Abortion

[prpldrgnfr]

It's related, as it has to do with bodily autonomy. This woman *had* a drug problem, *which she kicked*. They were trying to get her back on a drug *she had already quit*. She was not abusing drugs while pregnant.

And I'm sorry, I don't like the idea of women smoking/drinking/doing drugs while pregnant, but *her* body, her *choice*. The law is to easy on them? Puh-leeze. Mommy is allowed to be stupid. Besides, where do you draw the line? Smoking and drinking, unhealthy as they are, is still legal. What if she doesn't eat healthily? All she drinks is soda? There are already laws against "street" drugs they can use, without bringing the fetus into it.

I do agree HIPPA was seriously violated, and wonder how that works with whatever stupid state law they're trying to bust her on.

Oh, and did you get as far as the part where petty much every single one of her constitutional rights were violated and she may possibly have her baby taken from her and her parental rights terminated?

Based on your posts I get the feeling that you're either playing Devil's advocate or actually believe that once a woman conceives, she's nothing more than a walking, talking incubator, and society/men/the law/the fetus/whoever have more rights over her body *then she does*.

Edited October 25, 2013 by prpldrgnfr

[whitebaron]

According to the article you linked, she DID take the substitute drugs at 11 weeks of gestation.

[prpldrgnfr]

She was weaning herself off of it at that point. She went to the doctor, admitted what she had done, they tested her, which came back positive. *All* they had to do was make note of it and continue testing at her regularly scheduled appointments. If the level is less each time that would prove the drug was working out of her system. When they did test her, the pregnancy was found to "be healthy and normal". She may not have even been aware she was pregnant for a month or more.

[Brite]

Healthy and normal. Everything seemed okay. Owait, she lost her job over it. Now she has to come up with another way to pay for her meds AND the doctor visits for her pregnancy. Way to go, state. Passed by democrats? Smh..

[Pokemonfan13]

According to the article you linked, she DID take the substitute drugs at 11 weeks of gestation.

And that substitute drug is the one they were badgering her to get back on.

 

"When asked to detail her medical history, Beltran admitted a past struggle with the painkiller Percocet. But that was all behind her, Beltran said: She had been taking Suboxone, a drug used to treat Percocet dependency."

 

"According to Beltran, the physician’s assistant recommended she renew her use of Suboxone under a doctor’s supervision. After Beltran declined, she said she was asked to take a drug test, which was negative for all substances except Suboxone.

 

Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran at home and told her that she needed to continue Suboxone treatment under the care of a physician, said Beltran, who again declined. Two days later, Beltran found police officers at her home, who arrested and handcuffed her."

[babybluefire]

This is a terrible precedent. What mother or women would ever give out details of her past or consider asking for help if this mother had the book thrown at her. What next? Say you are at a Christmas party and grabbing a glass of wine for a spouse or friend and someone sees that or takes a picture. Using "evidence" like that could hurt a women in the future.

 

 

Heck, one of my friends homecoming party's from the military was at a barn and grill, I was 8 months pregnant and the designated driver. There is a picture of me pregnant and carrying a pitcher of beer, a glass of water and a place of food. The water and food was for me, the beer for the table. Under the circumstances would these social workers come after me? The ultra healthy do everything perfect pregnant mom. Oh wait, I am mostly caucasion, married and not dirt poor. They may have left me be

[whitebaron]

You still don't get it, pf13.

 

withdrawal from sub CAN kill her baby, while staying on it or a replacement has not shown those effects at all. So not taking it anymore because or while she's pregnant is a very stupid decision.

 

Also, from what I have read, it is typical for US law that parents with drug problems (probably only if they want to keep it) have to be reported to child services. Since she has taken illegal medication, its impossible for them to check what else she had done in the first few weeks of her preganancy, even if she is clean at week 11/12.

 

Yes, some of the other stuff that happened was bad, but the mother risking her child? That's very bad.

[prairiecrow]

Yes, some of the other stuff that happened was bad, but the mother risking her child? That's very bad.

The government trampled all over the civil rights of the woman in question, in order to keep her pregnant.

