LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:39:50 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
<< I just want to know why the state thinks option 1 is just fine, but option
two, is
 so awful that the baby is taken from the parents. >>

I'm a retired LLL Leader and former IBCLC (certification expired last year--a
bittersweet event). I'm now finishing my 2nd year of law school, and
constitutional law is still fresh in my mind. So here goes about the nature
of the state's interest in Situation 1, in which the HIV+ mother aborts with
no intervention from the state, and Situation 2, in which she delivers the
baby and loses custody because she breastfeeds. (I'll assume for the sake of
argument that we're talking about an abortion before fetal viability.)

While the state *does* have an interest in protecting potential life, the
mother's right to an abortion outweighs that interest before viability. The
U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this view in 1992 in Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Consequently, the state constitutionally
cannot intervene when a woman chooses to abort an HIV+ fetus before
viability, even though the risk of transmission is dramatically lower than
the 100% risk of fetal death from the abortion. The state interest simply is
not strong enough, under the Court's jurisprudence.

Once the baby is born, it's another story. Historically the courts have found
a compelling state interest in the lives of its citizens. Therefore, the
state can intervene to protect that interest, even at the expense of a
parent's right to make decisions about the welfare of his or her own child.

The crux of the difference is that the unborn have never been recognized
under the law as persons in the whole sense.

So that's the legal answer, Jack. It doesn't address the subtext of your
question, which I read as, "Does this distinction make sense?" I guess that
depends on which side of the issue you want to argue.  :)

I so enjoy this mailing list. Hope my post wasn't too dry.

Susan Roberts, retired LLLL, former IBCLC, and aspiring lawyer

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2