Yeah, I saw the article on Drudge. But, I don't know what his goal was - was he going after the pro-lifers that would support the state or the privacy folks that would have supported her. Me? I'm not sure what I think. While there needs to be a certain level of obligation on a woman to not engage in activities that will endanger the well-being of the fetus/child, reaching the point of a court order in this case (or the other cases mentioned at the end of the article) seems overreaching. Yet, I'm hardpressed to come up with a hard and fast line. I am curious to know why she refused an abortion, engaged in activities that she had to know would endanger the fetus, went to the hospital to try and have the baby saved, and then complained when compelled to do what was believed by hospital staff to be the best way of saving the kid. Pushed, I'd say that the judge went too far in ordering treatment at the hospital. I would have preferred an order to obtain at home nursing services or confinement at the hospital of her choice, over detention at the specific hospital. But the underlying decision, to confine her for the protection of the fetus, was acceptable as she had progressed far enough in the pregnancy to viability and the state had a compelling reason to intervene to protect the fetus. Had it been much earlier in the pregnancy, I would have sided with her. Oh, and who paid for the care? The hospital sought the order, so I hope it was at their expense.