HUH? If she had a miscarriage, what child was abused? How does her having a miscarriage differ from her having an abortion in this regard?
Methinks you have some of your facts wrong.
Even if it is against the law, sometimes you just have to do the right thing. Remember there is another person involved (and is underaged (negitivallyaged?)
Actually, Zebra got it right. That’s South Carolina for you.
Her name is Regina McNight, btw.
Let’s not forget the recent cases of pregnant women who test positive for coke being charged with child abuse. I can’t remember the particulars, but it seems that the hospital in question would have its staff run drug tests, without the permission of the patients, on “suspicious” women, and then forward any positive results to the fuzz.
Regina McKnight.
Abortion?
Actually, thatmay be a fallacy. I read a recent Scandanavian medical research paper, studying married couples with one spouse in a job that exposed them to environmental chemical hazards, while the other spouse worked in an environment basically free of those chemicals. Their results were surprising, it was the children of men working in chemical-laden environments that had more birth defects than of women in similar environments. So it appears that the source of birth defects can go back to the sperm, and may not be primarily from the egg and the mother’s contribution to gestation. But certainly broader, more conclusive research is needed.
Thanks Black455
I’ve been looking for a link and couldn’t find it.
Geez, that’s unbelievable.
Here’s a direct link to a story; the Google search that black455 posted didn’t work for me
Despite “our increasingly litigious society,” I am unaware of any lawsuit in which the plaintiff has ever claimed damages based on the sale of alcohol or tobacco to a pregnant woman. If this is a case of CYA, it’s about a perceived threat, not an actual one.
Most of the other things you can buy that can be harmful come with warnings on them. A Gin & Tonic, or a beer in a glass, doesn’t. Pharmacies get away with selling aspirin to pregnant women because it says right there on the package, don’t use this if you’re pregnant. Same reason those Surgeon General warnings are on cigarettes: it’s not to educate the public. It’s to keep the Quickie Mart lady from getting sued.
This friend was pregnant and my wife hadn’t seen her in awhile. Wife asked her when she was going to have the baby and the gal said “I had it last week”. It happens!
“Where’s the fetus going to gestate? In a box???”
I know we’ve got some bartenders on the boards… Aren’t you expected, under some professional code, to refuse to serve someone when you think there’s a health hazard? I mean, suppose some guy comes in and downs ten shots in a row. Mightn’t a bartender refuse him an eleventh? Same deal here, except that a pregnant woman’s “limit” is lower than it would be were she not pregnant.
Chronos, I’ve served booze in NM and TX, and in those states, it is illegal to serve an obviously intoxicated person. While a drink or two a day in good for you, much more than that is a danger to you health, so if you refused to serve on the grounds of health detrement, you would cut off every good ol’ boy with a beer belly.
As far as I was able to determine in researching dram shop laws a couple years ago, it is illegal in every state in the Union to serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person. There is, AFAIK, no such restriction on serving alcohol to a pregnant woman.
The person in danger isn’t the pregnant woman. An alcoholic drink during pregnancy is no more nor less harmful to the woman than when she isn’t pregnat. The danger is to the fetus. One drink, yes, one serving of alcohol can cause terrible damage to a child if exposed at a vulnerable point in development in the womb. There have been cases of fetal alcohol syndrome in babies exposed to just one drink in the womb, complete with severe retardation, stunted growth, and facial deformities.
On the other hand - some women drink throughout pregnancy and their kids appear normal. Well. Obviously medical science isn’t entirely sure what’s going on here.
So - women are advised never to drink in pregancy, just to be on the safe side, since alcohol never does a fetus good and can do irrepairable harm.
As for “we don’t serve pregnant women” - the worst damage is most likely to occur in the first 8 weeks, a time when many pregnant women don’t know that they are pregnant. Having a beer at 38+ weeks into the project is far, far less likely to do harm to the child. Short of demanding a pregnancy test of every woman who comes in the door, I’m not sure how you’re going to enforce this policy in a way the protects the most vulnerable.
Actually, here in NYC bars are required to post LARGE BLOCKLETTTER SIGNS repeating the Surgeon General’s warning that’s on beer, wine and liquor bottles. Those signs might well serve in a bar’s defense in a lawsuit.
Now, the really funny thing is to see these signs at all-male gay bars…
Do you have a cite for this? This site says it’s a myth.
Further, in this article even moderate alcohol consumption (defined as two drinks a day) doesn’t seem to cause FAS.
Cite please…
My sister-in-law had a glass of wine once a week while pregnant and my nephew is one of the healthiest babies. He’s bright, intelligent and normal in all ways.
Oh and what about all the babies that are born normally while their mother’s went out for drinks with the work crew and didn’t even know she was pregnant? The first trimester is the most crucial time and I have known women that drank and partied and even one that did crystal and pot in the first month or so…her son is quite healthy and normal as well.
OK, folks asked for cites. Well, I haven’t got cites, how about experience?
I used to work at a drug rehab facility. The two women pertinent to this thread were both “clients”. Both of these women were getting drug tests every other day, so we had a pretty good idea what they were or weren’t ingesting.
The first woman relapsed and had a drink, then a week later found out she was pregnant. She had been clean for several months prior, and managed to stay off the hooch for the remainder of the pregnancy. She gave birth to an undersized baby with the facial defects characteristic of FAS.
The second woman was already in the “pregnant women” program when she fell off the wagon. Again, apparently just once, about four months along. Her child, again, was born with the full constellation of FAS features.
Were either of these women enrolled in a scientific study? No. Can we be absolutely 100% sure they didn’t ingest something else? No - even if you lock someone up 24 hours a day in a very small room and subject them to random body cavity searches you can’t garauntee that, as anyone famillar with the criminal justice system and jails will tell you.
As for the “my sister/mother/cousin/best friend/me” stories - yeah, there are women who drink every day and give birth to healthy children. There are women who took thalidomide and gave birth to normal children. There are women with full-blown AIDS who give birth to children who don’t carry the virus. That in no way “proves” that thalidomide is harmless to the fetus or that HIV can’t be transmitted before birth. There are biological barriers between the mother and child. Sometimes they work real well, sometimes they don’t, and we don’t always know why.
The alcoholics I knew from my past job - maybe there was something else going on. Maybe they had suffered liver damage that slowed their ability to process alcohol, so their babies were exposed longer to toxins than would be the case with a healthy woman. Maybe some people have some sort of genetic quirk that allows them to tolerate pre-natal alcohol exposure better than others. We don’t know. Which is why we don’t say “Women with “X” characteristics shouldn’t drink while pregnant” but rather “No woman should drink while pregnant”, because we have no way to know which babies will be affected. So better safe than sorry.