TresSugar

Pregnant, Addicted, and at Risk For Incarceration in SC

TresSugar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0700

Pregnant and high, 37-year-old Sandria Doremus entered a treatment facility in Greenville, SC, with the hopes that she could get off drugs and properly care for her baby. Her other motivation? She wanted to avoid being incarcerated after she gave birth.

It could easily have happened to her. A hospital reported her drug use to the police - as required by law.

Although this practice has abated, since 1989, at least 126 women in South Carolina have been arrested and charged with harming their fetuses by abusing drug and alcohol, according to the National Advocates For Pregnant Women. Only about 80 pregnant women around the country were arrested on similar charges in the same time period. Although local and state agencies across the country have attempted to prosecute pregnant women for drug use, their cases are usually rejected by the courts.

Although many women say that they're glad they had a chance to clean up and be sober mothers, some women admit that their fear of being arrested kept them from getting treatment earlier.

"These are addicts who become pregnant," says Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates For Pregnant Women. "They aren't women who chose to use drugs after becoming pregnant."

What do you think about criminalizing addicted women who get pregnant?

Très Bizarre: Man Charged For Being Naked in His Kitchen

TresSugar — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:00:00 -0700

Spending more time around the house naked might be good for the planet, but it could also land you in jail. The state of Virginia has charged Eric Williamson, 29, with indecent exposure for hanging out nude in his own home.

Early Monday morning, around 5:30 a.m., a naked Eric was making a cup of Joe in his kitchen. At the same time, a woman and her 7-year-old boy happened to walk through Eric's front yard. She called the police, who quickly arrived on the scene and arrested Eric. The reporting officers must have given Eric a chance to get dressed, because he's wearing clothes in his mug shot.

The police say that Eric wanted the strangers to see him naked. If prosecutors can prove that, Eric might be sentenced to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Considering it was so early in the morning and still dark out, it seems unlikely that he was standing in his kitchen naked waiting for random passersby to catch a glimpse. I doubt Eric will be convicted, but he still must be pretty upset about the whole situation. Perhaps the lady cutting through his lawn should be the one facing the law!

Supreme Court Considers Legality of Crosses on Public Land

TresSugar — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:05:00 -0700

While the Supreme Court decides whether or not religious symbols can be erected on public land, one justice already has his mind made up. During the oral arguments on the legality of a cross at a World War I memorial, Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia more than hinted at how he is voting. Scalia said yesterday:

What would you have them erect? . . . Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star? . . . I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead.

Scalia definitely has no problem avoiding religious sensitivity. He seems to dismiss even the idea of a more inclusive memorial outright. Since the memorial was built more than 75 years ago, there could be a valid argument for preserving it for historical reasons, but it seems only right that today's memorials should not favor one religion. Then again, perhaps the separation of church and state goes even further to dictate that no religious symbols should be found on public land. That is the question the Supreme Court must decide.

What do you think? Should crosses be allowed on public lands, should religious memorials be required to be all-inclusive, or should religious symbols be banned altogether from public land?

Oklahoma Prepares to Put Abortion Details Online

TresSugar — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:00:00 -0700

Starting Nov. 1, any woman who has an abortion in Oklahoma will have to fill out an extensive questionnaire that will subsequently be posted online. Supporters of the law say that the information will help healthcare officials reduce the number of abortions. They also reason that the answers must be posted online so academic researchers can access the data.

As you can imagine, the logic behind these assumed advantages, along with the entire premise of posting extensive information about individual abortions online, is flawed for various reasons. Here are a few:

Even though the questionnaire does not ask for name or address, the first eight questions alone most likely would be enough to identify a woman in a town of 200 or less.
The data will not be suitable for academic research because of the way it is collected. Since a woman could fill out a questionnaire each time she sees a doctor about seeking an abortion, her data could appear to represent more than one patient.
The questionnaire contains loaded language, such as: "Was there an infant born alive as a result of the abortion?"

Luckily, those opposed to the questionnaire and database have filed a lawsuit that will hopefully prevent the dubious law from going into force. What do you make of all this?

Student Fights For Right to Wear Confederate Clothes

TresSugar — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:00:00 -0700

South Carolinian teen Candice Hardwick believes her freedom of speech was violated when school officials forced her to change her clothes and turn shirts inside out because they featured the Confederate emblem. Candice, whose state still flies the Confederate flag at the state house, was even suspended from her middle school for continuing to wear the controversial logo. A federal court ruled that the school district could prevent her from wearing the clothing, but now Candice is appealing the decision.

Candice's family says she's not celebrating a past of slavery and segregation; she just wanted to honor her heritage since her family members fought for the South during the Civil War. But for many people, this argument is a smokescreen. To them, the Confederate flag unequivocally represents nostalgia for a disgraceful past, and it's not incidental that the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups use this emblem to represent their views.

If the Confederate emblem is a loaded symbol everywhere, its racial repercussions couldn't be felt more than in Candice's school district, where schools were segregated until the 1970s and separate proms were held for blacks and whites well into the 1980s. Despite Candice's arguments, the lower court ruled that Confederate clothing could disrupt learning in racially diverse schools. We'll have to wait to find out what happens on appeal. Should public schools be able to ban students from wearing Confederate clothing?

