Tennessee just became the first state that will jail women for their pregnancy outcomes

[aGameOfThrones]

Tennessee has become the first state in the nation to pass a law criminalizing women for their pregnancy outcomes. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam took the 10 days allotted to him to consider the advice of doctors, addiction experts and reproductive health groups urging him to veto the punitive and dangerous measure that allows prosecutors to charge a woman with criminal assault if she uses illegal drugs during her pregnancy and her fetus or newborn is considered harmed as a result. Haslam ignored these recommendations — and the recommendations of nearly every major medical association, including the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy* — and signed the measure anyway.

Opponents of the new law share a concern that a lack of access to health care and treatment facilities will result in the disproportionate targeting and jailing of poor mothers and mothers of color, particularly in rural districts throughout the state.

Republican state Sen. Mike Bell, one of the seven Republicans in the state Senate to vote against the measure (every Democrat in the state Senate voted in favor), recently told Salon that this lack of access is a problem he thinks will hurt the women of his district and their families. “I represent a rural district,” he said. “There’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.”.

Continued
http:// www DOTsalonDOTcom/2014/04/30/tennessee_just_became_the_first_state_that_will_ja il_women_for_their_pregnancy_outcomes/

[eduardo89]

I totally agree with this. If you give heroin to a newborn, you'll get arrested. If you give heroin to a baby 1 day before birth (by doing it yourself) you've committed no crime. It makes no sense.

[tod evans]

Republicans pushing for junkies to get abortions....

Wonder how well that's going to go over..

[Nirvikalpa]

As I said on my facebook post regarding this:

"Ah, Tennessee. Because nothing is more effective at stopping addiction than throwing the mentally ill & addicted into prison. "Opponents, including many medical organizations and doctors who treat pregnant women, worry that criminalization will scare women away from treatment ..." Don't worry doctors and medical/mental health professionals - don't you know the government knows best? Especially ones who will never be pregnant once in their lives? All those years of medical school, patient interaction, professional experience... I mean really, a guy behind a desk signing off on bills who has a bachelor's degree in History can totally understand it. No big deal."

[Anti Federalist]

Republicans pushing for junkies to get abortions....

Wonder how well that's going to go over..

Oh, I'm sure they will be fine with it.

[jclay2]

This is just more food for the prison industrial complex. If harming your own child is not enough to stop your behavior, the threat of prison will certainly NOT stop you.

[moostraks]

So now we will have an increase in abortions and the drug addicted will have even more reason to drown themselves in their addiction due to the psychological effects of killing one's own child. And the state can make even further inroads with defining what makes for a fit parent, start by culling the undesirables for behavior most find contemptible and then just keep widening the net.

[Anti Federalist]

So now we will have an increase in abortions and the drug addicted will have even more reason to drown themselves in their addiction due to the psychological effects of killing one's own child. And the state can make even further inroads with defining what makes for a fit parent, start by culling the undesirables for behavior most find contemptible and then just keep widening the net.

They'll just start sterilizing the undesirables:



We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the 8-1 majority in Buck v Bell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

[jkr]

Republicans pushing for junkies to get abortions....

Wonder how well that's going to go over..
and THERE IT IS

F--- TENNESSEE!(mod edit)

[Matt Collins]

dunno that prison is the best method for handling this, but if a mother harms her kid, born or unborn, it SHOULD be a crime!

[eduardo89]

dunno that prison is the best method for handling this, but if a mother harms her kid, born or unborn, it SHOULD be a crime!

Totally agree.

[oyarde]

This is just more food for the prison industrial complex. If harming your own child is not enough to stop your behavior, the threat of prison will certainly NOT stop you.

Seems about right to me . I have no wish for children to be harmed , but you are not going to prevent it with legislation and jail.

[tod evans]

dunno that prison is the best method for handling this, but if a mother harms her kid, born or unborn, it SHOULD be a crime!


measure that allows prosecutors to charge a woman with criminal assault if she uses illegal drugs

The term "illegal drugs" is ambiguous and will be used at the prosecutors discression...

This is extremely bad legislation!

:mad:

[Ender]

dunno that prison is the best method for handling this, but if a mother harms her kid, born or unborn, it SHOULD be a crime!

Bullshit.

This isn't about harming the fetus- it's about the WoD and profits.

If the gov really cared about these babies they would do away with the WoDs so that addicts could get treatment w/o going to jail.

[Matt Collins]

The term "illegal drugs" is ambiguous and will be used at the prosecutors discression...

This is extremely bad legislation!

:mad:
What's wrong with that? If a woman is using drugs while pregnant then she is obviously harming her child.

[Matt Collins]

Bullshit.

This isn't about harming the fetus- it's about the WoD and profits.

If the gov really cared about these babies they would do away with the WoDs so that addicts could get treatment w/o going to jail.
How do you know that they are not getting treatment while in jail?

[tod evans]

What's wrong with that? If a woman is using drugs while pregnant then she is obviously harming her child.

Smoking weed?

Borrowed an "illegal" pain-pill from her mother for the back pain associated with pregnancy...

And even if she were sucking meth and heroin through a garden hose the very last person qualified to address it is a fucking politician!

Especially a prosecutor who is graded on his conviction rate..


[edit]

And what is wrong with giving a prosecuting attorney the power to draw blood or check the urine of anyone, let alone a pregnant broad?

Good grief Matt have you been sucking the suits so long you actually believe this type of behavior is right?

You would empower the CPS system as well as the "Just-Us" department by merely agreeing with those who purpose this type of ridiculously intrusive legislation...

Don't buy into the "it's for the kids" BS!

[Ender]

How do you know that they are not getting treatment while in jail?

LOL.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard a so-called "freedom lover" say.

We all know the WoD is unconstitutional; we all know that the jail system is a for-profit business- but HEY- let's wait until an addict has a baby and then jail her so maybe she'll get some treatment for something she should have been able to do as a free person, when it was still a victimless crime.

Good grief. :rolleyes:

It's the .gov officials that should go to jail.

[Root]

How do you know that they are not getting treatment while in jail?
No one should be locked in a cage to get treatments.

[angelatc]

Republicans pushing for junkies to get abortions....

Wonder how well that's going to go over..

I know you aren't a liberal, so I think you must missed the fact that every Democrat in the Senate voted for it, too. It's always the bi-partisan solutions that screw freedom the worst.


Republican state Sen. Mike Bell, one of the seven Republicans in the state Senate to vote against the measure (every Democrat in the state Senate voted in favor)

[dannno]

I totally agree with this. If you give heroin to a newborn, you'll get arrested. If you give heroin to a baby 1 day before birth (by doing it yourself) you've committed no crime. It makes no sense.

They used to give opium to newborns back in the 1800s.

[tod evans]

I know you aren't a liberal, so I think you must missed the fact that every Democrat in the Senate voted for it, too. It's always the bi-partisan solutions that screw freedom the worst.

I suppose I could have added a bit about the Dems pushing to lock up "single mothers" too...:o


They're all evil! Those bastards trying to legislate morality and common sense all with the added bonus of lining their pockets...

[dannno]

What's wrong with that? If a woman is using drugs while pregnant then she is obviously harming her child.

What if the drugs are given to her by the medical industrial complex?

Don't you know how much drugs they load women up on when they are giving birth?

[tod evans]

They used to give opium to newborns back in the 1800s.

2402

http://www.peachridgeglass.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/MrsWinslowsTCBritish.jpg

[angelatc]

I suppose I could have added a bit about the Dems pushing to lock up "single mothers" too...:o


They're all evil! Those bastards trying to legislate morality and common sense all with the added bonus of lining their pockets...


Democrats are always "for the children!" (Except when it comes to abortion. This law seems illogical in that context, but I don't want to get that all fired up again.)

Meh. State's rights. It's a stupid law which will have the government incarcerating women who ate a couple of poppy seed bagels before they even took a pregnancy test, but I don't live in Tennessee. The South isn't the North, and nor should it be.

