United States Supreme Court to Hear Meth Mom's Challenge to Wisconsin Fetal Protection Law
A 1997 Wisconsin law gives courts jurisdiction over an "unborn child" and its "expectant mother," if the "expectant mother's habitual lack of self-control in the use of alcohol beverages [or] controlled substances [poses] a substantial risk" of harm to the unborn child. Wis. Stat. Section 48.193.
Tamara Loertscher, a 29 year old woman who used methamphetamine and marijuana weekly, and alcohol when she felt like it, while pregnant, challenged this law. Officials of Taylor County used this law to incarcerate her and then subject her to drug treatment and monitoring until her child was born healthy in January 2015. Though no longer subject to the act's provisions, Ms. Loertscher sued Taylor County and those county employees involved in her case, alleging violations of her constitutional rights, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Each party to the suit moved for summary judgment, asserting the law so clearly favored them that they were entitled to win without need of a trial.
The Court found Loertscher was entitled to summary judgment in her favor insofar as the statute which allowed her to be incarcerated and to subject herself to drug monitoring and treatment during her pregnancy were "void for vagueness."
The Court then found in favor of Taylor County, stating a county cannot be sued under a federal statute unless the manner in which the act was enforced against her can be traced to a county policy that would violate her constitutional rights, as opposed to merely enforcing a state regulation or law.
The Wisconsin District Court then issued an injunction barring the enforcement of the 1997 law. However, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction on July 7, 2017, pending a full hearing and determination of the issues by the United States Supreme Court.
Comments from Allen:
With a conservative, pro-life jurist, Neil Gorsuch, having just been appointed to the court, odds are the Wisconsin law will be upheld and not struck down as being void for vagueness.
All states wrestle with the problem of children born with drug or alcohol-induced birth defects. Many abortion rights advocates would solve the problem by aborting children who are have a high potential for being born with birth defects. Pro-life advocates support measures such as the Wisconsin law at issue here.
One of the unfortunate cases I have personally dealt with in my career involved a 19 year old native American born with fetal alcohol syndrome. His mother drank too much, and she did it while pregnant with him. He had been in and out of jail for as long as he had been able to go in and out of jail. He was not mentally equipped to follow societal rules, and there would be nothing anyone could do to change that for this man's entire life, according to the information available at that time.
State laws such as Wisconsin's law are designed to address that issue when possible. In Ms. Loertscher's case, she was using meth daily when she discovered she was pregnant. Aware that meth could harm her child, she reduced her meth usage to 1-3 times per week after that, and continued to use marijuana and alcohol.
Frankly, although this case is not about abortion, you can expect the jurists in this case to decide the constitutionality of the Wisconsin law based upon whether they are pro-life or pro-abortion. If a fetus is not a person, the Wisconsin law makes no sense at all; it makes sense only in the context of protecting a person, a life.
Therefore, those who are pro-life will side with upholding the law; saving the child by these means is warranted, when the risk of serious injury to the child is apparent by the mother's continued use of dangerous drugs. I expect the pro-abortion jurists will want no imposition on the mother's freedom if the purpose is to protect the life of an unborn child.
When the final vote comes in for this case, take note which jurors support the law and which oppose it, and you may have a snapshot of where the Supreme Court is headed in future abortion cases.
Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.
Tamara Loertscher, a 29 year old woman who used methamphetamine and marijuana weekly, and alcohol when she felt like it, while pregnant, challenged this law. Officials of Taylor County used this law to incarcerate her and then subject her to drug treatment and monitoring until her child was born healthy in January 2015. Though no longer subject to the act's provisions, Ms. Loertscher sued Taylor County and those county employees involved in her case, alleging violations of her constitutional rights, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.Each party to the suit moved for summary judgment, asserting the law so clearly favored them that they were entitled to win without need of a trial.
The Court found Loertscher was entitled to summary judgment in her favor insofar as the statute which allowed her to be incarcerated and to subject herself to drug monitoring and treatment during her pregnancy were "void for vagueness."
The Court then found in favor of Taylor County, stating a county cannot be sued under a federal statute unless the manner in which the act was enforced against her can be traced to a county policy that would violate her constitutional rights, as opposed to merely enforcing a state regulation or law.
The Wisconsin District Court then issued an injunction barring the enforcement of the 1997 law. However, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction on July 7, 2017, pending a full hearing and determination of the issues by the United States Supreme Court.
Comments from Allen:
With a conservative, pro-life jurist, Neil Gorsuch, having just been appointed to the court, odds are the Wisconsin law will be upheld and not struck down as being void for vagueness.
All states wrestle with the problem of children born with drug or alcohol-induced birth defects. Many abortion rights advocates would solve the problem by aborting children who are have a high potential for being born with birth defects. Pro-life advocates support measures such as the Wisconsin law at issue here.
One of the unfortunate cases I have personally dealt with in my career involved a 19 year old native American born with fetal alcohol syndrome. His mother drank too much, and she did it while pregnant with him. He had been in and out of jail for as long as he had been able to go in and out of jail. He was not mentally equipped to follow societal rules, and there would be nothing anyone could do to change that for this man's entire life, according to the information available at that time.
State laws such as Wisconsin's law are designed to address that issue when possible. In Ms. Loertscher's case, she was using meth daily when she discovered she was pregnant. Aware that meth could harm her child, she reduced her meth usage to 1-3 times per week after that, and continued to use marijuana and alcohol.
Frankly, although this case is not about abortion, you can expect the jurists in this case to decide the constitutionality of the Wisconsin law based upon whether they are pro-life or pro-abortion. If a fetus is not a person, the Wisconsin law makes no sense at all; it makes sense only in the context of protecting a person, a life.
Therefore, those who are pro-life will side with upholding the law; saving the child by these means is warranted, when the risk of serious injury to the child is apparent by the mother's continued use of dangerous drugs. I expect the pro-abortion jurists will want no imposition on the mother's freedom if the purpose is to protect the life of an unborn child.
When the final vote comes in for this case, take note which jurors support the law and which oppose it, and you may have a snapshot of where the Supreme Court is headed in future abortion cases.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen handles cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.
Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.
Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents,truck accidents, auto accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.
Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI), traffic violations, Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, battery and assault charges, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.
Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.
Comments
Post a Comment