Poll of the Day > Montana Republican wants to IMPRISON Pregnant Women who drink ALCOHOL!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Montana Republican Prosecutor, Gerald Harris, who looks like a Goober, wants to imprison Pregnant women who drink or use drugs in order to protect the FETUS!!

He's an attorney for Big Horn County and called for an immediate crackdown on pregnant women who abuse drugs and endanger the unborn fetuses and the state will "seek an order of protection restraining a pregnant female from any non-medically prescribed use of these substances. We will protect the fetus at any cost from any imminent danger"

A fetus is defined as an "organism of the species of Homo sapiens from 8 weeks of development until complete expulsion or extraction from a women's body"

He said mothers would be not be given "immunity" from the rule, even if their pregnancy was a result of RAPE or INCEST!!

He said "In the even an expecting mother chooses to abort an unborn child instead of refraining from drg or alcohol use and litigation extends beyond our local courts, we trust Attorney General Fox will make the right decision on behalf of all Montanans and continue this fight to the extent necessary to ensure justice is affordee to the most vulnerable of our society"

Gerald said the new directive is in line with the Montana state constitution that says all people "have certain inalienable rights" including enjoying and defending their lives and liberties and seeking their safety, health and happiness in lawful ways.

He said he wants to deter mothers who put their unborn babies at risk of a lifetime of disability and hardship and is doing it for their own good

He said this should have been done years ago but while health advocates say his proposal is made with good intentions, it isn't effective and said punishing drug users by sending them to jail has not worked because addiction should be viewed as an illness, not a crime.

Do you think pregnant women who drink or use drugs should be imprisoned? let's see what people think

Gerald - Goober

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/27/03/489E336600000578-0-image-a-62_1517023820951.jpg
---

Considering the number of irresponsible mothers who introduce fetal alcohol syndrome and other issues into their kids, it might be a step in the right direction assuming that it's targetting heavier users rather than just somebody who might have a glass of wine while out to dinner with friends.
---

I wish there were better ways of punishing people. Some things deserve punishment and shouldn't be tolerated, but not everything should just be "throw them in prison".
---

I'm down.
---

Death penalty
---

It's extremely abusive to use drugs while pregnant. Such people don't deserve to be free

Well maybe not prison but more rehab.
---

prison no rehab yes. stress from prison would harm mother and unborn child as well
---

HappyDog posted...

Well maybe not prison but more rehab.

That. Prison isn't going to solve the problem. Odds are it'll make it worse, given that prison isn't exactly an ideal environment in which to carry a child. Many cases of FAS or other drug-related issues are not from women who callously disregarded their pregnancy, but from women who had preexisting alcohol or drug abuse issues that carried into the pregnancy. They don't magically stop being addicts just because they get pregnant. If anything, threatening jail time will worsen that problem, because the women in question won't want to seek any kind of outside help for their addiction out of fear they'll end up in jail.
---

Crazy that alcohol is such an accepted part of society given how much damage it causes
---

I'm going to sound like a dick saying this, but in a way I can sympathize with him. I live in Alberta, and Montana is basically Alberta Jr., and I know that the social issues Montana faces are the same social issues southern Alberta faces.

Gerald Harris is a native man. The native community around here has an unbelievably widespread FASD problem. I don't know the exact percentage, but something like 30% of native people in this area have FASD. If you know the history of how the native people got screwed over by European traders/bandits about 150 years ago, you'd understand the root cause of that.

His position is extreme and I disagree with it, but I can tell he is sick of dealing with this problem in his community.
---

If the mother insists on carrying the baby to term and not getting an abortion, then they should have to take care of that fetus while carrying - this is fair.

Prison... ok, maybe that's excessive - but they could take parenting courses and have a life coach.
---

faramir77 posted...

I'm going to sound like a dick saying this, but in a way I can sympathize with him. I live in Alberta, and Montana is basically Alberta Jr., and I know that the social issues Montana faces are the same social issues southern Alberta faces.

Gerald Harris is a native man. The native community around here has an unbelievably widespread FASD problem. I don't know the exact percentage, but something like 30% of native people in this area have FASD. If you know the history of how the native people got screwed over by European traders/bandits about 150 years ago, you'd understand the root cause of that.

His position is extreme and I disagree with it, but I can tell he is sick of dealing with this problem in his community.

The thing is, attitudes like his are a huge part of why there's such a problem. Stigmatizing the mothers of FASD kids only makes them less likely to seek help with their drinking problems prenatally, not more. Alcohol problems in FN communities also aren't something jail is going to help. Those are deep-seated issues at a cultural level, stemming back to widespread mental health issues associated with the residential schools, 60's scoop, and similar issues (at least in Canada; the US' history with their natives is somewhat different). Put people in jail for drinking while pregnant, and 30% of the community's kids have FASD and no mother.
---

It's basically child endangerment or abuse, so yes.
---

We need less laws, not more, the government is way too big and they are just trying to get more control over your life
---

Mead posted...

Crazy that alcohol is such an accepted part of society given how much damage it causes

Because most people can drink responsibly?
---

Yeah, FTP Muscles!
---

Rehab sounds better

Muscles posted...

We need less laws, not more, the government is way too big and they are just trying to get more control over your life

There's a lot of laws that are stupid, but reckless endangerment isn't one.
---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Mead posted...

Crazy that alcohol is such an accepted part of society given how much damage it causes

Because most people can drink responsibly?

