# I pit the fetal personhood statute of Wisconsin for jailing a pregnant woman for no good reason **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2013, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200 "2013-10-25T12:33:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Banana\_Pancake\_Flipper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ce7236/32.png) [@Banana\_Pancake\_Flipper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banana_Pancake_Flipper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/41 "2013-10-28T18:49:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There’s a crucial difference between “lacked control” and “lacks control” - it’s only a couple of letters but they’re important. … There is no objective evidence to support a belief that Beltran was going to take any drugs during the remainder of her pregnancy. A prior, and RECENT, history of drug abuse is objective evidence to support the belief that she may abuse drugs again in the near futre. “I won’t abuse Percs again during my pregnancy, I promise!!” is NOT objective evidence to support a belief that she was NOT going to take any drugs during the remainder of her pregnancy. Good intentions are great. A promise not to relapse is wonderful. The reality is that relapse is more common than not. Good intentions, promises, threats, and deals struck with a higher power notwithstanding. Been there. Done that. Watched countless others do it. Sober today. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/42 "2013-10-28T19:45:49Z")
> [@Undead Annie](#): > > Well, if the fetus is a person that any pregnant woman who does anything remotely life threatening should be arrested for attempted murder. And all miscarriages should be subject to prosecution for murder. Ha! That would never happen. That would be like forcing a pregnant woman into rehab because she might use drugs or something. There is no way these personhood statutes could ever lead to something that silly. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/43 "2013-10-28T19:51:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Mind you, I still think the particular case and the particular law described by the OP sound pretty fucked up, and this was not the right way to go about trying to protect an unborn child. But the general principle that it’s okay for a pregnant woman to kill a fetus by terminating her pregnancy, but not okay for a pregnant woman (or anybody else) to endanger the life or health of a fetus she **doesn’t** want to abort, is not illogical or self-contradictory in my book. I can see your point here. And, I know you’re not advocating this law or these laws in general, but, given the situation here, it’s not that slippery of a slope to get to what **Annie** wrote about. How much endangerment is allowed? One cigarette/day? 1/2 pack? Full pack? How much alcohol? Is skiing OK? Vigorous workouts? If a pregnant woman goes on an amusement park ride, contrary to the warnings, and has a miscarriage, is that homicide? Murder? Deranged indifference to human life? Criminal neglect? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/44 "2013-10-28T20:16:45Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > “…may become a child.” means to me that it is not currently a child. Since it’s also not a corporation, it doesn’t seem to have personhood status (yet). That’s the conflict I see between personhood statutes and the Supreme Court. Who cares? By that I mean: the Supremes’ language is clear enough for almost anyone: the state has legitimate interests from the pregnancy’s outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. Whether it’s a “person” or not is irrelevant. Whether different “persons” are entitled to different types of legal protection is also irrelevant. What’s relevant is: the state has legitimate interests from the pregnancy’s outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. That’s what this law does. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/45 "2013-10-28T20:23:08Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I can see your point here. And, I know you’re not advocating this law or these laws in general, but, given the situation here, it’s not that slippery of a slope to get to what **Annie** wrote about. > > How much endangerment is allowed? One cigarette/day? 1/2 pack? Full pack? How much alcohol? Is skiing OK? Vigorous workouts? If a pregnant woman goes on an amusement park ride, contrary to the warnings, and has a miscarriage, is that homicide? Murder? Deranged indifference to human life? Criminal neglect? :rolleyes: Are you remotely serious? A sixteen year-old can legally drive. So, why not a 15-year, eleven-month, 29 day old? The speed limit is 55. What’s wrong with 56? In the Star Trek TOS episode “I, Mudd,” the androids seeking to take over the Enterprise are defeated by being presented with seeming paradoxes; their brains burn out. You seem to believe that the law operates in similar fashion. It does not. There is nothing in our legal system that forbids approximations, arbitrary lines, and the application of a flexible “reasonable person,” standard. