Pregnant Woman Locked Up For Asking For Help

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

THIS is why I favor ending drug prohibition. We need to stop treating health issues like criminal problems:

(  it's also why I oppose the welfare state.  I doubt the Salvation Army, or a private women's pregnancy help charity would kidnap her, and lock her away-- but the state kidnaps people all the time)


reason.com/blog/2015/01/06/pregnant-wisconsin-woman-jailed

"I was trying to do the right thing to take care of my pregnancy," said mom-to-be Tamara Loertscher. "I was really sick when I went to get help, but I feel like asking for help just made everything worse."

Loertscher, 30, had been using meth before finding out about her pregnancy. But upon realizing she might be pregnant, Loertscher—who did not have health insurance—says she quit using the drug and sought care from Taylor County social services. For her efforts, she was subjected to a temporary custody order requiring her to move into a residential treatment center and, when she refused, jailed for 18 days.

Loertscher is now challenging the Wisconsin law allowing pregnant women to be jailed or put in protective custody for current or past drug or alcohol use.

At the Eau Claire Mayo Clinic, where Loertscher was referred by social workers, she received a pregnancy test and a drug test. From the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal:

Social workers asked Loertscher repeatedly to release her medical records to county officials, and said that if she didn't, she would be jailed until she had her baby, which would then be put up for adoption. When Loertscher finally said she wanted to go home, she was told she was the subject of a temporary custody order obtained by Taylor County and could not leave.

[whoisjohngalt]

Can't have it both ways - if you want govt to "help" you, be prepared that it will be making all kinds of decisions for you.

[Abby Normal]

Do I have this right?  She went for help, then refused the help offered- so arrested for what child endangerment?

I can see that.  If you have a drug problem, and don't get into treatment, I think the fear would be you would start using again. But why go ask for help, only to refuse it? Because you didn't like the help being offered?

Not necessarily saying I agree with it, and I give her kudos for trying to get clean.  I just don't see the wisdom of refusing the residential treatment. 

[Opti]

Jan 7, 2015 12:12:04 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Do I have this right?  She went for help, then refused the help offered- so arrested for what child endangerment?

I can see that.  If you have a drug problem, and don't get into treatment, I think the fear would be you would start using again. But why go ask for help, only to refuse it? Because you didn't like the help being offered?

Not necessarily saying I agree with it, and I give her kudos for trying to get clean.  I just don't see the wisdom of refusing the residential treatment. 

Perhaps she did not know she would be given the choice of going to a residential

treatment program or jail right then with just the clothes she was wearing. If she had

a job, notifying employers would be tricky and probably automatic job loss.

[Green Eyed Lady]

It appears, from the article, she wasn't "jailed for asking for help".  She was jailed for Contempt of Court for refusing the follow the orders of the Court.  There is a huge difference.  Now whether those orders were constitutional or not is another matter, but it is sort of important to say what really happened instead of what someone wishes would have happened.

If my quick reading is correct, she went to a clinic for help because she had no health insurance.  She tested positive for methamphetamines.  A protective custody order was issued that required her to do some things like short-term residential treatment, further drug testing, etc.  It is the responsibility of these places to also protect the health of the baby, even if some disagree this should be taken into consideration.  She refused to do any of those things.  When one refuses to do what the court orders, that is contempt of court.  You can be put in jail for that.

It also appears there are ongoing legal issues to determine if the orders of the court were appropriate.  I don't know if there were or not, but that's not the issue here.  The issue is that she wasn't jailed for just asking for help.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Oh dear.

[The Captain]

Surprisingly I am torn by this one.

Most here should know by now how I would feel about protecting children, including those that are not yet born.

However I absolutely shudder to think that a woman can be jailed for refusing to pee in a cup when she's pregnant.

From the link:

"The law, passed in 1998, allows the state to order pregnant women into protective custody and medical treatment if they're suspected of current or past drug or alcohol use."

The emphasis is mine.  You only have to be suspected or prior drug or alcohol use.  Hell, I love my wine.  Under this code if I were preggers in WI I could be incarcerated without a trial.

Do we want women to get help if they need it or not?  Cause this doesn't seem to be going in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

[ArchietheDragon]

I am with Paul on this one.   Decriminalize drug abuse.   

[bean29]

I have a nephew who is a drug addict. He and his girlfriend just had a baby.  From what I gather, she continued to do drugs while pregnant.

The baby spent the first month of his life in the hospital.  They say these babies have to go through withdrawal and it is just awful for them.

I have a niece studying to be a Nurse.  She is working in some sort of daycare or group home.  They have handicapped kids, autistic kids and kids who were Coke Babies.  She says the Coke baby kids are the worst.  They are mean - kick, scream, pinch etc.  Very hard to control.

