…………..Mr Lager, your opponents on this bill are correct. Your bill will do nothing else except to keep some pregnent women from seeing a doctor…….but I’ll bet that does not matter a hoot to you.

I’ll bet you campaigned on a “tough on crime” ticket, and that maintaining your political image is more important to you than is a pregnant women avoiding a doctor visit for fear of going to jail.

How can oyu criminalize an illegal activity??? Thats oxymonoric. Maybe I just dont get it, but this seems like a debate that is a waste of taxpayers dollars. Call me dumb, but I think there are already laws on the books that address illegal drug use.

I wont even address the very valid points of pregnant women avoiding doctors. Next we will want to lock up all the doctors who dont report pregnant womens drug use. I think the wole notion of this bill would violate so many HIPAA laws concerning doctor/patient privilege its not funny.

So how are they going to enforce this? Are all expectant mothers now going to be subject to drug tests as if they were on a prep sports athlete? Thanks Big Brother, but no thanks.

Any expectant mother using illegal drugs doesn’t care that it is illegal. She’s not going to care if you make it illegal twice over with this dumb idea.

Another half-baked idea from the professional do-nothings of politics.

Exercise in futility…doesn’t matter though, makes their Christian consciences feel better and maybe more bible thumpers will vote for them next time.

Why is it always men telling women what they can, or cannot, do?

Foolish law, from a vapid mind.

Shelley is correct. NO ONE should be able to prevent pregnant women from using meth, coke, or pot. It is a free country after all.

I’m completely and passionately pro-life, but I have great problems with this bill. I think it leads us down a scary road of the government eventually being taking authority for patrolling every choice a pregnant woman makes that could potentially effect her unborn baby.

I know we’re not here yet, but this type of thinking leads here:

1.) What if a pregnant woman doesn’t take her prenatal vitamins as faithfully as she should or she doesn’t start taking them til she is in her second trimester?
Yes, she could be exposing her baby to danger (how about increasing the chances of neural tube defects like spinal bifida?) and I think she OUGHT to be taking them. BUT should she be criminalized for her behavior?

2.) What if the pregnant woman’s doctor decides that it in her and/or the baby’s best interest to deliver by c-section? What if the woman refuses (for whatever reason - maybe because the maternal death risk is quadruple that of vaginal birth in many cases, maybe because she thinks that her doctor wants her to have the c-section for liability reasons more than actually safety reasons, maybe because she’s had a horrible experience with a c-section before….) to undergo major abdominal surgery just because it is the medical recommendation? In some states, in individual cases, the government has stepped in and a court order has been made, forcing the woman to undergo surgery against her will.

Pregnant women are still people with human rights, even if they are pregnant. Getting pregnant shouldn’t make a woman nothing but a baby container.

Yes, I hope that every woman does her best to create optimal health for her baby as soon as she finds out she’s pregnant. It upsets me greatly when a woman doesn’t seem to consider how her choices during pregnancy may effect her baby - for the rest of its life.

++ I hope she stops drinking Pepsi and throws away the pop tarts, white bread, and donuts. (I wonder if a diet like that may be at least as harmful as taking certain illicit drugs?)
++ I hope she starts exercising instead of sitting on the sofa all day.
++ I hope she starts prenatal care early.
++ I hope she takes her prenatal vitamins and eats vegetables every day.
++ I hope she gets enough rest inspite of her bad habit of being a
workaholic.
++ I hope she thinks twice about the additional risks that cesarean
sections pose to both her and her baby. I hope she doesn’t ask for
a c-section or an induction just because she’s tired of being
pregnant.
++ I hope she stops smoking.
++ I hope she takes a few minutes to put her feet up at work or stops
entirely if she starts having pre-term contractions.

But is this REALLY the job of the government - to police actions that may potentially be less then optimal?

Should a woman go to jail if she doesn’t fulfil the above list, just because she is now pregnant and is creating the health of another person?

I don’t think so.

If she’s doing something illegal, deal with it.
But don’t create a new level of crime, just because she is now pregnant.

– betterbirth4you {at} gmail {dot} com

Amazedbythelunacy, “Shelley is correct. NO ONE should be able to prevent pregnant women from using meth, coke, or pot. It is a free country after all.”

Seemingly you didn’t read the story or other comments: if this law is passed, it most likely won’t impact on whether a woman takes illegal drugs or not. It will impact if she gets medical help, or decides to have an abortion, rather than face time in prison.

No matter how much the Missouri Senate tries to control what women do with their bodies, and their pregnancies, women will still retain control over their actions. What we should be focusing on is helping women make the best decisions for them, and their babies, if they choose to continue the pregnancy — not put out a bunch of bogus criminal acts, whose primary purpose is to promote some talking head politician with the more rabid fundamentalists.

And shouldn’t the Senate be focused on the economic crises, and the unemployed in this state? Isn’t that more important than trying to figure out how else we can scare women in this state?

Just incredible! The economy is in the toilet and they’re debating about making someting that is already illegal, illegal? For someone seeking a CAREER in politics, I’m afraid Brad Lager is destined to return to Northwest Missouri and the private sector. Just ABSURD.

HIPPAA Schmippaa. Spare me. Take these babies away forever AND criminalize the usage. Children are NOT property. Disgusting. Period. And Mary- enough with the exaggeration. Puleeez

Rep. Lager is the same one who decided earlier to do away with funding for “historic preservation” only after his town got theirs done. Now he is “being tough on crime” without actually doing anything.

A far more useful bill would be to provide funding for the type of care for pregnant women who may be addicted to drugs so that their pregnancy can go better.

Next month he will introduce a bill against people who breathe more than their fair share of air.

Next month he will introduce a bill against people who breathe more than their fair share of air.
— RHarnack
1:45 pm March 31st, 2009

I think you have expended your allocation.

Honestly folks, would the state or country be better off or worse off if legislators met for 2 weeks, passed a budget, then went home? Me thinks we would all be better off without so much legislating.

RHarnack: The bill you speak of will not prevent those who breathe more than their fair share of air from doing so. It will tax them for the over-consumption in the form of carbon credit purchases with an required charitable donation to Missouricorp - an statewide subsidiary of Americorp.

Here’s my problem with this chowderhead law, besides the self-serving nature of even sponsoring such a conundrum, the woman can get a later-term abortion but can’t hit the pipe if she wants to…it’s un-American. What about her unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness?

More laws. Why? Enforce the ones we have. That’s enough to keep us all busy for a long time and the real criminals where they belong.