Jivin J’s Life Links 5-18-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- New Mexico Right to Life wants its name removed from a billboard (click photo to enlarge) posted by a man upset that his former girlfriend possibly had an abortion without telling him. In the billboard he uses the name of his former girlfriend as the name of his unofficial organization:
The billboard depicts an Alamogordo businessman, GEFNET owner Greg A. Fultz, holding what appears to be an outlined baby in his arms as he is looking down at it. Next to the picture, in large print, is the statement, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!”
- Angel Dillard (pictured left) has filed a counterclaim against the Justice Department, claiming their lawsuit against her affected her free speech and religious rights:
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sued Dillard under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.The government’s lawsuit seeks a court order permanently prohibiting Dillard from contacting [abortionist Mila] Means or coming within 250 feet of the doctor, her home, car or business. It also seeks damages of $5,000 for the doctor and a penalty of $15,000.
In her counterclaim, Dillard claims the government’s conduct has intimidated and interfered with her First Amendment right to worship where she chooses because her church is located less than 250 feet from Means’ office.
Dillard is seeking attorney fees, court costs, statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, as well as punitive damages to deter the government and its agents from further alleged violations of constitutional rights.
- A woman in California is under arrest after trying to kill her 6-week-old daughter. The article reveals that she previously killed an unborn child by using meth:According to authorities, this isn’t the first time [Danielle] Mailloux has harmed one of her children. In 2009, the death of her 39-week-old, 7 pound fetus was ruled a homicide by the Coroner’s office.“Homicide to us simply means that someone else caused the child’s death,” said Commander Dennis Smithson, Kern County Coroner’s Office. “It wasn’t natural cause, it wasn’t an accident, someone did something to the child that caused the death.”
Smithson says that “someone” was Mailloux and that “something” was drug use. “A toxicology report was done and the baby came back positive for a high level of methamphetamine.”
But, under CA law authorities cannot criminally prosecute the mother for this type of death.
With regards to murder, the law says it shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: the act was solicited, aided, abetted or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
“She can abuse her body and in that way abuse the body of the fetus,” said District Attorney Lisa Green. “In that way there are no consequences under the law for those kinds of acts, at least in the state of California.
The 6-week-old girl was taken to Children’s Hospital Central California in stable condition on Sunday. The hospital would not release any information on her condition.
KGET.com has a video report:
[Sign photo via Alamogordo Daily News; Dillard photo via stamfordadvocate.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
But, under CA law authorities cannot criminally prosecute the mother for this type of death. With regards to murder, the law says it shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: the act was solicited, aided, abetted or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
This is what happens when liberals are in charge.
So Jasper, should state governments set up another government entity to monitor pregnant women to see if they’re not endangering their fetuses. If it’s found that they’re smoking and drinking, should the state then take custody of the fetuses. And while you’re accusing liberals of being negligent, what are the laws regarding this type of situation in conservative states?
“So Jasper, should state governments set up another government entity to monitor pregnant women to see if they’re not endangering their fetuses. ”
No, they didn’t do that pre- Roe V Wade either. We don’t monitor mother to see if their killing their newboorns.
“If it’s found that they’re smoking and drinking, should the state then take custody of the fetuses.”
No, but it shouldn’t be legal to get trashed while pregnant.
“And while you’re accusing liberals of being negligent, what are the laws regarding this type of situation in conservative states?”
I don’t all the laws in conservative states, but here is Kentuckys, 10 years in prison for snorting cociane while pregnant..
lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/feb/10021601
The law should prosecute pregnant women who do drugs and smoke/drink alcohol the same way it would prosecute someone who forces anyone to take drugs/drink alcohol/smoke against their will.
See, I’m pro-“choice”. You are free to choose whatever you want to do to YOUR BODY (you’ll answer to Jesus later), but when it comes to another person’s body, your “rights” end and theirs begin! A mother who forces harmful substances on their pre-born baby is guilty of child-abuse, child-endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and whatever else the law can find to pin on her. That child is defenseless, totally dependent on his/her mother for support and protection, this is the most base and evil of betrayals, when a mother betrays the trust of her child and harms them intentionally.