Can they?
---

depends. back in the 60s doctors would recommend pregnant woman use to drink champagne if the baby was too restless.

having a drink doesn't automatically make your kid have fetal alcohol syndrome. Back in the middle ages hardly anyone one drank water because it was most likey containmated. They drank alcohol instead.

if you are a drunk and are hurting the baby yes prison is good evil plan (two negative equal a positive.) but if you are at a new years party and only going to have a social drink it's fine. You shouldn't do it, but yet you probably are taking some type of sort of pill or liquid that will could effect the baby if you take it in mass dosage anyway.
---

ernieforss posted...

back in the 60s doctors would recommend pregnant woman use to drink champagne if the baby was too restless.

That doesn't mean it isn't harmful. Medicine's come a long way in 50 years.

ernieforss posted...

Back in the middle ages hardly anyone one drank water because it was most likey containmated. They drank alcohol instead.

The alcohol content in that beer was quite a bit lower than in modern beer, given how much harder it was to control the yeast's growing environment. The middle ages also weren't exactly a time where a bit of cognitive impairment would screw up your life.

ernieforss posted...

if you are a drunk and are hurting the baby yes prison is good evil plan (two negative equal a positive.)

That makes no sense.

ernieforss posted...

if you are at a new years party and only going to have a social drink it's fine.

The current medical consensus on the matter is that there is no known safe exposure limit for alcohol for fetuses. That doesn't necessarily mean that a single drink will guarantee FASD, but it does mean that there's no reason to believe that single drink will be safe (for comparison, asbestos also does not have a known safe exposure limit).
---

adjl posted...

(for comparison, asbestos also does not have a known safe exposure limit).

Asbestos is barbs, barbs are never safe. Alcohol is processed in the liver.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

(for comparison, asbestos also does not have a known safe exposure limit).

Asbestos is barbs, barbs are never safe. Alcohol is processed in the liver.

Asbestos fibres are slivers, actually. The harm comes not from any sort of mechanical trauma that would depend on their shape, but rather from the body forming granulomas around the fibres.

Also, alcohol isn't processed in the fetal liver. The fetus relies on the mother's liver to filter out toxins before they enter the fetal bloodstream, provided her liver isn't overwhelmed. That's where the potential for harm comes in.

Also, none of this is relevant to the actual purpose behind the comparison, which was to say that both are cases where the knowledge simply isn't there to be able to say that any amount is safe, due to our understanding of the associated harm being relatively new.
---

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

(for comparison, asbestos also does not have a known safe exposure limit).

Asbestos is barbs, barbs are never safe. Alcohol is processed in the liver.

Asbestos fibres are slivers, actually. The harm comes not from any sort of mechanical trauma that would depend on their shape, but rather from the body forming granulomas around the fibres.

A foreign-body granuloma occurs when a foreign body (such as a wood splinter, piece of metal, glass etc.) penetrates the body's soft tissue followed by acute inflammation and formation of a granuloma.

So it penetrates lung tissue. Like a barb.

adjl posted...

Also, alcohol isn't processed in the fetal liver. The fetus relies on the mother's liver to filter out toxins before they enter the fetal bloodstream, provided her liver isn't overwhelmed. That's where the potential for harm comes in.

As you said, it's filtered in the liver, it has a means of being dealt with, we just don't know at what point it is insufficient for a fetus. This is different from trauma.

adjl posted...

Also, none of this is relevant to the actual purpose behind the comparison, which was to say that both are cases where the knowledge simply isn't there to be able to say that any amount is safe, due to our understanding of the associated harm being relatively new.

1) We've known about alcohol poisoning for a long time so isn't comparable from that angle.
2) Asbestos causes damage in a way we are familar with, it's predictable, it's not unknown.
---

Prison won't solve anything. Education will. Most people have no idea that this stuff is dangerous because no one ever talks about it. Plus I think the prison system is fundamentally flawed and its current form must be abolished.
---

waterdeepchu posted...

Prison won't solve anything. Education will. Most people have no idea that this stuff is dangerous because no one ever talks about it. Plus I think the prison system is fundamentally flawed and its current form must be abolished.

In Philly, and I think in many other states, it's required that bars post signs saying that drinking while pregnant is unsafe for the unborn child. Of course, that doesn't matter much if the pregnant chick drinking at a bar can't read.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So it penetrates lung tissue. Like a barb.

Lots of things penetrate without being barbs, though. Do you actually understand what shape the term "barb" refers to?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As you said, it's filtered in the liver, it has a means of being dealt with, we just don't know at what point it is insufficient for a fetus. This is different from trauma.

Any sort of mechanical trauma has a means of being dealt with, too. The body's constantly repairing tears and cuts and the like by means of clotting and tissue regeneration. And alcohol doesn't have a means of being removed without causing damage in the fetus. I literally just said that.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

1) We've known about alcohol poisoning for a long time so isn't comparable from that angle.

But not about the nuances of its teratogenic effects, which are what are relevant when talking about FASD. Same case with the nuances of asbestos' carcinogenic effects: it's just known that exposure in some quantity at some point can cause cancer somewhere down the line.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

2) Asbestos causes damage in a way we are familar with, it's predictable, it's not unknown.

The evolution of that damage into cancer, however, is very poorly understood. Hence it's not known whether or not there's a level of asbestos exposure that doesn't present a significant carcinogenic risk.
---

yo my moms drank when she preg wit me n i turnt out fine
---

He does look like a goober
---