Alabama Supreme Court to Women: No Sex Toys For You!

TresSugar — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:00:00 -0700

Love Stuff, a sex toy shop in Hoover, AL, recently filed a challenge to strike down a 1998 law that bans the sale of sex toys. Alas, anyone who wants to buy sex toys in Alabama will have to go elsewhere. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state's ban in a 7-2 decision on Friday, arguing against Love Stuff's claim that the ban violated a person's right to sexual privacy.

The Legislature argued that although you can still use your Pearl Rabbit in private, they have the right to ban its public distribution. In a statement that could easily have been written by the satirists of The Onion, the 11th Circuit stated in its majority opinion, "There is nothing 'private' or 'consensual' about the advertising and sale of a dildo."

In arguing that regulating commercial activity is not a private activity (and hence doesn't fall under Love Stuff's challenge that the law is a violation of privacy), Associate Justice Michael F. Bolin claims that the law banning the sale of sex toys is an issue of public morality. Do you see any connection between morality and the sale of sex toys? Does the court's view of sex toys and their sale seem outdated to you?

Gay-Friendly Curriculum Sparks Lawsuit From Parents

TresSugar — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:00:00 -0700

The decision by a California school district to introduce gay-friendly curriculum has been met with a not-so-friendly reaction. Parents are suing the Alameda Unified School district, alleging that inappropriate curriculum is being forced on their children.

Once a year, students in kindergarten through the fifth grade would be taught about LBGT issues. Kindergartners would learn about the harm caused by teasing or using the word "fag," while older students would learn about stereotypes based on sexual orientation. Certain parents are particularly upset because they would not be allowed to opt their children out of the lesson.

Do you agree with teaching students at school to be more tolerant, or should these lessons be learned at home?

Stranger Than Fiction: Mother-Daughter Prostitution Ring

TresSugar — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:00:00 -0700

So it might take more than two people to make up a prostitution ring, but a mother and daughter in Philadelphia gave it their best shot. With the help of Craigslist, Traci Young, 39, and her daughter Tami Smith, 22, used Craigslist to sell themselves for sex online.

The pair advertised their services as a "mother and daughter tag team." The original offer came with a reasonable price tag: $200 to have sex with mother and daughter at the same time. They were caught when they arranged a meeting with an undercover police officer.

The mother, Traci, was convicted yesterday of setting up the prostitution operation, and daughter Tami has already been convicted and sentenced. Back when she was first arrested, Traci said, "It's a messed up world out there and we have to do this just to get by."

Teen Suspended For Telling Muslim-American to Take Off Hijab

TresSugar — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:00:00 -0700

Heather Lawrence, a 16-year-old from Spring Hill, FL, may want to rethink what it means to be a patriotic American.

A junior ROTC member who wants to enlist in the Army next Summer, Lawrence was recently suspended for chastising a fellow student in the halls who was wearing a hijab, saying, “Take that thing off your head and act like you're proud to be an American." She first took offense at the girl when she noticed that she didn’t stand for the pledge of allegiance. Lawrence's parents, outraged that she was suspended for five days, are thinking of taking legal action. (The girl Lawrence confronted didn't complain, but a teacher overheard the remarks and reported her.)

Lawrence’s parents say that it’s Heather’s First Amendment right to “speak her mind,” but Springstead High’s principal sees Heather’s behavior as a of violation the district’s policy against bullying and harassment. According to a school staffer who asked Lawrence why she confronted the student, her harassment seemed to have a prejudicial tinge. "She began to rant,” said the staffer, “that she was enlisting and was going to Iraq and that basically because the girl looks Middle Eastern, that makes her an enemy because all Iraqis are Middle Eastern."

We’ve talked before about how Muslim women wearing hijabs seems to set a lot of people off. As for having to say the pledge of allegiance, last year the US Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a provision in Florida law mandating that people must stand for the pledge.

What do you think of Lawrence’s treatment of the hijab-wearing Muslim-American and her subsequent suspension? When does patriotism go too far?

Britain to Impose Booze-Ban on "Antisocial" Drunks

TresSugar — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:00:00 -0700

Starting today, anyone who behaves "antisocially" while drunk can be banned from pubs, bars, and other public places in England and Wales for up to two years.

Many people in Britain believe that drastic policing like this must be used to change the culture of heavy drinking. But not everyone is on board with the latest crackdowns - or booze antisocial behavior orders (ASBO). One civil liberties activist says:

It will be jelly bean ASBO for sugared-up kids next. Surely it's time to call last orders on endless new legislation.

While this is the first time antisocial behavior orders will be handed out for public drunks, British courts have been using them to curb other bad behavior for some time now. So what else counts as anti-social behavior in the UK? Earlier this month, a man was given an animal ASBO after bees from his hives repeatedly stung the neighbors. The beekeeper was ordered to move his hives. And a magistrate judge gave another Brit an ASBO for throwing shopping carts outside a supermarket two or three times per week. The ASBO makes it criminal for the man to throw shopping carts going forward. That sounds about right.

Do you think this sort of targeted justice is the best way to solve societal problems like excessive alcohol consumption? Will telling a drunk that he can't go to pubs and bars for a couple of years change anything?