And for CC, yeah. If it is found that a mother is abusing her pre-born child in this way she should go to treatment and rehab and be PT’d every week and if she violates ONCE she should go to prison for the duration of her pregnancy (plus at least the minimum sentences for abuse etc.) and lose custody at birth. There are many many many families on 2yr + long waiting lists (I know a few personally) ready and willing to take in and help a child recovering from their parent’s drug addiction or afflicted with life-long injuries caused by them.
There should be laws. And yes, they should extend to and include outlawing abortion on demand! Pre-Roe v Wade the woman had to go before a panel of physicians and a judge to obtain an abortion, still wrong, but at least the child had some semblance of a trial before their death sentence!
“This isn’t the first time she’s harmed one of her children.”
But I’ve heard prochoice people scream and yell at me literally all day and night that a fetus isn’t a child. Sounds like this reporter needs to be taken in for re-education.
Yep that’s it hippie, women must surrender their bodies to the greater power that is the fetus. Women come second, again.
“your “rights” end and theirs begin!” – every time I read this I just shake my head.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s a good idea to smoke, drink or do drugs during pregnancy but advocating legislation to control what an existent woman can and cannot do is the wrong approach.
Extant: Adj. in existence; still existing; not destroyed or lost
Reality, is a fetus in the womb extant? Would you agree that a fetus is a person who is being formed in the womb? Were you extant in the womb? Were you a person being formed when you were in the womb? If you survived a failed elective abortion and lived with significant disability would your think in retrospect the rights of your mother during pregnancy still trumped your rights whilst you were merely extant and developing in the womb? Is there a gradation to being extant or is it black/white one is extant Thank you for considering all these questions even if you don’t respond.
Just out of curiosity, ChristianHippie, do you also favor forcibly giving blood transfusions to pregnant women with religious objections to the procedure?
“person being formed” – you answered your own question AnnE.
Reality, I don’t think we need to take it as far as monitering agencies and perhaps legislating is the wrong approach, but when women abuse alcohol & use illegal drugs/abuse legal drugs during pregnancy, she’s not only affecting herself, but also her fetus (who has no choice), the same fetus who is affected during crucial developmental stages and is born a child addicted and with complications such as developmental delays. You see, this is not just a fetus we’re talking about, but a fetus who will become a born child with health complications as a result of the women’s behavior. A child who did not choose to be born addicted or with developmental delays. How do you explain to a child they s/he has developmental delays because of bodily autonomity(sp?) and it was mommy’s body and her right to use drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, after all, you were just a fetus. But rhetoric and point aside, I’m in favor of advocating pregnancy prevention for those with substance abuse/alcohol addiction, but also a focus on treatment and for those who are pregnant, perhaps ChristianHippie is on the right track, 1)Reach out to high-risk women ar low-income health clinics 2)When a woman is pregnant, assign a case worker (social worker) and mentor/sober-living parner and give them opportunities for community classes (parenting, GED classes, etc.) and one chance to get treatment and get clean or loose their child. Look, you know as well as I do that individuals with drug/alcohol addiction don’t make good parents and most won’t give up their addiction without a bottom line/consequences (hitting rock bottom) and treatment, and even then, there’s a risk of relapse, addiction is a life-long struggle.
Oops, duplicate, mobile browser issues (or rather signal issues). But that aside, I feel strongly about this issue Reality because I work in direct care with individuals with moderate to severe developmental disabilities and while there are different causes of disabilities, I’ve seen all too many kids negatively affected by drug/alcohol abuse and poor parenrting, but who are trying to make the most of their lives.
I fully agree that the consumption of cigarettes, alcohol and drugs during gestation is significantly less than sensible. As I said.
