Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Nothing wrong with that. She was prolly in a similar condition when she conceived...
 

Why is it child neglect to be drunk while you're in labor?

After all, they give narcotics to laboring women.
 

They probably assumed, probably rightly, that there was some fetal alcohol poisoning.
 

And there's a real good chance this baby will have FAS - Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - which includes a wide range of preventable birth defects.
 

There is a good chance of it, and FAS is a serious problem, I agree. Drinking to the point of intoxication twice a week (or drinking two drinks a day) is the baseline definition of risk, too, so she does qualify.

But I still felt kind of obligated to point out that being drunk while giving birth, in and of itself, doesn't constitute neglect. And I'm really not sure that drinking while pregnant constitutes neglect either. You're advised not to, of course, but don't we have the constitutional right to refuse doctor's advice?

Having said all that, I agree that it is probably in this child's best interest to be in foster care, and I hope they manage to arrange an adoption for it so it doesn't have to stay there. But I'm a little leery of starting to see cases where women are being *arrested* for not following doctor's orders during pregnancy.
 

B! She probably stumbled into an ER (not me) in Tulsa. Besides that, the charge was "child neglect." C-h-i-l-d. If she had been drunk and alone with a one-month-old baby, she could be charged with neglect, because putting yourself in a position where you are unable to care for the critter is, by definition neglectful. I don't think the pregnancy is the real issue here; the stuff about drinkin' during her pregnancy, though, would help build a case for the continued expectation of neglect.
 

There is a great and enduring argument about causing harm to an unborn child by consuming alcohol and-or other drugs during pregnancy. My own cousin lost custody of her child after he tested positive for certain illegal drugs at his birth. (Her argument, which failed miserably, was that the drugs they detected were administered in the delivery room.)
This woman's got some major problems if she can go through an entire pregnancy and give birth without even realizing she WAS pregnant. That's pretty severe intoxication.
 

? I agree: child. But there's no evidence that she had a child; the implication of the article is that she was arrested for "neglecting" the pregnacy by getting drunk.

Which again, I still think that the outcome of the thing was good.

I'm thinking I might blog the difference, rhetorically speaking, between your article and this one; clearly both are about bad parents, but it's interesting to me that this other one, which is far more heinous, obviously, is reported in a more "neutral" tone. Even though I'd argue that a woman who defends the man who murdered her child is a *far* worse mother than a woman who has a serious drinking problem (to say nothing of the child-murdering father).
 

OK. But let me translate the journalism here. My ALLCAPS will provide context.

DEWEY -- A Dewey woman is jailed on a child neglect charge. PERIOD. after BY THE WAY authorities say she gave birth while drunk. THERE IS NO NECESSARY CONNECTION, IN THE LAW, TO THE WAY THIS IS PHRASED. SHE WAS CHARGED WITH CHILD NEGLECT. BEFORE THAT CHARGE WAS FILED, AUTHORITIES SAID THAT SHE WAS DRUNK WHILE SHE HAD THE CHILD.

Washington County sheriff's deputies say (the woman) was drunk when she gave birth to a baby girl on June 30. THE STORY REPEATS THE SECOND THING IN THE FIRST SENTENCE AND ILLUMINATES IT.

Court documents COURT DOCUMENTS, WHICH MEANS PAPERS FILED ALONG WITH THE CHARGE ITSELF say (the woman) told deputies she didn't know she was pregnant and probably was drunk twice a week during the pregnancy. NOT PART OF THE REASON SHE WAS ARRESTED NECESSARILY, BUT PART OF THE REASON SHE WAS CHARGED WITH CHILD NEGLECT. IT SUGGESTS THAST HER PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR INDICATES THAT SHE WAS, AT BIRTH, AND WOULD CONTINUE TO BE A DANGER TO THE CHILD, WHICH ARE FACTS THAT, TECHNICALLY, A JURY SHOULD DECIDE. REMEMBER: SHE IS MERELY CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

The baby is now in foster care and (the woman) remains jailed on $30,000 bond. JUST FACTS.

---

OK. Tone? There is no tone in this article. It is a recitation of facts. Perhaps they are connected in a way that raises more questions, but most basic reports of crime do.

What is interesting is I see this as a story about a baby. I think you see it as a story about a woman. Different perspectives.
 

Wait a minute. What part of "gave birth to a baby girl" doesn't mean "child"? She had a child.
 

Whoops, I have revealed my other identity by mistake. That post was by me. I'll leave it as is, however. Just forgot I had been logged into a family blog earlier and had not switched back.
 

Well, crap. If somebody can post the text of the other article B refers to in these comments, please do. I have yet another broswer hijacker directing me to porn various porn sites when I try to use the link she provided. What IS that all about?
 

Thought Toddler Gay, Dad Kills Son
by Fidel Ortega 365Gay.com Miami Bureau

Posted: July 14, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Tampa, Florida) A 21 year old Tampa man is charged with murder after his 3-year old son was pummeled into unconsciousness and then died.

Ronnie Paris Jr. went on trial for his own life this week in a Tampa courtroom. The toddler's mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified that her husband thought the boy might be gay and would force him to box.

