ForumGarden

It's getting to the point where more people are going to have to decide whether or not to get up and move to a state that caters to their political and religious preferences. The US is dividing along those lines more and more. This appears to be social Darwinism at work.

On March 14, 2009, 31 weeks into her pregnancy, Nina Buckhalter gave birth to a stillborn baby girl. She named the child Hayley Jade. Two months later, a grand jury in Lamar County, Mississippi, indicted Buckhalter for manslaughter, claiming that the then-29-year-old woman "did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, kill Hayley Jade Buckhalter, a human being, by culpable negligence."

The district attorney argued that methamphetamine detected in Buckhalter's system caused Hayley Jade's death. The state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case on April 2, is expected to rule soon on whether the prosecution can move forward.

If prosecutors prevail in this case, the state would be setting a "dangerous precedent" that "unintentional pregnancy loss can be treated as a form of homicide," says Farah Diaz-Tello, a staff attorney with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a nonprofit legal organization that has joined with Robert McDuff, a Mississippi civil rights lawyer, to defend Buckhalter. If Buckhalter's case goes forward, NAPW fears it could spur a wave of similar prosecutions in Mississippi and other states.


Mississippi Could Soon Jail Women for Stillbirths, Miscarriages | Mother Jones

Mississippi - or as we call it, "The Dark Lands." Where men are men and sheep are scared. Mississippi, where no book is too small to ban, no race too low to taunt, and no knowledge too tiny to not ignore. Mississippi, home of the Flat Earth Society, birthplace of the Klu Klux Klan, and sacred burial ground of all mankind's good ideas and intentions.

Pfft. Losers.

No bigotry here, huh? Ever been to Mississippi? Oh wait, I'm sure you were shot at as you drove through running from some kind of criminal element, right?

I've spent many a happy day on the Natchez Trace Parkway and along the Gulf, but I wouldn't want to live there.

I certainly would not want to raise children in a state that is so intrusive of medical records for the purpose of prosecuting stillbirths, or almost anything for that matter. People make mistakes and choices that I may not agree with, but to criminalize them for it like this is just crazy. Better move out, people, because even your children might do the "wrong" thing and get caught.

Ahso!;1427835 wrote: I certainly would not want to raise children in a state that is so intrusive of medical records for the purpose of prosecuting stillbirths, or almost anything for that matter. People make mistakes and choices that I may not agree with, but to criminalize them for it like this is just crazy. Better move out, people, because even your children might do the "wrong" thing and get caught.
You might want to check your own state's laws before pretending you know things. Hell you might want to check how intrusive Obamacare is.

Accountable;1427831 wrote: No bigotry here, huh? Ever been to Mississippi? Oh wait, I'm sure you were shot at as you drove through running from some kind of criminal element, right?


Oooo. Nice sarcasm. Do you practice much? I take it you agree and condone with the criminalization of women and reproductive rights. Either that or you're from Mississippi?

For your enjoyment, my state is equally ignorant. More so in most categories. I track those stats. I express my disgust for repressive and draconian attitudes against women's rights because I am engaged in a personal war against ignorance and deliberate discrimination.

I despise it, in my own people and any other.

So sorry, Accountable, if I shocked your sensibilities or dishonored someone you know, or an ideal you cherish, but I see in attitudes like this the stink of evil...and I cannot conscience it.

I should mention that on almost every "bad,stupid, and negative" list, ( I.e. teen pregnancy, children in poverty, low graduation rate, etc.) the only state that consistently beats my state is Mississippi. We take great pride in being number 49 to their 50.

Which is, quite honestly, pathetic....

Saint_;1427843 wrote: Oooo. Nice sarcasm. Do you practice much? I take it you agree and condone with the criminalization of women and reproductive rights. Either that or you're from Mississippi? Of course you would think that. It would never even occur to you that you express the very bigotry and ignorance that you accuse others of having.

Saint_;1427844 wrote: [QUOTE=Saint_;1427843]For your enjoyment, my state is equally ignorant. More so in most categories. I track those stats. I express my disgust for repressive and draconian attitudes against women's rights because I am engaged in a personal war against ignorance and deliberate discrimination.

I despise it, in my own people and any other.

So sorry, Accountable, if I shocked your sensibilities or dishonored someone you know, or an ideal you cherish, but I see in attitudes like this the stink of evil...and I cannot conscience it.I should mention that on almost every "bad,stupid, and negative" list, ( I.e. teen pregnancy, children in poverty, low graduation rate, etc.) the only state that consistently beats my state is Mississippi. We take great pride in being number 49 to their 50.

Which is, quite honestly, pathetic....
You talk out of your ass without the first clue of what you're talking about. You make claims that would be easy for you to verify if you weren't so damn lazy. Isn't teacher one of your claims to fame? I hope your students are learning to do as you say rather than do as you do, but you probably don't check on that, either. Offhand, I can't think of anything verifiable that you've claimed that hasn't proven false. This time is no exception.

