Tennessee just became the first state that will jail women for their pregnancy outcomes

Well we know that certain drugs have a negative effect on adults and kids, so it is reasonable to understand that they have negative effects on unborn children too.

^^^^^^^^^^^^Follow your own advice Bucko^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please cite a credible source for this information.

You have been provided several links to the contrary in this thread, if you're going to continue with your emotion driven supposition please have the decency to back it up as you have insisted other do.

While you're researching please also lend credibility as to which "certain" drugs you reference because every drug behaves somewhat differently.
 
Ugh, it made me sick when I researched the effects of thalidomide. Absolutely sick.

I had two members of my father's side of the family who were affected by this horrendous drug. These people grew up with ridicule and made fun of by ignorant people, but they held their heads high and used their handicaps to help others. They were courageous people.
 
Thalidomide was never legal in the USA.


Thalidomide in America
Posted on November 2, 2011 | By Steve W. Berman

On September 18, 1962, a baby boy was born in the small town of Brownfield, Texas. Immediately after he was born, doctors noted that the boy had serious and disfiguring birth defects. He was missing his right leg, including his foot. He had no fingers on his right hand and his right arm ended above the elbow.

The baby, named Philip Yeatts, has lived his life without the use of his right leg or hand. He persevered and grew into a strong-willed and determined man. In fact, he became a professional racecar driver, using a specially modified car to win a championship in the U.S. Legends Series in 2008.

Its tempting to end Philips’ story there, and honor his courage and determination to overcome his disability. But there is much more to this story. We believe that Philip was not simply victim of poor luck. We think that his birth defects were a preventable tragedy, side effects from a dangerous drug called thalidomide.

Those of us who were alive in the early 1960s remember the tragedy caused by thalidomide. The drug was widely available in Europe, given to pregnant women to ease morning sickness. We now know that the drug caused debilitating birth defects, resulting in thousands of infant deaths and shocking deformations throughout Europe and elsewhere around the world. The pictures Americans saw of thalidomide babies shocked the nation’s collective consciousness, infants with what appeared to be flippers where arms should be, among other severe malformations.

Yet, at the same time the tragedy seemed so far away. The FDA never approved the drug here, so it was never widely used in the U.S., or so we were told. Later, Billy Joel’s song “We Didn’t Start the Fire,” would juxtapose the European tragedy, “children of thalidomide,” with a much more American tragedy, “Starkweather homicide.”

The belief that America avoided the thalidomide tragedy has persisted for nearly 50 years now, but we believe we have discovered evidence that casts doubt on the story. Newly uncovered and translated documents, combined with new medical advances that help us to better understand how thalidomide works, suggests that there may be many victims in the United States that were never identified.

Even worse, our research has uncovered evidence that the thalidomide tragedy was foreseeable and preventable, but due to the greed of a number of drug companies, safety risks were overlooked and covered up.

The origins of thalidomide take us back to post-war Europe, specifically to the early 1950s in Germany. In 1953-54, German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grunenthal synthesized thalidomide for the first time, and subsequently received a German patent to begin producing and distributing the drug. Grunenthal originally considered the drug a panacea, or at least marketed it as such, claiming it could cure everything from the common cold to premature ejaculation.

New documents suggest that on Christmas Day 1956, an earless baby was born to the wife of a Grunenthal employee who had taken thalidomide during pregnancy. Yet, instead of slowing down development and running more tests, the company continued to push ahead. A mere 10 months later, in October 1956, the drug was released for commercial, over-the-counter sale in Germany.

In 1956, the company entered into an agreement with U.S. pharmaceutical company Smith Kline and French (SKF) to begin domestic testing of thalidomide on animals and humans, including pregnant women.


By August 1958, a pregnant woman participating in the SKF trial delivered a malformed baby. Unlike Grunenthal, who decided to move ahead with the drug, SKF declined to market it in the U.S. However, from what we have seen, the company never let the public know about its test results. The failure to disclose test results is no trivial matter; it is possible that if SKF had sounded an alarm bell early, the distribution of thalidomide in the United State and elsewhere might have been slowed, and less people would have been exposed to the drug.

Having failed to convince SKF to distribute the drug, Grunenthal signed a U.S. distribution agreement for thalidomide with the William S. Merrell Company. Merrell began human trials simultaneous with animal trials in February 1959, and expanded the trials to include pregnant women in May 1959, all while conceding that it had no access to any human clinical safety data.

We believe that sometime during 1959, Grunenthal destroyed its testing data. In September 1960, Merrell submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) with the FDA for commercial sale of thalidomide, which Merrell named Kevadon. The proposed label in the application specified that the drug was intended for use by pregnant women.

One month later, Merrell began its “Kevadon Hospital Program,” a series of large-scale “clinical trials” that we believe were nothing more than a marketing effort to pave the way for expected sales of the drug in the United States. Merrell kept disorganized and occasionally nonexistent records of who, where and when Kevadon was distributed and even informed doctors that they did not need to keep records of the “studies” either. Again, the drug was recommended for use treating morning sickness in pregnant women.