[tod evans]

State's rights. It's a stupid law which will have the government incarcerating women who ate a couple of poppy seed bagels before they even took a pregnancy test, but I don't live in Tennessee.

First they came for the Tennesseeans...

[Philhelm]

As I said on my facebook post regarding this:

"Ah, Tennessee. Because nothing is more effective at stopping addiction than throwing the mentally ill & addicted into prison. "Opponents, including many medical organizations and doctors who treat pregnant women, worry that criminalization will scare women away from treatment ..." Don't worry doctors and medical/mental health professionals - don't you know the government knows best? Especially ones who will never be pregnant once in their lives? All those years of medical school, patient interaction, professional experience... I mean really, a guy behind a desk signing off on bills who has a bachelor's degree in History can totally understand it. No big deal."

I don't say "Bachelor's Degree in History," because I don't measure an individual's worth by the degree obtained, regardless of the recipient's race, age, gender, sex, sexual expression, or sexual orientation.

[moostraks]

What's wrong with that? If a woman is using drugs while pregnant then she is obviously harming her child.
And just how do you think they will prove in an equal untargeted fashion a pregnant gal abused drugs? Why just add another mandatory screening on all pregnant women perchance? And what about those with false positives for poppy seeds? Just collateral damage? Acceptable losses for the sake of the children? Guess if we womenz don't like it we can just not have children on the off chance we might get a false positive and face a CPS interrogation, and highly probable loss of our children. (Down and dirty on CPS is they are only looking for a toe in the door and will suck up bright children to appease foster parents with unproductive wombs) This is another crap law to be more intrusive into the lives of families and those that support it should think long and hard about how govt always takes a mile when given a millimeter.

[moostraks]

What if the drugs are given to her by the medical industrial complex?

Don't you know how much drugs they load women up on when they are giving birth?
Ain't that the truth!

[angelatc]

I don't say "Bachelor's Degree in History," because I don't measure an individual's worth by the degree obtained, regardless of the recipient's race, age, gender, sex, sexual expression, or sexual orientation.

It isn't about "worth." It's about expertise. I dare say an argument could be made that a practicing female OB with kids of her own knows infinitely more about the myriad of issues that pregnant women face than a single, childless male OB with 20 years more experience. But it's never that cut and dry. He might be the better clinician, while she has a better bedside manner which gives her more information to work with.

Either way, both of them know more than the 20-something newly minted politicians.

It would be really nice to see the healthcare industry grow a spine and refuse to hand over patient records, though. They are not entirely blameless in this.

[angelatc]

What if the drugs are given to her by the medical industrial complex?

Don't you know how much drugs they load women up on when they are giving birth?

They could have given me more. I was disappointed that I was still conscious.

[donnay]

What happens when the hospital gives the pregnant mother morphine? That's okay?

[tod evans]

What happens when the hospital gives the pregnant mother morphine? That's okay?

2403

[donnay]

2403

That's what happened to my daughter and then the hospital did blood work and said she had opiates in her blood and they wouldn't let my daughter leave the hospital with the baby. Entrapment!!

[angelatc]

:rolleyes:


What if the drugs are given to her by the medical industrial complex?




What happens when the hospital gives the pregnant mother morphine?

They said clearly "illegal" in the article.

[donnay]

:rolleyes:





They said clearly "illegal" in the article.

They were accusing my daughter of being on HEROIN! Opiates in blood stream--they gave her MORPHINE, then denied it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why not? If a man harms an unborn fetus, they can be charged with murder. So why not the woman too?

[tod evans]

Why not? If a man harms an unborn fetus, they can be charged with murder. So why not the woman too?

"Drugs" don't equate to harm...

Please reevaluate your thought process...

[Thor]

:rolleyes:

They said clearly "illegal" in the article.

Morphine is illegal, if it is obtained or used outside the medical industrial complex.

Just like too many Oxycontin scripts...

So, if you use Oxycontin, even if it is a legal script? Are you OK... but if you use too many of the "legal" product and abuse it, then you are guilty? What is next? Alcohol? Tobacco? Will eating mercury laden tuna from Japan that hits high on the radiation scale while pregnant be a crime next? What about GMO franken foods loaded with bt toxin for your fetus? Or too many Cheetos and Coke and not enough (organic) fruits and veggies while pregnant?

Of course all these things are bad for you to some degree or another and in some quantity or another... and probably worse for a fetus. But to what degree does the policing need to go? Where is the line drawn? The ever encroaching line. What we deem illegal today, versus illegal tomorrow...

Related:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/diet-mother-can-lead-alterations-her-child%E2%80%99s-dna


Diet of Mother Can Lead to Alterations in Her Child’s DNA

http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/800px-DNA_methylation.jpg?itok=rReVFlpO

A new study, published in Nature Communications, has found that maternal diet around the time of conception can influence certain properties of the child’s DNA. This could have lifelong implications.

The researchers that conducted this study weren't looking at the actual DNA sequences of the children; they wanted to see whether the diet of the mother was capable of causing epigenetic changes. Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression that occur without alterations in the DNA sequence itself.

One example of epigenetic modification is DNA methylation, which involves the addition of methyl groups to certain bits of DNA. Methyl groups can be obtained from the diet by eating certain foods, for example those containing choline or particular vitamins such as B6 and B12.

It was demonstrated previously that maternal diet prior to conception can induce epigenetic changes in the offspring of mice, but the same had not been investigated in humans prior to this study.

Scientists chose to study pregnant women in rural Gambia because populations here are dependent on foods that they have grown themselves and therefore their diets are different between the dry and rainy seasons. 84 women that conceived at the peak of the rainy season and 83 women that conceived at the peak of the dry season participated in the study.

The team took blood samples from the mothers in order to compare differences in nutrition; in particular they wanted to look at the levels of substances that can donate methyl groups, and therefore possibly influence DNA methylation. When they later investigated the DNA of the children they found that those conceived during the rainy season had higher rates of methylation in all of the genes studied when compared with those conceived during the dry season. They found that these changes were associated with maternal nutrient levels; in particular two amino acids called cysteine and homocysteine. They also found that increased maternal body mass index was associated with lower rates of infant DNA methylation.

It’s important to note that while associations were made between maternal diet and infant DNA methylation, this study did not investigate the consequences that this may have on the children. Although this initial study involved a small number of participants, the team believe that the data is important and hope to progress the work with larger, more in-depth studies.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

"Drugs" don't equate to harm...

How, exactly, don't they? If you smoke, do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant, and as a direct result the baby is born deformed, has brain damage, dies or whatever, how in the hell does that not "equate to harm"?

[tod evans]

How, exactly, don't they? If you smoke, do drugs or drink alcohol while pregnant, and as a direct result the baby is born deformed, has brain damage, dies or whatever, how in the hell does that not "equate to harm"?

90+% of newborns who were exposed to smoking, drugs and booze were not born damaged, simply look at history...

Legislation of this type is using social programming to grow government and its authority...

Refer to "It's better for 100 guilty men to go free than to imprison 1 innocent one"... (Relying on my poor ol' memory..)

[donnay]

90+% of newborns who were exposed to smoking, drugs and booze were not born damaged, simply look at history...

Legislation of this type is using social programming to grow government and its authority...

Refer to "It's better for 100 guilty men to go free than to imprison 1 innocent one"... (Relying on my poor ol' memory..)

I owe you some +rep. Well said. Social programming is key!

[tod evans]

I owe you some +rep. Well said. Social programming is key!

My (our) generation was gestated in amphetamine powered, alcohol soaked and smoke infused wombs, we were given Paregoric for diarrhea and a teaspoon of whiskey in our bottles to sleep...

[Nirvikalpa]

What's wrong with that? If a woman is using drugs while pregnant then she is obviously harming her child.

Women are given opiods, benzo's, and ketamine to induce labor. Thiopental is even given in some cases.

