This sort of thing makes blogging worthwhile.
In response to my post yesterday about the outrageous Wisconsin case in which a pregnant woman who went to the hospital seeking drug treatment wound up in jail instead, Daniel Anderson said...
I still live in Wisconsin and am ashamed of the "cocaine mom" law. The law originated after the Supreme Court issued a decision in State ex rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 209 Wis.2d 112, 561 N.W. 2d 729 (1997) reversing the Court of Appeals, 197 Wis.2d 532, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995). I am proud of the dissent I wrote to the Court of Appeals decision.
I believe the commenter was none other than:
Court of Appeals Judge Daniel P. Anderson.
Well, Judge, I don't know how you found the blog, but I read your dissent and was moved by the clarity of your reasoning and the courage of your position. There should be more like you.
As this blog notes over and over, it takes tremendous courage to stake out unpopular opinions particularly on difficult, politically charged issues. I tip my hat to your courage and appreciate your principle.
Thanks for reading (and I hope you don't mind my posting your picture--it you do, let me know and I'll take it down.)
Judge Anderson's dissent, of which he is justifiably proud can be found here.
The Supreme Court Opinion which sides with Judge Anderson's dissent and reverses the majority of the Court of Appeals can be found here.
The sad upshot of the Supreme Court's decision can be found here.
All this begs the question--shouldn't we encourage people to seek treatment? Wouldn't it make more sense to provide an amnesty clause for pregnant women who seek treatment? Wouldn't it make more sense to offer outrageously great pre-natal care, phenomenal doctors and all kind of other good stuff to pregnant woman who voluntarily seek help?