 

In other words, the "right" of her fetus, which is only a potential life at best, trumped her actual life, and her rights as a free citizen of her country.

 

If you don't see the problem with that, I honestly don't know what else to say.

[whitebaron]

The government trampled all over the civil rights of the woman in question, in order to keep her pregnant.

 

In other words, the "right" of her fetus, which is only a potential life at best, trumped her actual life, and her rights as a free citizen of her country.

 

If you don't see the problem with that, I honestly don't know what else to say.

First off: She wanted to stay pregnant. So its not like they forced her to keep the baby.

secondly: she totally ignored her doctors, and went cold turkey on her medicine.

Thirdly, she also ignored social workers.

and finally: its not like the case was about her baby. It was all about her. She would have been in court anyway.

 

 

@purpledrgn: the best way to provoke miscarriage in case of drug abuse is to stop taking the drugs. Same goes for many medications, once the unborn is used to it, its best to keep them on low dosage. That article states nowhere that her levels were low.

[Pokemonfan13]

She didn't go cold turkey, she weaned herself off. Big difference.

[Obscure_Trash]

First off: She wanted to stay pregnant. So its not like they forced her to keep the baby.

secondly: she totally ignored her doctors, and went cold turkey on her medicine.

Thirdly, she also ignored social workers.

and finally: its not like the case was about her baby. It was all about her. She would have been in court anyway.

She didn't go cold turkey.

 

Lacking health insurance and unable to afford the medication, Beltran had used an acquaintance’s prescription and self-administered the drug in decreasing doses. She had taken her last dose a few days before her prenatal visit.

 

She made a financially responsible decision. As far as I can tell, it was never made clear to her that making her own decisions would result in arrest.

 

According to Beltran, the physician’s assistant recommended she renew her use of Suboxone under a doctor’s supervision. After Beltran declined, she said she was asked to take a drug test, which was negative for all substances except Suboxone.

 

Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran at home and told her that she needed to continue Suboxone treatment under the care of a physician, said Beltran, who again declined.

 

“Alicia had no idea she was giving information to the physician’s assistant that would ultimately be used against her in a court of law,” said Linda Vanden Heuvel of Germantown, Wis., one of Beltran’s attorneys.

 

Furthermore:

 

Her pregnancy was found to be healthy and normal,

 

So she wasn't even putting her fetus in danger.

 

See also:

 

There is evidence indicating that women who fear criminal charges or other state intervention are less likely to seek medical care or be honest with their doctors, said Kenneth De Ville, a medical humanities professor at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., who published a study on the Wisconsin law. “Prenatal care is really the best thing you can do to enhance fetal health,” he said. “And you’re driving women away from prenatal care.”

 

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has argued that women who seek prenatal care should not be exposed to criminal or civil penalties and calls for expanded and affordable alcohol and drug treatment services for pregnant women.

 

After being away from work for an extended period, Beltran lost her job in the food service industry, according to her lawyers. She was released earlier this month, but with the case still open, she is still at risk of being taken into custody or ordered into further treatment, Paltrow said.

 

So let's sum up:

-Unsurprisingly, the stress of criminal charges and forced intervention make it hard for pregnant people to be honest with their doctors and therefore don't receive the best prenatal care they can.

-Everyone seems agrees that treatment for alcohol and drug use. Yet instead of expanding these services to be more available for pregnant persons, anti-choicers are choosing to instead arrest pregnant people who can't afford these services on their own.

-Furthermore, these forced interventions cause pregnant people to lose their jobs or at least be at risk of losing their jobs, which means even less money for them.

 

Good way to help someone start out a pregnancy and birth, huh? Arrest them, breaking their trust with their doctor, ignore their financial struggles and put more of a drain on their money, and finally, take away the child they wanted because, obviously, they're so unfit to parent. Unlike the state which has just bullied and harassed a pregnant person in order to steal and "protect" the fetus. And I wonder what happens to the fetus once it becomes a child? Will it be lucky enough to have someone who loves them and can lay claim and easily gain guardianship over them? Or will they bounce from foster care to foster care, statistically going through one abusive household, and possibly end up as one of the 80% of foster care children who attempt to commit suicide?

