On what grounds do they make a case against DUIs? How many of these guys are just unrepentant alcoholics?
Intoxication is criminal in a public space, though the law is rarely enforced. Smoking is widely prohibited in many public spaces. A pregnant woman’s body contains her and her unborn child, a stranger to her. Has this become a public space with regards to her intoxication?
A new mother mixes vodka with the baby formula in clear sight of a social worker. Failing to immediately separate that child from that parent could conceivably reflect criminal negligence on the part of authorities. Are there currently any prohibitions on spending your pregnancy falling-down drunk?
As far as the practicality of restricting drug and alcohol use during pregnancy, one hypothetical method could be an ‘ignition interlock’ for pregnant mothers. At random intervals throughout the day, the interlock beeps and the mother has to blow clean. If she comes up intoxicated, it notifies her ob/gyn or her social worker or whoever it is and an institutional process begins, the culmination of which is confinement to a hospital bed. It’s extremely intrusive, and probably quite expensive, but it could also reflect the knowledge that a mother’s decisions directly affect two individuals while she’s pregnant. Just floating this out here, I don’t have a patent pending on a wireless breathalyzer.
Is being old an activity? I can’t imagine legislating around good-faith accidents that result in fetal injury, but yeah, if you keep sparring at kickboxing classes into the third trimester then maybe there should be some follow-up on that.
The folks at Reason may be crazy, but that doesn’t mean they’re drunk.
Intoxication is criminal in a public space, though the law is rarely enforced. Smoking is widely prohibited in many public spaces. A pregnant woman’s body contains her and her unborn child, a stranger to her. Has this become a public space with regards to her intoxication?
Of course not. For one thing, by definition a public space is accessible to everyone.
A new mother mixes vodka with the baby formula in clear sight of a social worker. Failing to immediately separate that child from that parent could conceivably reflect criminal negligence on the part of authorities.
Baby formula and vodka? What is that, a new cocktail recipe? How about this: what criminal charges would apply if that new mother gave her child some Nyquil, which contains up to 10% alcohol?
Are there currently any prohibitions on spending your pregnancy falling-down drunk?
I hope not.
As far as the practicality of restricting drug and alcohol use during pregnancy, one hypothetical method could be an ‘ignition interlock’ for pregnant mothers. At random intervals throughout the day, the interlock beeps and the mother has to blow clean.
That scenario could be a real money-maker for Planned Parenthood!
Incidentally, there is a small amount of data suggesting that alcohol use by the father before conception can lead to birth defects. How about we force guys to “blow clean” before they have sex? I can already imagine where the “ignition interlock” might go.
Is being old an activity? I can’t imagine legislating around good-faith accidents that result in fetal injury
Hey, if you’re gonna force pregnant women to blow clean at random intervals throughout their pregnancy in the name of preventing birth defects, mandatory tubal ligation at age 40 isn’t too much more to ask.
Jesus H. Christ. I haven’t had any alcohol during my pregnancy and I can tell you that if the great crime of getting pregnant invited that level of government interference in my life, I would have never have gotten pregnant.
Rise, thread! There’s a solid article today over at the Bulwark on the topic:
Solid article addressing how making abortion unnecessary is more effective than trying to legislate it away. Particularly noteworthy: more accessible healthcare, comprehensive sex education, improved economic and domestic situations for women. Support for improving those things will be much more effective than another pro-life march.
I find the pro-life/choice debate to be a good litmus test for whether someone is actually interested in improving society, or just blindly following political or religious dogma. “Values voters” who happily cast their ballot for leaders who reject policies like those above are just trying to punish people they don’t agree with, not actually change things for the better.
Agreed - I’m sick of criticism of abortion without simultaneous support of all the measures that have been proven to reduce it. No one likes abortions so let’s do everything in our power to make them as unnecessary as possible, while retaining their availability in case everything else fails. That should be the pro-life stance for everyone.
I think that is great, and I would hope a lot of the more religious people would think of this solution as the ultimate way to combat abortion. Create a society with better sex education, more help for young mothers, and better options so that even if you had a choice, you would choose to keep the baby.
But, that runs against the outrage culture of most evangelical churches, so probably not going to win a lot of people over.
I am pro choice, but like most pro choice people, I would like to live in a world in which women don’t have to make that choice because all pregnancies are planned by the women before hand.
Sex Ed and free contraceptives can help make that reality.
My thoughts on this aren’t exactly clear - not on abortion rights, but what i’m about to say - but i’m no longer 100% convinced that pregnancy is or can be always some kind of planned life experience that always arrives at just the right time.
I was shook (as the kids say) a little bit when i read an NHS report a few years ago that something like 50% of all pregnancies in the UK were unplanned. The crazy long term implication of that is that in a world where 100% of pregnancies are planned, there are close to only 1 child being born per female; which implies, long term, human beings will die out. Which implies that unplanned pregnancies are necessary for the human species.
I know, I know.
Anyway, it made me wonder if for some women this is too much of a burden. Maybe some relatively large portion of women are unable to or find it undesirable to be forced to live so deliberately. Maybe pregnancy is just “something that happens” during the mysterious experiences of women’s lives, like the seasons and the storms, and that we should be emphasizing more giving women the tools to deal with pregnancy on a societal wide level than spending so much time and effort (on both political sides) forcing this issue into one about personal choice.
I have zero issue outing this kind of extreme hypocrite. If you’ve had or assisted someone else to have an abortion, you’ve forfeited your right to righteously condemn others who may have, or wish to have the option.
I will push back against that in all contexts (meaning not just on the abortion debate); I understand the sentiment and hypocrisy can be called out, but there’s also a possibility of change in a person.
I don’t know if that is a good litmus test. I didn’t know what Hall was, so went looking. 44 other states signed onto agree with the decision. (CA, IL, IN, MO, NH, NM, NY failed to join the amicus)
Whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979),
which permits a sovereign State to be haled into another
State’s courts without its consent, should be overruled.