I live in Wisconsin.  Read the article in the local paper, and thought, IDK, in this case, I will assume protecting the child is pretty damn important.

If you want to do drugs and not be treated like a criminal, just practice safe sex - or have an abortion before it's too late.  Otherwise deal with the consequences.

Btw, the article has to be written with a slant to the Mother.  My DN's baby was just born before Christmas.  She was living in a well regarded half way house in Milwaukee.  She apparently still had access to drugs.

This was no innocent woman who had given up drugs before she got PG.  They must have had some pretty strong indications that the baby was in danger.  There was a whole issue about them asking for her medical records and her refusing.  Now I agree with the right to Medical Privacy...but just have a very difficult time deciding who has more rights here-the Mother or the Baby.  I am normally Pro-Choice and would leave the choice up to the Mother, but her choices ended when she opted not to legally terminate the pregnancy.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 7, 2015 13:41:02 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Surprisingly I am torn by this one.

Most here should know by now how I would feel about protecting children, including those that are not yet born.

However I absolutely shudder to think that a woman can be jailed for refusing to pee in a cup when she's pregnant.

From the link:

"The law, passed in 1998, allows the state to order pregnant women into protective custody and medical treatment if they're suspected of current or past drug or alcohol use."

The emphasis is mine.  You only have to be suspected or prior drug or alcohol use.  Hell, I love my wine.  Under this code if I were preggers in WI I could be incarcerated without a trial.

Do we want women to get help if they need it or not?  Cause this doesn't seem to be going in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

Totally see what you are saying.  And, yes.  I want women (and men) to get help if they need it.  However, their drug/alcohol abuse was their own choice.  That baby has no choice and first and foremost, I would protect that baby.  If that means a mother loses her freedom to harm that child, I'm afraid I can't lose sleep over it.


I agree with your emphasis on "suspected".  I'd have to know exactly what that means.  Does that mean a neighbor calls?  The garbage collector found wine bottles? 

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 7, 2015 14:33:36 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I have a nephew who is a drug addict. He and his girlfriend just had a baby.  From what I gather, she continued to do drugs while pregnant.

The baby spent the first month of his life in the hospital.  They say these babies have to go through withdrawal and it is just awful for them.

I have a niece studying to be a Nurse.  She is working in some sort of daycare or group home.  They have handicapped kids, autistic kids and kids who were Coke Babies.  She says the Coke baby kids are the worst.  They are mean - kick, scream, pinch etc.  Very hard to control.

I live in Wisconsin.  Read the article in the local paper, and thought, IDK, in this case, I will assume protecting the child is pretty damn important.

If you want to do drugs and not be treated like a criminal, just practice safe sex - or have an abortion before it's too late.  Otherwise deal with the consequences.

Because going to jails helps both mother and child. 

[bean29]

Jan 7, 2015 14:35:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jan 7, 2015 14:33:36 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I have a nephew who is a drug addict. He and his girlfriend just had a baby.  From what I gather, she continued to do drugs while pregnant.

The baby spent the first month of his life in the hospital.  They say these babies have to go through withdrawal and it is just awful for them.

I have a niece studying to be a Nurse.  She is working in some sort of daycare or group home.  They have handicapped kids, autistic kids and kids who were Coke Babies.  She says the Coke baby kids are the worst.  They are mean - kick, scream, pinch etc.  Very hard to control.

I live in Wisconsin.  Read the article in the local paper, and thought, IDK, in this case, I will assume protecting the child is pretty damn important.

If you want to do drugs and not be treated like a criminal, just practice safe sex - or have an abortion before it's too late.  Otherwise deal with the consequences.

Because going to jails helps both mother and child. 

But they were not talking about putting her in jail.  They wanted to put her in a safe house...ie. a place where she could not access drugs. 

[ArchietheDragon]

Jan 7, 2015 14:40:23 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jan 7, 2015 14:35:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Because going to jails helps both mother and child. 

But they were not talking about putting her in jail.  They wanted to put her in a safe house...ie. a place where she could not access drugs. 

a pre jail?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 12:12:04 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Do I have this right?  She went for help, then refused the help offered- so arrested for what child endangerment?

I can see that.  If you have a drug problem, and don't get into treatment, I think the fear would be you would start using again. But why go ask for help, only to refuse it? Because you didn't like the help being offered?

Not necessarily saying I agree with it, and I give her kudos for trying to get clean.  I just don't see the wisdom of refusing the residential treatment. 

