Wisconsin jails pregnant woman - gives her fetus – but not her – a lawyer

Maybe it's just me but this seems wrong. A Wisconsin mother-to-be who has no health insurance self medicates to overcome a previous addiction using an anti-opiate drug that admitted wasn't her's, tells the truth in a doctor visit and get sent to jail for endangering the child. Adding insult to injury she doesn't get a lawyer but the fetus does. WTH?

Wisconsin jails pregnant woman and gives her fetus – but not her – a lawyer

A Wisconsin mother-to-be is challenging her state’s fetal protection law after she was arrested following a prenatal visit where she admitted taking a drug used to treat painkiller dependency.

Then 28 years old, Beltran said she admitted to struggling with a past addiction to Percocet and taking an acquaintance’s prescribed Suboxone because she lacked health insurance and could not afford the anti-opioid medication herself.

Two days later, Beltran was arrested and taken in handcuffs to a hospital, where she was examined by a physician.

Her lawyers said the pregnancy was determined to be normal and healthy, but she was taken to jail and ordered by a judge to spend 90 days in a drug treatment center.

At her initial hearing, her attorneys say, the judge told Belran that she would not have an attorney present but one had been appointed to represent her fetus.

No lawyer for her but the fetus gets one? This should be dismissed on those grounds alone. This seems to be another case of lawyer/judge weasel-speak and the application of laws in a way inconsistent with their spirit. So what else is new. Just wait until obamacare takes over.

The judge sentencing her to a drug treatment centre is the best decision for the fetus and the mother. It's obvious since she is self-medicating (stealing others' drugs) that she can't overcome her drug addiction(s).

InTheLight
The judge sentencing her to a drug treatment centre is the best decision for the fetus and the mother. It's obvious since she is self-medicating (stealing others' drugs) that she can't overcome her drug addiction(s).

Obviously she needs help but outpatient treatment would have been more logical. And what's with the "You don't get a lawyer but the fetus does?" Whenever a person is charged with a crime they are allowed a lawyer.

I think that is a great solution. Get her butt in rehab where her addiction can't hurt the baby. I don't know much about opioid pain killers but I've seen plenty of people who abuse soboxin as much as oxicodone. It may be used to fight addiction but lots of folks are addicted to it.

I think that is a great solution. Get her butt in rehab where her addiction can't hurt the baby. I don't know much about opioid pain killers but I've seen plenty of people who abuse soboxin as much as oxicodone. It may be used to fight addiction but lots of folks are addicted to it.

That would also imply that the fetus has other rights..


Somebody get that fetus a gun!

rangerdanger
That would also imply that the fetus has other rights..


Somebody get that fetus a gun!

In Texas each fetus is born with a gun.

But seriously, no lawyer but the fetus gets one. What is this, a banana republic? Oh wait!

reply to post by Bassago


I agree with others that said this is probably the best thing for her and the child. It will be rough, but she has a real chance to get clean and protect the health of the baby.

Whenever a person is charged with a crime they are allowed a lawyer.

That's not true. Free representation, at least around here, depends on how many local law students are working for credit....not cash and state/city courts will only appoint a lawyer if you fall under certain financial guidelines.

I've seen many people defend themselves because of this.

Bassago

InTheLight
The judge sentencing her to a drug treatment centre is the best decision for the fetus and the mother. It's obvious since she is self-medicating (stealing others' drugs) that she can't overcome her drug addiction(s).

Obviously she needs help but outpatient treatment would have been more logical. And what's with the "You don't get a lawyer but the fetus does?" Whenever a person is charged with a crime they are allowed a lawyer.

From your initial quote:

At her initial hearing, her attorneys say, the judge told Belran that she would not have an attorney present but one had been appointed to represent her fetus.

...her attorneys say? doesn't this mean she had/has attorneys? I am confused, please clarify this for me. Thanks.

reply to post by Bassago


Because she isn't charged with a crime. Hence no counsel. However the baby was at risk, so action was taken to prevent the baby from untold harm.

This is good for both baby and momma. She needs to kick and needs help.

Is it a slippery slope? You bet.

sheepslayer247
reply to post by Bassago

 

I agree with others that said this is probably the best thing for her and the child. It will be rough, but she has a real chance to get clean and protect the health of the baby.

Whenever a person is charged with a crime they are allowed a lawyer.