Teen Pregnancy: NM #49 & MI #50?



Teen Pregnancy Is Higher in Red States Than in Blue States

Children in poverty: NM #49 & MI #50?



Child Poverty by US State

Graduation rate (I went with high school, since you didn't specify): NM #49 & MI #50?



Nevada schools ranked lowest | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Students laugh at arrogant teachers behind their backs. You probably never knew that, either.

Accountable;1427842 wrote: You might want to check your own state's laws before pretending you know things. Hell you might want to check how intrusive Obamacare is.What I know is that, generally speaking, both biology and psychology drive young people within a certain age group to be both sexually active and high risk-takers. There's no question that creating tools (contraceptives, education about biology and psychology and even abortion) to help manage both of those drives is a good idea, again, generally speaking. What I find counterproductive and even abhorrent is the criminalizing of the personal consequences of these activities that do not violate the rights of others. Creating personhood for people who have never lived and then prosecuting those who are alive for the nonexistence of the former is not healthy for communities.

Since I've been a parent in Pa I've come to know of a few abortions and stillbirths and I've not yet heard of one being investigated for a homicide based on the personal activities of the mother. It may have happened but not to any of the people I've known of, nor have I heard of any laws that facilitate such prosecution. Will that change? Perhaps. If it does we'll have decisions to make.

Ahso!;1427857 wrote: What I know is that, generally speaking, both biology and psychology drive young people within a certain age group to be both sexually active and high risk-takers.Yes.

Ahso!;1427857 wrote: There's no question that creating tools (contraceptives, education about biology and psychology and even abortion) to help manage both of those drives is a good idea, again, generally speaking.Agreed, except for abortion. Abortion doesn't manage drives.

Ahso!;1427857 wrote: What I find counterproductive and even abhorrent is the criminalizing of the personal consequences of these activities that do not violate the rights of others. Creating personhood for people who have never lived and then prosecuting those who are alive for the nonexistence of the former is not healthy for communities.

Since I've been a parent in Pa I've come to know of a few abortions and stillbirths and I've not yet heard of one being investigated for a homicide based on the personal activities of the mother. It may have happened but not to any of the people I've known of, nor have I heard of any laws that facilitate such prosecution. Will that change? Perhaps. If it does we'll have decisions to make.


I agree that claiming that a miscarriage falls anywhere near the definition of negligent homicide is not justice and should not be allowed.

I remember a couple of years ago this came up, here.

Almost every state has or recently had a bill before the legislature, or a referendum for the electorate regarding such an idea that (a) life begins at conception, and (b) any action that caused the death of a fetus could be prosecuted as a homicide. In most states the measure was defeated but in a couple (Mississippi and North Dakota, for example) the measure passed and has or will soon become law.

What am I missing here? She was/is a crank head and had methamphetamine in her blood stream while pregnant....

What happened to accountability???

BTS;1427875 wrote: What am I missing here? She was/is a crank head and had methamphetamine in her blood stream while pregnant....

What happened to accountability???


This particular case, maybe there is some room for argument.

The problem is precedence.

The "pro-life" groups want to make the the rule, rather than the exception.

Every miscarriage or still birth investigated as a homicide?

I don't think we want to go there.

LarsMac;1427879 wrote: This particular case, maybe there is some room for argument.

The problem is precedence.

The "pro-life" groups want to make the the rule, rather than the exception.

Every miscarriage or still birth investigated as a homicide?

I don't think we want to go there.


Weird...If you are in a car accident and kill someone you WILL be drug/alcohol tested...I don't see any difference with a miscarriage...

You pee clean...No Problem...You pee dirty then it is on...

This case screams foul, she was in her 31st week and she was dirty...

It's not about her.

BTS;1427882 wrote: Weird...If you are in a car accident and kill someone you WILL be drug/alcohol tested...I don't see any difference with a miscarriage...

You pee clean...No Problem...You pee dirty then it is on...

This case screams foul, she was in her 31st week and she was dirty...


You don't.

"According to the March of Dimes, as many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage .... More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy. Miscarriages are less likely to occur after 20 weeks gestation; these are termed late miscarriages"

Miscarriage Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment

There are women who take every precaution yet have miscarriages. There are hard-core heroin addicts who don't.

Originally Posted by BTS

Weird...If you are in a car accident and kill someone you WILL be drug/alcohol tested...I don't see any difference with a miscarriage...

You pee clean...No Problem...You pee dirty then it is on...

This case screams foul, she was in her 31st week and she was dirty...

AnneBoleyn;1427893 wrote: You don't.

"According to the March of Dimes, as many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage .... More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy. Miscarriages are less likely to occur after 20 weeks gestation; these are termed late miscarriages"

Miscarriage Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment

There are women who take every precaution yet have miscarriages. There are hard-core heroin addicts who don't.


