Chemical Endangerment Criminalization

Chemical Endangerment of Child Law and Legal Definition

Chemical endangerment of a minor is a punishable offense. It refers to act or instance of knowingly exposing a child to chemicals or controlled substances and thus causing harm. The exposure can be even when the child is in the mother’s womb.

Here is an interesting article where some over zealous prosecutors are using a statute to go after women who have miscarried, had a stilborn baby or lost a baby shortly after birth on “chemical endangerment”, a statute that was meant to protect children from parents who cook meth at home.

Typically, a state may test tissues from a still birth or birth (generally poor women) for metabolites of drugs, but not the drugs themselves.  Many food items can mimic illegal drugs, as we know (poppy seeds, second hand smoke from marijuana users, etc.) all types of legal activities can be absorbed into the mother’s blood system and turn up as a “metabolite  of a drug” and then the mother might be prosecuted.

Prosecutors must be told to only prosecute when active, verifiable drugs are found in a woman’s system, and even then, it would seem better to send a woman to rehab and not jail, esp. when many drugs also come in legal forms and may have been prescribed to the woman (opiod pain relievers) before she or her doctor knew she was pregnant.

In addition, for many drugs, there is not even a link or much of a link between death or damage to a fetus and drug intake.

Laws applied like this may force more drug addicted women to go underground, stay away from doctors and clinics if they took any drugs, and push women to home births with midwives and perhaps unlicensed individuals out of fears their babies could be removed from them.

Last but not least, we have the numerous articles on how entire drug test labs for years produced false reports and then false removals of children from parents (see other articles on this and other blogs).

(Currently I have heard of a case where the parent donated plasma for weeks, the state took his child away from him wrongfully, he had one positive drug test out of some 50 weeks, but the crazy thing is, if he really did drugs, how then was he cleared to donate plasma? )   The situation with these drug testing labs, and their quality assurance standards should be of much concern to all of us, when bad results means a parent loses a kid for no reason, or an innocent woman with a still born baby is arrested on murder charges.

Technology is great, but we must take care not to misuse it.

Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges

Women’s rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion

Across the US, more and more prosecutions are being brought against women who lose their babies. Photograph: Alamy

Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.

Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby’s death – they charged her with the “depraved-heart murder” of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby. But her case is by no means isolated. Across the US more and more prosecutions are being brought that seek to turn pregnant women into criminals.

“Women are being stripped of their constitutional personhood and subjected to truly cruel laws,” said Lynn Paltrow of the campaign National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW). “It’s turning pregnant women into a different class of person and removing them of their rights.”

Bei Bei Shuai, 34, has spent the past three months in a prison cell in Indianapolis charged with murdering her baby. On 23 December she tried to commit suicide by taking rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her.

Shuai was rushed to hospital and survived, but she was 33 weeks pregnant and her baby, to whom she gave birth a week after the suicide attempt and whom she called Angel, died after four days. In March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted foeticide and she has been in custody since without the offer of bail.

In Alabama at least 40 cases have been brought under the state’s “chemical endangerment” law. Introduced in 2006, the statute was designed to protect children whose parents were cooking methamphetamine in the home and thus putting their children at risk from inhaling the fumes.

Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down’s syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

“That shocked me, it really did,” Kimbrough said. “I had lost a child, that was enough.”

She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. “I’m just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids,” she said. “They say I’m a criminal, how do I answer that? I’m a good mother.”

Women’s rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion, in which conservative prosecutors are chipping away at hard-won freedoms by stretching protection laws to include foetuses, in some cases from the day of conception. In Gibbs’ case defence lawyers have argued before Mississippi’s highest court that her prosecution makes no sense. Under Mississippi law it is a crime for any person except the mother to try to cause an abortion.

“If it’s not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is,” Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.

McDuff told the Guardian that he hoped the Gibbs prosecution was an isolated example. “I hope it’s not a trend that’s going to catch on. To charge a woman with murder because of something she did during pregnancy is really unprecedented and quite extreme.”

He pointed out that anti-abortion groups were trying to amend the Mississippi constitution by setting up a state referendum, or ballot initiative, that would widen the definition of a person under the state’s bill of rights to include a foetus from the day of conception.

Some 70 organisations across America have come together to file testimonies, known as amicus briefs, in support of Gibbs that protest against her treatment on several levels. One says that to treat “as a murderer a girl who has experienced a stillbirth serves only to increase her suffering”.

Another, from a group of psychologists, laments the misunderstanding of addiction that lies behind the indictment. Gibbs did not take cocaine because she had a “depraved heart” or to “harm the foetus but to satisfy an acute psychological and physical need for that particular substance”, says the brief.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument put forward in the amicus briefs is that if such prosecutions were designed to protect the unborn child, then they would be utterly counter-productive: “Prosecuting women and girls for continuing [a pregnancy] to term despite a drug addiction encourages them to terminate wanted pregnancies to avoid criminal penalties. The state could not have intended this result when it adopted the homicide statute.”

Paltrow sees what is happening to Gibbs as a small taste of what would be unleashed were the constitutional right to an abortion ever overturned. “In Mississippi the use of the murder statute is creating a whole new legal standard that makes women accountable for the outcome of their pregnancies and threatens them with life imprisonment for murder.”

Couldn’t the same be said about the chemical endangerment of vaccines? See below:

Zero Tolerance Vaccine Laws in America: Will You Defend Vaccine Freedom?

A Free People Claim Their Rights

Fact: Rights Are Not Gifts From Government

By Michael Boldin

A lot of people misunderstand the nature of their rights. The source.

To the Founders, an understanding of NATURAL RIGHTS was essential. These rights pre-exist any government or document or decree.

They knew that when the people view understand their rights as a birthright rather than a gift from government, they’re much more likely to ignore government attempts to restrict or end them.

Thomas Jefferson put it this way:

A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

In other words, we the people need to learn how to exercise our rights whether the government wants us to or not.

At the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Theophilus Parsons reinforced this view:

No power was given to Congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the people by this Constitution, and, should they attempt it without constitutional authority, the act would be a nullity, and could not be enforced.

Today, unfortunately, most Americans see it the other way around. They believe that rights only exist when government gives them a permission slip. Or, when the Supreme Court says they exist…until the judges change their mind.

Their view is totally wrong.

That’s why we believe it’s so important to share the truth with as many people as possible. Short videos like the one below help us share this important message, with your help spreading the word, of course!

View Video:

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter – @michaelboldin and Facebook.



On March 25, 2015, Michelle MacDonald filed a Complaint against Dakota County Deputy Sheriffs, the Fluegel Law Firm and others seeking injunctions and money damages for more than twenty claims including False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, and Malicious Prosecution.

MacDonald’s lawsuit, filed in the District of Minnesota federal court, stems from her representation of an indigent mother in family court pro bono. MacDonald sued Judge David Knutson on behalf of this client for violations of constitutional rights that separated the client from her children and stripped her of all assets and property.  MacDonald filed the federal class action lawsuit against Judge Knutson and sought to recuse him from her client’s case. During the trial the next day, MacDonald was handcuffed and detained  by Dakota County Deputy Sheriffs for taking a photo while court was not in session. On Judge Knutson’s orders, MacDonald was required to complete her client’s trial in handcuffs without her client present.

As detailed in the lawsuit, MacDonald alleges Deputy Sheriffs employed up to seven of the eleven internationally recognized forms of psychological torture while she was in their custody from September 12th to September 13th, 2013. MacDonald was, further, disallowed a single phone call and Deputy Sheriffs threatened her with 30-days of additional detention for no specific reason. Deputies acted with the aid of City Attorneys at Fluegel Law Firm whom they claimed would merely file a “motion” with the court to allow them to continue to detain MacDonald without cause.

MacDonald notified lawyers for Dakota County and Judge Knutson of her intent to file a lawsuit. In response to MacDonald’s detailed notice of claims, Dakota County lawyer James Backstrom filed a frivolous complaint with the Minnesota Lawyer’s
Board in a retaliatory attempt to disrupt her lawyer’s licensing. Judge Knutson’s attorney at the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office just flatly refused to comply with the request to preserve evidence of the detention and torture. Neither presented facts to refute the claims made by MacDonald. The case was dismissed for immunities and was appealed and argued in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 17th, 2018.

According to MacDonald’s then attorney, Nathan Busch, “[o]ur Constitution guarantees every citizen inalienable rights of due process before arrest and detention to prevent exactly the outrageous tyranny Dakota County officials have inflicted on Ms. MacDonald. However, the words of the Constitution have no meaning unless our Judiciary both respects and abides by those words. When the Judiciary refuses to do so and instead retaliates against attorneys like Ms. MacDonald who are asserting their rights and the rights of their clients, then both the Judiciary and the State have become the very tyrants that the founders of this country sought to banish.”


Dirt-Digging Journalism

Star Tribune Twisted Tabloid Coverage


Minnesota: Police Caught Giving Suspects to Hospital for Involuntary Human Experiments with Date Rape Drug

Written by: Published on: July 2, 2018

Minneapolis, MN – Last week, The Free Thought Project reported that cops were caught involuntarily injecting unruly suspects with the powerful sedative ketamine, which police classify as a date rape drug.

Since the initial story was made public, more details have emerged in the case, revealing a twisted study that has been going on for many years, researching the effects of different sedatives on patients, many times without their knowledge or consent.

This research has been taking place at Hennepin Healthcare, under the supervision of doctors and full knowledge and encouragement from the local police.

The Star Tribune interviewed numerous victims who were involuntarily enrolled in the study, and not made aware of the fact that they were drugged until afterward.

Representatives of Hennepin Healthcare have defended the study, insisting that sedating agitated people can save lives.

According to the hospital, the studies have been approved and do not require consent from the patients because they are “performed in emergency situations.”

We’ve all seen agitated and confused people just die, and we’re certain we can prevent that. We want to do it the best way possible,” said Dr. James Miner, chief of emergency medicine at Hennepin Healthcare.

Continue Reading:


Cops Caught Injecting Powerful Sedative They Classify As ‘Date Rape Drug’ into Dozens of Suspects


Britons Rage Over Robinson Arrest As Mass Protests Break Out Worldwide

ZeroHedge MAY 29, 2018

The arrest, imprisonment, and government-ordered media blackout of UK journalist and activist Tommy Robinson has set off a firestorm of protests around the world.

Free speech advocates and supporters of Robinson’s movement from Melbourne to Berlin came out by the thousands to protest the Friday arrest outside of Leeds Crown Court while Robinson was reporting on a pedophile grooming trial via Facebook livestream. Within six hours of his detention, Robinson was slapped with a 13 month prison term for violating a prior suspended sentence for a similar offense.

A big police van with about seven police officers pulled up and arrested [Robinson] and told him to stop live streaming,” Robinson’s producer told RT (before their article (archivedwas scrubbed from the internet). “They said it was incitement and a breach of the peace.

“No peace has been breached – there were two other people there and he’s been perfectly quiet talking into his phone. [The police] said nothing about the court proceedings. It’s very strange.”

Equally as disturbing are the implications of a court-ordered media banmaking it a criminal offense for news outlets operating in the UK to cover Robinson’s arrest and incarceration. In a page straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, several news outlets were forced to pull articles which were published before the ban.

Mass protests broke out following Robinson’s arrest – the largest of which was a crowd of thousands in the UK, demonstrating at the gates of Downing Street to demand the release of the conservative activist.