Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

pregnant woman fights court-ordered bed rest

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:50 AM
Original message
pregnant woman fights court-ordered bed rest
(for all who care about women's rights, this story is chilling in its implications)

Pregnant Woman Fights Court-Ordered Bed Rest
ACLU Asks if Pregnant Women Can Be Penalized For Drinking, Speeding, Poor Eating

For three days, a pregnant Samantha Burton was confined to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital against her will, ordered by a Florida court to bed rest and any medical care necessary to sustain her troubled pregnancy.

Burton was in her 25th week of pregnancy in March 2009 when she began to go into premature labor and willingly went to the hospital on the advice of her doctor.

But when the 26-year-old resisted -- learning that she might have to stay months until her delivery, away from two toddlers at home -- hospital officials obtained a court order to force Burton to submit to anything to "preserve the life and health of unborn child."

Burton miscarried three days later and was discharged, but now she is taking up the fight over her treatment with the help of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union. They want to strike down the court order that rendered her powerless to make her own medical decisions.

This week, before a three-judge panel in Tallahassee's First District Court of Appeal, Burton's lawyers argued that the Leon County Court order set a "dangerous" precedent.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregn...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Does a hospital have a right to order someone to be hospitalized via the court?
Who the hell made that decision?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Same requiriement they take you to court for not authorizing needed medical care for a child
At a minimum they are required to report it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. this was NOT a child - it was a fetus. HUGE HUGE difference between them
State has right and obligation to protect a living breathing child but not a fetus. Until it is out of the womb, the womans rights matter more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Laws on that vary from state to state. In some places killing a pregnant woman is a double
homicide.

Not supporting hospital in this case, just responding to your request for info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. and that double homicide bit is a back-door gambit used to try to outlaw abortion--or did you not
realize how the pro-forced birth, woman-hating anti-choicers use those laws?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Read Often???
As I pointed out in the post you responded to, I do not support it, but that is what is on the books
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. nice snark there. yes, I read--often enough to know exactly what the woman-hating, pro-forced
birthers use those laws for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Then attribute properly in the future and take you snarking as an adult
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. what was not attributed properly, oh wise professor? pointing out snark makes me childish?
you know, women's rights are too damned important for snark, and the fact that you employ it in a discussion of this seriousness tells me all I need to know about how you view the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Double homicide should not be permitted.
I would support more severe punishment. No different than bumping up the charge when it involves a handicapped or elderly person in some states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. There's no law anywhere in the US that overrides the rights of the woman
The US constitution forbids any law that places fetal rights over the rights of its mother. The Florida State Constitution is even more vigorous in this regard. The law that can override a parent's medical decisions for their child is specific to BORN children where the medical care given is given solely to that child. The law that makes killing a pregnant woman a double homicide has NOTHING to do with the law about overriding a parent's medical decisions for their children.

Read the ACLU's appeal in this case. The judge violated the US Constitution, the Florida State Constitution AND the law regarding overriding medical decisions of parents for their children.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. doesn't matter the law. this poster is in love with himself and his avowed pedantry.
no big surprise, alas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. sickening. The hospital got a court to essentially JAIL a women in hospital?
WTF?

Was the hospital also providing this "service" free of charge, since the patient did not want to stay? I hope the courts overturn that and throw the judge who made the original judgement off the bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. please note also that the order was not limited to bed rest:
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 10:37 AM by niyad
For three days, a pregnant Samantha Burton was confined to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital against her will, ordered by a Florida court to bed rest and

********ANY MEDICAL CARE NECESSARY***** (emphasis mine) to sustain her troubled pregnancy.

hospital officials obtained a court order to force Burton to submit to anything to "preserve the life and health of unborn child."

I would love to have the names of those hospital officials--pro-forced birthers all, I would guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. It is outrageous. And amazing that, in addition to viewing her rights as
subordinate to that of a fetus, the court apparently cares nothing for her two small children or whether they need their mother. So much for family values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. yes, their notion of "family values" seems to be somewhat elastic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Whatever happened to the tradition of "Signing Out Against Medical Advice"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I guess that's a right reserved for people
who aren't acting as sacred vessels for the holy fetus.