Your point is?....

Why would someone support a drug/alcohol test for killing someone in a traffic accident but not in a miscarriage??? I see no difference...

"You pee clean...No Problem...You pee dirty then it is on..."

Simple as that..

You are under the assumption that women who have miscarriages May Be Guilty of something. Taking their pee would be Illegal Search & Seizure if the motive is to entrap. You see women who miscarry as possible criminals.

Just an aside---my mother was a pedestrian killed by a car. The driver stopped, stayed for police & was not drug or alcohol tested. This was in South Florida. So, I guess you don't always have all the information (like it's obvious you think you do).

To you, if I'm not mistaken, a woman is a brood mare only too happy to accept your sperm whether she wants it or not.

You obviously came back looking to fight & I'm guessing there are some happy to oblige.

PS--must leave for a bit. 'Bye!

AnneBoleyn;1427899 wrote:

To you, if I'm not mistaken, a woman is a brood mare only too happy to accept your sperm whether she wants it or not.




Wow. ...quite a leap....Now I am a rapist.... If I am not mistaken, It sure sounds slanderous to me...

My original statement:

"Weird...If you are in a car accident and kill someone you WILL be drug/alcohol tested."

AnneBoleyn;1427899 wrote:

Just an aside---my mother was a pedestrian killed by a car. The driver stopped, stayed for police & was not drug or alcohol tested. This was in South Florida. So, I guess you don't always have all the information (like it's obvious you think you do).




This might help you out:



Implied Consent Law

All but 5 States (Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and West Virginia) extend their implied consent (to provide a

specimen if requested by law enforcement) laws to instances of DUID. However, both Alabama and Alaska have provisions for

compulsory testing in certain circumstances in crashes involving serious injury or death. Of those 45 States (plus the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico) that do extend implied consent laws to drugged driving, 9 States (Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana,

Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, and Rhode Island) have taken an additional step by providing criminal

penalties for a refusal to submit to a test under the implied consent law. Alaska also provides for criminal sanctions under its

limited circumstances of compelling a test. New Mexico has a separate statute speciically denoting a refusal to test as a separate

crime. Two other States (Kentucky and Maine) do not provide for criminal penalties, but use a refusal to submit to a test as an

enhancement of penalties should the driver be convicted of DUID. Nevada does not have any criminal sanctions for refusal to

test; however, upon refusal, the requesting oicer shall seize the license of the driver and arrest him/her for DUI.

Twenty-eight States (Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,

Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia

and Puerto Rico, permit the forced taking of a specimen for a chemical test over the objection of a driver. In the majority of cases,

the taking of a specimen without consent is limited to circumstances where there has been a crash involving serious injury or death

and there is probable cause to believe that the driver is driving under the inluence of a drug. Of those 28 States, New Mexico,

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont consider such action a “search,” and therefore, require either a search warrant or the

exigent circumstances that would permit a warrantless search. Wisconsin, too, will allow a forced test only through the use of

“lawful means.”

It's her body and her life, she gets to do what she wants with it. Life begins at birth after the cord is cut and the child thrives on its own. I know you don't like that so we'll just have to disagree about when life beings. The car accident argument is a strawman. Or is it a red herring? It's one or the other.

I will tell you something "odd?" about my mother's "killer". First of all (sorry that this is off-topic btw) I never really thought about the driver, a woman. I only mourned my mother who was gone forever no matter what. My sister & I did have an attorney who backed off the pursuit. A few years later I was ready to do some digging & found that the driver was a sister to a well known Italian mobster, literally a hit man. I always wondered if that was the reason she was not tested & why this hot-dog go-getting lawyer backed off.

Thanks for the information you supplied for me BTS. It was our information the driver was never asked to submit a thing. & she lied about her insurance info & a few other 'minor' details.

I don't think you are a rapist, but then again, we just met!

BTS;1427882 wrote: Weird...If you are in a car accident and kill someone you WILL be drug/alcohol tested...I don't see any difference with a miscarriage...

You pee clean...No Problem...You pee dirty then it is on...

This case screams foul, she was in her 31st week and she was dirty...The primary difference that screams to me is that driving a car on public roads is a privilege that one earns and maintains by following certain rules and pre-acquiescing to certain other rules. Pregnancy doesn't fall under any similar definition.



Ahso!;1427918 wrote: It's her body and her life, she gets to do what she wants with it. Life begins at birth after the cord is cut and the child thrives on its own. I know you don't like that so we'll just have to disagree about when life beings.When life begins is simple scientific fact. The disagreement is when a human being becomes a "person," a completely arbitrary term without a clear definition.

Ahso!;1427918 wrote: The car accident argument is a strawman. Or is it a red herring? It's one or the other.I always get mixed up with those, too.



eta: Welcome back BTS. Long time no see!

Thanks for clearing that up.