What Happens When Pregnant Women Are Criminalized For Drug Use

a reply to: DEANORULES24

Even disregarding the availability of treatment centers, the law is actually fundamentally flawed in another way: it doesn't allow pregnant mothers to have the recommended treatment for pregnant addicts, namely maintenance treatments. Withdrawal, by contrast, can actually harm the pregnancy. And as Bustle previously reported:

The bill focuses solely on illegal drugs — when, in fact, 60 percent of babies with NAS had mothers who took legally prescribed drugs, according to the Tennessee Department of Health commissioner Dr. John Dreyzehner. And it’s impossible to absolutely determine whether a mother’s illegal drug habits caused health problems in a baby.

www.bustle.com...

so, it sounds like you can forget about drug rehabilitation...

also in the article:

The new law is effectively a 360-degree shift, and marks it the first time the U.S. has legalized the arrest (and imprisonment) of mothers who use drugs while they're pregnant. As of July 1, a pregnant woman can be charged if she takes drugs while pregnant, and if the baby is in any way affected by the taking of said drugs.

Prescription, illegal, no difference. And the medication to treat those ailments that I mentioned would have some rather adverse effects on a developing fetus. So, which would you prefer, the women who is at least maintaining a sense of sanity by taking this or that drug getting pregnant and just dropping that medication and losing her sanity, or that she has an abortion (which the doctors would recommend by the way, but my bet is that the ones all for laws like these are also against abortion and really would like to remove that option from her) or well, risk going to jail for taking the drug that keeps her sane?

and well, two people break their arms and go to the doctor, one is pregnant, one is male so we are sure he isn't... one is given a super strength pain killer and gets to sleep half way decently through the night, the other is told to take a couple of tylenol probably and is in agony for days.

I can almost see justification these laws if it wasn't for the fact that they are entangling women who although were once known to be addicts but weren't the nine months while pregnant, attempting to limit the perscription usage and thus interferring with their treatments, and are extending well beyond what I find acceptable. up to and including being charge with manslaughter for falling down the stairs or getting into an accident.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here in the south, the children of drug addict mothers if born with addiction are removed from the mothers anyway, to be given to "capable" family members they become property of the state.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Some women are being arrested and having their children taken away for simple marijuana usage.

Source
While possessing marijuana (i.e., having some amount of the drug in one's pocket, car, or home) remains criminalized in many states, use, dependence, and addiction are not criminalized by the federal government or by most states. Women who use marijuana, become pregnant, and continue those pregnancies to term, however, may be arrested for child endangerment in South Carolina and for chemical endangerment of a child in Alabama. Women in Wisconsin can be locked up for marijuana use following an initial hearing at which the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus has a right to counsel, but not the pregnant woman. With or without laws authorizing arrests of women who become pregnant and use marijuana, women in numerous states have been arrested.

With or without statutory authority, in most states, women who become pregnant and use marijuana are also being reported to civil child welfare authorities as child abusers, subject to highly intrusive, stressful, and often hostile investigations. Many of them face allegations of abuse or neglect and are listed on the state's central child abuse and neglect registry, which carries lifelong collateral consequences affecting their ability to obtain employment and support their families. Others face temporary separation from their child or lose custody entirely. These state interventions into families' lives are highly discretionary and overwhelmingly target low-income mothers and women of color.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Would we be crying if this was about some heroin addict handcuffing a woman to a toilet and forcing drugs into her? Still no big deal, they just need some help?

I would be. I don't like any drug users either forced or voluntary sitting in jail for what they did.

Seriously? Forcing another person to ingest narcotics shouldn't be a criminal act, so long as the person doing the forcing can say they're an addict?

That's pretty mind blowing, man.

Well the person forcing the drugs on the other would be a crime. Maybe I was confused. I thought you were suggesting that you'd jail someone who had drugs forced on them.

I'd say you were in fact confused. For starters no, I never said jail a person who was forced to ingest narcotics. Secondly, I never said jail. Period. Full stop.

Alternative sentencing, such as a substance abuse program, parenting classes, especially if there are complications due to the mother's drug usage, and so on are perfectly viable solutions to this issue.

Is jail the answer to the problem? No, it's not. Not a good one, anyway. But jail is not the ONLY answer to the problem, either. And sending an addict on their merry way to continue doing what addicts do except now they've got a newborn to tote around isn't a real stellar solution to the problem either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The baby would be kept safe away from the one who endangered their life and health before they'd taken their first unaided breath...

That's how.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm with you here OP, I think it's crazy, and it's evidently not working.

I really think as a society we've got to stop focusing on retribution and start thinking about what is actually going to make things better.

As seen in the OP this approach is already making matters worse as women are avoiding prenatal care through fear. It's also obvious to me that throwing a woman in jail and taking away her baby is going to have dire consequences for her state of mind and reduce her chances of getting clean. Not to mention the baby who is taken from it's mother and put into care, that is going to have negative effects for sure. It is long established that separation from parents, depression, anxiety and loneliness are all risk factors for substance abuse. So by not helping the mother quit it only perpetuates the cycle.

Serious addiction is something that controls you and overtakes everything else in terms of importance, that's why folk often steal, go to jail and die for their addiction. Nobody wants to be a drug addict.

My mind boggles at why folk would want to do something that has been shown to make the problem worse rather than take steps to actually solve the problem and lift mothers and babies out of this crippling cycle.

originally posted by: twitchy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Some women are being arrested and having their children taken away for simple marijuana usage.