I agree- but I don't see the wisdom in putting people in jail for failing to follow the healthcare directives of government.  If you follow the thought process all the way through, then you could be force fed prenatal vitamins- or jailed; you would have to breast-feed- or be jailed (and believe me there are some breastfeeding NAZIs out there that would LOVE this).  Where does it end?

My answer is, that it doesn't end-- and the ideas for this, and the societal conditioning for total government control, under the threat of violence, began with prohibition, and picked up in earnest with modern drug prohibitions.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 14:40:23 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jan 7, 2015 14:35:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Because going to jails helps both mother and child. 

But they were not talking about putting her in jail.  They wanted to put her in a safe house...ie. a place where she could not access drugs. 

It doesn't matter what the goal was, the ends don't justify the means- and process was fraudulent, and it violated her rights.  Not to mention, it sure as shit sounds like JAIL to me:

Social workers asked Loertscher repeatedly to release her medical records to county officials, and said that if she didn't, she would be jailed until she had her baby, which would then be put up for adoption.

When Loertscher finally said she wanted to go home, she was told she was the subject of a temporary custody order obtained by Taylor County and could not leave.

The next day, still at the Eau Claire Mayo Clinic, she was taken to a room where Court Commissioner Greg Krug was on speaker phone and told her to sign a petition—as if she was initiating protective action on the unborn child herself. She refused and said she wouldn't answer questions without a lawyer and left the room. The court commissioner deemed that Loertscher had waived her appearance.

Taylor County Corporation Counsel Courtney Graff, also on speaker, told a doctor at the Mayo Clinic that breaching Loertscher's confidentiality was not an issue for this type of proceeding [she should sue the Mayo Clinic- this is not true, and without a court order, they violated HIPPA] and the doctor then discussed Loertscher's conditions and treatment, as well as her past drug use that she admitted to in her initial interview at the clinic.

Krug ordered Loertscher to supply a blood sample, which she refused, and doctors at the clinic released her. But 10 days later, she was ordered into state custody.

On Sept. 14, Loertscher appeared in court without a lawyer. A judge ordered her jailed on contempt for not following the earlier orders. In jail, she was told to provide a urine sample, and when she refused, was put in solitary confinement for 36 hours.

She missed prenatal care appointments and claims jail staff said she shouldn't have gotten herself in the position to miss the appointments.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The lesson is clear to any woman in this position: social services is not there to help you, they don't give two shits about you, this country regards your drug issues not as a potential health issue, but as a criminal matter- and if you aren't prepared to make yourself a ward of the state, and possibly be thrown into jail, you are better off not seeking help.  This is EXACTLY why people don't get the help they need- because government help is an illusion.  The welfare system is supposed to help, but the reporting requirements intertwine it with the criminal system-- especially where drugs are concerned, and the solution is ultra-simple: decriminalize drug use.  Make it so no person, no matter what their issue, can ever be charged with a crime for USING drugs-- then people like her can be more forthcoming about drug issues, and that honesty and transparency can aid the social welfare system to help them, and their unborn children, without jeopardizing life and liberty.

[Green Eyed Lady]

She wasn't charged with any crime for USING drugs.  She was charged with Contempt of Court.  That has nothing to do with using drugs and everything to do with refusing to follow orders of the court. 

I may be even agree with you that those orders were drastic.  But the fact of the matter is that you can't thumb your nose at court orders and expect to walk away scot free.  It happens, but you sure can't expect it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 16:57:37 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

She wasn't charged with any crime for USING drugs.  She was charged with Contempt of Court.  That has nothing to do with using drugs and everything to do with refusing to follow orders of the court. 

I may be even agree with you that those orders were drastic.  But the fact of the matter is that you can't thumb your nose at court orders and expect to walk away scot free.  It happens, but you sure can't expect it.

The orders were fraudulently obtained.  She was 'deemed to have waived her right' to a hearing, but she did no such thing. Furthermore the "order" violated- CLEARLY VIOLATED- her 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. She was deprived of liberty without due process, and her request for counsel was also denied.  This was a farce from start to finish.  But hey- I guess some people here don't have a problem with 3rd world, kangaroo court bs.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Social workers asked Loertscher repeatedly to release her medical records to county officials, and said that if she didn't, she would be jailed until she had her baby, which would then be put up for adoption.

Social workers are just that...social workers.   And yes.  Some do threaten people but the majority of them don't.  Nevertheless, at least in my state, they have no authority to jail anyone.  They can make recommendations but they have no authority to jail anyone.  Just because someone says something is going to happen doesn't mean its going to happen.  They also have no authority to strip someone of their parental rights.  Again, a judge has to do this.  They make recommendations but they don't make the final decision.  Putting this stuff out there like it is fact is misleading (not by you - I'm talking about by the person who wrote it up to make it sound like the social worker could actually do this).

