• news
  • SATURDAY FEBRUARY 17 2007 2:00 PM

"Meth Babies"

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: war on drugs, women's rights



Do y'all remember the "crack baby epidemic" of the '80s? Where are those "crack babies" now? Weren't we supposed to have an epidemic of violent, mentally damaged sociopaths on our hands?

Huh. Guess it was mostly racist drug war propaganda.

Now the powers that be are trying to reprise the hysteria, this time focused on "meth babie." At the moment, they're trying to criminalize pregnant meth users for "child abuse" in Wyoming, Idaho, Iowa, and Missouri.

We all know that tossing people in jail rather than, say, providing treatment programs or actual fact-based information is part and parcel of the government's war on social undesirables rather than anything resembling a coherent or intelligent drug policy. Criminalizing pregnant women for "child abuse" or "delivery of drugs to a minor" combines the racism and classism of the drug wars with the ongoing right-wing attacks on women's reproductive rights. If you give a shit about either one, you really should be paying particular attention when women are prosecuted for drug use while pregnant.

Luckily, the folks at National Advocates for Pregnant Women are starting to point this out, most recently at this month's Meth Conference in Salt Lake City. Keep your ears and eyes open for this organization and its head, Lynn Paltrow: she's on the leading edge of women's rights in this country, and she's a force to be reckoned with.

And if you, or someone you know, ends up in legal trouble for something you did while pregnant — from drug use to home birth to refusing invasive medical care — drop NAPW (or me) a line. Your constitutional rights don't evaporate when you get knocked up, no matter what the pregnancy policy try to tell you.

Bitch_PhD, who smoked, drank booze and coffee, ate sushi and bacon, and otherwise misbehaved while pregnant, attended the NAPW Summit last month.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

20 | 21 | 22

Next

Comments
Dark_Templar

Dark_Templar

Auburn, CA
June 2004

MAR 03, 2007 03:34 AM

OMG how are people still debating this, Im gonna slap the next Meth Mama I see...........

........ and Im gonna tell them the "bitch" sent me wink biggrin

Also I'll be the devils advocate...... what about sterilizing those women who are convicted of meth use while pregnant....... after all they sterilize rapist and sex offenders in some cases ?


why not sterilize a woman who has a history of abusing her child when it is still a fetus............
whatever confused

not to be taken as that is my opinion, but its food for thought

edith

edith

France
April 2006

MAR 03, 2007 04:09 AM

dumb idea

no really, because you can not fucking decide who to sterilize unless you are some kind of fucking nazi.

i was watching some tv show last night about this brother and sister in germany http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6379785.stm who want to make incest legal. they have had 4 kids and 3 of them were taken away because of birth defects caused by the fact that they are brother and sister.

of course when people were asked for the opionions it was mainly stuff like "I don't know why the German government hasn't had them sterilized yet."

um, i don't think the german government is interested in going there again.

erleichda

erleichda

Germany
May 2003

MAR 03, 2007 06:04 AM

edith said:
dumb idea

no really, because you can not fucking decide who to sterilize unless you are some kind of fucking nazi.

i was watching some tv show last night about this brother and sister in germany http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6379785.stm who want to make incest legal. they have had 4 kids and 3 of them were taken away because of birth defects caused by the fact that they are brother and sister.

of course when people were asked for the opionions it was mainly stuff like "I don't know why the German government hasn't had them sterilized yet."

um, i don't think the german government is interested in going there again.



Quite a big case around here, that is.

And although this will further derail this thread, I think as a tangent it's not totally uninteresting. The main reason to have a law against incest is "the potential danger to the children of such a couple to have genetical defects". This law is very old. In other european countries those anti-incest laws have been abolished a long time ago. The medical community is not at all uneqivocal about those genetical dangers. Also a law that would forbit handicapped people to have children - even if those children would almost certainly be born with genetically defects - is quite unthinkable, at least here with our history.

So this couple stands a good chance of tearing down this law.

BTW, they didn't grow up together. The guy met his sister when he was looking for his biological parents as an adult. Half a year later their first child was born. The children were not taken away not because they had birth defects but because of the two of them breaking this anti-incest law. Two of the children came early and had birth defects which so far could not be proven to be a result of the two being brother and sister.

Ok on second thought this really hasn't much to do with the thread.
Here's my source, sorry it's in german.

edith

edith

France
April 2006

MAR 03, 2007 06:31 AM

it still bothers me for various reasons. it is pretty relevant to this conversation because if meth addicts shouldn't have babies you can drag that on to mean people like this couple shouldn't have babies as well. it goes on forever. basically no one can decide who shouldn't have babies EVER. not even rapists or women who killed all their previous children.

in this case the sister was a teenager when they met and their mother died six months afterwards. i think she was 15 when she first got pregnant with the brother's child. he's 9 years older than she is, and they are both unemployed. she's now 21 with ***5*** children, 3 of them taken away. the fifth child was due to some other guy when her brother/father was in jail.

anyway, here's another link to this story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=439288&in_page_id=1879

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 03, 2007 06:43 AM

edith said:
it still bothers me for various reasons. it is pretty relevant to this conversation because if meth addicts shouldn't have babies you can drag that on to mean people like this couple shouldn't have babies as well. it goes on forever. basically no one can decide who shouldn't have babies EVER. not even rapists or women who killed all their previous children.

in this case the sister was a teenager when they met and their mother died six months afterwards. i think she was 15 when she first got pregnant with the brother's child. he's 9 years older than she is, and they are both unemployed. she's now 21 with ***5*** children, 3 of them taken away. the fifth child was due to some other guy when her brother/father was in jail.

anyway, here's another link to this story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=439288&in_page_id=1879



My vote: Let's micromanage the entire reproductive process. Anyone who wants to have a child must register their DNA (which can then be used to see if they committed any crimes or to further our defenses in the "War on Terror") and that of their partner - to be sure that they don't have 13 alleles in common. Then they have to have a complete drug screen to make sure they are not a drug addict. Then they should have genetic testing done for, oh say 4 or 5 generations back to be sure that they have no "handicaps" that could conceivably be passed on to their children. And, while we're at it, why not an IQ test and a measure of income levels to make sure the children will be smart and rich (we might want to allow some dumb and poor genes in just so the rich kids can have their pools cleaned.)