Source
While possessing marijuana (i.e., having some amount of the drug in one's pocket, car, or home) remains criminalized in many states, use, dependence, and addiction are not criminalized by the federal government or by most states. Women who use marijuana, become pregnant, and continue those pregnancies to term, however, may be arrested for child endangerment in South Carolina and for chemical endangerment of a child in Alabama. Women in Wisconsin can be locked up for marijuana use following an initial hearing at which the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus has a right to counsel, but not the pregnant woman. With or without laws authorizing arrests of women who become pregnant and use marijuana, women in numerous states have been arrested.

With or without statutory authority, in most states, women who become pregnant and use marijuana are also being reported to civil child welfare authorities as child abusers, subject to highly intrusive, stressful, and often hostile investigations. Many of them face allegations of abuse or neglect and are listed on the state's central child abuse and neglect registry, which carries lifelong collateral consequences affecting their ability to obtain employment and support their families. Others face temporary separation from their child or lose custody entirely. These state interventions into families' lives are highly discretionary and overwhelmingly target low-income mothers and women of color.

I couldn't give a toss what they're taking or how.
Unless it's prescribed and safe.
Otherwise find a safe alternative in a discussion with the GP.

If it's a narcotic it shouldn't be entering the system of an unborn child at all.
I don't care if it's marijuana or heroin.

Tenfold if it involves smoke inhalation.

I really don't agree with punishing people for using drugs, but I guess I have to put more thought into whether or not I agree with punishing people for forcing other people to use drugs without their consent, which is essentially what is happening when a pregnant mother uses drugs.

I understand that addiction is a disease, so I can't place 100% moral culpability on a woman who shoots up while pregnant, but in the same vein I can't place 100% moral culpability on a sex addict who rapes someone. The question is how okay is it to hurt other people because of your addiction, and how should society deal with it.

Obviously, I have no answers, so I'll just stop there and brace myself for the onslaught.

Actually, I think I'll just bow out of the thread and not return. That's probably best.

a reply to: BiffWellington

You make a valid point, and more eloquently than I have. So on a personal level, I wish you would stick around.

To me, that's what it boils down to. Punishment for drug usage is absurd. But NOT punishing someone who inflicted drugs on another person is absurd to. That's why I used the example I did on page one: if this was an article about an adult forcing another adult to ingest narcotics, it would be a wholly different reaction. "I'm an addict" isn't a valid excuse in that situation.

I don't think incarceration is the answer here. Not at all. But I just as strongly don't feel that doing nothing is the answer, either. If getting pregnant wasn't enough of a reason to seek help and treatment, then having a child likely isn't going to be either.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

If the state is so concerned with the well being of these unborn children, why aren't they testing pregnant women for phthalates, phenols, dioxins, or rather than, or even along with, cannabis? I've not seen a single pregnant woman ever being arrested for ingesting fluoride or using benzene based aerosols.

originally posted by: twitchy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

If the state is so concerned with the well being of these unborn children, why aren't they testing pregnant women for phthalates, phenols, dioxins, or rather than, or even along with, cannabis? I've not seen a single pregnant woman ever being arrested for ingesting fluoride or using benzene based aerosols.

I don't care what the State thinks or does...

I have an opinion on what I believe should happen.


& to repeat, drug addicts who endanger their children, in or out the womb, should lose all custody.
It's not even worthy of discussion in 2016.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Typically when a person forces another person to do drugs to the point where they go through withdrawal, the person forcing the use gets in trouble.

Would we be crying if this was about some heroin addict handcuffing a woman to a toilet and forcing drugs into her? Still no big deal, they just need some help?

Well unless the woman is intravenously connected to the addict whereby the drugs have to pass to her by default every time he needs a fix then there is no comparison.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well I agree with you but 'Let's waive their fourth amendment rights, toss out doctor patient confidentiality, and start testing these women for Sugar' doesn't sound like a good idea either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i clearly do know what addiction is, and for you to say otherwise is ignorant. But what ever gets you stars man.


Also your argument that its "so bad for the baby for it to not have its mother" is BS. There are plently of motherless people out there that contribute to society in a positive way.

But then again if you want to be a sensationalist to get stars go for it.

When a mother chooses to do drugs she knowingly puts her baby at risk, that can not be argued.

When anyone puts a child at risk mother or not there should be consequences, that also cant be argued.

Therefore this argument is moot.

Unless your one of those people that blames society for all their problems instead of taking responsibility for your actions, Then i say go ahead spread a message that is only going to hurt mankind, see how that ends up for all of us

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

How would jailing the mother for taking drugs while pregnant improve the child's life?

If I misunderstood you in my initial reply let me try again..Looking at your question above..

1. A woman that commits any crime while pregnant, shouldnt be jailed.
2. A woman that causes a fatal accident because she was a selfish and cowardly drunk, high or distracted driver while pregnant shouldnt be jailed.

Breaking the law is breaking the law..Just because you have a soft spot or some affinity for addicts doesnt make it any less so.

a reply to: opethPA
Violating someone's Fourth Amendment Rights is also breaking the law.

originally posted by: twitchy
a reply to: opethPA
Violating someone's Fourth Amendment Rights is also breaking the law.

Is doing crack, coke, heroin, meth and other similar drugs illegal?

a reply to: opethPA
Yes, and so is circumnavigating doctor patient confidentiality.

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Typically when a person forces another person to do drugs to the point where they go through withdrawal, the person forcing the use gets in trouble.

Would we be crying if this was about some heroin addict handcuffing a woman to a toilet and forcing drugs into her? Still no big deal, they just need some help?

Well unless the woman is intravenously connected to the addict whereby the drugs have to pass to her by default every time he needs a fix then there is no comparison.

Cute.

Is an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics the same as an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics?

Yep.

Nice deflection though.