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/46 "2013-10-28T20:30:28Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > I guess the law, in its wisdom, allows you to kill it, but not to saddle it with ongoing problems for the rest of its life. Makes a kind of sense, if you don’t insist on saying “While it’s in her body she can do what she likes to it”. Reminds my of a joke about General Patton: “You can order a soldier to jump out of a plane or run into machinegun fire, but God forbid you slap him in the face.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/47 "2013-10-28T21:20:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A sixteen year-old can legally drive. So, why not a 15-year, eleven-month, 29 day old? > > The speed limit is 55. What’s wrong with 56? > > In the Star Trek TOS episode “I, Mudd,” the androids seeking to take over the Enterprise are defeated by being presented with seeming paradoxes; their brains burn out. You seem to believe that the law operates in similar fashion. It does not. There is nothing in our legal system that forbids approximations, arbitrary lines, and the application of a flexible “reasonable person,” standard. IA still NAL but I agree with **Bricker** on this, minus the snarkitude. While I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about slippery slopes to invasiveness in protecting against fetal endangerment, I think we do have to acknowledge that pretty much every legal standard we set up involving fetal safety and maternal bodily autonomy is to some extent arbitrary. We can’t just say “Oh well, because this is kind of a gray area then we can’t make any rules about it at all”. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/48 "2013-10-28T22:11:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is Suboxone a prescription drug? > > Was she taking it under a doctor’s care – that is, did she have a prescription? > > Was she willing to enter into a doctor’s care? > > I am thinking the answers to those questions are yes, no, and no. > > And I’m thinking that the safety of her unborn child was probably protected by the effect of this law. > > Nothing in the “arguments” presented in the posts above have changed that thought. I actually think the answers to these questions you pose are yes, no, and yes. It’s not that she didn’t want a doctor to care for her. It’s that she had no insurance and couldn’t do so. Hopefully, we’ll soon live in a country where everyone has medical insurance and everyone can be properly cared for. For now, people make do the best they can. And your questions are irrelevant. This thread isn’t about whether this is a law, your purposeful myopic view notwithstanding. It’s about the fact that the law is fucking stupid, which is a sound argument to make. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/49 "2013-10-28T22:31:38Z")
I hope the fetus’s lawyer is taking the case pro bono, because I bet the kid doesn’t have much cash on hand… ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/50 "2013-10-28T22:54:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Are you remotely serious? > > A sixteen year-old can legally drive. So, why not a 15-year, eleven-month, 29 day old? > > The speed limit is 55. What’s wrong with 56? > > In the Star Trek TOS episode “I, Mudd,” the androids seeking to take over the Enterprise are defeated by being presented with seeming paradoxes; their brains burn out. You seem to believe that the law operates in similar fashion. It does not. There is nothing in our legal system that forbids approximations, arbitrary lines, and the application of a flexible “reasonable person,” standard. Yes, I’m remotely serious. Before I heard about this case, I figured that these personhood statutes were really to get cases in front of SCOTUS in order to overturn Casey or Roe, with the added result of adding charges to people who harm pregnant women. I really didn’t think they would be used against women who are pregnant. In this case, the woman would not have been put into rehab if (1) she hadn’t been pregnant and (2) if this law wasn’t on the books. Absent this law, she wouldn’t have been forced into rehab, pregnant or no, and absent the pregnancy, she wouldn’t have been forced into rehab. To me, it’s a small step from forcing her into rehab to otherwise prosecuting women who are pregnant for endangering their fetuses in other ways. So, what is the arbitrary line here? I don’t remotely see how I, Mudd is apt – is the line that she’s pregnant? That she did something illegal while pregnant? The argument that anti-abortion statutes such as this one and the one in Texas are anti-woman gets stronger all the time. In Texas, a state judge just let stand the portion of the law that requires doctors to use an older, higher, less safe dose of medicine in order to cause a medical abortion. Doctors have found that lower, safer doses work just as well, but Texas now requires doctors to use the less safe dose. The abortion is going to happen either way – how is that not anti-woman? Anyway, I get too angry arguing abortion laws, so I may not come back to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/51 "2013-10-28T23:49:41Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > So, what is the arbitrary line here? I don’t remotely see how I, Mudd is apt – is the line that she’s pregnant? That she did something illegal while pregnant? You tell me. I was responding to some yahoo who said, “How much endangerment is allowed? One cigarette/day? 1/2 pack? Full pack? How much alcohol? Is skiing OK? Vigorous workouts? If a pregnant woman goes on an amusement park ride, contrary to the warnings, and has a miscarriage, is that homicide? Murder? Deranged indifference to human life? Criminal neglect?” That argument goes straight to the heart of complaining about arbitrary lines and suggests by inference that a law cannot reliably enforce the concept of protecting the fetus because we’ll be so flummoxed by the line between four and six cigarettes that our android brains will melt. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/52 "2013-10-29T00:03:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You tell me. I was responding to some yahoo who said, “How much endangerment is allowed? One cigarette/day? 1/2 pack? Full pack? How much alcohol? Is skiing OK? Vigorous workouts? If a pregnant woman goes on an amusement park ride, contrary to the warnings, and has a miscarriage, is that homicide? Murder? Deranged indifference to human life? Criminal neglect?” > > That argument goes straight to the heart of complaining about arbitrary lines and suggests by inference that a law cannot reliably enforce the concept of protecting the fetus because we’ll be so flummoxed by the line between four and six cigarettes that our android brains will melt. This woman found out she had crossed some arbitrary line, by not continuing to take some drug. What line had she crossed? The law seems vague – you cannot endanger your fetus (other than having it removed), however, they are not rounding up pregnant women who smoke yet. Is it up to Child Protected Services? I can’t even tell where you’re going with this. The law deals with arbitrary lines – 55 mph is OK, but not 56 mph. What line did she cross? Is it a flexible “reasonable person”-type line, or a hard 55-vs-56 mph line? And, **Kimstu** , I don’t see why there are such laws at all – the whole area is a gray one and best left up to the woman and her doctor, like they do up in Canada. Wisconsin enacted a useless gray area law and this woman was trapped by it. And, can someone please pit the doctor-must-overprescribe-medicine law that was just affirmed in Texas? I don’t have the fine rhetorical skills necessary for the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/53 "2013-10-29T00:33:55Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > This woman found out she had crossed some arbitrary line, by not continuing to take some drug. What line had she crossed? The law seems vague – you cannot endanger your fetus (other than having it removed), however, they are not rounding up pregnant women who smoke yet. Is it up to Child Protected Services? > > I can’t even tell where you’re going with this. The law deals with arbitrary lines – 55 mph is OK, but not 56 mph. What line did she cross? Is it a flexible “reasonable person”-type line, or a hard 55-vs-56 mph line? > > And, **Kimstu** , I don’t see why there are such laws at all – the whole area is a gray one and best left up to the woman and her doctor, like they do up in Canada. Wisconsin enacted a useless gray area law and this woman was trapped by it. > > And, can someone please pit the doctor-must-overprescribe-medicine law that was just affirmed in Texas? I don’t have the fine rhetorical skills necessary for the Pit. How does a parent of child know where “the line” is for physical abuse? I can’t lock my kid in his room for 3 days without food, but can I send him to bed without dinner if he makes a scene at the table saying he isn’t eating any damn vegetables? I can’t leave my kid at school after classes are done for 6 hours while I party down at the bar, but what if I’m 10 minutes late picking him up? 30 minutes late? What if I’m an hour late 8 times in one month? Where is the line? ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/54 "2013-10-29T00:38:19Z")
The Handmaid’s Tale was supposed to be speculative _fiction_, right? It wasn’t supposed to be prognostication or predicting what would happen within 30-40 years of the author’s writing, right? Right??? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/55 "2013-10-29T00:38:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How does a parent of child know where “the line” is for physical abuse? I can’t lock my kid in his room for 3 days without food, but can I send him to bed without dinner if he makes a scene at the table saying he isn’t eating any damn vegetables? I can’t leave my kid at school after classes are done for 6 hours while I party down at the bar, but what if I’m 10 minutes late picking him up? 30 minutes late? What if I’m an hour late 8 times in one month? > > Where is the line? Well, do you think this woman crossed any line, by not continuing to take some drug? They forced her into rehab because they thought she might go back on drugs. Is that a reasonable line? What is your opinion of this specific case? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/56 "2013-10-29T01:00:22Z")