This will make every thing better.

The only question in my mind is whether we should have this program run by the Ministry of Truth or the Ministry of Freedom?

Which one do you think? Truth or Freedom? Truth or Freedom? It's so hard to decide these big issues, once you have all the unimportant stuff out of the way.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

MAR 03, 2007 06:47 AM

edith said:
basically no one can decide who shouldn't have babies EVER.



why not ?

The world does not seem desperately short of people to me.
Perhaps someone should regulate that a bit.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

MAR 03, 2007 07:11 AM

bald_eagle said:
And whom, exactly, do you think would be qualified to make the call?



How about the Ministry Of Less Stupid Assholes On The Planet ?
Ironicly, it will be run by stupid assholes but hey, nothings perfect.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

MAR 03, 2007 07:12 AM

edith said:
basically no one can decide who shouldn't have babies EVER. not even rapists or women who killed all their previous children.



Do you think the government should decide who should KEEP those babies after they're born?

edith

edith

France
April 2006

MAR 03, 2007 09:00 AM

Uncognitive said:

edith said:
basically no one can decide who shouldn't have babies EVER. not even rapists or women who killed all their previous children.



Do you think the government should decide who should KEEP those babies after they're born?



yes, since they are actual human beings at that point in time and the same laws apply to them as everyone else.

"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beautious mankind is!
O brave new world,
That has such people in't!"

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 03, 2007 09:18 AM

chainlink said:

bald_eagle said:
And whom, exactly, do you think would be qualified to make the call?


How about the Ministry Of Less Stupid Assholes On The Planet ?
Ironicly, it will be run by stupid assholes but hey, nothings perfect.


When I seize power, I am definitely appointing you as Minister of Less Stupid Assholes on the Planet.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

MAR 03, 2007 06:29 PM

Zarth said:

chainlink said:

bald_eagle said:
And whom, exactly, do you think would be qualified to make the call?


How about the Ministry Of Less Stupid Assholes On The Planet ?
Ironicly, it will be run by stupid assholes but hey, nothings perfect.


When I seize power, I am definitely appointing you as Minister of Less Stupid Assholes on the Planet.



HA ! confused
shocked
Yes your Excellency. blackeyed

Minkx

Minkx

SUICIDEGIRL

Ontario, Canada

APR 12, 2007 08:56 PM


(edited to say that I fucked up the code but it was NickFaust that wrote this)




My vote: Let's micromanage the entire reproductive process. Anyone who wants to have a child must register their DNA (which can then be used to see if they committed any crimes or to further our defenses in the "War on Terror") and that of their partner - to be sure that they don't have 13 alleles in common. Then they have to have a complete drug screen to make sure they are not a drug addict. Then they should have genetic testing done for, oh say 4 or 5 generations back to be sure that they have no "handicaps" that could conceivably be passed on to their children. And, while we're at it, why not an IQ test and a measure of income levels to make sure the children will be smart and rich (we might want to allow some dumb and poor genes in just so the rich kids can have their pools cleaned.)

This will make every thing better.

The only question in my mind is whether we should have this program run by the Ministry of Truth or the Ministry of Freedom?

Which one do you think? Truth or Freedom? Truth or Freedom? It's so hard to decide these big issues, once you have all the unimportant stuff out of the way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say, lets call it the Ministry of Love wink

madbax

madbax

Nome, TX
March 2005

APR 15, 2007 05:00 PM

Bitch_PhD said:
Actually, I'm pretty irked about the whole "I can't believe I'm reading someone defending women who use drugs while pregnant" line (and the comment above that one).

Look, folks: what about if we phrase it differently. Like, throwing users in jail not because they're users, but *because they got pregnant*? Does that help? Or maybe what about the argument that people's rights don't end when they get knocked up? Or perhaps that the argument that what I chooses to do with/to one's own body is up to me--an argument I assume we all support, what with subscribing to SG and all--applies to women as well as to men?

I can drive my car all I want, but the car is a vehicle. If I get fucked up and drive my car then I get penalized if I get caught. The human body is a vehicle too, carrying the most vulnerable citizens within out society. You are proposing that it doesn't matter when pregnant women get caught jeopardizing these lives?

What's the fucking difference between prosecuting women who use drugs while pregnant and prosecuting women who, say, smoke? Or eat too much crap? Or stay in relationships with abusive guys? And why not prosecute men who use drugs--after all, drug use can damage your sperm--for child abuse if they knock some chick up?

Or do you all think that equality and autonomy are just perfectly fine for everyone except pregnant women, who are basically vessels containing a baby?

That is delusional rhetoric.

No one's saying that using meth--or a lot of other shit--isn't a bad idea, or that being fucked up and having kids isn't a sad, fucked-up state of affairs. But if you want to start throwing people in jail for having problems, you might want to think about what that means.



If they don't want babies to interfere with their Illegal, drug use then stay off the cock. Abstinence is 100% effective every time it's used.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

20 | 21 | 22

Next

featured interviews