[donnay]

My (our) generation was gestated in amphetamine powered, alcohol soaked and smoke infused wombs, we were given Paregoric for diarrhea and a teaspoon of whiskey in our bottles to sleep...

Exactly! The more that they can create problems the more control they have.

[angelatc]

Morphine is illegal if it is obtained or used outside the medical industrial complex.

Just like too many Oxycontin scripts...

If your physician prescribes it, it isn't illegal. This is not complicated, or even nuanced.

[angelatc]

90+% of newborns who were exposed to smoking, drugs and booze were not born damaged, simply look at history...

Legislation of this type is using social programming to grow government and its authority...

Refer to "It's better for 100 guilty men to go free than to imprison 1 innocent one"... (Relying on my poor ol' memory..)

I think it's a numbers game - the odds of "X" happening increase if the mother does "Y." This is another law that punishes people because something bad MIGHT happen. Like DUI, for example.

[Thor]

If your physician prescribes it, it isn't illegal. This is not complicated, or even nuanced.

Oh, so as long as it is blessed by the medical industrial complex, you are OK.... even if it causes damage. Gotcha.

[tod evans]

I think it's a numbers game - the odds of "X" happening increase if the mother does "Y." This is another law that punishes people because something bad MIGHT happen. Like DUI, for example.

The numbers game really becomes interesting when governments agents become involved....:eek:

I'll bet there's a higher percentage of negative outcomes from interaction with prosecutors than with drugs....

[angelatc]

Oh, so as long as it is blessed by the medical industrial complex, you are OK.... even if it causes damage. Gotcha.

Apparently not. I didn't say I was ok with it. Just the opposite, actually.

[eduardo89]

"Drugs" don't equate to harm...

Yes they do. Introducing heroin or cocaine into a child's blood stream certainly is harm.

[PierzStyx]

How do you know that they are not getting treatment while in jail?

I wouldn't call destroying families treatment. You can't force a junkie to quit. You can prevent them from getting drugs and dry them out, but unless they want to be free from drugs they'll just go right back to it.

And none of this addresses the fact that you're destroying a family here. The child will inevitably become a ward of the state, feeding the beast even more.

[tod evans]

Yes they do. Introducing heroin or cocaine into a child's blood stream certainly is harm.

This legislation being discussed didn't specify "heroin or cocaine" did it?

If you'd like to start another thread discussing the actual "harm" done to a gestating fetus when a particular "drug" is present in a certain quantity in the mothers blood I'll be happy to contribute..

Suffice it to say I disagree with your position unless you want to specify degree of "harm"....


[edit]

A link to an article from Merck

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/womens_health_issues/drug_use_during_pregnancy/drug_use_during_pregnancy.html

[limequat]

Marijuana is illegal. Marijuana is harmless.

With this new law could potentially any birth defect be blamed on marijuana?
How do you prove drug use? How do you prove that drug caused the birth defect?
Is eyewitness testimony admissible?

How long after birth can a defect be diagnosed? Do neurological disorders count? Like ADD and Asbergers?

How does it benefit the baby to lock up the mother?

[eduardo89]

Marijuana is illegal. Marijuana is harmless.

No, it isn't.

[limequat]

You're right. Some states have decriminalized it.

[angelatc]

Yes they do. Introducing heroin or cocaine into a child's blood stream certainly is harm.

I am not sure the science is on your side here.

[eduardo89]

I am not sure the science is on your side here.

You seriously do not believe that a pregnant woman doing cocaine or heroin harms her unborn child?

[tod evans]

No, it isn't.

Don't believe everything you see on the TV...;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwhxeaVfk3s

[eduardo89]

Don't believe everything you see on the TV...;)

Video is blocked at this office. It says the reason is: Pornography (Norwegian)

[tod evans]

Video is blocked at this office. It says the reason is: Pornography (Norwegian)

It's just a John Fogerty song about not believing the TV, nothing relevant to fetuses and umbilical/placental drug transfer..

[eduardo89]

It's just a John Fogerty song about not believing the TV, nothing relevant to fetuses and umbilical/placental drug transfer..

Oh, I was hoping it was Norwegian porn.

[Danke]

Video is blocked at this office. It says the reason is: Pornography (Norwegian)

It is?! I'd be looking for another place to work.

[Dogsoldier]

Addiction is a health and education problem.

Even the drug zar admitted this.

What other health and education problem do we deal with using the criminal justice system?

This is 1 of the best speeches I have seen on the war on drugs and why we have got to end it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCf-Et2_Mc

[Matt Collins]

Women are given opiods, benzo's, and ketamine to induce labor. Thiopental is even given in some cases.
What if the drugs are given to her by the medical industrial complex?

Don't you know how much drugs they load women up on when they are giving birth?
Valid point, yes... But the difference is that is given under close medical supervision by people with years of training and experience.

[Matt Collins]

Marijuana is illegal. Marijuana is harmless.

Please cite your medical degree and showing the peer-reviewed research showing that marijuana consumed by mothers with unborn babies is harmless. :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

90+% of newborns who were exposed to smoking, drugs and booze were not born damaged, simply look at history...Please cite a credible source for this information.

[Matt Collins]

No one should be locked in a cage to get treatments.Some addicts need to be in controlled environments in order to receive treatment. Not saying that prison is the best place for that, but yes, some people do need to be in a controlled environment.

[Matt Collins]

let's wait until an addict has a baby and then jail her so maybe she'll get some treatment for something she should have been able to do as a free person, when it was still a victimless crime.
Except that when she is putting drugs in to her child's system at the same time, it is no longer a victimless crime.

[tod evans]

Valid point, yes... But the difference is that is given under close medical supervision by people with years of training and experience.

You're completely delusional!

Any competent doctor will tell you that a junkie knows more about how their specific body responds to a drug than the doctor.

Back when I worked in the Navy hospital we'd ask the junkies what worked for them for a reason, they knew...

The "years of training and experience" is more often than not fresh out of school especially in the lower income areas where one is likely to find junkies...

Try couching a real argument to advocate for this ridiculous and intrusive legislation.

[Matt Collins]

Smoking weed?

Borrowed an "illegal" pain-pill from her mother for the back pain associated with pregnancy...
Those activities are not done under the supervision of an educated and experienced medical professional. Thus it is dangerous and potentially harmful to the unborn child.





And even if she were sucking meth and heroin through a garden hose the very last person qualified to address it is a fucking politician!I agree, but providing justice is a valid activity for the government to do. Trying to stop the individual from harming another individual is well within the powers and duties of the government.




And what is wrong with giving a prosecuting attorney the power to draw blood or check the urine of anyone, let alone a pregnant broad? They shouldn't be able to, except under probable cause with a warrant issued by a neutral judge.

[tod evans]

Please cite a credible source for this information.

History and medical records, go look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

[Matt Collins]

You're completely delusional!

Any competent doctor will tell you that a junkie knows more about how their specific body responds to a drug than the doctor.Maybe, although I doubt it. However, even if what you say is true, I assure you those "junkies" do not have any understanding of how those drugs will affect an unborn child.

[Matt Collins]

History and medical records, go look it up yourself if you don't believe me.
Link?

[tod evans]

I agree, but providing justice is a valid activity for the government to do. Trying to stop the individual from harming another individual is well within the powers and duties of the government.
.

This is the closest you've come to attempting to couch a logical argument..

Now..........As the legislation you support is written, try to justify that actual harm is being done to the fetus..

I posted a link from Merck back in this thread, reading it might help you attempt to couch a convincing argument...

[tod evans]

Link?

No link will be provided.

You may either look it up yourself or continue to believe fallacy.

I lived it, I don't require computer documents, if you do then go find some.

[GunnyFreedom]

Republicans pushing for junkies to get abortions....

Wonder how well that's going to go over..

GOP was divided. Dems were unanimous.

[Matt Collins]

No link will be provided.

You may either look it up yourself or continue to believe fallacy.