Nysheerah Paris told the court that Paris would make the boy fight with him, slapping the child in the head until he cried or wet himself. She said that on one occasion Paris slammed the child against a wall because he was vomiting.

The court was told there had been a history of abuse by Paris. Prosecutor Jalal Harb said that in 2002, the Florida Department of Children & Families placed the child in protective custody after he had been admitted to the hospital several times for vomiting.

He was returned to his parents Dec. 14. A month later he went into a coma and was rushed to hospital. Six days later he was removed from life support and died. An autopsy showed there was swelling on both sides of his brain.

"He was trying to teach him how to fight,'' Nysheerah Paris' sister, Shanita Powell told the court. "He was concerned that the child might be gay.''

Following the child's death Tampa police Detective Anthony Zambito thought there was something suspicious. He testified that he questioned both parents closely at the hospital. But it wasn't until investigators questioned them separately Feb. 1 that the boy's mother talked about the abuse.

Paris was charged with capital murder and Nysheerah Paris was charged with felony child neglect and faces a maximum of 15 years in prison.

©365Gay.com 2005
 

You should load the Google task bar on your computer with the pop-up blocker. It's the best I've come across.
 

OMG. THAT is supposed to be comparable to The AP story? Written by a staffer, I guess, of Gay.com? Hoo. Boy.

It do take all kinds, fer sure. But ... but ... I don't get it.
 

Well, I'll admit I learned something tonight. I didn't know there was a gay news service, which is what this seems to be. Complete with bureaus.
 

"Tone" means that yes, the report is facts, but that the facts are strung together in such a way as to imply casuality.

But lemme say, first off, b/c I don't think y'all are getting it: I AGREE that the woman is almost certainly an unfit parent, and I think probably it's best for the baby to be in foster care and, one fervently hopes, adopted soon. The only reason I'm quibbling is b/c I am extremely nervous about arresting people for what ER called "the expectation of neglect." Arresting people because you *expect* them to commit a crime is a slippery slope, my friends, and it makes me nervous.

Ok, on to the articles. That first paragraph in yours, ER: "jailed on . . . child neglect after authorities say she gave birth while drunk." No, it doesn't mean that she was arrested for negelct *because* she gave birth while drunk, but it surely impliles it; otherwise, why mention the fact that she was drunk at all? If she was arrested for neglect for some other reason, then presumably one would mention that reason; not doing so implies that what *is* mentioned is related to the case. Ditto mentioning that she was "drunk twice a week during the pregnancy." Now, to me, these are certainly and clearly warning signals (as they are to everyone else, obviously); but I don't think that they are, in fact, illegal (yet).

My article: I say it is more "neutral" because the excuse for the abuse--that the father thought the baby was gay--is reported as coming from the child's mother. That is, it isn't in the voice of the reporter (which would be more inflammatory). Hence it comes across as an "excuse" rather than a "fact." Now, the headline IS inflammatory: here we have, not the mother of the kid, but the disembodied authorial voice reporting that the father "thought the kid was gay."

Basically what I'm saying is that the second article takes pains to attribute the most shocking information in it (the "I thought he was gay" part) to a single person, by name; the first, reports the most shocking information ("drunk mom") by attributing it to "authorities" and "sherrif's deputies." Both are factually accurate, but the impression given is that the inflammatory "facts" in the first case are unassailable, while in the second case they are clearly coming from a biased source.

Which, again, fact: the mom is making those excuses, "authorities" did realize the woman was drunk and say so. But the lack of narrative in the first piece, I think, actually goes further to making the case seem uncomplicated, open & shut, than the detailed narrative in the second.

If that makes any sense at all.
 

B, there is no difference in the leads of either story. Like any person, you just read a difference. It's natural.

But the leads to both stories are straight-forward news leads. That's all they are.
 

Not the leads, the level of detail.

But the more I think about it, the more I think that "neutral" is probably the wrong word. Perhaps "self-evident." And obviously that has to do in part with the fact that the AP story is just that: a brief AP snip. I think what I'm saying is very similar to what you're saying here:

"Perhaps they are connected in a way that raises more questions, but most basic reports of crime do."

The first story raises more questions than it answers (but that's hard to see, imho, b/c the neutrality of it implies that the answers are self-evident, which is what troubles me); the second, I think, gives more detail and therefore answers, I think, the questions it raises.

FWIW, btw, I think the "gay" excuse thing in the second story is a red herring; as I said in the comments to the link I provided, it sounds like the guy was basically an asshole, and the mom is trying to excuse the fact that he beat her kid to death.
 

B, on a story like this, especially a wire story, the reporter is more of a stenographer than anything. So, all the points you raise should be directed at the source, that is, the authorities. Which raises the basic point again, though: Authorities have charged the woman with a crime. Charged. Not adjudicated. Not convicted. Just charged. And, as I so painfully know from years in the news biz, just reporting the charge necessarily makes it sound as if the person is probably guilty. No easy way around it.

BTW, WTF is FWIW? :-)

Oh, the gaycom source is critical to understanding where the writer is coming from. Critical. The AP aims to tell the basics. I imagine that gay.com aims to be as "fair and balanced" as Fox News is, just from its own perspective.
 

FWIW = For What It's Worth