I’m trying to understand the issue here, so please help me out. Is this a proxy fight on abortion rights? Did those who oppose abortions push this type of law to help further their cause? Or does it have nothing to do with abortion? I’m decidedly pro-choice, but I also am very concerned about the health of fetuses, if an abortion is not selected. I hope that isn’t contradictory. OTOH, I’m not sure that a sledgehammer is the best tool for all carpentry projects, and I wonder about the consequences of this law. A major concern I have about the law chiefly center around the unequal treatment (no pun intended) of the poor and the wealthy and middle classes. I’m 99% certain that a woman with sufficient means were to have done the same thing, that is to tell a health provider that she had been abusing drugs, that she would not have wound up arrested and in court ordered treatment. A private health care provider would have been more likely to have believed her that she had quit and more likely to have not reported it. The authorities, even if notified would have treated her differently, would have been more likely to have believed her and would have not gone as quickly to the nuclear option. Hence she would have not been arrested. Had someone with any amount of money wound up facing a judge, with an attorney, that attorney would have been able to have successfully kept the woman out of mandatory lockup treatment. It is unconscionable to enact laws such as this without providing adequate and affordable health care. I hope that the new health care law will help. The news reports quotes the woman’s attorney as saying that Ms. Beltran was not using drugs “at the time of the arrest.” In the same report, it stated that at the intake interview, Ms. Beltran had stated that she had taken her last dose a few day prior. What is not stated clearly if she had taken any doses in the interim. That is of critical importance in the question if she had truly been free of drugs. I’m not sure why Ms. Beltran had refused to see a physician. It’s also not clear if the social worker were truly attempting to force her to start a drug regiment or if this were something which the woman is just reporting her side of the story. Unfortunately, it’s hard to see the overall picture with information from only one side. From the New York Times article, > [@](#): > > 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. > > In a letter dated July 16, Dr. Breckenridge said that Ms. Beltran had “openly admitted” taking opiates during pregnancy and was still using Suboxone. > > “She exhibits lack of self-control and refuses the treatment we have offered her,” wrote Dr. Breckenridge, who, according to Ms. Beltran, had not personally met or examined her. She recommended “a mandatory inpatient drug treatment program or incarceration,” adding, “The child’s life depends on action in this case.” If this is correct, that the obstetrician had not met or examined Ms. Beltran, then this is not right. The doctor should not have been writing such a report based on what is being reported by assistants without stating so clearly in the report. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/57 "2013-10-29T01:30:39Z")
> [@Banana\_Pancake\_Flipper](#): > > A prior, and RECENT, history of drug abuse is objective evidence to support the belief that she may abuse drugs again in the near futre. > > “I won’t abuse Percs again during my pregnancy, I promise!!” is NOT objective evidence to support a belief that she was NOT going to take any drugs during the remainder of her pregnancy. Good intentions are great. A promise not to relapse is wonderful. The reality is that relapse is more common than not. Good intentions, promises, threats, and deals struck with a higher power notwithstanding. > > Been there. Done that. Watched countless others do it. Sober today. I think you’re projecting your own personal situation on to other people. This was not a situation where a woman promised to not take drugs. She submitted to drug tests and objectively proved she had no traces of drugs in her system. She was then told she had to take a drug which she refused to do because she said she didn’t need it. That refusal to take drugs is what prompted the court hearing. Let me challenge you - and Bricker, if he wishes - to this question. What standard would you create that a pregnant woman could meet to overturn a judicial order like this? Or can a Wisconsin judge order any pregnant woman into confinement on his or her own discretion and there is no standard of proof that can overturn that decision? ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/58 "2013-10-29T05:43:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You tell me. I was responding to some yahoo who said, “How much endangerment is allowed? One cigarette/day? 1/2 pack? Full pack? How much alcohol? Is skiing OK? Vigorous workouts? If a pregnant woman goes on an amusement park ride, contrary to the warnings, and has a miscarriage, is that homicide? Murder? Deranged indifference to human life? Criminal neglect?” > > That argument goes straight to the heart of complaining about arbitrary lines and suggests by inference that a law cannot reliably enforce the concept of protecting the fetus because we’ll be so flummoxed by the line between four and six cigarettes that our android brains will melt. Or it goes straight to the heart of complaining that if courts are going to deprive pregnant people of their most basic freedoms, they should be operating within the rules of evidence and basing decisions on\* accepted medical and scientific baselines\* not just the written testimony of a single provider who may be operating from an agenda (like promoting personhood ideals) or bias (particularly prevalent in drug cases) that they are prioritizing over the actual facts of the case in question. And that pregnant people in such a scenario are entitled to counsel, particularly, _especially,_ if the fetus has a lawyer. And we have to recognize that a _lot_ of activities and situations are classed as “less than ideal” or “possibly endangering” a pregnancy and are linked to certain outcomes for the fetus post-birth. (Cigarette smoking is #3 on the list behind drugs and alcohol.) If courts everywhere were to operate in the same fashion as they did in Ms. Beltran’s case, any doctor could indicate (in a written statement that couldn’t be cross-examined, and without any lawyer to do a cross-examination to begin with) that engaging in one of those “possibly endangering” activities/situations was sufficient to remand the person to rehab for months, remand her to jail until they give birth, enjoin her from continuing in her job, even punish her for failing to leave an abusive relationship. \*Pregnant women in the United States of America have been arrested for “reckless endangerment of a fetus” for tripping and falling down. \*A woman in Mississippi, Rennie Gibbs, has been entangled in a murder case for seven years because she was a poor, doctorless, cocaine using 15 year old and had a preterm stillbirth. She faces life in prison for that. It is not far fetched to say that there needs to be protection of the rights of pregnant people that are currently not always in existence, especially once we recognize that it is impossible to ameliorate all risk, even ones linked to “chosen” behavior, and sometimes not even beneficial to try. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/59 "2013-10-29T05:48:41Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > . . . Is this a proxy fight on abortion rights? Did those who oppose abortions push this type of law to help further their cause? Or does it have nothing to do with abortion? . . . Yes to Proxy Fight. **Der Trihs** will likely say it more forcefully than I ever could, but the actual intent has very little to do with fetal health, and far more to do with punishing women for having sex. If they actually cared about, y’know, babies, they wouldn’t always vote against pre-natal health care. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200/60 "2013-10-29T12:37:40Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Yes to Proxy Fight. **Der Trihs** will likely say it more forcefully than I ever could, but the actual intent has very little to do with fetal health, and far more to do with punishing women for having sex. If they actually cared about, y’know, babies, they wouldn’t always vote against pre-natal health care. I think its far more of a general women’s rights issue than abortion. My last job was in a factory where some really nasty chemicals were used (under fume hoods, managed, et. al). Pregnant women were moved out of jobs where there was risk of exposure and transferred into roles for the duration of their pregnancy where there was less risk, but honestly, the whole building had risk of exposure (our alarm system had one for toxic gas release “low to high, kiss your ass goodbye”). Should pregnant women be permitted to do a job where chemical exposure MIGHT harm the fetus? If I’m an executive for a big company, and its pretty stressful, should I quit when I get pregnant because stress MIGHT harm the fetus. Maybe the level of stress I’m under right now doesn’t seem harmful, but we could have a bad quarter next year. There were generations where women went into confinement months before their baby showed up. Sometimes those women hid their pregnancies for months because they had to. That mentality makes it pretty hard for a woman to hold a job - and not just the McJob she is relying on to pay the rent because the guy who knocked her up disappeared, but it makes it pretty hard for her to play on the same field as the men with her MBA or law degree or as a chemical engineer if maternity leave isn’t six weeks after the birth, but a year because “we need to protect the fetus.” As a woman, THIS scares the shit out of me far more than abortion rights. I’d rather my daughter not be able to get an abortion than have to choose between a successful career and kids. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-fetal-personhood-statute-of-wisconsin-for-jailing-a-pregnant-woman-for-no-good-reason/672200.md?page=4)