I lived it, I don't require computer documents, if you do then go find some.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[tod evans]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Shove your logical fallacies right up your [mod delete]

[DamianTV]

Dangerous Doors to Open:

Whats next? Imprison mothers who smoke tobacco or drink alcohol at ANY point during their pregnancy? How about Aspirin? Or other over the counter drugs? Do we want to Drug Test all pregnant women for ALL pregnancy banned substances, including nicotine and tobacco? Ignore any big pharma drugs, including Opiates and other pharma drugs known to cause problems with pregnancies? Who gets to pay for their incarceration? Who gets paid for their incarceration?

Again, Govt hiding behind "safety of children" in order to expand Govt intrustion into EVERY aspect of your already overregulated lives.

[dannno]

You seriously do not believe that a pregnant woman doing cocaine or heroin harms her unborn child?

Some of the shit they give them at the hospital is worse, did you skip over Nirvikalpa's post?

The problem is that they could have a child with an abnormality that was NOT caused by drug use, but because their blood has, say for example, THC in it they can then put them in prison even though the THC had nothing to do with the abnormality. You can't prove the drugs caused the abnormality.

[donnay]

Dangerous Doors to Open:

Whats next? Imprison mothers who smoke tobacco or drink alcohol at ANY point during their pregnancy? How about Aspirin? Or other over the counter drugs? Do we want to Drug Test all pregnant women for ALL pregnancy banned substances, including nicotine and tobacco? Ignore any big pharma drugs, including Opiates and other pharma drugs known to cause problems with pregnancies? Who gets to pay for their incarceration? Who gets paid for their incarceration?

Again, Govt hiding behind "safety of children" in order to expand Govt intrustion into EVERY aspect of your already overregulated lives.

Yes, yes, yes...a mother was already arrested about a couple months ago when a nosy waitress, at a pizza joint, saw her drinking and knew she was breast feeding.

People need to learn to mind their own business and stop buying the BS that government is doing these things to protect the children.

[dannno]

Valid point, yes... But the difference is that is given under close medical supervision by people with years of training and experience.

But the entire industry is run by highly regulated agencies that either are or are involved with the federal government, and if a doctor with years of training and experience has a differing opinion then they can get their license taken away and it makes it illegal for them to practice.

So what about those of us who don't believe in the system? Where is our health freedom? Why can't I believe cannabis is harmless, considering it is intimately linked to and promotes our body's entirety of regulatory processes more closely than any other substance on the planet? You should really research a little bit about cannabinoids before deciding that cannabis is an inherently unhealthy substance.

[Ender]

Except that when she is putting drugs in to her child's system at the same time, it is no longer a victimless crime.

Dude- learn to read.

I'll keep it simple: If the WoDs was stopped, then an addict could get some help before pregnancy happened.

[Matt Collins]

But the entire industry is run by highly regulated agencies that either are or are involved with the federal government, and if a doctor with years of training and experience has a differing opinion then they can get their license taken away and it makes it illegal for them to practice. Not if they have the research to back it up.



Why can't I believe cannabis is harmless...?You can believe whatever you want. But you don't have any credentials or education on the subject, or professional experience. And I assure you that you do not have any concept of how it affects an unborn child.

[angelatc]

You seriously do not believe that a pregnant woman doing cocaine or heroin harms her unborn child?

What I believe has nothing to do with it. It is really hard to find accurate research on topics like this, because nobody in their right mind would run a double-blind study on drugs in pregnant women. Because of the legal implications, a lot of women lie when asked, and of course there are cultural and socioeconomic factors in play.

Having said that...it is pretty clear that the dramatic effects we expected to see in the crack / cocaine babies never came to fruition. (http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-22/news/40709969_1_hallam-hurt-so-called-crack-babies-funded-study) (I selectively clipped paragraphs out of the story. )


Did cocaine harm the long-term development of children like Jaimee, who were exposed to the drug in their mother's womb? The researchers had expected the answer would be a resounding yes. But it wasn't. Another factor would prove far more critical. .....

The researchers consistently found no significant differences between the cocaine-exposed children and the controls. At age 4, for instance, the average IQ of the cocaine-exposed children was 79.0 and the average IQ for the nonexposed children was 81.9. Both numbers are well below the average of 90 to 109 for U.S. children in the same age group. When it came to school readiness at age 6, about 25 percent of children in each group scored in the abnormal range on tests for math and letter and word recognition.

Coles said her research had found nothing to back up predictions that cocaine-exposed babies were doomed for life. "As a society we say, 'Cocaine is bad and therefore it must cause damage to babies,' " Coles said. "When you have a myth, it tends to linger for a long time."




As for heroin, (http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/features/prenatal-exposure-to-drugs-and-alcohol,75,AR.html)
There is no clear evidence that heroin causes malformations to the foetus, but there is an increase in premature delivery, low birth weight and death around the time of delivery. Forty to eighty per cent of babies will develop a withdrawal syndrome lasting from several days to several months. The children tend to grow normally afterwards, although small head circumference may persist. There is no clear evidence of abnormal brain development in most of the children studied. Although methadone can be substituted for heroin, it may be more beneficial for the mother, and more toxic for the newborn.

I think alcohol is surprisingly far more dangerous than the two drugs you mentioned.

[dannno]

You can believe whatever you want. But you don't have any credentials or education on the subject, or professional experience. And I assure you that you do not have any concept of how it affects an unborn child.

Ron Paul has spoken many times saying that he believes medical marijuana has efficacy for some patients, yet the medical establishment disagrees with him and says it does not.

Are you saying Ron Paul doesn't have the credentials or education on the subject, because while he may not weight his opinion on the subject of whether it harms a small child, in the general sense his views are closer to mine than they are to the establishment in that we both agree it can provide medical efficacy.

Why do you worship the medical industrial complex? Don't you realize it is almost as bad as worshiping the military industrial complex?

Also, please just take 10 minutes out of your life and educate yourself on cannabinoids, it should change your opinion on the subject drastically.

[angelatc]

But the entire industry is run by highly regulated agencies that either are or are involved with the federal government, and if a doctor with years of training and experience has a differing opinion then they can get their license taken away and it makes it illegal for them to practice.

So what about those of us who don't believe in the system? Where is our health freedom? Why can't I believe cannabis is harmless, considering it is intimately linked to and promotes our body's entirety of regulatory processes more closely than any other substance on the planet? You should really research a little bit about cannabinoids before deciding that cannabis is an inherently unhealthy substance.

OFFS. Just don't get knocked up and your life wont change.

[tod evans]

Which drugs in what quantities are alleged to be harmful?

This little blurb scratches the surface to prove how illogical this legislation is, it is strictly emotion driven and Boobus is sucking it up like a slurpie in August..:mad:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7758253

Placental transfer of drugs administered to the mother.
Pacifici GM1, Nottoli R.
Author information
Abstract
Drugs administered to mothers have the potential to cross the placenta and reach the fetus. Under particular circumstances, the comparison of the drug concentration in the maternal and fetal plasma may give an idea of the exposure of the fetus to the maternally administered drugs. In this review drugs are classified according to their type of transfer across the placenta. Several drugs rapidly cross the placenta and pharmacologically significant concentrations equilibrate in maternal and fetal plasma. Their transfer is termed 'complete'. Other drugs cross the placenta incompletely, and their concentrations are lower in the fetal than in maternal plasma. The majority of drugs fit into 1 of these 2 groups. A limited number of drugs reach greater concentrations in fetal than maternal plasma. It is said that these drugs have an 'exceeding' transfer. The impression prevails that suxamethonium chloride (succinylcholine chloride) and doxorubicin do not cross the placenta. However, a careful analysis of the literature suggests that this impression is wrong and that all drugs cross the placenta, although the extent transfer varies considerably. The following parameters were considered as possible factors determining the extent of placental transfer: (i) the molecular weight of the drug; (ii) the pKa (pH at which the drug is 50% ionised); and (iii) the extent of drug binding to the plasma protein. Drugs with molecular weights greater than 500D have an incomplete transfer across the human placenta. Strongly dissociated acid drug molecules should have an incomplete transfer, but this does not seem to be an absolute rule. For example, ampicillin and methicillin transfer completely and they are strongly dissociated at physiological pH. The extent of drug binding to plasma protein does not influence the type of drug transfer across the human placenta.