As part of this trial, we believe that more than 2.5 million doses of the drug were given to more than 20,000 patients. While those trials ran, the FDA’s Dr. Frances Kelsey repeatedly denied Merrell’s application to sell thalidomide, deeming its testing to be incomplete. She encouraged testing on pregnant animals.


Continued...


Fast forward:

United States

On July 16, 1998, the FDA approved the use of thalidomide for the treatment of lesions associated with Erythema Nodosum Leprosum (ENL). Because of thalidomide’s potential for causing birth defects, the distribution of the drug was permitted only under tightly controlled conditions. The FDA required that Celgene Corporation, which planned to market thalidomide under the brand name ''Thalomid'', establish a System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (S.T.E.P.S.) oversight program. The conditions required under the program include; limiting prescription and dispensing rights only to authorized prescribers and pharmacies, keeping a registry of all patients prescribed thalidomide, providing extensive patient education about the risks associated with the drug and providing periodic pregnancy tests for women who are prescribed it.

On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for thalidomide (Thalomid, Celgene Corporation) in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The FDA approval came seven years after the first reports of efficacy in the medical literature and Celgene took advantage of "off-label" marketing opportunities to promote the drug in advance of its FDA approval for the myeloma indication. Thalomid, as the drug is commercially known, sold over $300 million per year, while only approved for leprosy.
http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Thalidomide.aspx
 
Thalidomide in America
Posted on November 2, 2011 | As part of this trial, we believe that more than 2.5 million doses of the drug were given to more than 20,000 patients. While those trials ran, the FDA’s Dr. Frances Kelsey repeatedly denied Merrell’s application to sell thalidomide, deeming its testing to be incomplete. She encouraged testing on pregnant animals.


http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Thalidomide.aspx

She looks like a genius now. Thalidomide is the FDA's biggest success story, as well as being responsible for the complete overhaul of the ethics and protocols of global drug testing.

So you bitch because you don't think the government requires enough testing, then you bitch when you find out that the drug was tested. I can assume you'd also bitch because new drugs are not tested on pregnant women while bitching that this drug was tested on pregnant women, and of course you'd bitch because the drug is actually still in use today.

You darkly intone that The Medical Mafia works silently in tandem with Big pHARM to cover up the side effects, while ignoring stories like this, when scientists across the globe zeroed in, discovered and proved the connection in less than 5 years.

And of course you alternate between complaining that the FDA regulations are not strict enough and they're too strict because they keep laetrile off the market.

And you think you make perfect sense. Whatever.

To tie this back to the original thread topic....Even if we agree in theory, I doubt anybody here would be excitedly yammering that women should have the right to take thalidomide if they chose to if the government in TN passed a law forbidding pregnant women from taking it, and the rationale for that is pretty clear: the drug clearly harms unborn children and the effects are instantly visible.

But from a moral perspective, why can a woman take an RU-486 pill (which intentionally harms the fetus) legally, but not take street drugs, which aren't even proven to effect the baby?
 
Last edited:
But from a moral perspective, why can a woman take an RU-486 pill (which intentionally harms the fetus) legally, but not take street drugs, which aren't even proven to effect the baby?

This ridiculous legislation was driven purely by emotion.

Politicians rallying the people who believe what they're told by those who profit from the war on drugs..

It should be obvious to anyone who cares to look at the legislation and the medical data that this bill protects neither mother or child and only serves to protect big government...
 
She looks like a genius now. Thalidomide is the FDA's biggest success story, as well as being responsible for the complete overhaul of the ethics and protocols of drug testing.

So you bitch because you don't think the government requires enough testing, then you bitch when you find out that the drug was tested. I can assume you'd also bitch because new drugs are not tested on pregnant women while bitching that this drug was tested on pregnant women, and of course you'd bitch because the drug is actually still in use today.

You darkly intone that The Medical Mafia works silently in tandem with Big pHARM to cover up the side effects, while ignoring stories like this, when scientists across the globe zeroed in, discovered and proved the connection in less than 5 years.

And of course you alternate between complaining that the FDA regulations are not strict enough and they're too strict because they keep laetrile off the market.

And you think you make perfect sense. Whatever.

To tie this back to the original thread topic....I doubt anybody here would be yammering that women should have the right to take thalidomide if they chose to if the government in TN passed a law forbidding pregnant women from taking it, and the rationale for that is pretty clear: the drug clearly harms unborn children.

But from a moral perspective, why can a woman take an RU-486 pill (which intentionally harms the fetus) legally, but not take street drugs, which aren't even proven to effect the baby?

Yeah just as I thought, you didn't make any connections presented. Greed and collusion with drug companies and governments continue in this county and abroad. Even though back in the 50's and 60's the drug companies were not as big and powerful as they are today.
 
