but, with the extremes that occur in the past few years, there is a fear of bodily harm or worse. They don't want to go to jail and should not be exposed to a police officer with the potential to escalate an interaction.
Americans have rights and it is called Due Process. In 2016 there are few Americans that do not fear police. There is something wrong and legislatures in states and federal government need to redirect to use technology to record a license plate and description and filling it with the police department without contact with the driver. If it is a stolen car the license will show up. If there is a different driver than the owner, I am sure the owner won't want to pay the ticket or have points on their license and will provide the person driving the vehicle at the time.
Technology is the undisputed facts in these cases and no one can say they weren't violating the law with the evidence it provides. There are too many problems between police and citizens to put them together in the same space over a simple traffic violation.
...In
the months that followed, Ms. Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby girl;
was convicted of refusing to sign the ticket, a misdemeanor, but not of
resisting arrest; and sued the officers who three times caused her
intense pain and left her with permanent scars....
The infant was healthy at the time of birth, that doesn't mean the child was not effected by the three applications of a stun gun. This is an absolute outrage.
...The officers won a split decision
in October from a 10-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. The majority said the officers
had used excessive force but nonetheless could not be sued because the
law on the question was not clear in 2004, when the incident took place.
While the ruling left the three officers in the clear, it did put them
and their colleagues on notice that some future uses of Tasers would
cross a constitutional line and amount to excessive force....
...Michael
F. Williams, a lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis, which represents Ms.
Brooks, said the criminal justice system would endure even if the police
were barred from delivering thousands of volts of electricity into the
body of a pregnant woman who refused to sign a piece of paper.
“The
officers are trying to defend inexcusable conduct,” he said. “They
inflicted enormous pain on a woman who was especially vulnerable over
what was essentially a traffic violation.”
Demands to sign a piece of paper is unconstitutional and can be interpreted as a sign of guilt.