[tod evans]

Thus your immaturity is why no one takes you seriously. How old are you? :confused:

I'm 12 and living in my mothers basement..:rolleyes:

Immature is refusing to get off your lazy ass and look up readily available information, instead posting a link you've been called out on dozens of times this year alone.

When are you going to learn that it's not anyone elses job to educate you?

Simple, easily researched statements have been made, they've been acknowledged by other forum members as being factual but for you, that's not enough...

Stop acting like a spoiled child. Boy.

[Bryan]

Let's please keep this civil everyone. It's best to stick with facts, ideas and the like.

Thank you.

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul has spoken many times saying that he believes medical marijuana has efficacy for some patients, yet the medical establishment disagrees with him and says it does not.

Are you saying Ron Paul doesn't have the credentials or education on the subject, because while he may not weight his opinion on the subject of whether it harms a small child, in the general sense his views are closer to mine than they are to the establishment in that we both agree it can provide medical efficacy.
Of course Ron has the credentials, education, and experience on the subject. But in order to prove his theories on the subject he has to show peer reviewed research.

[angelatc]

Which drugs in what quantities are alleged to be harmful?

This little blurb scratches the surface to prove how illogical this legislation is, it is strictly emotion driven and Boobus is sucking it up like a slurpie in August..:mad:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7758253
.

This is more recent, and it concurs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15170365


However, the impression that the placenta forms an impenetrable obstacle against most drugs is now widely regarded as false. It has been shown that that nearly all drugs that are administered during pregnancy will enter, to some degree, the circulation of the foetus via passive diffusion. In addition, some drugs are pumped across the placenta by various active transporters located on both the fetal and maternal side of the trophoblast layer.

[tod evans]

Not if they have the research to back it up.


You can believe whatever you want. But you don't have any credentials or education on the subject, or professional experience. And I assure you that you do not have any concept of how it affects an unborn child.

Matt,

You have legislation not research that you're arguing for...

Why don't you provide the research used to justify the legislation............If there is any!

I suspect this silly bill is driven purely by emotion just like your backing of it.

[Matt Collins]

I'm 12 and living in my mothers basement..:rolleyes:Seems about right given what you have posted...



Immature is refusing to get off your lazy ass and look up readily available information, instead posting a link you've been called out on dozens of times this year alone.

When are you going to learn that it's not anyone elses job to educate you?


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[Matt Collins]

Matt,

You have legislation not research that you're arguing for...

Why don't you provide the research used to justify the legislation............If there is any!

I suspect this silly bill is driven purely by emotion just like your backing of it.Fair enough... except that I haven't once mentioned the legislation in the OP, I don't know that much about it to be honest, it could be a complete turd.

I am discussing the general principles of using the government to stop the mother from harming their unborn child.

[angelatc]

Of course Ron has the credentials, education, and experience on the subject. But in order to prove his theories on the subject he has to show peer reviewed research.

You're not seriously asserting that there is no peer reviewed research demonstrating the effectiveness of marijuana as medicine, are you? Because there's quite a bit out there.

[DamianTV]

What does Govt do? It creates problems while absolving itself of responsibility for creating those problems.

It goes for Laws. It goes for Warfare. It goes for Welfare. It hides its guilt behind whever they want focus to be put on. It blames Gun Owners and Free Speakers while pointing out those people cause problems. The result is Govt solution ends up being worse than the the problem itself. This case is no different. Place blame on the pregnant women, hide behind babys health, and absolve itself of responsibility.

How about Stress?

Does the level of stress a pregnant woman feels have any impact on the baby inside of her? Govt solution: throw the pregnant woman in jail, as if that will decrease her stress levels.

There are people in the world that truly need help, but wont ask for it because the help they get is to have a Gun pointed at their skulls. People that truly need the services of 911. Im being robbed! Im having a heart attack! My house is on fire! And what happens when they do call for help? Robbery victim gets shot / arrested / sued! Heart Attack victim gets tazered by cops for not having control over their body! House is on fire and Firemen get arrested and victim gets charged with Arson! And we wonder why we say DO NOT CALL THE COPS?

Responses to situations can be either Positive or Negative. So youre addicted to Heroin. Maybe instead of throwing the person in jail, they could use some Positive Reinforcement to get off the drug? What about legally prescribed Opiates or other Big Pharma manufactured drugs that people are addicted to? Are they criminals? Or maybe they'd benefit more from a helping hand? Our world of negativity is turning us all into Terrorists and Criminals by definition, not by action. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can change the eventual outcome. If we continue down this path, we will all end up in jail for not calling 911 when we see a pregnant woman eating fast food because it is determined to be bad, thus, illegal.

[angelatc]

I am discussing the general principles of using the government to stop the mother from harming their unborn child.

Remember, you're in crowd that doesn't think car seats and seatbelts should be mandatory. Having said that, don't you think the government should at least need to prove that the drugs are harmful to the fetus before putting women in prison for using them?

I get it - the knee jerk reaction is "OF COURSE drugs hurt babies." But the reality is that perhaps that isn't accurate.

[Matt Collins]

You're not seriously asserting that there is no peer reviewed research demonstrating the effectiveness of marijuana as medicine, are you? Because there's quite a bit out there.I am referring to how it affects unborn children, not fully grown adults.

Having said that, don't you think the government should at least need to prove that the drugs are harmful to the fetus before putting women in prison for using them?Absolutely. And with a court order derived from probable cause by a neutral judge.



But the reality is that perhaps that isn't accurate.Is there any peer reviewed research to show that drugs have zero effect on an unborn child?

[tod evans]

Fair enough... except that I haven't once mentioned the legislation in the OP, I don't know that much about it to be honest, it could be a complete turd.

I am discussing the general principles of using the government to stop the mother from harming their unborn child.

This particular thread is about Tenn. new legislation that makes it a criminal offense for pregnant women to have "illegal drugs" in her system.

If you'd like to discuss "general principals" of how a mother may harm a fetus during gestation why not start a thread about that subject?

I'm willing to discuss current medical research concerning the effects of "illegal drugs" on a fetus as well as the history of pregnant women consuming drugs that are currently illegal and the condition of their children now in adulthood..

I'll even discuss the social and societal implications of permitting the testing for "illegal drugs" in pregnant women because these subjects align with the OP.

[dannno]

I am referring to how it affects unborn children, not fully grown adults.




See Matt, now you are back-peddling.

You are saying we need to put all of our trust into the medical establishment. You said that even though Ron Paul agrees there is efficacy for medical marijuana, that doesn't matter because the peer reviewed research isn't there. But it is there, and the medical establishment still ignores it. That was my whole point, it doesn't matter if there is peer reviewed research or not, it doesn't make the mean they are right because they can pay scientists to fudge up studies.. but the point is even if the studies are there, the medical establishment doesn't always follow if it is not in the interest of the establishment monetarily because just like the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex is driven by special interests and many of us here don't wish to be apart of it, as much as possible, and certainly don't trust their judgement on the safety and efficacy of their own drugs versus, say a natural substance that has been used as a medicine for at least 5-10k years.

[angelatc]

See Matt, now you are back-peddling.

You are saying we need to put all of our trust into the medical establishment. You said that even though Ron Paul agrees there is efficacy for medical marijuana, that doesn't matter because the peer reviewed research isn't there. But it is there, and the medical establishment still ignores it. That was my whole point, it doesn't matter if there is peer reviewed research or not, it doesn't make the mean they are right because they can pay scientists to fudge up studies.. but the point is even if the studies are there, the medical establishment doesn't always follow if it is not in the interest of the establishment monetarily because just like the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex is driven by special interests and many of us here don't wish to be apart of it, as much as possible, and certainly don't trust their judgement on the safety and efficacy of their own drugs versus, say a natural substance that has been used as a medicine for at least 5-10k years.

