Tennessee Law Holding Women Liable for Drugs During Pregnancy

[Rageaholic]

Yeah this is gonna go over real well.

One mother was already arrested for her and her baby testing positive for meth. And here's the hell of it, meth isn't even a narcotic (which is what the law targets). Though it doesn't say how they found out she tested positive, it's possible that it was in her prescribed medication (like concerta). But even if it wasn't, what the hell is punishing her going to accomplish other than filling up more prisons?

Each day I get more and more tired of the pro life crowd. I mean, I used to believe abortion was wrong and I'm still conflicted about it, but some of these folks take it waaaaaaay too far. These are the type of people that cause harm and distress for others, but justify it because "PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11".

[Greenday]

This isn't really new. There's already laws on the books in a lot of states about harming fetuses with drugs. I don't really have a problem with it and I'm extremely pro-choice. If you are planning on having the baby to term and are constantly harming it with drugs, you should definitely be punished.

[mathnerd]

I think most states already remove a baby from the mother's custody if the baby tests positive for drugs at birth. I have a little brother from exactly that. It took two years for the state to attempt to get the mother into rehab, parenting classes, etc to attempt a reunification, but in the end, they wound up terminating her rights and my parents adopted the child.

[Rageaholic]

The main criticism with the law is that it discourages addict women from seeking help (or worse, could encourage abortion). Pregnant women taking drugs sounds like a real problem (I'm not denying this), but something about this law feels wrong.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

My opinion is that women addicted to drugs who become pregnant need help. Incarcerating them and cutting them off from drugs cold turkey could potentially cause even more harm to both her and the fetus.

Addiction is a horrible thing, it's hard to kick any drug (be it narcotics to hallucinogens to even just alcohol). Sure, some people have the mental wiring to go "Oh, I'm pregnant/someone needs me now... I'd better kick this" but other people's mental wiring isn't so solid, and it's hard for them to use what we would call common sense or rational reasoning.

So I don't like these laws at all simply because they won't help anyone except prison owners. It'll only drive women who are addicted to drugs to either keep hidden during the pregnancy, or resort to desperate means to terminate the pregnancy - rather than going to get the help that they so desperately need.

Call me a bleeding heart, but to me a civilized society is one that takes the effort to get down on the level and bring our lowest up, rather than kicking them into a ditch and leaving them there to rot with a weight on their chest.

[Rageaholic]

Call me a bleeding heart, but to me a civilized society is one that takes the effort to get down on the level and bring our lowest up, rather than kicking them into a ditch and leaving them there to rot with a weight on their chest.

Exactly, it's a lot more beneficial to everyone that way.

[Panacea]

Yeah this is gonna go over real well.

One mother was already arrested for her and her baby testing positive for meth. And here's the hell of it, meth isn't even a narcotic (which is what the law targets). Though it doesn't say how they found out she tested positive, it's possible that it was in her prescribed medication (like concerta).

Narcotic doesn't always mean opiate. The term originally meant any drug that altered mind or mood that produced drowsiness. Today it means pretty much any illegal drug.

They might have found out she had a history of drug use via her pre-natal care. If they were suspicious of her actually using, they can test the meconium (first stool) or the urine of the neonate and do a standard drug screen. Some drugs will test false positive for ilegal drugs. However, Concerta is not an amphetamine based ADHD drug (unlike Ritalin or Adderal), so if she or baby were positive for amphetamines it's probably not the Concerta.

Not all states have such draconian laws, thank goodness. Once word of this arrest gets out a lot of drug addicts are going to come to North Carolina to deliver. We don't have such a law here. That's what happened when South Carolina passed a similar law.

I hate laws like this. It criminalizes what is really a public health problem, a problem that should be handled by the medical community. Addiction is a disease; if you're hooked on meth you can't just quit because you find out you're pregnant. These women need real help to beat the addiction, and meth is the hardest addiction of all to kick.

I think most states already remove a baby from the mother's custody if the baby tests positive for drugs at birth.

Some states do, some are more punitive. Taking the hard line never works. You can't use fear of a law to get addicts to quit using.

[Gravekeeper]

Taking the hard line never works. You can't use fear of a law to get addicts to quit using.

You say that like the war on drugs hasn't been a resounding success. ;p

[TheHuckster]

Some states do, some are more punitive. Taking the hard line never works. You can't use fear of a law to get addicts to quit using.

Taking custody of an infant due to the mother's drug addiction shouldn't be considered punishment for the mother, but an action to save the child from harm. I don't know about you, but I don't consider meth addicts to be capable of caring for an infant very well.

That said, the parent does need help, and I'd support any program which would get the parent out of this horrible state and, upon improvement, regains custody.

[NecCat]

Some states do, some are more punitive. Taking the hard line never works. You can't use fear of a law to get addicts to quit using.

(Emphasis mine)

Taking custody of an infant due to the mother's drug addiction shouldn't be considered punishment for the mother, but an action to save the child from harm.

I read that as Panacea meaning the states that are more punitive (rather than just removing a child from a parent incapable of caring for it) are taking too hard a line that won't work to get addicted people off drugs.

[TheHuckster]

I read that as Panacea meaning the states that are more punitive (rather than just removing a child from a parent incapable of caring for it) are taking too hard a line that won't work to get addicted people off drugs.

Ah, yes. I've got to stop posting on Fratching before my daily dose of coffee.

[wolfie]

Ah, yes. I've got to stop posting on Fratching before my daily dose of coffee.

Ironic that you'd post about your dependency on a stimulant alkaloid from Columbia in this thread.

[TheHuckster]

Ironic that you'd post about your dependency on a stimulant alkaloid from Columbia in this thread.

It's the one drug I can claim to have dependence on. Although unlike other drugs, my bosses actually WANT me to take some in order to be more productive.

[wolfie]

This has the potential for a slippery slope. What about other things besides illegal drugs that could harm a developing fetus? Mother is on anti-depressants? Cut her off, and lock her up in a psych ward to keep her from endangering the baby by killing herself (after all, she's on anti-depressants for a reason). Her job involves handling chemicals which are hazardous to a developing fetus? She needs to quit - but of course the state has no obligation to provide an alternate means of support. Baby was born with spina bifida or other neural tube defects due to a folic acid deficiency during pregnancy? Lock the mother up! Never mind that the window of vulnerability for folic acid deficiency is between conception and the first missed period - in other words, by the time a woman finds out that she's pregnant, the damage has already been done.

[blas87]

Most anti-depressants and those such are not supposed to be taken during pregnancy. I would assume a doctor would take a pregnant woman off of those meds.