She knew what the risks were. She knew what she had to do and that damned doctor overstepped her authority, bigtime. Doc, it's called informed consent and patients get to turn down medical treatment they consider burdensome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. the Handmaids Tale - a review....
"In the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, far-right Schlafly/Falwell-type ideals have been carried to extremes in the monotheocratic government. The resulting society is a feminist's nightmare: women are strictly controlled, unable to have jobs or money and assigned to various classes: the chaste, childless Wives; the housekeeping Marthas; and the reproductive Handmaids, who turn their offspring over to the "morally fit" Wives. The tale is told by Offred (read: "of Fred"), a Handmaid who recalls the past and tells how the chilling society came to be."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. it worried the hell out of me that, especially during the national nightmare of bushco, we were one
vote away from "the handmaid's tale". looks like it is even closer than I thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. and after all that, she miscarried anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
29. As I know from experience, some pregnancies just aren't going to go full term.
If you're in the middle of one of them you can get pumped full of drugs and hang upside down like a bat, and you'll still miscarry. BTDT, and I'm sure glad nobody treated me like a goddamned incubator trying to change that unfortunate fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. Did the court also order the state to provide care
for the two toddlers at home, or aren't they important?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. nothing in the article indicated that care would be provided for the two children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. It was a rhetorical question,
and you're correct, nothing was said about care for the two children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. yes, I knew it was rhetorical, but it was a necessary point to make. if I were there now, you can
bet I would be protesting outside that prison--excuse me--hospital.

too bad their accredidation cannot be pulled for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
14. Even Roe vs Wade tried to avoid this issue
Roe Vs Wade, which declared it was unconstitutional to restrict certain abortions, but in that decision the Supreme Court accepted the concept that some restrictions were permitted. The Court ruled that the rules on Abortion that existed in 1792 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, could NOT be restricted by Congress under the due process clause of the Bill of Rights AND given that the 15th Amendment adopted in 1871, extended that concept of denial of "Due Process" to the state (i.e. the states could NOT restrict abortion for that would be a denial of "Due Process of law" except to the extent abortion were restricted in 1792.

The English common law rule as to abortion had been the law of England (and later the American Colonies and even later the States of the Untied States) since the Middle ages. While no court have so ruled (relying instead that some other earlier Judge had applied such rules), the rules on abortion follows Prue-1869 Catholic Doctrine of the same subject (The English Court probably adopted the rule during the Middle Ages as part of the Middle age doctrine that family issues were left to the Church Courts NOT the criminal of King's courts). Yes, Roe vs Wade follows the Catholic Rule on Abortion that existed till 1869 (When Pope Pius IX changed the rule, changes in most rules on abortion in the mid 1800s were driven by the Medical Community NOT religious Doctrine, by 1869 the old rules of three months no longer followed generally accepted medical view and the Medical Community wanted control of birthing and abortion, two aspects that till the mid 1800s were under the jurisdiction of Mid-wives NOT Doctors. The Medical Community wanted control over what had been under the control of Mid-Wives and lobbying Governments to change the rules to make Birthing and abortion under the jurisdiction of Doctors instead of Mid Wives. The only thing Pope Pius IX did was ruled that since it was clear by medical evidence that no real change occurred at "Quickening" the old rules of three no longer had medical support and he thus adopted the modern Catholic Rule of no Abortion from conception onward). Notice the Pope was reacting to the demand of the Medical Community NOT any real religious doctrinal change). Yes, I am trying to keep this paragraph neutral as possible, I do NOT want this thread to get hung up on the Religious Argument on Abortion, but I mention it is passing to show WHERE the English Common Law Rule Came from and that even the Catholic Church has had to change it rules do to improvement in knowledge as to the development of a Fetus. If you what to discuss Abortion and the Catholic Church please start another thread, don't hijack this one.

Anyway, the US Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade adopted the English Common Law Rule as to Abortion as being Constitutionally protected. The Court followed the Common law rule in dividing up pregnancy into three periods, 1-13 weeks, 14-26 weeks, 27 to birth (Please note all pregnancy is dated from a woman's last period, thus the day a woman gets pregnant she is already two weeks Pregnant, since a woman is capable of conceiving a fetus about two weeks after her previous menstrual cycle).