This is not about you. This is about pregnant women in TN.

[familydog]

dunno that prison is the best method for handling this, but if a mother harms her kid, born or unborn, it SHOULD be a crime!

I agree, but people hit their children all the time and it's perfectly legal. We just don't call it hitting.

[Danke]

Let's please keep this civil everyone. It's best to stick with facts, ideas and the like.

Thank you.
I have noticed you only post to be a nanny.

[angelatc]

Absolutely. And with a court order derived from probable cause by a neutral judge.

I think I am misunderstanding you here. Why should a judge be allowed to issue a warrant if there's no evidence that



Is there any peer reviewed research to show that drugs have zero effect on an unborn child?

Your lack of scientific thinking is showing. We would expect drugs to have an effect on the baby. Drugs are supposed to have an effect on the system by their very nature.

Futhermore, you are making the same error that the anti-GMO crowd makes. Scientist can't ever prove that a substance will never ever have any negative effects. It can prove only that a substance can / might / sometimes have any effect.

The articles I posted above both link to peer reviewed papers.

[angelatc]

I have noticed you only post to be a nanny.

You are a racist!

[dannno]

This is not about you. This is about pregnant women in TN.

No, it has nothing to do with me, this is about a logic test to test Matt's initial thesis regarding pregnant women in TN. I happened to use medical mj because Ron Paul says that it has efficacy for patients and the establishment does not. Much science supports Ron Paul's view, but the establishment still disagrees. The established policies and opinions are not necessarily the truth.

Basically, a lot of us don't trust the establishment and don't want to abide by their medical policies and opinions. We should have that medical freedom.

[kcchiefs6465]

You're not seriously asserting that there is no peer reviewed research demonstrating the effectiveness of marijuana as medicine, are you? Because there's quite a bit out there.
Quite a bit, indeed. Being a proponent of freedom in any case, I'm a little surprised by all of them, actually.

It would probably be quite a bit more too, if UMISS wasn't growing garbage, bilking the taxpayers out of [b]millions in the process.


Remember, you're in crowd that doesn't think car seats and seatbelts should be mandatory. Having said that, don't you think the government should at least need to prove that the drugs are harmful to the fetus before putting women in prison for using them?

I get it - the knee jerk reaction is "OF COURSE drugs hurt babies." But the reality is that perhaps that isn't accurate.
As you pointed out earlier the requirements for 'proving' damage are hard to come by. There is no way that a study will be conducted (nor should it be) with controlled variables to try to discern actual risks of certain substances. It would be 'progressively' evil if ever the case were to be made in favor, let alone the study conducted.

But then people in their infinite wish for security, absent factual information, ignorantly vote to enact laws that affect others.

It's a big clusterfuck, in my opinion.

I don't advocate anyone to use drugs pregnant but the uncertainty of what it was that caused disfigurement and the uncertainty of what substances may cause disfigurement and the further realization that often substances 'legally' prescribed to a mother are probably more harmful than most anything taken outside of the 'law' leaves the rational in a rather uncomfortable position.

It's more than hypocritical, in my opinion, when drugs are being pimped to young kids, even toddlers, and when many mothers give birth under all kinds of different circumstances. From SSRIs, SSNRIs, benzodiazepines, opiates, and many more, (I've come to find out through this thread), to cocaine, methamphetamine etc., and a common combination of more than one. How do we discern what caused what? Add in other factors often unaware of until decades have past and I find myself rather unimpressed with the "humanitarian's" inclination for a law.

[donnay]

Thalidomide. It's okay when government sanctions poisons to unborn children.

[P3ter_Griffin]

What's wrong with that? If a woman is using drugs while pregnant then she is obviously harming her child.

I'm sure eating junk food, fast food, and soda harms an unborn child as well. Maybe we should just imprison women when they get pregnant to make sure they eat a state-sanctioned diet and live a state-sanctioned lifestyle? And shit, with all the obese kids these days, maybe its a sign the state should raise the children too?! Ban 64oz softdrinks!!!!!

[Matt Collins]

I think I am misunderstanding you here. Why should a judge be allowed to issue a warrant if there's no evidence that




Your lack of scientific thinking is showing. We would expect drugs to have an effect on the baby. Drugs are supposed to have an effect on the system by their very nature.
Well we know that certain drugs have a negative effect on adults and kids, so it is reasonable to understand that they have negative effects on unborn children too.

[limequat]

Please cite your medical degree and showing the peer-reviewed research showing that marijuana consumed by mothers with unborn babies is harmless. :rolleyes:

Wow, I used to run into this type of thinking in another forum. A fact cannot be disputed unless you hold a degree in the relevant science. The same tactic was employed regarding global warming. "You're not a climate scientist, so you don't know what you're talking about." Nice.

I suppose, then, the converse is true? That you ARE a medical doctor and have published the peer-reviewed studies to show that marijuana consumed by the mother is harmful to the baby?

Fact is neither study exits, as Angelatc, points out, you'd have to be a lunatic to experiment on pregnant women.

What is known is that THC is non-toxic. The only side-effects are minor. Like getting the munchies. No one has every died from a pot overdose. MJ is not addictive.
So if MJ is harmless to adults, it stand to reason that it would be harmless to fetuses as well.
Yes, we've not done the study. We've also not studied the fetal effects of women who eat dandelions. Why would we?

[limequat]

I used to pal around with an obstetrician.
While my white first-world pregnant friends were obsessing over how fat their butts look in maternity pants, or refusing to pump gas while pregnant, this dude was delivering babies in the ghetto.
We're talking mothers malnutritioned, missing teeth, smoking crack, etc. Babies pop out perfectly healthy every time. Why? Nature puts a preference on the baby, and will starve the mother before the baby.

[Nirvikalpa]

Thalidomide. It's okay when government sanctions poisons to unborn children.

Ugh, it made me sick when I researched the effects of thalidomide. Absolutely sick.

[Keith and stuff]

Every Democrat in the TN Senate voted for this evil crap? Is TN opposite land? What a bunch of crap. Every day I am thankful that I left TN. So, so thankful! :toady:

[Keith and stuff]

Thank goodness there are a few somewhat sane Republicans in the TN Senate. Sadly. there aren't many of them. Now we have this to thank. Great work TN!

[otherone]

I suspect this silly bill is driven purely by emotion just like your backing of it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhrZdDDIgAAf0Ue.jpg

To HELL with Liberty (and common sense) we're talking BABIES, here, man! I smell an addendum to the NDAA in the air!

[otherone]

Thalidomide. It's okay when government sanctions poisons to unborn children.


ummm...HELLO...
profit to be had....
commie.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Remember, when you do drugs, that endangers the government's child. Punishment must be dealt.

[tod evans]

Well we know that certain drugs have a negative effect on adults and kids, so it is reasonable to understand that they have negative effects on unborn children too.

^^^^^^^^^^^^Follow your own advice Bucko^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please cite a credible source for this information.

You have been provided several links to the contrary in this thread, if you're going to continue with your emotion driven supposition please have the decency to back it up as you have insisted other do.

While you're researching please also lend credibility as to which "certain" drugs you reference because every drug behaves somewhat differently.

[angelatc]

Thalidomide. It's okay when government sanctions poisons to unborn children.

Thalidomide was never legal in the USA.

[eduardo89]

Thalidomide was never legal in the USA.

The FDA refused to approve it, but there were clinical trials conducted.

[donnay]

Ugh, it made me sick when I researched the effects of thalidomide. Absolutely sick.

I had two members of my father's side of the family who were affected by this horrendous drug. These people grew up with ridicule and made fun of by ignorant people, but they held their heads high and used their handicaps to help others. They were courageous people.

[donnay]

Thalidomide was never legal in the USA.