That's not true. Free representation, at least around here, depends on how many local law students are working for credit....not cash and state/city courts will only appoint a lawyer if you fall under certain financial guidelines.

I've seen many people defend themselves because of this.

I'm not disputing her going into rehab. She and more specifically the child needs it. I guess the "no lawyer for you" bit is what I'm against. Constitution says ALL criminal prosecutions.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

A defendant unable to retain counsel has the right to appointed counsel at the government's expense. While the Supreme Court recognized this right gradually, it currently applies in all federal and state criminal proceedings where the defendant faces authorized imprisonment greater than one year (a "felony") or where the defendant is actually imprisoned.Wiki...

Granted the SCOTUS weasel-walked it to have limitations. Still wrong though IMO.

The solution is fine, the precedent is dubious.

reply to post by InTheLight


Not sure about that. Guess they took her in initially without representation, told her she wouldn't have an attorney and she managed to get one anyway.

At her initial hearing, her attorneys say, the judge told Belran that she would not have an attorney present but one had been appointed to represent her fetus.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Because she isn't charged with a crime. Hence no counsel.

However the baby was at risk, so action was taken to prevent the baby from untold harm.

This is good for both baby and momma. She needs to kick and needs help. Is it a slippery slope? You bet.

Under a 1998 Wisconsin law, known as the “coc aine mom” act, the courts can forcibly confine pregnant women who use illegal drugs or alcohol “to a severe degree” and who refuses to accept treatment.

Pretty sure she was charged under this statute.

SaturnFX
The solution is fine, the precedent is dubious.

Thank you.
That was my point.

Bassago
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Not sure about that. Guess they took her in initially without representation, told her she wouldn't have an attorney and she managed to get one anyway.

At her initial hearing, her attorneys say, the judge told Belran that she would not have an attorney present but one had been appointed to represent her fetus.

 

reply to post by GrantedBail

 

Because she isn't charged with a crime. Hence no counsel.

However the baby was at risk, so action was taken to prevent the baby from untold harm.

This is good for both baby and momma. She needs to kick and needs help. Is it a slippery slope? You bet.

Under a 1998 Wisconsin law, known as the “coc aine mom” act, the courts can forcibly confine pregnant women who use illegal drugs or alcohol “to a severe degree” and who refuses to accept treatment.

Pretty sure she was charged under this statute.

Where does it say she was charged? Didn't the judge's order say she goes to rehab, not jail? I'm still confused.

reply to post by InTheLight


She was arrested.

"You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you."

What they heck did this woman do wrong to deserve jail?? In our warped society, she appears to me at least, to have done everything "right" for someone who flat out does not have the cash to see a doctor. (The US MUST treat emergency cases .. Others? Tough..depending on circumstance). However... What the heck?!

where she admitted taking a drug used to treat painkiller dependency.

Trying to stay off the real thing and break the addiction. Not feed it. Check!

Then 28 years old, Beltran said she admitted to struggling with a past addiction to Percocet and taking an acquaintance’s prescribed Suboxone because she lacked health insurance and could not afford the anti-opioid medication herself.

Can't afford to see one...Goes to jail when she DOES. Well, Check! She learned a lesson alright...so did every other woman reading that. There goes medical care for whatever % share her circumstances.

She said the physician’s assistant recommended that she renew her use of Suboxone, but under a doctor’s care, and Beltran said she declined.

The expectant mother was then asked to take a drug test, which she said turned up negative for all substances except for Suboxone.

Now what the hell here, seriously??? They WERE HAPPY to give her the SAME drug, for the SAME purpose. They tested and confirmed what the woman was telling them. It was just the one, and presumably for the stated purpose.

So.. 'Take OURs..OUR way...with money you don't have...or go to jail??' Somehow I *DO NOT* believe that was what the law described had been intended for. This isn't even a safety issue if the place offered her the same thing. She just pissed them off when she said no ..and so they had her taken out in Cuffs.

.......and WHY don't people trust doctors anymore? Gee whiz.. I wonder... Confidentiality meant something, at one time.

Bassago
reply to post by InTheLight

 

She was arrested.

"You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you."

That doesn't answer my questions. Yes, she was arrested and held, but that doesn't mean she is staying in jail...what was she charged with, can you find out more details?

No legal representation? That's draconian. One question. Are judges appointed or elected in the States?

possesion is still 9/10 of the LAW.

i guess the Legal question is ,,who is in possesion,,of whom.