5 ms·

Did you see the "against their will" portion?

vorpalhex 4y ago
They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. If you are a prisoner and want to die of eg cancer instead of seeking treatment that is not an option generally up to you. The state will treat you, whether or not you want it. If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter. Your freedom to make subpar decisions or have deeply personal choices (eg a water birth or use a birthing center) is curtailed when you are in prison.
- caconym_ 4y ago
  I am unsure of whether this comment is meant to justify arbitrary human rights abuses against prisoners on the basis of their status as such, or simply to state that prisoners' human rights are indeed commonly abused. Could you please clarify your position in this regard? If the latter, I think you will find that it does not really need to be said. Most people around here are likely familiar with the abuses of the carceral state.
- richbell 4y ago
  > They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. The prisons aren't caring for them to the best of their ability — that's the whole problem. See also: > It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I think the prison has a fairly simple winning argument here. 1. Births attended by medical staff are much safer 2. The movement of dangerous prisoners is complex and time consuming and is significantly more dangerous during a health crises (imminent birth) 3. Moving prisoners ahead of natural birth to a medical facility and inducing at fullterm leads to more attended births Inductions at term are extremely safe and routine. There are times preterm inductions are done but that isn't what is happening here.
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      > The movement of dangerous prisoners You're moving the goal posts, now. The *vast* majority of prisoners are not dangerous. Further, the article referenced specifically mentions people being induced prior to the safe time to induce labor. Further, further, in the context of the existing prison system and human rights violations inside prisons (and *all* humans have human rights. This isn't "freedom of speech", these are even more base than that), this is yet another monstrous example of harming people in the State's care in prisons.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        The article cites 3 people, two at 39 weeks and one at 37. Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal, 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). Those are all term and all very safe. Most prisoners are dangerous. The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. If you are in prison (not jail) then you went through the full sentancing dance and weren't eligible for a supervised release or a program. That usually means you either keep committing crime or did serious crime. You didn't steal a bicycle.
        FireBeyond 4y ago
        > Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal Conflating natural delivery (where the body has decided, for whatever reason, that it is now time to deliver the child) with induction is not an appropriate comparison. > 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). I would be willing to wager money that you are not going to find ANY obstetrician in the US who will induce at 37 weeks for no other reason than familial "choice" ("elective induction"). In fact ACOG specifically says that it should not happen without medical basis. > The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. Perhaps you should read more about prison in Arizona, and of law enforcement officials like Sheriff Arpaio. Here: https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-system-is-one-of-the-very-harshest-in-the-nation/ https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-... Some quotes from that and the ACLU: > It is grotesquely expensive, unduly punitive, discriminatory against minorities (especially against Latinos) and does little to actually keep our communities safe or cut down on recidivism. > About 1 out of every 40 Latino men in Arizona are currently in prison. Even more are currently in the various other phases of the criminal justice system (pretrial release, jail, probation, parole, warrant status etc.). Arizona prison population is more than 40 percent Latino, but Latino’s only make up about 27 percent of our overall population. > Our legislature is to blame for these insane prison statistics because it allows itself to be influenced by Arizona prosecutors to scuttle any prison reform initiatives. Prosecutors have a powerful lobby called Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (“APAAC”) which it uses to influence the legislative process to its own benefit. In the last few years alone, Arizona’s prosecutors have opposed bail reform, sentencing reform, and lighter drug sentences while supporting stiffer penalties for a number of offenses. You may recognize APAAC - it's one of the sources you quoted with reference to "prison is full of dangerous and violent offenders". When I first read it it sounded like a District Attorney's campaign speech, and no wonder - it's their lobbying organization, that has opposed each and every reform bill in AZ in the last 24 years. > You didn't steal a bicycle. Or of an Arizona man convicted of several thefts in the space of three months from yards, sheds, all agreed by the state to be non-violent offenses, and only a couple involved entering any structure at all... his sentence? Two hundred and ninety two years. What did he steal that earned this sentence? A drill, flashlight, telescope, credit card. Arizona also repeatedly sentences people sentences, up to life, with parole. Including plea bargains. And then it abolished the concept of parole. For nearly 300 people, this means now the state has "changed the terms of the deal or sentencing after the fact". (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/03/19/myth-life-sentence-with-parole-arizona-clemency/99316310/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investiga...) Your attitude of "most of these people are dangerous criminals" is also not entirely aligned with reality.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). There are legitimate reasons to need to induce labor (certainly not in every case). It’s not performed for exclusively trivial reasons like circumcision for example.
    - richbell 4y ago
      I agree, but I do not think "it's more convenient for the prison" is a legitimate reason, which is seemingly the case here.
- kadoban 4y ago
  > If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter The prison doesn't even _have_ an argument, they're denying the truth. So even by your unbelievably-low bar, they're failing.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  > to the best of it's ability To the best of its ability would mean not inducing at 37 weeks, which _increases_ problems. Induction at 38 weeks or below is _not_ recommended due to poorer outcomes absent a compelling reason. The solution here is to ensure appropriate medical care, not to say "we can't and won't provide that, so this is what we're going to do, and if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be a criminal, and if this has negative health implications for your child, well, then, maybe it shouldn't have had a criminal for a mother".