Thalidomide in America
Posted on November 2, 2011 | By Steve W. Berman

On September 18, 1962, a baby boy was born in the small town of Brownfield, Texas. Immediately after he was born, doctors noted that the boy had serious and disfiguring birth defects. He was missing his right leg, including his foot. He had no fingers on his right hand and his right arm ended above the elbow.

The baby, named Philip Yeatts, has lived his life without the use of his right leg or hand. He persevered and grew into a strong-willed and determined man. In fact, he became a professional racecar driver, using a specially modified car to win a championship in the U.S. Legends Series in 2008.

Its tempting to end Philips’ story there, and honor his courage and determination to overcome his disability. But there is much more to this story. We believe that Philip was not simply victim of poor luck. We think that his birth defects were a preventable tragedy, side effects from a dangerous drug called thalidomide.

Those of us who were alive in the early 1960s remember the tragedy caused by thalidomide. The drug was widely available in Europe, given to pregnant women to ease morning sickness. We now know that the drug caused debilitating birth defects, resulting in thousands of infant deaths and shocking deformations throughout Europe and elsewhere around the world. The pictures Americans saw of thalidomide babies shocked the nation’s collective consciousness, infants with what appeared to be flippers where arms should be, among other severe malformations.

Yet, at the same time the tragedy seemed so far away. The FDA never approved the drug here, so it was never widely used in the U.S., or so we were told. Later, Billy Joel’s song “We Didn’t Start the Fire,” would juxtapose the European tragedy, “children of thalidomide,” with a much more American tragedy, “Starkweather homicide.”

The belief that America avoided the thalidomide tragedy has persisted for nearly 50 years now, but we believe we have discovered evidence that casts doubt on the story. Newly uncovered and translated documents, combined with new medical advances that help us to better understand how thalidomide works, suggests that there may be many victims in the United States that were never identified.

Even worse, our research has uncovered evidence that the thalidomide tragedy was foreseeable and preventable, but due to the greed of a number of drug companies, safety risks were overlooked and covered up.

The origins of thalidomide take us back to post-war Europe, specifically to the early 1950s in Germany. In 1953-54, German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grunenthal synthesized thalidomide for the first time, and subsequently received a German patent to begin producing and distributing the drug. Grunenthal originally considered the drug a panacea, or at least marketed it as such, claiming it could cure everything from the common cold to premature ejaculation.

New documents suggest that on Christmas Day 1956, an earless baby was born to the wife of a Grunenthal employee who had taken thalidomide during pregnancy. Yet, instead of slowing down development and running more tests, the company continued to push ahead. A mere 10 months later, in October 1956, the drug was released for commercial, over-the-counter sale in Germany.

In 1956, the company entered into an agreement with U.S. pharmaceutical company Smith Kline and French (SKF) to begin domestic testing of thalidomide on animals and humans, including pregnant women.

By August 1958, a pregnant woman participating in the SKF trial delivered a malformed baby. Unlike Grunenthal, who decided to move ahead with the drug, SKF declined to market it in the U.S. However, from what we have seen, the company never let the public know about its test results. The failure to disclose test results is no trivial matter; it is possible that if SKF had sounded an alarm bell early, the distribution of thalidomide in the United State and elsewhere might have been slowed, and less people would have been exposed to the drug.

Having failed to convince SKF to distribute the drug, Grunenthal signed a U.S. distribution agreement for thalidomide with the William S. Merrell Company. Merrell began human trials simultaneous with animal trials in February 1959, and expanded the trials to include pregnant women in May 1959, all while conceding that it had no access to any human clinical safety data.

We believe that sometime during 1959, Grunenthal destroyed its testing data. In September 1960, Merrell submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) with the FDA for commercial sale of thalidomide, which Merrell named Kevadon. The proposed label in the application specified that the drug was intended for use by pregnant women.

One month later, Merrell began its “Kevadon Hospital Program,” a series of large-scale “clinical trials” that we believe were nothing more than a marketing effort to pave the way for expected sales of the drug in the United States. Merrell kept disorganized and occasionally nonexistent records of who, where and when Kevadon was distributed and even informed doctors that they did not need to keep records of the “studies” either. Again, the drug was recommended for use treating morning sickness in pregnant women.

As part of this trial, we believe that more than 2.5 million doses of the drug were given to more than 20,000 patients. While those trials ran, the FDA’s Dr. Frances Kelsey repeatedly denied Merrell’s application to sell thalidomide, deeming its testing to be incomplete. She encouraged testing on pregnant animals.

Continued... (http://blog.seattlepi.com/steveberman/2011/11/02/thalidomide-in-america/)


Fast forward:


United States

On July 16, 1998, the FDA approved the use of thalidomide for the treatment of lesions associated with Erythema Nodosum Leprosum (ENL). Because of thalidomide’s potential for causing birth defects, the distribution of the drug was permitted only under tightly controlled conditions. The FDA required that Celgene Corporation, which planned to market thalidomide under the brand name ''Thalomid'', establish a System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (S.T.E.P.S.) oversight program. The conditions required under the program include; limiting prescription and dispensing rights only to authorized prescribers and pharmacies, keeping a registry of all patients prescribed thalidomide, providing extensive patient education about the risks associated with the drug and providing periodic pregnancy tests for women who are prescribed it.

On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for thalidomide (Thalomid, Celgene Corporation) in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The FDA approval came seven years after the first reports of efficacy in the medical literature and Celgene took advantage of "off-label" marketing opportunities to promote the drug in advance of its FDA approval for the myeloma indication. Thalomid, as the drug is commercially known, sold over $300 million per year, while only approved for leprosy.
http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Thalidomide.aspx

[angelatc]

Thalidomide in America
Posted on November 2, 2011 | As part of this trial, we believe that more than 2.5 million doses of the drug were given to more than 20,000 patients. While those trials ran, the FDA’s Dr. Frances Kelsey repeatedly denied Merrell’s application to sell thalidomide, deeming its testing to be incomplete. She encouraged testing on pregnant animals.


http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Thalidomide.aspx

She looks like a genius now. Thalidomide is the FDA's biggest success story, as well as being responsible for the complete overhaul of the ethics and protocols of global drug testing.

So you bitch because you don't think the government requires enough testing, then you bitch when you find out that the drug was tested. I can assume you'd also bitch because new drugs are not tested on pregnant women while bitching that this drug was tested on pregnant women, and of course you'd bitch because the drug is actually still in use today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Medical_uses)

You darkly intone that The Medical Mafia works silently in tandem with Big pHARM to cover up the side effects, while ignoring stories like this, when scientists across the globe zeroed in, discovered and proved the connection in less than 5 years.

And of course you alternate between complaining that the FDA regulations are not strict enough and they're too strict because they keep laetrile off the market.

And you think you make perfect sense. Whatever.

To tie this back to the original thread topic....Even if we agree in theory, I doubt anybody here would be excitedly yammering that women should have the right to take thalidomide if they chose to if the government in TN passed a law forbidding pregnant women from taking it, and the rationale for that is pretty clear: the drug clearly harms unborn children and the effects are instantly visible.

But from a moral perspective, why can a woman take an RU-486 pill (which intentionally harms the fetus) legally, but not take street drugs, which aren't even proven to effect the baby?

[tod evans]

But from a moral perspective, why can a woman take an RU-486 pill (which intentionally harms the fetus) legally, but not take street drugs, which aren't even proven to effect the baby?

This ridiculous legislation was driven purely by emotion.

Politicians rallying the people who believe what they're told by those who profit from the war on drugs..

It should be obvious to anyone who cares to look at the legislation and the medical data that this bill protects neither mother or child and only serves to protect big government...

[donnay]

She looks like a genius now. Thalidomide is the FDA's biggest success story, as well as being responsible for the complete overhaul of the ethics and protocols of drug testing.

