Archived page

    “Even after a judge required ACS to reunite Ms. Rivers with her baby, ACS continued to subject Ms. Rivers to needless court proceedings and a litany of conditions that interfered with her parenting of TW for months, while the unlawful removal of her baby was ratified by senior ACS leadership,” the complaint reads. “This was not because ACS was trying to protect TW; this was because Ms. Rivers is Black.”

  • halvo317
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t get to randomly drug test random individuals who have no broken the law. That’s a violation of human rights. The mother would not have consented to a drug test of her or her baby. Even if they get reported, that isn’t probable cause.

    Imagine if that were the case. One racist nurse could say that every ethnic mother that comes in smelled like weed, and both mother and child get forcibly drug tested based on that? Do you want to live in that world?

    • AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sorry but what you just described is not even close to what was alleged in the article and frankly incorrect on several points. I have no intention of arguing against a strawman, I’ve made several othee comments in this thread which add context to the situation, you should read them.

      • halvo317
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I did. From how it reads, you definitely think what I’m saying. You really think CPS can and should violate human rights.

          • halvo317
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except a court ruled in my favor for $75k, so tell me again who is right

            • AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Well if you tried actually reading the article it sounds like the settlement was for the delay in returning the baby and the practice of using pot use as a negative factor. Not testing the baby or mother for marijuana, and not removing the baby because the mother smoked pot in the hospital while pregnant. Headlines are not an adequate source of information, you have to keep reading.

              • halvo317
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, $75k for violating human rights.

                • AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Do you think that’s some magic phrase you can parrot with absolutely no context? Let try an easy one: what human right did they violate? Are you referring to one of the 30 defined by the UN? If so which one? Are you using a different definition? If so cite your reference please.

                  • halvo317
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    In no particular order

                    All human beings are free and equal.
                    No discrimination.
                    Right to life.
                    No torture and inhuman treatment.
                    Same right to use law.
                    Equal before the law.
                    Right to be treated fair by the court.
                    Innocent until proved guilty.
                    Right to privacy.
                    Human rights can’t be taken away.