There are ways and means to alleviate the issue but some things are never perfect. Yes, these things have a negative impact but we didn’t produce a nation of cretins 40 years ago when a vast number of women smoked and drank during pregnancy. Other drugs are more deleterious of course, and they are also more harmful to the woman as well.
But I find it wrong to legislate to force someone into a situation such as hippie advocates, expecially with attitudes such as“your “rights” end and theirs begin!”
Lisa: “do you also favor forcibly giving blood transfusions to pregnant women with religious objections to the procedure?”
Good question. I don’t know myself what we’d do with some women who get pregnant…
If personhood were ever attributed to the unborn from conception, well hey – you talk about a can of worms being opened up… Where then do we draw the line as far as caring for the unborn? The woman’s rights would necessarily end quite “early” in the equation, then.
Again, Doug, look at Ireland. Do you see women being imprisoned during the course of their pregnancies “just in case” or some government official going around and issuing pregnancy tests to every woman on the street?
No.
They recognize the personhood of the unborn, yet none of the things you fetal foes envision ever comes to be.
Lauren, there are plenty of cases where women drink enough alcohol that it substantially affects the baby. Seems to me that a surprising amount of drug use can be gotten by with, but fetal-alcohol Syndrome is for real. This would be a real-world example.
On Ireland, I agree that to an extent they are as you say, but it’s limited. In 1992, the Republic of Ireland passed an amendment to the Constitution that established the right to travel, as with women wanting an abortion and going to England to get one. So, I don’t think we can say that personhood is actually considered to be there, per that.
Northern Ireland never accepted the more-liberal approach of the rest of the United Kingdom, which is pretty much “okay at 24 weeks or less,” but there too, women are allowed to travel to England or other European countries to have abortions. As far as I know, abortions are allowed for danger to the life of the pregnant woman, or for “long term or permanent risk to her physical or mental health.”
Some of you wonder what would happen to women if we legally recognized the personhood of the unborn. In India, apparently, two women have been put in jail because of legal recognition of the personhood of the already born. These two women killed their daughters to preserve the family honour. Now they are being persecuted by the state–no women’s rights for them!
“Killer moms jailed for honour killings in Uttar Pradesh” (May 15)
Doug:
There have been cases where hospitals have sought to force medical treatment on pregnant women for the sake of protecting the fetus. The case I was referring to above was the case of Darlene Brown, a Jehovah’s Witness who was forcibly given a blood transfusion for the sake of her fetus (the hospital obtained a court order giving it custody of the fetus after Ms. Brown and her husband repeatedly articulated their religious objection to blood transfusions). As I understand it the order was subsequently overturned, so it no longer stands as precedent, but the body of legal decisions on coercive medical treatment of pregnant women is not all in agreement:http://devel-drupal.law.csuohio.edu/currentstudents/studentorg/jlh/documents/gMiillerHoffman3.pdf.
Lisa
This is a little off thread but did you know they have actually done surgery on a man he was a Jehovah’s Witness, and I want to say he needed a kidney transplant, and because of his beliefs would not consider receiving anothers persons blood even if this should become necessary during surgery. So this Jewish hospital figures out how to accomplish this I want to say using his own blood. I’m not sure how they accomplished this but I thought it was amazing on their part that they had enough respect for his beliefs to find an alternative way so he could get his kidney without compromising his beliefs. And of course to figure out how to do this procedure was in and of itself amazing.It’s been a few years since I seen the documentary but I think with this type of surgery it’s just standard protocol that additional blood is used because of blood loss during surgery. I think I’m remembering it right. So this hospital bless there hearts goes beyond the extra mile and finds a solution for his dilema.
Hi, Myrtle.
I don’t know that particular case, but I think that hospitals will let people “bank” their own blood if the surgery is planned far enough in advance. I also don’t know if that’s an acceptable solution to everyone with a religious objection to blood transfusions, but it does seem like a good option for at least some people.