So you bitch because you don't think the government requires enough testing, then you bitch when you find out that the drug was tested. I can assume you'd also bitch because new drugs are not tested on pregnant women while bitching that this drug was tested on pregnant women, and of course you'd bitch because the drug is actually still in use today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Medical_uses)

You darkly intone that The Medical Mafia works silently in tandem with Big pHARM to cover up the side effects, while ignoring stories like this, when scientists across the globe zeroed in, discovered and proved the connection in less than 5 years.

And of course you alternate between complaining that the FDA regulations are not strict enough and they're too strict because they keep laetrile off the market.

And you think you make perfect sense. Whatever.

To tie this back to the original thread topic....I doubt anybody here would be yammering that women should have the right to take thalidomide if they chose to if the government in TN passed a law forbidding pregnant women from taking it, and the rationale for that is pretty clear: the drug clearly harms unborn children.

But from a moral perspective, why can a woman take an RU-486 pill (which intentionally harms the fetus) legally, but not take street drugs, which aren't even proven to effect the baby?

Yeah just as I thought, you didn't make any connections presented. Greed and collusion with drug companies and governments continue in this county and abroad. Even though back in the 50's and 60's the drug companies were not as big and powerful as they are today.

[TheCount]

The FDA refused to approve it, but there were clinical trials conducted. People consented to treatment with an experimental drug, and presumably signed appropriate contracts with the company doing the experimenting.


What don't we like about this again?

[Nirvikalpa]

People consented to treatment with an experimental drug, and presumably signed appropriate contracts with the company doing the experimenting.


What don't we like about this again?

So did those who participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. People can consent but not all consent is informed consent. The government and it's doctor's/scientists have an unfortunate history of lying and with-holding important information that is required for informed consent.

Your point?

[GunnyFreedom]

So did those who participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. People can consent but not all consent is informed consent. The government and it's doctor's/scientists have an unfortunate history of lying and with-holding important information that is required for informed consent.

Your point?

Thank you for providing the correct terminology for a concept I was trying to describe in the 'voluntary sterilization instead of welfare' thread. There is an enormous difference between 'consent' and 'informed consent,' and no matter how 'voluntary' a program may be, there will always be those who fraud people into it.

[TheCount]

So did those who participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. People can consent but not all consent is informed consent. The government and it's doctor's/scientists have an unfortunate history of lying and with-holding important information that is required for informed consent.

Your point?


To summarize, we need to protect people from themselves because they're not smart enough to make their own decisions?

[GunnyFreedom]

To summarize, we need to protect people from themselves because they're not smart enough to make their own decisions?

Fraud is aggression.

[donnay]

To summarize, we need to protect people from themselves because they're not smart enough to make their own decisions?

Leaving out important details from the person who agreed to the trial is wrong--period.

[Dr.3D]

//

[DamianTV]

Whats next? Anything considered "unhealthy" for the baby will result in imprisonment of the mother? By whose definition? Doing dangerous work, like working with potentially dangerous chemicals (i.e. car wash), eating 'dangerous' food like McDonalds? Someone else gets to profit, follow the money. For example, Im the state, you spank your kid, thus I deserve your money by fining you? This sounds like the exact opposite of Liberty and exactly like Policed Parenting.

[Dr.3D]

Whats next? Anything considered "unhealthy" for the baby will result in imprisonment of the mother? By whose definition? Doing dangerous work, like working with potentially dangerous chemicals (i.e. car wash), eating 'dangerous' food like McDonalds? Someone else gets to profit, follow the money. For example, Im the state, you spank your kid, thus I deserve your money by fining you? This sounds like the exact opposite of Liberty and exactly like Policed Parenting.
I can just see it now. The mother is riding on the back of a motorcycle and gets arrested for endangering her unborn child.

[DamianTV]

I can just see it now. The mother is riding on the back of a motorcycle and gets arrested for endangering her unborn child.

/agree

Or a car with a shoulder strapping belt that goes over her stomach. Should driving now be illegal for pregnant women? Or hell, riding in a car, period?

Govt: Thats illegal cuz its a danger to you, now give me some more money.

[tod evans]

Faux-Newz;

New Tenn. law will criminalize moms for using drugs while pregnant

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/02/new-tenn-law-will-criminalize-moms-for-using-drugs-while-pregnant/?intcmp=latestnews

Pregnant women who harm their babies by using narcotics while pregnant will face criminal charges under a new bill signed into law this week in Tennessee, a move decried by health and women’s rights organizations.

Republican Gov. Bill Haslam signed the legislation that would allow women to be charged with assault if they abuse narcotics while pregnant and give birth to a child who is dependent on drugs or harmed as a result.

Haslam signed the bill despite calls from health and women's organizations to veto the bill.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a New York-based advocacy organization, says despite attempts by other states, Tennessee is the first to pass such a bill. Under the law, the women would be charged with misdemeanor assault.

Haslam said Tuesday after signing the bill that he is aware of the concerns opponents have to the measure and will use updates with the courts and health professionals to monitor its impact.

"In reviewing this bill, I have had extensive conversations with experts including substance abuse, mental health, health and law enforcement officials," Haslam said in a statement. "The intent of this bill is to give law enforcement and district attorneys a tool to address illicit drug use among pregnant women through treatment programs."

Those opposed to the bill were concerned that it would only wind up hurting the babies. They fear that women will not get prenatal care because they'll be afraid of going to jail. They also fear that new mothers will not get their babies help when the infants start to show signs of suffering from drug dependence because the moms are afraid of getting arrested.

The Haslam administration has said that women who seek drug treatment while pregnant and complete the program will not be charged.

Health care workers note that signs of drug dependency can come days or weeks after the baby has been born and first leaves the hospital.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday called the law dangerous and said Haslam overlooked widespread calls for a veto of the bill, including from doctors.

"Today, the Tennessee governor has made it a crime to carry a pregnancy to term if you struggle with addiction or substance abuse," Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Freedom Project, said in a statement. "This deeply misguided law will force those women who need health care the most into the shadows. Pregnant women with addictions need better access to health care, not jail time."

Tennessee prosecutors had fought for the law. They argued that it was the only way to get mothers into drug treatment and stop so many children from being harmed as a result of their mothers using drugs while pregnant.

*The first clue that a law, bill or edict is counter-liberty is when prosecutors push for it.

Rest assured this fine piece of legislation will be abused by CPS, the cops and of course the very prosecutors who profit financially from it...

All at the expense of the mothers and their children whilst the taxpayer foots yet another feel-good program...:mad:

[donnay]

^^^ You were right Tod.

[tod evans]

Now to convince some supposed liberty lovers to get up off their knees, unpurse their lips and turn loose of the prosecutors appendages!

Prosecuting attorneys as a breed are far more dangerous to liberty and humanity than some dumb cop...

[donnay]

Now to convince some supposed liberty lovers to get up off their knees, unpurse their lips and turn loose of the prosecutors appendages!

Prosecuting attorneys as a breed are far more dangerous to liberty and humanity than some dumb cop...

Most of them are politicians in the making. The more arrests they have under their belt the better the politician s/he becomes.

They make the laws, break the laws and know all the loop holes.

[otherone]

Prosecuting attorneys as a breed are far more dangerous to liberty and humanity than some dumb cop...

Naked ambition. The accused are playing cards in a giant YU-GI-OH game.

[milgram]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt-66cWCDIg

This issue comes up (quite disturbingly) in the documentary The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia, which follows a troubled yet endearing clan of drug-using welfare recipients. I believe they are snorting some chopped-up pill(s) here.

She is not arrested but her child is taken away.

(Sorry about the poor video quality but it's all I can find.)

[Ender]

The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday called the law dangerous and said Haslam overlooked widespread calls for a veto of the bill, including from doctors.

"Today, the Tennessee governor has made it a crime to carry a pregnancy to term if you struggle with addiction or substance abuse," Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Freedom Project, said in a statement. "This deeply misguided law will force those women who need health care the most into the shadows. Pregnant women with addictions need better access to health care, not jail time."

Exactly.

Hope the ACLU pursues this.