The court commissioner deemed that Loertscher had waived her appearance.

That is generally what happens when someone walks out of a hearing.  This isn't anything new or anything that was done specifically in her case and her case alone.

She missed prenatal care appointments and claims jail staff said she shouldn't have gotten herself in the position to miss the appointments.

While I think it was totally insensitive for the staff to say this, they aren't wrong.  It was a situation of her own making - for being an admitted meth user.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 7, 2015 17:02:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 7, 2015 16:57:37 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

She wasn't charged with any crime for USING drugs.  She was charged with Contempt of Court.  That has nothing to do with using drugs and everything to do with refusing to follow orders of the court. 

I may be even agree with you that those orders were drastic.  But the fact of the matter is that you can't thumb your nose at court orders and expect to walk away scot free.  It happens, but you sure can't expect it.

The orders were fraudulently obtained.  She was 'deemed to have waived her right' to a hearing, but she did no such thing. Furthermore the "order" violated- CLEARLY VIOLATED- her 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. She was deprived of liberty without due process, and her request for counsel was also denied.  This was a farce from start to finish.  But hey- I guess some people here don't have a problem with 3rd world, kangaroo court bs.

She waived her right when she walked out of the hearing.  This isn't unusual at all.  Happens all the time.  You walk, you waive.  As for the orders being fradulently obtained - I'm not sure what you mean.

You saying that I don't have a problem with "3rd world kangaroo court bs" is about as far-fetched and histrionic as me saying you must not give a shit about the health of any unborn child.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 17:09:32 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Social workers asked Loertscher repeatedly to release her medical records to county officials, and said that if she didn't, she would be jailed until she had her baby, which would then be put up for adoption.

Social workers are just that...social workers.   And yes.  Some do threaten people but the majority of them don't.  Nevertheless, at least in my state, they have no authority to jail anyone.  They can make recommendations but they have no authority to jail anyone.  Just because someone says something is going to happen doesn't mean its going to happen.  They also have no authority to strip someone of their parental rights.  Again, a judge has to do this.  They make recommendations but they don't make the final decision.  Putting this stuff out there like it is fact is misleading (not by you - I'm talking about by the person who wrote it up to make it sound like the social worker could actually do this).

The court commissioner deemed that Loertscher had waived her appearance.

That is generally what happens when someone walks out of a hearing.  This isn't anything new or anything that was done specifically in her case and her case alone.

She missed prenatal care appointments and claims jail staff said she shouldn't have gotten herself in the position to miss the appointments.

While I think it was totally insensitive for the staff to say this, they aren't wrong.  It was a situation of her own making - for being an admitted meth user.

The orders were fraudulently obtained. She was 'deemed to have waived her right' to a hearing, but she did no such thing. Furthermore the "order" violated- CLEARLY VIOLATED- her 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. She was deprived of liberty without due process, and her request for counsel was also denied. This was a farce from start to finish. But hey- I guess some people here don't have a problem with 3rd world, kangaroo court bs.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

In case you missed my last post. The people involved actually lacked the legal authority to do what they did, but it appears they do it with such regularity, without consequences that they feel entitled to continue. At some point, the bureaucrat bullies have to have their clocks cleaned in a court of law themselves to get the message.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 7, 2015 17:11:32 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 7, 2015 17:02:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The orders were fraudulently obtained.  She was 'deemed to have waived her right' to a hearing, but she did no such thing. Furthermore the "order" violated- CLEARLY VIOLATED- her 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. She was deprived of liberty without due process, and her request for counsel was also denied.  This was a farce from start to finish.  But hey- I guess some people here don't have a problem with 3rd world, kangaroo court bs.

She waived her right when she walked out of the hearing.  This isn't unusual at all.  Happens all the time.  You walk, you waive.  As for the orders being fradulently obtained - I'm not sure what you mean.

You saying that I don't have a problem with "3rd world kangaroo court bs" is about as far-fetched and histrionic as me saying you must not give a shit about the health of any unborn child.

If the hearing is a legal proceeding which would put her in jeopardy, then she is entitled to counsel.  Refusing to answer questions, or submit to searches and seizures without a warrant, and without counsel present is a Constitutional right.

Request for medical records, submitting to a blood test are covered under the 4th and 5th Amendment (because bear in mind, drug use is illegal- especially use of methamphetamine).  You'll persuade me when you can explain how this fiasco jives with the Constitution- in particular:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [Solitary confinement while pregnant for contempt of court?]