 

[Taken from Shiny's stats (United States Child Protective Services Inter-State Study of Child Welfare in Foster Care, 2010)]

[Cecona]

It scares the living hell out of me knowing there are people out there fighting to give personhood to fetuses.

[whitebaron]

You're both assuming a lot that is never mentioned anywhere. Weaning herself off - maybe, maybe not, was not mentioned, just when she took a last dose.. But her child would STILL need the drug. period. Thats the opinion of the physicians who treated her at that time.

 

 

also: she lost her job because her employer disliked her absences. How is that the states fault? You make it sound like its some kind of big conspiracy to emotionally or financially kill this poor individual... Get real. While individuals might work that way, organisations do not.

[Pokemonfan13]

You're both assuming a lot that is never mentioned anywhere. Weaning herself off - maybe, maybe not, was not mentioned, just when she took a last dose.. But her child would STILL need the drug. period. Thats the opinion of the physicians who treated her at that time.

 

 

also: she lost her job because her employer disliked her absences. How is that the states fault? You make it sound like its some kind of big conspiracy to emotionally or financially kill this poor individual... Get real. While individuals might work that way, organisations do not.

"Beltran had used an acquaintance’s prescription and self-administered the drug in decreasing doses."

 

She took the drug in decreasing doses until she stopped. That is called weaning yourself off the drug.

 

It's the state's fault because she was absent because they ARRESTED her! She can't go to work if she's in custody.

 

"For Beltran, the consequences of her case have hit hard. Her family struggled to visit her regularly during her stint at Casa Clare Women’s Facility in Appleton, Wis., a two-hour drive from her home. After being away from work for an extended period, Beltran lost her job in the food service industry, according to her lawyers. She was released earlier this month, but with the case still open, she is still at risk of being taken into custody or ordered into further treatment, Paltrow said."

[whitebaron]

You still fail to take into account the bit about:

suboxone, however small doses, should not be totally stopped to be taken in pregnancy.

 

In that regard, its like insulin - if you start taking it, you need to continue or the potential for disaster strikes very hard.

 

Also, what did she expect after abusing substances, using illegal prescriptions, self-medicating?

that ignoring both a doctor and social workers that were sent to her because she ignored the doctor would end well?

 

Except for some of the really stupid things (no lawyer? Come on...) I totally agree what happened to her. Ignoring whats best for her baby twice while breaking even more laws before can only lead to this kind of treatment, no matter how liberal the country is. This would even happen in denmark, I think.

[Cecona]

Her baby was perfectly fine and healthy though, so she obviously did it properly and if her baby really was in trouble then the medicine would have been mandatory instead of just suggested.

[whitebaron]

Her baby was perfectly fine and healthy though, so she obviously did it properly and if her baby really was in trouble then the medicine would have been mandatory instead of just suggested.

How'd you do mandatory medicine, stuff it down her throat?

i guess that option would have made the media even faster.

 

Or would you think that the proper way would be to prescribe it, then send social workers to check on it, and if she still does not comply, send her to a closed facility to enforce it?

 

Sounds ominously similar to the chain of events depicted.

Edited October 26, 2013 by whitebaron

[Obscure_Trash]

You still fail to take into account the bit about:

suboxone, however small doses, should not be totally stopped to be taken in pregnancy.

 

In that regard, its like insulin - if you start taking it, you need to continue or the potential for disaster strikes very hard.

 

Also, what did she expect after abusing substances, using illegal prescriptions, self-medicating?

that ignoring both a doctor and social workers that were sent to her because she ignored the doctor would end well?

 

Except for some of the really stupid things (no lawyer? Come on...) I totally agree what happened to her. Ignoring whats best for her baby twice while breaking even more laws before can only lead to this kind of treatment, no matter how liberal the country is. This would even happen in denmark, I think.

I think you ignored a large portion of the article and my response. That or failed to understand it. If something about the situation has you confused, feel free to ask. I'm sure plenty of us would be willing to help clear up that confusion.

[whitebaron]

I think you ignored a large portion of [...] my response. That or failed to understand it. If something about the situation has you confused, feel free to ask. I'm sure plenty of us would be willing to help clear up that confusion.

I at least tried to answer the arguments made, compared to generic shaming tactics.

[Pokemonfan13]

You still fail to take into account the bit about:

suboxone, however small doses, should not be totally stopped to be taken in pregnancy.

Where does it say that in the article? I'd expect that that would be something they would have covered, since it is rather important to completely understand the situation.

[whitebaron]

Where does it say that in the article?  I'd expect that that would be something they would have covered, since it is rather important to completely understand the situation.

Nowhere. My guess is, they deliberately left it out to bring out the intended effect in the article more.

try any embryo-medicinal database, or quick google it - it will tell you that its best to continue to take the drug or something similar (according to current scientific results)

 

(i typically use embryotox.de ,but its german only)

 

 

 

--ETA--

 

NY Times paints it a little differently, http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/us/ca...sus-mother.html

 

The physician assistant, apparently skeptical, said she should get a prescription for Suboxone because withdrawal could be hard on the fetus, Ms. Beltran recalled. “But I told her I’d already tapered off and quit,” she said. A urine test that day found traces of Suboxone but no signs of other opiates, and later tests found her clear of both drugs.

 

Two weeks after that prenatal visit the social worker showed up unannounced at Ms. Beltran’s home, telling her to restart Suboxone treatment or face a court order to do so. “I told her I’m off this stuff and I don’t want to go back on it,” she recalled, admitting that she lost her temper and shut the door on the social worker after saying, “Maybe I should just get an abortion.”

 

Two days later, the sheriffs arrived to take her to the county jail and the initial hearing. The case against Ms. Beltran was bolstered by the statement of Dr. Angela Breckenridge, an obstetrician at the West Bend Clinic South at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

 

Edited October 26, 2013 by whitebaron

[babybluefire]

The NY times article only makes me more leery of the authority in this case. The social worker pushed the already tapered off drug and insisted that she could be court ordered to take it. The women considers abortion from the chastisement and drug pushing. Then the dr from a catholic hospital suddenly giving statements that put the women in jail. This reeks.

Edited October 26, 2013 by babybluefire

[Cecona]

I'll be really, really pissed off if her statement about maybe getting an abortion prompted the arrest. She wasn't even serious, obviously she wanted the baby if she was going and getting prenatal care. And since there is no mention of the baby being harmed after the drug was out of her system you have to assume that nothing wrong happened.

[whitebaron]

1) she was NOT in jail. She was at a drug withdrawal institute.

2) she was arrested for not following through with the treatment they prescribed her, and the court sent her to that institute.

3) she pushed out a social worker, screaming, I think thats enough for police to shackle her when they take her to court.

4) taking sub would do little harm to her, but might be a world for her baby.

5) for sub to show in her urine, recent usage has to be taken into account. Opiods are typically gone from urine within 48-72 hours.

 

@cecona: i'm pretty sure they gave her subutex or something similar when she was held at the institute, to ensure child health.

[HeatherMarie]

...... And this is how I lose faith in humanity.

 

A pregnant woman goes to her *doctor* (ie, DOCTOR-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS!!!) and tells of being on some drug that she had *already tapered off of* the SAFE WAY (yes, drugs can be dangerous to quit cold-turkey, except she didn't do that!), a physician ASSISTANT tried to pressure her into getting a prescription for the drug she had ALREADY WEANED OFF OF.....

 

And then a few weeks later a SOCIAL WORKER (meaning that doctor-patient confidentiality had been smashed to smithereens and he BETTER LOSE HIS LICENSE) comes DEMANDING that she go BACK ON THE DRUG that she had already been *clean* from, according to tests, and threatening a court order?

 

Yeah, this has NOTHING to do with the drug or the baby's safety, since the baby WAS completely fine and healthy. This has to do with some stupid legal-workers deciding that they were going to PUNISH that woman SOMEHOW, for what reason I can't even freaking imagine. And they can't even attempt that stupid drug-loophole, since the woman had WILLINGLY and ON HER OWN decided to GET OFF THE DRUG by using another drug to help her and then TAPER OFF of that drug. So at the time the law got involved there WERE NO DRUGS INVOLVED.