“But, under CA law authorities cannot criminally prosecute the mother for this type of death. With regards to murder, the law says it shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: the act was solicited, aided, abetted or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”
This is one of those things that I have never been able to wrap my mind around. Basically, if the child is wanted and someone kills it then it is homicide but if it is not wanted the killing of it is legal and protected. This is proof to me that the fetal lack of “personhood-humanness ” argument is 100% based on “want” instead of science. As I have said all along, if you want it it’s valuable and if you don’t it isn’t. How did we get so stupid?
Lisa
I need to do a little research maybe it was done without having to give him blood. I do know though that he was Jehovah’s Witness and the way they done the surgery it didn’t go against his beliefs. I think it was on LPB.
How about this way:
If one person pre-meditatedly murders another, why should we not hold them accountable?
or
If one person deliberately causes another person to injest harmful levels of drugs or alcohol, why should we not hold them accountable?
Don’t just jump into stories or case-studies of tragic situations resulting in the abuse of the unborn, emotionally painting so the listener will feeling sympathetic to the mother.
We’re talking about people here. That’s scientifc fact. Pro-choicers need to be able to lay a clear, concise, and consistent foundation for the line between the rights of all versus their belief that the pre-born have no, or fewer, rights.
Lisa
So it does exist it’s called bloodless surgery. Not all hospitals offer it but some do. And it is available for kidney transplants. Can you imagine.
Doug:
“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
-8the amendment of the Irish constitution.
Wow Ireland lol
You are going to hold up Ireland as a good example…. ok.
You mean Ireland where smacking your wife around is a national sport….
You mean Ireland where women just got the right to get a divorce by the 15th amendment “notice it’s way after the 8th” in 1996…
Yea I can see there are no down side to taking away women’s rights and handing them to fetuses….
You mean Ireland where smacking your wife around is a national sport….
Oh, how interesting. A racist comment.
No your right Kel that was a bit racist but let’s not pretend that Ireland has anything to teach the USA about women’s rights…
I apologize for any offence caused by my racist comment. It was written hastily and in bad taste.
@Lisa and whoever else is wondering about my personal opinion on this-
Women, during birth in a hospital, do tend to lose some rights during that “procedure” and I disagree with that (to a point). It mainly has to do with insurance and most OB’s mortal fear of being sued if God’s hand moves a way the parents don’t like.
But that goes back to the issue at hand and that is forgetting that there are at least TWO patients, or PEOPLE, involved in any birth. No one person’s right to live should trump anothers right to live. I stand by my comment “Your ‘rights’ end where another persons’ begin”. So yeah, if mom is threatened with death unless her pregnancy ends quickly (only eclampsia comes to mind and that is always near the end of pregnancy anyway) then baby loses their right to continue inside mom’s body, BUT NOT THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE, this condition is treated successfully everyday by simply birthing the baby ALIVE. The risks are weighed and everything is done to save BOTH lives, and if baby is preemie they get every moment they can inside the womb and then all the care available and necessary to LIVE outside it. And if refusing surgery will cost the baby their life, then yes, the docs are well within the right to get a court order and force a c-section (or blood transfusion) on mom. Because both lives matter!
A religious objection to life-saving treatment, when it involves a minor is a fuzzy issue I don’t need to go into here, but there is one thing that separates that issue from the issue at hand and that being, abortion, and that is in the first situation someone is fighting to SAVE a life, and with abortion (or drug use) someone is fighting to HARM or END a life. A very huge difference.
Lisa, very good example with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Regardless of abortion being legal or not, there are some tough questions about how far against the will of the pregnant woman society is willing to go.
Deanna: Basically, if the child is wanted and someone kills it then it is homicide but if it is not wanted the killing of it is legal and protected. This is proof to me that the fetal lack of “personhood-humanness ” argument is 100% based on “want” instead of science. As I have said all along, if you want it it’s valuable and if you don’t it isn’t.
Science does not pronounce on morality.