They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. If you are a prisoner and want to die of eg cancer instead of seeking treatment that is not an option generally up to you. The state will treat you, whether or not you want it. If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter. Your freedom to make subpar decisions or have deeply personal choices (eg a water birth or use a birthing center) is curtailed when you are in prison.

caconym_ 4y ago
I am unsure of whether this comment is meant to justify arbitrary human rights abuses against prisoners on the basis of their status as such, or simply to state that prisoners' human rights are indeed commonly abused. Could you please clarify your position in this regard? If the latter, I think you will find that it does not really need to be said. Most people around here are likely familiar with the abuses of the carceral state.
richbell 4y ago
> They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. The prisons aren't caring for them to the best of their ability — that's the whole problem. See also: > It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I think the prison has a fairly simple winning argument here. 1. Births attended by medical staff are much safer 2. The movement of dangerous prisoners is complex and time consuming and is significantly more dangerous during a health crises (imminent birth) 3. Moving prisoners ahead of natural birth to a medical facility and inducing at fullterm leads to more attended births Inductions at term are extremely safe and routine. There are times preterm inductions are done but that isn't what is happening here.
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    > The movement of dangerous prisoners You're moving the goal posts, now. The *vast* majority of prisoners are not dangerous. Further, the article referenced specifically mentions people being induced prior to the safe time to induce labor. Further, further, in the context of the existing prison system and human rights violations inside prisons (and *all* humans have human rights. This isn't "freedom of speech", these are even more base than that), this is yet another monstrous example of harming people in the State's care in prisons.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      The article cites 3 people, two at 39 weeks and one at 37. Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal, 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). Those are all term and all very safe. Most prisoners are dangerous. The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. If you are in prison (not jail) then you went through the full sentancing dance and weren't eligible for a supervised release or a program. That usually means you either keep committing crime or did serious crime. You didn't steal a bicycle.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        > Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal Conflating natural delivery (where the body has decided, for whatever reason, that it is now time to deliver the child) with induction is not an appropriate comparison. > 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). I would be willing to wager money that you are not going to find ANY obstetrician in the US who will induce at 37 weeks for no other reason than familial "choice" ("elective induction"). In fact ACOG specifically says that it should not happen without medical basis. > The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. Perhaps you should read more about prison in Arizona, and of law enforcement officials like Sheriff Arpaio. Here: https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-system-is-one-of-the-very-harshest-in-the-nation/ https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-... Some quotes from that and the ACLU: > It is grotesquely expensive, unduly punitive, discriminatory against minorities (especially against Latinos) and does little to actually keep our communities safe or cut down on recidivism. > About 1 out of every 40 Latino men in Arizona are currently in prison. Even more are currently in the various other phases of the criminal justice system (pretrial release, jail, probation, parole, warrant status etc.). Arizona prison population is more than 40 percent Latino, but Latino’s only make up about 27 percent of our overall population. > Our legislature is to blame for these insane prison statistics because it allows itself to be influenced by Arizona prosecutors to scuttle any prison reform initiatives. Prosecutors have a powerful lobby called Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (“APAAC”) which it uses to influence the legislative process to its own benefit. In the last few years alone, Arizona’s prosecutors have opposed bail reform, sentencing reform, and lighter drug sentences while supporting stiffer penalties for a number of offenses. You may recognize APAAC - it's one of the sources you quoted with reference to "prison is full of dangerous and violent offenders". When I first read it it sounded like a District Attorney's campaign speech, and no wonder - it's their lobbying organization, that has opposed each and every reform bill in AZ in the last 24 years. > You didn't steal a bicycle. Or of an Arizona man convicted of several thefts in the space of three months from yards, sheds, all agreed by the state to be non-violent offenses, and only a couple involved entering any structure at all... his sentence? Two hundred and ninety two years. What did he steal that earned this sentence? A drill, flashlight, telescope, credit card. Arizona also repeatedly sentences people sentences, up to life, with parole. Including plea bargains. And then it abolished the concept of parole. For nearly 300 people, this means now the state has "changed the terms of the deal or sentencing after the fact". (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/03/19/myth-life-sentence-with-parole-arizona-clemency/99316310/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investiga...) Your attitude of "most of these people are dangerous criminals" is also not entirely aligned with reality.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). There are legitimate reasons to need to induce labor (certainly not in every case). It’s not performed for exclusively trivial reasons like circumcision for example.
  - richbell 4y ago
    I agree, but I do not think "it's more convenient for the prison" is a legitimate reason, which is seemingly the case here.
kadoban 4y ago
> If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter The prison doesn't even _have_ an argument, they're denying the truth. So even by your unbelievably-low bar, they're failing.
FireBeyond 4y ago
> to the best of it's ability To the best of its ability would mean not inducing at 37 weeks, which _increases_ problems. Induction at 38 weeks or below is _not_ recommended due to poorer outcomes absent a compelling reason. The solution here is to ensure appropriate medical care, not to say "we can't and won't provide that, so this is what we're going to do, and if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be a criminal, and if this has negative health implications for your child, well, then, maybe it shouldn't have had a criminal for a mother".