The Supreme Court ruled that during the first trimester, the state could impose NO RESTRICTIONS as to abortion (Except as to issue of the Woman's health i.e. the state can outlaw abortion methods that are unsafe for the woman). During the Second Trimester, reasonable restrictions were permitted, but more to make sure the abortion is safe then any restriction as to the abortion itself. The Court did permit States to outlaw abortion in the third trimester, providing it is still permitted for the health and safety of the Woman carrying the Fetus. Subsequent decision of the Supreme Court has dropped these rules, determining more and more to the state. The Court have permitted the states to expand the restrictions the state can impose on women seeking abortion in the First and Second Trimester then anything else (Mostly because most women who are in the Third trimester want the child so abortion is NOT an issue except in those rare cases where is is clear the fetus will be born dead or would die shortly after birth do to severe birth defects, again another issue NOT relevant to this subject and mentioned only in passing).

I go into the above to show that even under Roe vs Wade, the state (in the form of the Court in this case) have always had permission to restrict abortion during the last trimester. Under Catholic Doctrine of the Middle Ages this was a period when the Fetus was "ensouled" i.e. was given a Soul by God. Under Catholic Doctrine (and English Common law) during the third trimester (After the Fetus had "Quickened") it could theoretically live outside the womb and as such could NOT be aborted for that would be infanticide and doctrine rejected by the Catholic Church and the English Common Law.

Once you accept the doctrine that a Fetus in the last Trimester is viewed as the same as a new born baby similar rules has to apply to such a Fetus as to new born Babies (for births at the point in the pregnancy was known even in the Middle Ages with some even surviving to adulthood, even today a fetus at 24 weeks is the earliest any Fetus has survived with modern Medical treatment for fetus prior to 24 week just are NOT capable of surviving). Woman, in this part of the Pregnancy have to balance her wants with demands of another human being (And this was true even under Roe vs Wade, in addition to the subsequent Court rulings modifying Roe vs Wade).

Thus the real issue would you permit a woman to take home a baby, knowing such a mother could NOT take care of the Child? Most people would say no. Please remember we are NOT talking of a First or Second Trimester Fetus, but a Third trimester fetus, which can survive outside the womb (This Fetus is a borderline Third Trimester but still a Third Trimester). Do we want to protect such a fetus? Remember it can survive outside the womb (in theory at least) so if you believe we should try to save the baby if it is outside the womb, should be not try to save it just because it is still inside the womb? The flip argument is also good, can we restrict a woman's right to live her life as she see fit just because she is carrying a fetus that can survive without her? Please note we are NOT discussing First or Second Trimester fetuses this case, just third trimester fetuses.

My own opinion is I like Roe vs Wade it is a good job of balancing between two conflicting desires of our society, on the one hand the right of women to be as free as possible from Government Control AND protection of the weakest members of our society. The English Common law Rule (and the similar Middle Ages Catholic Doctrine) provided the same balance and thus was adopted by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade. In cases like this one it would restrict what a woman can do, but only for a period of three months (And then only after she had accepted the fact she was pregnant and did nothing for the six month period where she could have obtain an abortion).

One last comment, please note she was receiving some form of Medical care, thus Medical care reform is NOT an issue in this case (Through her medical provider may have forbade any abortion being paid during the previous six months and thus an issue not mentioned in the article and thus she never really had an option of an abortion during her pregnancy, but again, that is an issue the courts have said is a funding issue left up to each state, but may be the reason she never obtained an abortion).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
25. . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
28. ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
30. There have been a few posts about this, but I'm curious ...
... was she billed for being hospitalized without her consent, or does the state pay?


(and, yes, I understand there are far more important issues here than just money.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. no, that question is important as well. nowhere does it say the hospital was going to foot the bill
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 05:29 PM by niyad
for her stay--and whatever else they might have decided to do, had she not miscarried.

kind of reminds me of the old soviet union billing families for the bullets used to kill the family members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
31. So a fetus is a priority over the care of two toddlers at home?
What total bullshit. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Family Values!
Fundies only care for children BEFORE they're born.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Yep...
...women have NO rights PERIOD and children are only valued PRE-birth.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
35. ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC