ACLU: Drugged Unborn Babies have ZERO rights

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Abbey Normal, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    ACLU Defends Woman Guilty of Doing Cocaine While Pregnant
    Friday, August 19, 2005

    By Sam Kastensmidt

    The ACLU has filed an appeal on behalf of an Easton County (Md.) woman who was convicted of reckless endangerment after giving birth to a baby boy with considerable levels of cocaine in his system. The ACLU plans to argue that an unborn child has no rights under the law and is therefore not entitled to any protections.

    Specifically, the Maryland statute allows charges of reckless endangerment only when the illegal behavior may bring harm to a "person." The ACLU does not believe that the state can legally attribute the title of "person" to an unborn child.

    Kelly Lynn Cruz, the boy's mother, was tried and convicted for reckless endangerment and sentenced to serve 2 1/2 years in prison.

    ACLU Weighs in on the Law

    The ACLU of Maryland released a statement calling the charges "unprecedented and illegal.” According to the organization's website, "The ACLU is defending Ms. Cruz because prosecuting women for their conduct during pregnancy is both impermissible under state law and unconstitutional."

    ACLU May Actually Win Their Case!

    Incredibly, many legal scholars believe that the ACLU may actually win its case. The Baltimore Sun recently reported, "Similar attempts to criminalize drug use by pregnant women became common in the United States during the crack scare of the late 1980s and early 1990s. But in dozens of cases, courts struck down criminal convictions as unconstitutional."


    http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=2881
     
  2. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    What do you think the whole pretending that they can feel no pain was about? They are attempting to define them an inhuman so that they can be inhumane.
     
  3. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    Disgusting, but not surprising considering how far the ACLU has fallen.
     
  4. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    If this goes to the SCOTUS and they rule against the ACLU it would have an interesting effect on abortion law as well.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,511
    Thanks Received:
    8,156
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,135
    It will be interesting to see what happens when Roberts is confirmed. Then when this case comes we can see whether Roberts was a good choice. I think he will be.
     
  6. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    First of all, this story is clearly biased. The ACLU is not arguing that "fetuses have no rights". The quote was taken out of context, and the real reasoning given wasn't included. The ACLU's position is that prosecuting these women will discourage others from seeking treatment while pregnant. Here is the entire statement of the ACLU of Maryland: http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press 2005/71905_Cruz.html

    Don't assume everything you read is true, especially when the source is specifically trying to inflame you.


    acludem
     
  7. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    So according to the ACLU, I have a protected civil liberty to do whatever the hell I want while pregnant, even if I am completely aware of the fact that my actions WILL cause irreparable harm to the living person I give birth to? Why? Because if I was prosecuted in retrospect for the damage I caused this new living person, my drug addict friend might not seek treatment for her heroin problem before she gives birth to her heroin addict babies???

    We should apply this sort of thinking to everything I guess, lets not arrest anyone who murders someone...after all...seeing how harshly the penal system is for convicted murderers, many OTHER murderers might not come forward to confess!!!

    Even if you do not believe that a fetus is a person, the living baby born addicted to cocaine and sufferring mental and/or physical problems because of his mother's actions IS a person.

    Why shouldn't a living, breathing baby be afforded HIS civil liberties of NOT being born addicted to smack?!?!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    Excellent reasoning, Gem.

    As for Mr. ACLU above (good Lord!), perhaps you should be careful about following the purported reasoning of an organization that cares more about theoretical liberal principles than the lives of actual humans. I read your link. Interesting that you would criticize me for my "biased" source, then use the ACLU's own web site for yours. The article I linked to gives the unvarnished truth: The ACLU is fighting to defend the rights of expectant mothers to seriously abuse and possibly kill their unborn babies without repercussions. Fact. As Gem said, the "what-if" reasons why the ACLU claims to defend this woman do not change that fact.

    Your link contains the usual leftist crap about how these poor drug addicted women can't help it. Bull. Putting aside for the moment the fact that these women chose to do drugs and let themselves get pregnant while addicted, there are treatment centers for pregnant drug addicts where their addictions and their babies could be cared for. But that would assume that they give a rat's @ss about the baby in the first place.
     
  9. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    The problem is that these women are now threatened with prosecution if they reveal a drug problem so they don't reveal it and seek treatment. Rather than prosecuting these women we should be encouraging them to seek treatment for their drug addiction. Or at the very least, you should support not prosecuting women who seek treatment for their addiction, but this law doesn't do that. This case isn't about fetal rights, it's about helping pregnant women overcome drug addiction. The only people who want to turn this issue into a fetal-rights debate are people who want to ban abortion, like the author of this "news" article.

    Here's a part of the ACLU of Maryland's news release:
    While not in any way condoning the use of drugs while women are pregnant or caring for children, these concerned organizations and individuals know that it is dangerous and counterproductive to arrest and prosecute pregnant women and new mothers. “Drug dependency is a medical condition – not a crime”, said Dr. Lauren Jansson, Director of Pediatrics at the Center for Addiction and Pregnance at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and a signatory to the letter. “Pregnant women do not experience alcohol and drug dependencies because they want to harm their fetuses or because they do not care about their children.”


    ”Pregnant women who suffer from drug or alcohol addiction need treatment, not jail time,” said Beth Ryan, Executive Director of NCADD Maryland (The Maryland Affiliate of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence). “Threats of criminal prosecutions seriously endanger health of women and their children by discouraging pregnant women from seeking the medical care they need.”

    Where in that part of the statement, or any of the rest at the earlier link I posted and will re-post in this message the statement that the ACLU believes women have the right to do drugs while pregnant?

    Here's the link again: http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press 2005/71905_Cruz.html

    acludem


    acludem
     
  10. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    Pretty much by definition people who are addicted to things like heroin or cocaine are not thinking straight. Usually if they end up like that there is an underlying problem, which could be mental illness. Undoubtably some of them don't give a rat's ass for the baby, themselves, the world or anything.
    :gs:
     

Share This Page