The FDA refused to approve it, but there were clinical trials conducted.
People consented to treatment with an experimental drug, and presumably signed appropriate contracts with the company doing the experimenting.


What don't we like about this again?
 
People consented to treatment with an experimental drug, and presumably signed appropriate contracts with the company doing the experimenting.


What don't we like about this again?

So did those who participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. People can consent but not all consent is informed consent. The government and it's doctor's/scientists have an unfortunate history of lying and with-holding important information that is required for informed consent.

Your point?
 
Last edited:
So did those who participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. People can consent but not all consent is informed consent. The government and it's doctor's/scientists have an unfortunate history of lying and with-holding important information that is required for informed consent.

Your point?

Thank you for providing the correct terminology for a concept I was trying to describe in the 'voluntary sterilization instead of welfare' thread. There is an enormous difference between 'consent' and 'informed consent,' and no matter how 'voluntary' a program may be, there will always be those who fraud people into it.
 
So did those who participated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. People can consent but not all consent is informed consent. The government and it's doctor's/scientists have an unfortunate history of lying and with-holding important information that is required for informed consent.

Your point?


To summarize, we need to protect people from themselves because they're not smart enough to make their own decisions?
 
To summarize, we need to protect people from themselves because they're not smart enough to make their own decisions?

Leaving out important details from the person who agreed to the trial is wrong--period.
 
Whats next? Anything considered "unhealthy" for the baby will result in imprisonment of the mother? By whose definition? Doing dangerous work, like working with potentially dangerous chemicals (i.e. car wash), eating 'dangerous' food like McDonalds? Someone else gets to profit, follow the money. For example, Im the state, you spank your kid, thus I deserve your money by fining you? This sounds like the exact opposite of Liberty and exactly like Policed Parenting.
 
Whats next? Anything considered "unhealthy" for the baby will result in imprisonment of the mother? By whose definition? Doing dangerous work, like working with potentially dangerous chemicals (i.e. car wash), eating 'dangerous' food like McDonalds? Someone else gets to profit, follow the money. For example, Im the state, you spank your kid, thus I deserve your money by fining you? This sounds like the exact opposite of Liberty and exactly like Policed Parenting.
I can just see it now. The mother is riding on the back of a motorcycle and gets arrested for endangering her unborn child.
 
I can just see it now. The mother is riding on the back of a motorcycle and gets arrested for endangering her unborn child.

/agree

Or a car with a shoulder strapping belt that goes over her stomach. Should driving now be illegal for pregnant women? Or hell, riding in a car, period?

Govt: Thats illegal cuz its a danger to you, now give me some more money.
 
Faux-Newz;

New Tenn. law will criminalize moms for using drugs while pregnant

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...using-drugs-while-pregnant/?intcmp=latestnews

Pregnant women who harm their babies by using narcotics while pregnant will face criminal charges under a new bill signed into law this week in Tennessee, a move decried by health and women’s rights organizations.

Republican Gov. Bill Haslam signed the legislation that would allow women to be charged with assault if they abuse narcotics while pregnant and give birth to a child who is dependent on drugs or harmed as a result.

Haslam signed the bill despite calls from health and women's organizations to veto the bill.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a New York-based advocacy organization, says despite attempts by other states, Tennessee is the first to pass such a bill. Under the law, the women would be charged with misdemeanor assault.

Haslam said Tuesday after signing the bill that he is aware of the concerns opponents have to the measure and will use updates with the courts and health professionals to monitor its impact.

"In reviewing this bill, I have had extensive conversations with experts including substance abuse, mental health, health and law enforcement officials," Haslam said in a statement. "The intent of this bill is to give law enforcement and district attorneys a tool to address illicit drug use among pregnant women through treatment programs."

Those opposed to the bill were concerned that it would only wind up hurting the babies. They fear that women will not get prenatal care because they'll be afraid of going to jail. They also fear that new mothers will not get their babies help when the infants start to show signs of suffering from drug dependence because the moms are afraid of getting arrested.

The Haslam administration has said that women who seek drug treatment while pregnant and complete the program will not be charged.

Health care workers note that signs of drug dependency can come days or weeks after the baby has been born and first leaves the hospital.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday called the law dangerous and said Haslam overlooked widespread calls for a veto of the bill, including from doctors.

"Today, the Tennessee governor has made it a crime to carry a pregnancy to term if you struggle with addiction or substance abuse," Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Freedom Project, said in a statement. "This deeply misguided law will force those women who need health care the most into the shadows. Pregnant women with addictions need better access to health care, not jail time."

Tennessee prosecutors had fought for the law. They argued that it was the only way to get mothers into drug treatment and stop so many children from being harmed as a result of their mothers using drugs while pregnant.

*The first clue that a law, bill or edict is counter-liberty is when prosecutors push for it.

Rest assured this fine piece of legislation will be abused by CPS, the cops and of course the very prosecutors who profit financially from it...

All at the expense of the mothers and their children whilst the taxpayer foots yet another feel-good program...:mad:
 
Back
Top